A first hand report on Dr. Michael Mann's embarrassing Disneyland episode

Click for source

Elevated from a comment. Roger Sowell describes first hand what led up to Mann denying a TV interview about his work. Apparently, for Dr. Mann, Disneyland is not “the happiest place on earth”.

Roger Sowell  writes on May 18, 2012 at 11:17 pm:

Thanks, Anthony, for posting my small part in this rather interesting episode. I appreciate the link to my little blog, too! The Orange County Water Summit (at the Disneyland Grand Californian Hotel) was actually quite interesting, as water is also a favorite topic with me.

Regarding the question I asked, I tried to stay as close to the two short paragraphs as stated in the body of this post. I wrote it out on a piece of paper, and read it when my turn to ask arrived.

Here is what I asked to the best of my recollection (this can be confirmed if and when the video/audio is available):

“My question is for Dr. Mann. Dr Mann, in your 1998 paper co-authored with Dr. Briffa and Dr. Hughes, you showed a warming since 1960. The same hockey-stick graph was shown earlier today. However, you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 but instead to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.

How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result, and that Mr. Steve McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?”

Mann then proceeded to state that my question had false information, since it was Bradley, not Briffa as co-author. OK, we can grant him that small point. He went on to say, as I emailed Anthony and shown in the post above, the decline is well-known but not understood; research is on-going; then dodged the question and called it “specious;” then made a plug for his book (about the third or fourth time, I believe) saying the warming is real and he addressed all this in his book.

There were a couple of other questions from skeptics, one related to Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.

He stated that we don’t believe in Evolution theory simply because Darwin proposed it, but because it has withstood the test of time and many scientists’ verification for more than 100 years (I think I have his answer pretty close to verbatim).

Now, about the Nobel-prize: Mann stated at the outset that he did not win the Nobel prize, and explained that he merely shared in it as a contributing scientist to the IPCC, which organization did win.

I actually enjoyed Mann’s presentation, because it reminded me a bit of being in a final exam in university, where the goal is to spot the errors, omissions, and misleading statements. Mann’s presentation was full of such things. For example, he showed a graph of Arctic ice decline, during a segment on the many threads of evidence that proves the globe is warming. His graph stopped at 2007, at the lowest point in the record. He did not explain that the graph was for summer minimum extent, which I think it must have been. That cherry-picked endpoint made the graph take a dramatic downward trend, and was most impressive. And, very misleading because the minimum extent has stabilized and slightly increased since then.

Another was the latest 12 months in the USA being the hottest 12 month period on record. No mention of Europe or Asia, though, which just ended brutally cold and bitter winter.. Again, misleading.

Another was the intense rainfall on the East coast from hurricane (or was it tropical storm?) Irene. Mann stated that the intense rain was due in part to global warming, since the Atlantic Ocean was unusually warm when Irene passed over it and collected water vapor to dump on shore as rain. That raised my suspicions, since I have never heard that before; perhaps it is true; I just don’t know.

He also presented a graph to show how superbly well the climate models match the actual temperature trend since Dr. Hansen made his speech to congress in 1988. What he didn’t mention, though, is that the “actual data” has been severely manipulated and approximately half the warming is due to adjustments. His “actual data” also either 1) stopped before the recent leveling off, or 2) showed a warming for the past 12 or so years; I could not read the time-scale on the chart from my seat near the back of the room. Either way, that was (again) very misleading.

Finally, he showed the (is it obligatory?) photo of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe. He spent some time talking about his little daughter and how he wants to leave a good world for her. The polar bear on the ice floe was displayed during this portion of the speech. Again, extremely misleading since polar bears have plenty of ice on which to sit, and their numbers are growing, not declining.

Mann tied in global warming to the water topic, saying the models forecast a much more arid climate for the US southwest. This, of course, will make the existing water shortages in California and other Western states much, much worse. He then confused us all by saying it was not clear if more La Niñas or El Niños would prevail. He noted that global warming creates warmer oceans, which would mean more El Niños, which almost always bring more rain, not less. I must note, here, that the existence of multiple models, as Mann mentioned, is a clear indication that the science is not settled. My words not, not Mann’s, but if a person on a journey had 12 different maps, and took the average of the 12 routes and directions to his destination, one must wonder if he would reach the destination at all.

Thank you to all the commenters above for the kind words on my speech to the AIChE. That speech was a lot of fun, and it was rewarding to have a few college students from California State – Long Beach in attendance. They seemed to not be aware of any of the points I made, and it came as somewhat of a surprise to them.

Just a few words about the television interviews, that Dr. Mann declined and I accepted. I was asked by a very nice young lady to step out of the convention hall into the hallway, where she confirmed that I had asked the question of Dr. Mann. She then said that was an excellent question, and a news reporter from PBS would like to interview me, would I consent to the interview? I said I would be happy to do so. I met the reporter, David, and I apologize to him that I didn’t catch the last name. He’s a very interesting and quite nice fellow. We went through the preliminaries, my name, occupation, and he asked my affiliation. I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone. He seemed more relieved when he asked what kind of law I practice and I told him Climate Change law.

David (Nazar) then decided he wanted to interview Dr. Mann first, then me second to get the skeptic view. He asked me to step away and return in 10 minutes. I went back to the presentation and took my seat. I could see Dr. Mann across the room, and he went out for a few minutes then returned. So, I went back out to find David and his camera-man. At that point, David told me that he did not interview Dr. Mann after all. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Dr. Mann refused the interview and got angry. I believe David told him that he was to be interviewed first, then me, although I was not identified by name but by the question I asked. It could be that Dr. Mann did not want to be interviewed then have a skeptic follow him, with no opportunity to rebut. This is just speculation on my part, though.

In the actual interview, David asked me a few of the questions he had intended to ask Dr. Mann, such as what is global warming, and what role does mankind play in this? I can’t recall my exact words, which should be available soon if and when the video is aired and placed on-line, but here is what I believe I said.

I said that global warming is the fact that the world has warmed somewhat, perhaps one degree F, in the past 150 years. The cause of the warming is mostly natural forces, since mankind has not placed much CO2 in the air until the past four decades.

He asked other questions, such as what is the skeptic view. I told him that I don’t believe that CO2 causes much, if any warming, and that the more important issue is global cooling due to the weak solar cycle.

David ended by asking why I thought Dr. Mann was so rude in his refusal to be interviewed, and I replied that I don’t know, but I do know he is party to some litigation. It is possible his attorneys have advised him not to do interviews. This is a pure guess on my part.

UPDATE: here’s a photo from Mr. Sowell at the event. Dr. Mann at the right under the “R”.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
brian lemon

Ha…. Mann finally admitted to a group that he is not a Nobel Prize winner… Wonder if my pushing his hosts at a conference a few weeks ago, and they corrected this in their promotions after some debate. I suspect Mann has a new sleazy approach – to have the hosts introduce him as a NP winner, then he can deny it and explain and show how honest he is.
The other logical fault in the debate is…… If the science is indeed settled, then why do we need all these climate scientists? If it’s true, then (a) the models will be true and future measurement is unnecessary and (b) the scientists can be fired and the money spent on correction.


I’d be curious to see mann’s version of this:
‘ I was abused! I was threatened! The reporter was rude! I was beseiged by deniers! Buy my book!’
… just a pure guess, on my part 😛


Thank you, Roger.
And a big thanks to you Anthony for keeping the “kiss cam” on Dr. Mann.
(For those who don’t attend live sporting events, the “kiss cam” zooms in on a couple kissing or perhaps an individual from among all of the thousands in attendance and shows them on the giant screen monitors around the arena. If you’re lucky, you aren’t picking or powdering your nose at the time. You can’t hide from the “kiss cam.”)


As alarmist scientists have explained, they have a choice between being an honest scientist and a dishonest advocate. Mann obviously has made many choices to be the dishonest advocate, but the worst has to be this polar bear ‘stuck’ on the ice floe schtick. That is simply indefensible for anyone even pretending to be a scientist.


From one skeptic to another, I say “Excellent report, Roger.” You represented our position well, given the haphazard nature of your encounters.

Mann’s attempts to deceive were amateurish at best. He and his fellow “consensus scientists” have grown accustomed to manipulating gullible, uninformed audiences who are receptive to the AGW fable. The charlatanism is always on full display; they don’t even try to disguise their lies and half-truths.

Tsk Tsk

“Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.”
I’m tired of this fallacy, and I’m tired of being labeled a creationist. By definition, the consensus must be wrong just prior to a new discovery like, say, the heliocentric model. Modern climate models resemble nothing so much as the ancient Greek’s (incorrect) epicycles. True science does not rely on polls, it relies on hypothesis, test, and evidence and can be falsified unlike the everything-can-be-explained-by CAGW meme.
I forget the exact words of Feynman but formation of a new theory goes something like this:
First you guess at it, then you compute its effects, then you compare those computations to observations. If the computations don’t match the observations, the theory is wrong. Last time I checked in everywhere but Mann’s world the models don’t match the observations.

I can remember a time when people like me worried me. Now they just make me laugh.

Pamela Gray

I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.


Tsk Tsk;
Last time I checked in everywhere but Mann’s world the models don’t match the observations.>>>
That’s because we’re living in the MMP (Medieval Mann Period) where any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.

He may not be much of a scientist but his infowar skills are impressive. I love the way he dragged Polar Bears into the talk. A species that’s gone from 5,000 in the 50s to about 25,000 today. You couldn’t make it up, but he’s no problem doing that …

Chuck Nolan

The problem is that they say they observations (with necessary corrections) match the models.
They just don’t say which model at this time or why old data is adjusted down while new data is adjusted up.
But they say it matches and they are the scientists and they have consensus.
Check, your move!


PG @ 8:44. Scafetta has newly proposed a mechanism for amplification of the planetary tidal effects. See Judy’s for an abstract.

John F. Hultquist

I agree with Pamela @ 8:44. There is no need to suggest or try to explain the “most likely cause” (or causes). Earth’s climate zones have changed in the past and continue to do so – we know this from historical reports and physical evidence. Natural processes have done the changing. I don’t believe this has been falsified. Until you can explain how the mechanisms work, you are not justified in suggesting a single cause. It might be appropriate to have a list of, say 5, things (one being ‘unknown’) and ranked to your personal preference as long as you start with the statement “I don’t know.”


@H.R. says: May 19, 2012 at 8:02 am
Over in the UK we are aware of Kiss Cam’s as David and Victoria Beckham appeared on one at a ball bouncing competition and it was all over the papers.

Steve Oregon

What exactly does this episode mean?
Here was Michael Mann, a leading icon of the alarmists’ AGW movement with access to the entirety of climate “science” that supports the consensus and all he brings to share are the same things any random nitwit peddles on the internet? Really? That’s it? And he can’t face a simple interview?
With both the AGW hierarchy and their rank and file followers all left with no more than worthless models, cherry picked graphs, a polar bear pic, foolish attributions and confusing contradictions perhaps leading skeptics should consider some sort of uniform declaration of success.
It may not get any better if Mann et al cling to their silliness in perpetuity so perhaps an abject dismissal of the alarmists’ foolish campaign may prove to be the best way forward.
That’s not to say their continued bantor should go unchallenged but are there no means to
adequately brand it for what it is?
I mean if his Majesty Michael Mann is in effect presenting himself as no more than a pompous imbecile shouldn’t the response be mostly reintegrative shaming vs attempted debate?
I would especially like to see our most elder skeptics enjoy victory before moving on to the hereafter.
So can we pick up the pace a bit to help them out?


“Finally, he showed the (is it obligatory?) photo of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe. He spent some time talking about his little daughter and how he wants to leave a good world for her. The polar bear on the ice floe was displayed during this portion of the speech. Again, extremely misleading since polar bears have plenty of ice on which to sit, and their numbers are growing, not declining.”
…The more things change the more they stay the same. Here is a map of Iceland from 1587, notice the little polar bears on the broken up ice in north east Iceland, some of them are really struggling to get on the ice. Over four hundred years ago. Oh the humanity!

Craig Moore

Just imagine Dr. Mann donning his mouse ears and singing:
(Donald Duck!)

Suzanne Gulick

So proud of the way you try to keep people accountable before the masses and the rest of us informed. Who knew all the those years ago life would turn out to be so interesting and you would be right there in the middle of it. Thanks!


I find it amusing that Mann responds to skepticism re CAGW with the platitude there is a ‘consensus’. Definition: 1. broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group.
If there were consensus, there would be no skepticism.

michael hart

Tsk Tsk;
Last time I checked in everywhere but Mann’s world the models don’t match the observations.>>>
That’s because we’re living in the MMP (Medieval Mann Period) where any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
Disneyland was clearly the appropriate forum for the interview.

Mann’s days as a rent seeker must surely be numbered. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.


Can anyone justify displaying a Arctic ice graph that stops at 2007?
That’s missing the latest 5 years of data, or roughly 15% of the total data since 1979?
It can’t be lack of time, I’ve downloaded the ice data and plotted a graph in a few minutes.
IMHO, it seems to be strong evidence of manipulating the message, doesn’t seem like science anymore.

@ Suzanne Gulick,
Thanks, Suzanne! I’m just trying hard to keep up with the rest of y’all from our teen years and college days!


This report is fantastic. Thank you for making my Saturday (even if I am at the office).
I cannot wait to see all of Mann’s UVA emails when they get released. They will be a treasure trove, I am sure.


Roger did you steer the media to this site and others like it?

@nc, from May 19, 2012 at 10:18 am
Yes, before the camera rolled, David Nazar and I talked a bit and I told him that Watts Up With That.com is an excellent source of climate science information. Who knows if he wrote it down or remembered it later. He seemed more concerned that I had no organization behind me. An army of independent skeptics seems a novel concept.

Joseph Bastardi

I am astounded at the lack of knowledge on east coast hurricanes by these people. Ever hear of Connie and Diane (1955) Gloria. 1938 in New England, AGNES IN DR MANNS BACK YARD. OR ELOISE. What gives with you folks. You should know the atlantic is in the warm AMO. If anything Irene UNDERACHIEVED but just what do you think is going to happen when you have a 955 mb hurricane running the east coast. IF you folks on the AGW side don’t know, then please please I beg of you, study the history of these storms. How the McKibbens, Cullens, and now this, Phds, make these statements like you do means you can not have looked. It has to be that simple. Have you ever researched what happened on the east coast with hurricanes in the last warm AMO?
So What would you say if you had 2 billion trees knocked down in a hurricane in New England now like 1938 with a wind gust to 186 at Blue Hill and 13 feet of water into Providence, Carol almost doing the same in 1954, with Edna 10 days later on Cape Cod. Or a Donna that gave hurricane force winds to every state on the east coast like 1960. Or 1944 with anemometers blowing away on the Jersey shore as a 20 foot storm surge took out boardwalks, from a storm that had a sustained wind of 134 with a gust to 156 OUT OF THE THE NORTH at Cape Henry.
What would these merchants of fear do if we had 1954 again? Carol, Edna, Hazel, with 1955 and the floods of Connie and Diane. 5 disasters. All of equal or greater magnitude than Irene in 2 years AND GUESS WHAT.. DURING THE WARM AMO! My belief is this cycle has vastly underachieved on the east coast with the hurricanes!!!
Look what happened in 1971 to NJ IN TROPICAL STORM DORIA for goodness sakes, in a cold amo as were AGNES AND ELOISE, major floods.
I can name a dozen storms but it bores readers here that actually have researched these things. I can’t decide what is worse.. either you actually don’t bother looking and make statements like the nonsense we hear about Irene, or you know the history and simply ignore it, or worse, are being deceptive about it.
And while we are it, with the arctic sea ice. Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of THREE submarines submerging in LARGELY OPEN WATER AT THE NORTH POLE. Another deception being pushed down peoples throats.
Its one twisted fact after another. Hurricanes, actual global ice, actual winter this year in northern hemisphere. PDO denial.
I would love to get all these people in a test and actually ask them to show what they know about the storms and weather events of the past. To them its like it never occurred.
Again supporting my theory on this being a massive case of Dunning Krueger effect; confidence because of ignorance of anything that can challenge your position.

R. Shearer

Any ideas for new Disneyland rides?
Pirates of the Climate. Dr. Mann’s Wild Ride. Yamal, Yamal, Yamal Room. It’s a Warming World?

michael hart

Roger Sowell: “An army of independent skeptics seems a novel concept.”
Phil Jones: “The internet has allowed all these people to find one another unfortunately. ” [FOIA email #2621].
There we have it. Straight from the horse’s mouth. He also uses “the D word” in emails #2274 and #0856 to say the same thing.
That Dr Jones should choose to express himself that way appears to be evidence that we are in fact not party to some well-funded conspiracy by ‘big oil’.

Roger Sowell asked,

“My question is for Dr. Mann. Dr Mann, in your 1998 paper co-authored with Dr. Briffa [should be Bradley] and Dr. Hughes, you showed a warming since 1960. The same hockey-stick graph was shown earlier today. However, you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 but instead to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.

While the MBH98/99 HS has lots of problems, it in fact runs up to 1980. The truncation at 1960 pertains to Briffa’s MXD (maximum density) series, which was not used in the HS, and so is irrelevant to Mann’s HS itself. MBH98-99 apparently did substitute instrumental data after 1980 to compute its smoothed version of the HS up to 1980 (“Mike’s Nature Trick”), but in the MBH papers the effect of that was fairly subtle. It was Jones’ later use of the same trick in the WMO graph that gave a completely misleading impression.
So in fact Mann was correct to say that your question contained false information, since you were accusing him of someone else’s deception rather than his own.
(In a 2003 article in Eos, which I believe was co-authored by Mann, the Briffa MXD series is truncated not just at 1960, but at 1940, so that Mann does shares responsibility for that truncation. See discussion a while back on CA)
(MBH99 is also tainted by the “Mannkovitch Bodge” before 1400, but that’s another story.)


The one statement that jumped out at me was the one about science being about consensus. Plate techtonics and continental drift is the subject that is usually cited in this argument but there is also the one about bats. The biologist that worked out that bats use ultrasound to hunt and find their way around started out as a minority of one. The consensus was that he was mistaken.

Bill Yarber

Our sun provides 98+% of the energy that heats our world. Without it, our planet would begin to freeze in about 9 minutes. Temperatures would drop very quickly.
Since our sun demonstrates various cycles: 11, 22, 100, 1,000 etc, and our climate varies in similar (though not exactly the same) cycles’, it is highly probable that our sun is the root cause (along with the Earth’s orbital dynamics) of 90+% of our climate. Many recent peer reviewed papers are demonstrating these cause-effect relationships over 100’s & 1,000’s of years. Sure is a much higher probability than CO2 concentrations.
I’m not forgetting about the complex nature of our climate. Thermal and fluid dynamics of the oceans and atmosphere introduce perturbations, natural cycles and time lags into Earth’s response to solar variability.

Pamela Gray

Mann is a fool. Why? Because he believes in his research. Research is not to be “believed” in. He should save it for the pew.
But because Mann’s faith rests in his research, debating Mann is like arguing with a fool. Casting pearls before swine certainly is a loftier endeavor. I would be thankful that he refused to talk.

Joseph Bastardi

By the way, its surfaced, not submerged with the subs

Pamela Gray

Bill, your comment is without substance and your review of said research was not done with a very critical eye. The mechanism behind CO2 forms a much stronger case than the empty shell of solar/temperature wriggle matching. However, AGWers fail to nullify intrinsic natural variability. Both sides of the CO2/solar debate make separate but equally major failures.
And of course the Sun heats the planet directly. Whenever solar enthusiasts start their agrument with that tired verse, I cringe.

Steve in SC

I was there during Hazel. Big blow lots of rain. Living on Topsail Island on the N.C Coast.
Dad got his release from active duty 2 weeks early. We got out just ahead of the biggest blow and did not go back.


Joseph Bastardi says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:39 am
Amen, brother, Amen. I lived on that coast for a long time and I remember living Cape Cod in the 70s when old timers were still talking about the one in “38 forty years later.


Re: Consensus
1. There is no consensus.
2. There is a conspiracy to create the perception of a consensus.

“I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone.”
I LOVE this! Thanks Roger Sowell! After days of heavy lifting on who’s manipulating water in Colorado, I needed that LAUGH OUT LOUD! 🙂

Mickey Mouse Science! LOL!


“150 years of warming” ? NOT.
To accept that claim as established science one must first accept Mann ‘s proposition that both the MWP and LIA were merely regional events. But that flies in the face of 1000+ peer-reviewed studies (all accessible via links provided by co2science.org) . There is no question but what both of these periods were global. Mann:s study was merely one of numerous studies. Those numerous studies in conflict with Mann’s claim spanned the globe and also made use of a variety of temperature proxies. Not only that, hundreds of these studies were done AFTER Mann’s “conclusions” had gone public. The only debatable point gas has to do with temperature amplitude of both periods. But even in that case a large majority of the subset (between 100 and 200) of those studies included quantitative or qualitative temperature data which indicated that temperature amplitudes were as broad as originally shown the original UN documents. (Mann has stated clearly, on more than one occasion, that his hockey stick graph is not important ! He is right.)
With Mann’s bogus study out of the way it is clear that – by the very definition of warming – our current warming began at the bottom (not the “end”, which is an arbitrary and irrelevant date) of the LIA. That date (claimed by Dr. David Evans, Australian climatologist, perhaps among others) would be about 1680, which is some 200 years BEFORE co2 began rising and, of course, also long before the industrial revolution. So we must conclude that there has been some 200 years of natural warming BEFORE there is any possibility that industrial activity could have had any impact (land use, such as the UHI effect do not even impact the surrounding rural area, so have no relevance with regard to global temperatures.) The so-called studies confirming Mann’s study were all guilty of using the same data as Mann – hardly confirmation of anything except, perhaps, Mann’s arithmetic.. It appears that the “consensus” (a term used very frequently by the warmist/alarmists) argument has not been operative in this particular case
The warmists themselves seem to now be claiming that AGW actually only began to rear its head since the 1970s. (That would seem to indicate that the first 50 to 100 ppmv increase in co2 had no effect on temperature.) Of course, from the 40s to the 70s was a known cooling period. Then there was global warming from about 1975 to 1998, but since 1998 there’s been a flat global temperature – as co2 continues its steady increase. Clearly none of the models (except perhaps those recently “tweaked”) have projected such an outcome. (and given the distinction between the terms “projection” and “prediction”, what’s that worth?) In any event we’re not talking about much evidence of warming, let alone whether it’s anthropogenic.
The warmist claims of minor impact of the MWP and the LIA, and when the current warming began have been thoroughly debunked, and that seems obvious even without taking into consideration at least one earlier email claim that they had to “get rid” of the MWP.

Pamela Gray is correct with her advice to skeptics to avoid choosing a “most probably cause”. Having to pick a most probably cause a trap. It diverts the focus from the weaknesses in the GW argument to potential weaknesses in yours.
A CAGW skeptic need only articulate why they are skeptical about the IPCC party line:
that the global climate has been warming primarily by man’s use of fossil fuels;
that the instrument record is reliable and not contaminated by UHI and analysis adjustments.
that CO2 IS the primary cause,
that CO2 doubling will cause several degrees of global warming,
that that global warming is so bad that it will cause catastrophic climate change,
that warming will not instead be a good thing or at least neutral.
that government actions CAN stop it all, much less should.
that government actions to control CO2 will not be a cure being than the disease.
The burden of proof is not on the skeptic. It never is.
It is the IPCC and those who wish to obtain the power and money to control CO2 who have the burden to make their case. They are the ones who must prove the strength of their chain of weak links. A skeptic must only point out the flaws in one or more of the links.
Now it helps if the skeptic is armed with several alternatives explanations to the alleged observations.
Adjustments to the temperature record stinks like a smoke-filled room.
UHI component of the temperature record is still underestimated.
Other causes of some of the Warming could be changes in Solar energy , Cosmic Ray Flux dependent cloud formation, Ocean Cycles, even our own Clean Air Regulations in addition to increases in CO2.
Geology shows us that the world has been warmer and cooler in the past without catastrophe. Typically it’s been a lot warmer than today. If history is any judge, I would prefer the climate to be two degrees warmer than two degrees colder. If warmer, we’ll adjust. If colder, crops fail and we go hungry. Compare death rates as a function of the outside temperature.
Stop and evaluate the anticipated results of proposed government actions and regulations to control CO2 and see how utterly impotent they are to controlling the problem as they state it.
If after all this you are still not a skeptic, then the only other advice I can offer you is:
“This is Government we are talking about — Follow the money.”

Bill H

Pamela Gray says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:44 am
I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.
I must heartily disagree with this.. Does not water require HEAT to change and move? Without our sun and its active roll we would not be here..The sun is the source of our heat and the chemical reactions in our atmosphere…
Turn it off for a day and tell me what happens…

Well argued, Joe. Thank you very much for really putting Mann in his place on that issue.
I notice that Mann’s anger in this incident seems to stem from the fact that Mann’s arguments have become so indefensible that even the People’s Bolshevik System is no longer willing to extend the customary kid-glove treatment to his side of the debate.


Dear oh dear Pamela… you cannot show a tight correlation of planetary temperature and CO2 concentration over time, except in extreme values of CO2. To add to that, it IS proven that most of that CO2 during warm times has been belched up from the oceans some 800 years AFTER the heating as the warmer fuid can hold less dissolved gas. During the glacial periods the cold oceans absorb large amounts of CO2 to be upchucked later when the climate has warmed. There IS tight correlation of a combination of the ENSO, the ADO, and other major oceanic cycles coupled with solar cycles.
If your argument is that the sun does NOT do it all, then we agree. But if you are trying to toss out solar variability as moot, then we are at odds with the data – the unmolested data.


The argument against global warming mitigation should be that it’s a dangerous gamble. If the effect of CO2 does turn out to be minor, and temperature changes are cyclical or unpredictable, global temperatures could cool even as CO2 increases, just as we’ve bet everything on warming. The result could be economic depression or even massive starvation. How confident are you about the “consensus”, mr. journalist?


Mann is an anti-Nero. He fiddles the figures while the planet potentially freezes.

Darren Potter

In regards to Mann not being interviewed and past reporting (cough) on AGW… The hypocriticalness of media on AGW is damming of them.
The media continues to ask probing and grilling questions of AGW skeptics (the media declared non-experts and non-scientists); while continuing to give the AGW promoters (supposed experts and scientists) soft ball questions and soap boxes to pitch AGW from. This is coupled with media’s ongoing proclamations in the expertise and knowledge of proponents of AGW, and media’s decrees of science and fact backing AGW as being real.
With the media’s stance in reporting on AGW, would it not stand to reason that proponents of AGW (Mann, Jones, Gore, Hansen, et.al); be the most capable in the Co2 / climate debate of defending their position? Shouldn’t the media be asking them the hard ball questions? Shouldn’t the “fair playing” media being going easiest on those supposedly least capable of defending themselves (aka the skeptics)?
The fact the media continues giving proponents of AGW EZ questions from lofted platforms; shows the media is colluding with AGW promoters to perpetuate a scam. The media knows AGW is B.S.
AGW has nothing to do with science, facts, climate change, or supposed man induced warming. AGW is politics on a global scale. AGW is about redistribution of power, control, and wealth throughout the world.