Mann at Orange County Water Conference – emotional presentation, polar bears threatened, still thinks snows of Kilimanjaro are receding due to 'climate change'

Readers may recall: The question put to Dr. Mann at Disneyland today where WUWT regular Roger Sowell was one of the rare skeptics that got to ask Dr. Mann a question.

The video is now online of the event.

Sowell’s question starts at around 59:35 minutes, Mann’s answer ends about 1:03:10

UPDATE:

Dr. Mann’s slide presentation is available at this link. Note the polar bear on the ice floe.

http://www.ocwatersummit.com/   backup link: MichaelMann_OCWS  (PDF 24mb)

I find it fascinating that Mann is still pushing the now long debunked claims about the Snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Even Mann’s buddies Lonnie Thompson and Phil Jones privately admit the issue is local deforestation/evapotranspiration and not “climate change”. It is mind blowing he’s still pushing this.

Note point 3 in this image in his last slide:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ville

Mann gave a one line response that took 3 minutes to speak. He stupefyed the audience. His talk is impossible to understand.

Olavi

Small point in question as wrong, and Mann turned whole thing UPSIDE DOWN.

JPY

I think it’s hilarious that you are highlighting (as some sort of triumph?) the ridiculously ignorant question posed by Sowell. It pretty clearly underlines that the issues here aren’t about accuracy and science, but rather about attacks on people.
[A bit like your post you mean? . . kbmod]

Gail Combs

GOOD
Glad to see the information is getting out.

g.c.

TerryS says:
June 26, 2012 at 2:01 am
Summary:
Greenland ice core data does not agree with climate models that have CO2 as a main forcing. Therefore Greenland ice core data needs to be adjusted.
________________________________
Beat me to it.
Real world evidence does not agree with Climate Model supporting CO2 as control knob so real world data has to be “Adjusted.” HMMMmmm Haven’t we heard this somewhere before? Perhaps in a ice hockey stadium?

It would be nice to get a transcript. I do give Mann credit. That was quite a dance. Like a boxer pinned to the ropes, the aggressor left an opening out, and the deft moved away.
This should be instructive. Get the ducks in order first. Lesson learned.

g.c.

OOPs sorry, Mods Wrong thread. I have not been able to get Word Press to let me comment on “We don’t believe the ice cores can be interpreted purely as a signal of temperature” so was trying a different e-mail and my initials Gail Combs (g.c.)

ponysboy

An irresponsible question by Sowell who didn’t do his homework or got some bad information on which to base his question. Mann answered it clearly. I don’t know if it was honestly, but it came across as a positive for Mann. Irresponsible public goofs like Sowell’s doesn’t help the search for truth to be taken seriously.

mfo

Quick and rough transcript courtesy of a friendly typist:
Roger Sowell:
In your famous paper that you co-authored with Dr Briffa and Dr Hughes in 1998, indeed you showed one result from that today with the Hockey Stick graph, you showed a warming since 1960.
However you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 and instead to splice in the instrumental temperature record. In effect to 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 the data is used?
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr Mann:
Okay there are a number of factually incorrect things that you’ve said there, one of which is that I co-authored a paper with Keith Briffa. I think you’re referring to the paper that we published in Nature in 1998, myself, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. Keith Briffa was not a co-author of that paper and in fact it’s an important point because you’ve actually conflated two entirely unrelated studies.
The study you’re actually referring to is a study by Keith Briffa and colleagues that I was not part of, and the original paper that they published in 1998, also in Nature, was about the decline you’re talking about.
It was hardly hidden. The paper that they published in 1998 was specifically about a problem known as the divergence problem where in the particular type of tree ring data that they used in their study, which we did not use in our study, by the way, that particular data exhibit this enigmatic decline in the response to temperatures after 1960.
And so their original paper was actually about how that particular type of data can not be used to depict temperature trends in recent centuries, because of the enigmatic change in the response of trees.
Now scientists have been studying for more than a decade now why it might be that those particular data, late wood density, maximum late wood density, from high latitude trees they were using, why that happens, why there is a decline in the response of temperature.
And there are various factors that scientists think might be responsible, including pollution, other limiting conditions that are now taking control of tree growth that are unrelated to temperature.
So unfortunately you conflated two completely unrelated things in a way that led to, you know, a claim, sort of an allegation about our work, that simply has no basis in reality.
It’s part of why I wrote The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, to try to clear the record with regard to many of the specious attacks and criticisms that have been made against me and my colleagues over the years in an effort to try to discredit our work.
Typically in an effort to try to discredit the entire work of the world’s climate scientists that establishes the reality of human caused climate change.
Because some people do feel threatened by that conclusion and rather than, unfortunately, rather than engaging in the good faith debate that can be had about what to do about the problem.
That’s part of why we’re here today. What can we do about the problem? We can have a good faith debate about that. There’s a worthy debate to be had, about that, and there are valid opinions on all sides.
But there isn’t a worthy debate to be had any more about the reality of human caused climate change.

cd_uk

No wonder they gave Sowell a question. Talk about setting up your opponents strawman. This couldn’t have been sweeter for Mann.

Typically in an effort to try to discredit the entire work of the world’s climate scientists that establishes the reality of human caused climate change.
Because some people do feel threatened by that conclusion and rather than, unfortunately, rather than engaging in the good faith debate that can be had about what to do about the problem.

Note the morph from AGW is real, to its a problem without any justification.

Real scientists do not pretend to know in fifty years what the global climate of the world will be. Nevertheless, the legitimization of a secular, socialist state bureaucracy demands just that from government-funded scientists.
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/climatists-exposed-naked-reality-and-know-the-unknown/

Alan the Brit

Still think it was rather appropriate that such a talk should have been given at Disneyland, you know, the place where fiction & fantasy reign supreme, & wierd & wonderful things happen to you in the land of make believe! Priceless :-))

Jeremy

Uh, Sowell blew it 🙁
That question was conflating two different issues and papers, and was poorly stated.

theduke

Give Mann credit. He’s deft on his feet. He uses an inaccuracy in the question by Sowell to knock him down a notch, and then gives a plausible response– it’s bull—– but it’s plausible.
Then he plugs his book.
Unconvincing, but clever.

Dr. Mann’s slide presentation is available at this link. Note the polar bear on the ice floe.
http://www.ocwatersummit.com/

Peter

[snip . . OT . . you could be mistaken for a troll but I am sure that isn’t your intention. . . kbmod]

Philhippos

There’s normal drivel and then there’s Mann made drivel.

Keith Battye

I had no idea Amsterdam, Venice and New Orleans were threatened by a volcano. Boy , you live and learn.

Hyperthermania

Roger – did you have to submit your question in advance ? ie did they know what you were going to ask before giving you the opportunity to ask it ?

Keith Battye says:
June 26, 2012 at 8:41 am
I had no idea Amsterdam, Venice and New Orleans were threatened by a volcano. Boy , you live and learn.

And 133,000 square miles of coral are going to — what, dissolve? Go for a walk?

Notice that their propaganda doesn’t change, it doesn’t evolve in response to changed conditions. It’s a weakness.
Pointman

That slide is a perfect example of the level of being each other’s booster club that goes on in these best practices pushes by statists or Research Grant Grovellers who don’t want to admit that’s what is going on.
Hansen cites Mann. Mann calls Hansen “reknowned”. Neither one’s research or theories or facts change but it seemingly gets bolstered anyway just through references.
Reminds me of a National Governors Association report I read last year that’s recommendations were based on an erroneous assertion that had a footnote. Making it seem valid. You go to the back where the footnotes are and the link is to a previous NGA report.
Nothing backing it up at all but wishful thinking to obtain grant money to then influence public policy. And we all go regulating along at great expense.

@ hyperthermania on June 26, 2012 at 8:45 am
“Roger – did you have to submit your question in advance ? ie did they know what you were going to ask before giving you the opportunity to ask it ?”
No.

Jon
HankHenry

A DIVERGENCE PROBLEM USED TO HIDE A DECLINE
Kudos to Roger Sowell for taking the debate to Mann. Lesson learned is that Michael Mann knows his subject and is able and articulate in defending his thesis. It looks to me that Mann did admit that the “divergence problem” only “might” be understood.
Quote:
“And there are various factors that scientists think might be responsible [for the divergence], including pollution. Other limiting conditions that are now taking control of tree growth that are unrelated to temperature.”
This seems to be an admission that data that did not fit the thesis was disregarded with uncertain and poor justification. In fact, it’s out and out bias against data that doesn’t confirm the hypothesis. It seems to me that when one undertakes this kind of speculation about what has caused a divergence in data, if you are going to be fair-minded you must open the arena to the possibility of a multitude of factors controlling tree ring patterns: water, disease, pollution, fertility, cloud cover, weather incidents, species differences, vagaries of the influence of past seasons on future seasons, and on and on. In other words, Mann himself is arguing that tree rings aren’t that good a proxy for past temperature.
In Mann’s own words … there are other limiting conditions that can take control of tree growth unrelated to temperature. This is just my question. Just how good a proxy are tree rings for past termperatures?

steveta_uk

It could be the elephants and giraffes that a disappearing, and Mann isn’t referring to the snows at all!

DR

WOW! Those reading Steve McIntyre’s blog and following the hockey stick drama since 2005 know Mann’s response is complete psychobabble.

cochranepolarbearawarenessweek

[SNIP: This thread is about Michael Mann and his appearance at Disneyland, not poloar bears and it is certainly not a venue for to advertise your Polar Bear Awareness Week. You can submit this to our Tips and Notes page or wait for an appropriate thread about polar bears. You might also want to learn a little more about polar bears. -REP

more soylent green!

NOTE TO MODS
I can’t submit a comment on the ‘We don’t believe the ice cores can be interpreted purely as a signal of temperature’ post.
Fill in the form, click Post Comment, nothing happens.

davidmhoffer

Was Roger Sowell’s question poorly worded? It was.
Now if anyone thinks that a carefully worded, to the specific point, with no room for misinterpretation or obfuscation, would have resulted in anything else from Dr Mann, they are mistaken. There have been cases where the question got the specific issue correct, the specific paper, and the response comes back along the line of some obscure reference in some obscure footnote that supposedly explains everything. By the time one actually can get the paper, find the obscure reference in the obscrure footnote, which leads to a quote in another paper, equally obscure, that isn’t even about that specific issue (but does mention the issue, except it refers to another paper still)…. ooops, it is days later, the room is empty, and Mann has gone his merry way without a scratch upon him.

Mark Nutley

The lost city of Pompeii? Have we lost it again then? He can’t even get that right, sheesh

amoorhouse

Pompeii is lost? C’mon guys! Own up! Where have you hidden it? You guys are such kidders. You haven’t hidden it under 100 feet of Gauloise ends again have you? Sheesh.

Although the question, as Mann put it, “conflated two completely unrelated things”, it did force him to admit some things in public:
Referring to Briffa’s paper (published in Nature in 1998) “…where in the particular type of tree ring data that they used in their study, which we did not use in our study…”
Easily checkable and can be proven true or false. Look at each, and see if the same data appears in both.
Second, was this: “…And so their original paper was actually about how that particular type of data can not be used to depict temperature trends in recent centuries, because of the enigmatic change in the response of trees…”
Remember, it was EXACTLY this conclusion his MBH98 paper used – that you CAN depict temperature trends in recent centuries using tree data.
If follow-up questions were allowed, ask how, if these trees cannot accurately respond to RECENT trends, how can they be certain they’re accurately responding to PAST trends? Why did this uncertainty only start with data after 1960 (“…particular data exhibit this enigmatic decline in the response to temperatures after 1960…”)?
And third: “…And there are various factors that scientists think might be responsible, including pollution, other limiting conditions that are now taking control of tree growth that are unrelated to temperature…”
Once again, how can they be certain that PAST conditions didn’t “control” tree growth?
Next round of questions lining up. Where’s the next stop on his “Magical Mystery Tour”?

RHS

Al Gore’s Warming – Proof that not every solution has a problem…

Joe Myers

Wait, wasn’t Pompeii buried under ash? Shouldn’t he really be referring to Atlantis?

DirkH

Mann evaded the question very skillfully. Probably he has to do that a lot since 1998.

John A

Nevertheless, the legitimization of a secular, socialist state bureaucracy demands just that from government-funded scientists.

You’ve had a secular state for more than 230 years. I’m pretty sure that its been ratified as legitimate a long time ago.

gbaikie

Mann seems to be depending upon Hansen’s projection that were presented to congress,
I would like to see new graph showing the comparison to latest temperature. And not on such small graph. And reminder of the A,B, and C scenarios as Hansen explained them when he presented them.
I don’t where Mann is getting the idea human emission has been reduced to the levels Hansen advocated them to be.

Follow the Money

He stupefyed the audience.
He’s no James Hansen. Which is what the PR boys on the energy/wall street payroll are looking for. James Hansen was the “face” of the global warming movement, and acted in the role very well. But he committed the deep, damaging sin of attesting that cap and trade was a scam, not really intended to reduce CO2 emissions. And he did so loudly and brashly. This had the immediate effect of exiling him from any big pr face-time productions, and now he is basically limited to speaking up at 350.org type ultra-crank groups.

Oakwood

Sowell blew it. Victory to Mann on this one. That’s the nature of debate. You must get you facts right.

rogerknights

Anthony says:
I find it fascinating that Mann is still pushing the now long debunked claims about the Snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

And the golden toad.

Bob the Swiss

I just listen from 59 min to 1h04.
The question is excellent and the answer of Mann is typical of what we call in french ‘la langue de bois’. He just does not answer to the question and at the end you even don’t know what was your question.
This guy is a politician !!!

Gunga Din

Mann said, “But there isn’t a worthy debate to be had any more about the reality of human caused climate change.”
======================================================
Maybe I missed something. Could one of the Mann defenders (or anyone else) please tell when Mann ever had a debate about “human caused climate change” back when there was a need for one and who it was with?
Was it back when he still called it “global warming” instead of “climate change”?

Gunga Din

Mann said, “But there isn’t a worthy debate to be had any more about the reality of human caused climate change.”
What is it that Adam Savage says on MythBusters? “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” Did he get that from Mann?

RockyRoad

John A says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:18 am

Nevertheless, the legitimization of a secular, socialist state bureaucracy demands just that from government-funded scientists.
You’ve had a secular state for more than 230 years. I’m pretty sure that its been ratified as legitimate a long time ago.

The operative word here is “socialist”–consequently, there is little or no similarity between the two political systems your statements describe.

RockyRoad

(I’m glad there are other subtopics on this thread to discuss–the main topic is worth reading about, I suppose, *yawn*, but (except for this small blurb) unworthy of written comment.)
How’s that for a Big Mann Skewer?

Michael Mann is a very smooth talker – if nothing else and there you go – lone scientists who are skeptics (even if there are many thousands of them) do not count.
The tragedy is, as far as I can see, is that “surface warming” by GHGs is as impossible as it is to mix two pots of liquids of different temperatures say one of 16 °C and one of 8 °C and then expect to end up with one large pot of liquid that is warmer than 16 °C.

mfo

Mann responded to the question like a politician. I doubt it would have mattered what Sowell asked, Mann would not have given a clear answer. Mann considers that human influence on the climate is no longer worthy of debate. Any evidence that falsifies his scientific results he characterises as attacks meant to discredit his work. He considers his results immune from the scientific method.
He knew what Sowell was asking, because he said, “I think you’re referring to the paper that we published in Nature in 1998, myself, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.”
But in the next breath he decided to focus on Briffa’s paper by saying: “The study you’re actually referring to is a study by Keith Briffa and colleagues that I was not part of…..”
Mann knew that the question was about his MBH98 paper and hockey stick graph as Sowell had asked him why he chose “to not use tree core data after 1960 and instead to splice in the instrumental temperature record. In effect to hide the decline of the trees after 1960.…” But he decided to ignore this and pretend that the question was about Briffa’s paper.
Mann claimed that Briffa’s paper was about the ‘divergence problem’ whereby he states that data which didn’t fit the rising temperature scenario must have been affected by pollution or some unknown enigmatic limiting factors. But this was simply a red herring to divert attention from the valid criticisms of his MBH98 paper as highlighted by Stephen McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick in their paper:
“CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)
PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998,
“MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains
collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,
geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other
quality control defects.”
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Mann concludes by plugging his book and claiming that there is no debate about human caused climate change, because he wants the debate to move away from science and into politics.
Sowell asked a perfectly good question:
“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 the data is used?”
There was no conflation. Sowell knew exactly what he was asking and so did Mann. Except that Mann used a well known debating trick by ignoring the fact that the question related to his paper and responding to a ‘straw man’ question about Briffa’s paper.
Mann has morphed into an activist politican and like a politician answered the question he wanted to answer, regardless of whether or not he was addressing the precise point of the actual question.

Harold Pierce Jr

I would like to take Mike the Mangler to Death Valley in winter and let him experience how fast temp drops and how cold it gets after sunset . Here he will learn that water vapor in the only true greehouse gas.