Tuesday Twitter titter

Note to Dr. Michael Mann: sarcasm only works when your don’t become the butt of the joke. Seen on Mann’s Twitter feed today with ALL CAPS for loud effect.

As the old joke goes…”now he are one”.

Even more hilarious, the peanut gallery of his Twitter feed seems to think that somehow predicting storm tracks and forecasting hurricane storm surge (as has been done long before these guys ever came on scene) is somehow something Senator James Inhofe is against and because NHC got it right, that Inhofe gets a “poke in the eye”.

It’s like some alien world of self delusion over there.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Listen to all those who are saying Sandy proves climate change iks me no end. It’s almost like they don’t understand the difference between weather and climate either. Now to try and equate the tracking of a single storm in the here and now to plotting climate decades and even centuries into the future…. The mind boggles.

D Caldwell

Arguing with the strawman.

It only shows how incredibly biased he is. He has forgotten the art of skepticism.

I would have liked to have known about this hurricane last year. Where were the METEOROLOGICAL MAGIC WIZARDS then?


This is becoming online bullying – stick to attacking bad science.

Pull My Finger

Doesn’t Mann routinely dismiss “Meteorologists” and mere “Weathermen” as not sholarly enough to understand his groundbreaking work? Nate Silver? So I guess pollsters are good enough at climate science to warrant Not Quite a Nobel Winner Mann a retweet?


Unbelievable. Do these guys actually understand ANYTHING? (It doesn’t look like they do, but that doesn’t seem to stop them from offering their opinions anyway.)
Nate Silver is still projecting an Obama win in the presidential election. If this is a representative example of how poorly informed and superficial his knowledge actually is, we’ll probably be saying hello to President-elect Romney on the morning of November 7.

Russ R.

Weather prediction works because meteorologists rely on the assumption that in the future, systems will behave the same as as observed in the past.
Climate scientists (at least those of the alarmist variety) rely on the assumption that in the future, systems will behave in ways never observed in the past. (Tipping points, runaway warming, etc.)


This blog is becoming the worlds most widely read climate tabloid. These endless ad hom posts agains Mann, Gore, and others, and Willis’ I told you so post are not science or entertainment. I hope it blows over because this is one of my favorite reading spots.
Flame suit is on, fire when ready, Gridley.


Michael Mann shows he has no grasp on the definition of chaos and what it entails; and why there’s a difference between weather models and climate models.

Policy Guy

So a self proclaimed psuedo Nobel Laureate is poking fun at Meteorologists for accurately predicting the location and extent of the storm, including storm surge levels?? If meteorlogocal models are funny when they work, what are climate models that can’t even accurately backcast much less forecast temperatures. The joke appears to be on the good doctor.

Michael Bentley

Michael Mann must think he’s a shooting star! Too bad he shot himself in the foot…

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Along the margins of this topic is SciAm’s leap onto the bandwagon, quoting Hansen and Trenberth.
Blecch…..are they really that exploitive? ‘Fraid so.

Telling case in point:
The pioneer of modern hurricane forecasting is an arch-skeptic of AGW, let alone CAGW, & certainly of the effect of increase in CO2 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules from three to four. Apparently the Mann-made global warming peanut gallery is as ignorant of earth science history as of scientific theory & practice.

D Böehm

If Mann would man up and engage in a series of debates, arguing his position in a neutral venue, with a mutually agreed moderator and rules, he would escape most of the attacks. Instead, like all climate alarmists he hides out and issues tweets and facebook comments calling all those who disagree with him “the rabble”.
He deserves what he gets.


Actually, Dave Toleris called it almost exactly on the money. It came ashore a little north of his forecast.
But then I have seen his magic eight ball. 😉

More posts on why sandy was not fueled by AGW would be better than this nonsense Anthony.
Even the Mayor, or Governor or someone of NYC just tweeted that climate is changing, we need scientific debate to counter such stuff, not ad homs.


Seems like Non-Laureate Mann can dish it out but not take it, how like a Warmist…

ed mister jones

Nate Silver is a Bad Joke.


dp, I agree… however, things should hopefully be back to normal political levels after next Tuesday.

Paul Coppin

dp, I can’t believe that some readers of WUWT don’t get that Science is Politics. Read Anthony’s tagline sometime… The study of Nature, anyone can do. The profession of the study of Nature is all politics, all the time….
Re, the post, Andrew Weaver is one of the other clowns in the horse costume – he and Michael change ends from time to time.

The bad thing is, he is getting paid by PSU while he’s tweeting inanities. I tweet at work sometimes, but I sure as heck don’t get paid for it. Bastard.

Peter Miller

You are all missing the point, what Mann is saying is that he is in awe of people who use maths and science.


Uh oh: I caught only a snippet, but I believe I heard NY Gov. Cuomo say that “we” will have to learn how to deal with this kind of weather pattern from now on. So they’re already starting to blame AGW for Sandy.

Tony Mach

What climate consensus follower made me realize:
As the NY West Side Highway was under water, finally Jim Hansen’s prediction turned out to be right!
Because that’s what Jim Hansen meant when he said: ““The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.” He never predicted this to be a permanent occurrence! He just needed one bigger storm to be proven right!
We have done a major injustice to poor Jim. Let’s give the man a Nobel in physics, and one for peace while we are at it.

John Greenfraud

He ran out of characters, what he meant to say was; “THEY MUST BE MAGIC WIZARDS TOO”
After all, he did magically turn a certificate of participation into a Nobel prize. It takes a special kind of person to do that!

cui bono

Aren’t you a ‘metorologist’ Anthony? Maybe it’s unwitting praise…
Someone should tweet ‘Predictions: Metorologists +1, Climate scientists still 0’.

“point the finger says I thought Mann and other climate modelers thought meteoroligists were ignorant of math and science?” Since more than half of meteorologists question AGW alarmism from polls I’ve seen this is why the “team” of 75 believers (from the 97% survey) didn’t bother to include meteorologists in the survey results? So, apparently meteoroligists can use math and science enough to do things like predict paths of storms half as big as the US but those same meteoroligists are not sophisticated enough to understand the power of the models the team of 75 produces that need 30-40 years to be validated and have been shown in study after study to be unable to predict anything.
Meteoroligists know that storms like this have happened in history, that extreme events are happening all over the world all the time and always have. Any cursory look at history of weather shows extreme droughts, extreme floods, tropical storms, throughout history so simply having one does not show that climate warming is producing them. In order to show this is related to CO2 we need the following lines of research to produce positive results:
1) that co2 is the cause for what percentage of the current warming? 0-100%
2) that one of the side effects of this co2 is increased storm activity
3) that this storm was in any way related to those “effects”
As far as I have read we don’t know the answer to 1. My guess is maybe 30%. For 2 everything I’ve read suggests that there is no side effect measureable from co2 on storm activity. We have the same number and intensity of storms we’ve always had. If anything a recent nature published article said that precipitation variability went DOWN with higher temps. Therefore this storm may have been WORSE without global warming. 3) similar to 2)

No model was seeing Sandy ten days out. The Euro and Canadian models were among the first to see it captured and hitting the US. The NOAA GFS and extended NAM were clueless on the capture until five days out. This ain’t a “vindication” of computer models, just a test to see who has the better physics.

Mike Ozanne

“Doesn’t Mann routinely dismiss “Meteorologists” and mere “Weathermen” as not sholarly enough to understand his groundbreaking work? Nate Silver? So I guess pollsters are good enough at climate science to warrant Not Quite a Nobel Winner Mann a retweet?”
To be fair at least Mr Silver shows his working…..

Don B

NY Governor Cuomo is as smart as Mann:
Global warming: “Anyone who thinks that there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns is denying reality,” Mr. Cuomo said. “We have a new reality, and old infrastructures and old systems.”


I see Andrew Weaver has sent a positive/supportive response to Mikey the Magnificent. Weaver, like Mikey, is also claiming to be a Nobel Laureate (see Donna Laframboise and Hilary Ostrov).
Weaver is also involved with Mikey in a legal action against Tim Ball. What a slimy pair.

Paul Westhaver

Message to Piltdown Mann, and his science = religiosity zombie hoard…..
You may well be amazed that meteorologists use math and models to help predict weather events. We Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics and real science advocates are not amazed at all.
It is you who have misused science and made politics out of your academic funding scams.
We are on to you and your surrogate clown priests. You are fooling nobody by “projecting” you own failings on everyone else.
“projection” ….
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feeling
We are not amazed Mr. Mann. That is the point. Yet you are.


I don’t know if predicting tomorrow’s weather is harder than predicting next centuries climate or not. I do know that there is very little correlation between the two.
With the first, initial conditions are critical. If you don’t know those, you can’t predict squat. From that point forward you use the basic laws of physics to try and determine how individual blocks of air will move around and whether they will heat or cool.
In climatology, initial conditions are pretty close to meaningless. Nor do you give a flying flip about what individual blocks of air may be doing at any given point in space and time. You are concerned with how macro scale events interact with each other.
In predicting weather, you don’t care if increased rainfall will change the flora in a given area. Since any such changes will not occur in the next 5 to 7 days anyway. However, such knowledge is vital for predicting climate changes. If you don’t know how the 5 spheres will react to any changes, and how the spheres interact, than you don’t know anything. (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere)


philjourdan says:
October 30, 2012 at 11:02 am
But then I have seen his magic eight ball. 😉


Nice to see BC’s newest Green Party hack, Andrew Weaver, raising his head above the parapet. Wonder if this will help sell a few more copies of his book. Also wondering if another “climategate” release is pending. Thanksgiving could be dangerous for these turkeys.

Matt G

Meteorologists have a far better understanding of the climate then some of these charlatan climate scientists. With the latter not even understanding how weather mechanisms behave or weather history. Therefore how can we expect them to decide what is weather or climate, never mind distinguishing any change in it.


Weaver claimed in one of his affidevit against that he was Nobel prize winner… not even Peace Prize… I have a copy of it… This guy has as much credibility than Mann.

Gary Pearse

Yes Math and Science were used to successfully predict the trajectory of Sandy, but what has that to do with what you do?


Hurricane Hazel was larger, stronger, longer lasting, more destructive, killed more people, followed more or less the same path (to this point in time), happed at the same time of year (almost to the day), also confronted a large cold front near the Canada US border and happened in 1954.
It was almost 60 years ago that the same thing happened.
Almost exactly the same storm pattern, 60 years ago, look it up.


Short-term models with a limited number of real world factors, sure. They work.
Climate models that take short cuts, use metaphors, make unfounded assumptions, and leave out dozens of real world factors, NOPE! “Don’t work!
You can put a rifle round through a nickel-sized target with some practice. Now aim at 45 degrees and tell me what it will hit, but tell be the day before.

Louis Hooffstetter

Sometimes I too feel a slight twinge of guilt for having so much fun at Mike Mann’s expense; that is until does something like this, and then I feel OK again.
What delicious irony that he’s hiding behind the skirts of hurricane forecasting meteorologists like Dr. William Gray, who has this opinion of climastologists and their influence on the AMS:


Now would be a good time to release the key for the FOIA file to begin Climate III..

Matt G

higley7 says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm
The main point you have missed why weather models work for short periods are because they can be verified every week. Testing many times allows a product using maths and science that can be reliable. On the other hand changing a climate model every 30 or more years could take thousands of years to represent one that is decent.

Michael is our asset, best left in place to convert the middle ground to our viewpoint. With one tweet, he disrespects every meteorologist going, except the few who already suffered from low self-esteem. He’s actually priceless. I’ll bet the AMS is feeling a bit silly after that tweet.
Go Mickey, go …

Louis Hooffstetter

Anthony, assuming you’re still a member of the AMS, is it worth you asking them for a comment on how climate scientologists like Mann view them, in the light of his tweet?
or mebbe they’d be too afraid to say anything, in case he sued them …

If you make enough predictions, you can always point to the one you get right.
The average of the models had the storm farther north and slower moving. The earlier left turn and then speedy movement onshore greatly reduced the damage caused by Sandy.

Gunga Din

Policy Guy says:
October 30, 2012 at 10:53 am
So a self proclaimed psuedo Nobel Laureate is poking fun at Meteorologists for accurately predicting the location and extent of the storm, including storm surge levels?? If meteorlogocal models are funny when they work, what are climate models that can’t even accurately backcast much less forecast temperatures. The joke appears to be on the good doctor.
Perhaps Josh will do a cartoon of Mann with his head in the noose he’s made of his Nobel Lariot?


“Metorologist”? You’d think a Nobel Prize winner would know how to mix in a spell-checker every now and then.