He’s still pushing the same old stuff; Mannian certified hockey sticks, evil skeptics, and a persecution complex to make up for his own lack of transparency.
This is from the AGU Chapman conference, where most all of the leading alarmists got together and provided a support group for each other. Apparently, they’ll let anyone give a presentation, as such notables a self admitted document thief Peter Gleick, Crock of the Week guy Peter Sinclair, and UK policy wonk Bob Ward all gave presentations.
You can see the complete list here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos/videos
I welcome readers extracting some key points of interest.
Of course, I was denied the opportunity to present as I never was notified of the event signup until it was too late, even though I’m a member of AGU. Just as well, they probably would not have let me finish anything I presented.
According to a friend of mine who is an atmospheric physicist and AGU member, the general makeup of the membership as a whole is about 1/3 for AGW, 1/3 not buying it, and 1/3 neutral.
I don’t understand how the handle on the hockey stick could ever have been presented as so smooth, it is hard to maintain temperature that flat in a closed room.
“Of course, I was denied the opportunity to present …”
—
I guess if ever Anthony will be allowed to speak at the AGU, that day will mark the official end of the CAGW hysteria.
Mann and hockey stick, need I say more..
He did some reasonable work on the AMO reconstruction, but nothing out of ordinary, even a keen amateur you may know of, did a better job
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-2R.htm
Look out for Rommian extrapolations of the Marcotte&Shakun unrobustick in Mann’s presentation.
“You do have to wonder how such walnut-sized brains could possibly contain such planetary-sized egos.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/know-your-enemy-the-foot-soldiers/
Pointman
It looks the hockey stick is growing into an obscene gesture. How appropriate.
Are we now experiencing the Manniac Epoch?
I noticed that Mann is getting very hefty. BIG Mann. Most all of us struggle with weight, so I’ll I’m saying that it’s just the hypocrisy of it in Mann’s case. Keeping a small carbon footprint means avoiding all that overindulgence. You could say Mann is one of the biggest proponents of having a small carbon footprint. It’s kind of like Gore and all jetting all over the world and living the high life in their mansions, all the while preaching that the rest of us cut back and live an austere life.
What a waste of a conference registration fee (and my lunch time today). One-third of an hour of self-promotion and ad hominem attacks with no value whatsoever in developing any kind of reasonable discussion on climate change today … What? The science was settled long ago? Sorry, I forgot.
For instance the Central England temperature graph linked below has a range of 0C to -0.5C over the period from 1772 to 1930, then from 1980 to present a peak of +1C followed by a return below +0.5C. Especially when looking at the outliers, there is plenty of hot years near present levels. Mann’s filter seems to be defeated for the last 50-100 years.
-T
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Anthony, how could you say the’d let anybody speak…It’s not like a quack shrink like Lew would be given a platform after demonstrating his ignorance, would he?
cn
oops, my err.
RE:vukcevic says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:23 am
I like your AMO graph. It appears Mann was just finishing his graph when he hiccuped.
Did Mann mention Briffa’s new graph, or Briffa at all?
Life’s too short!
Seems Michael man is also now helping out with Campaign contributions now foe a canidat what is all in on Climate Change high. Any climate Scientist that is an activist will never tell the truth and a valid hypothesis.
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann 4 Jul
Thanks HubbleFan. U can donate to Terry’s campaign right here: https://donate.terrymcauliffe.com/page/contribute/donate … RT @1stHubbleFan @TerryMcAuliffe How can I donate?
DJ writes
I’m a long-time AGU member, and I have no idea how anyone would know the breakdown of who-thinks-what in the AGU, as it is too large an organization to understand that without a decent survey, which I haven’t seen. That said, what is quite clear is that virtually 100% of the folks running AGU are at least nominally convinced that AGW is a serious problem. EOS reflects such views, although not all the journals are so obviously committed to the propaganda.
I am actually embarrassed to be associated with AGU these days.
“This isn’t controversial science, this is just nearly two-century-old physics and chemistry”.
Big fat lie, told by (what else) a big fat liar. I can’t stand listening to him. He repulses me.
Mann does much good work for the very people he hates, long may it continue.
I looked at the spaghetti derivatives of the hockey stick in this article
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
Unfortunately, using 40 year smoothed figures means the Spaghetti completely misses the huge decadal variability. See figure 4.
The spaghetti only shows variability when the instrumental temperature age is spliced on.
I am trying to apply the data to the original Hockey stick but I cant find the raw data. Anyone know where it might be found?
tonyb
Chuck Nolan says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:56 am
Lewandowsky: I’m going to start out with my conclusions …
Is that how he does all his research?
You betcha BL
It’s the team’s way.
cn
From the Urban Dictionary:
“circle-jerk
The practice of expressing emotions, feelings, and impractical sentiments as a means of bonding or gaining appreciation for the members of your team. Related activities may include, but are not limited to making lists, repeatedly affirming one’s consent with another persons already expressed opinion, etc.
Oftentimes ‘circle-jerking’ will occur during meeting times when people feel the need to express their own opinions over and over for the sake of hearing their own voice.”
When the shoe fits……..
Life is too short to watch these clowns: yamal supertree is dead, so Mann’s Hockey stick.
@Billy Liar
Brilliant. Thank you. I have forwarded it as a closing comment to the dialogue I have been having with a rep of the University of Bristol regarding this charlatan.
Vacuous presentation. This is a meeting of the AGU? Mann’s presentation is about Mann coupled with a roaming historical review of newspaper editorial pages . Members of the AGU paid money to hear this guy editorialize about old editorials? Where’s the science…Oh I forgot…it’s settled based upon consensus…according to that logic three math professors sat in the faculty lounge one day. The first math prof said, ” 2+2=5″. The second math professor said,”2+2=22″. The third math professor said lets all agree that the correct answer is the average of the two results. So rather than argue and offend each other or explore other possibilities, they form a consensus that 2+2=13.5 and went on to the next topic…if the consensus is right then how come all the models obtain differing results? And oh by the way show me one , just one model today that has done any regression testing that succeeded in validating any model…hasn’t happened.