Robert Scheaffer reports from the meeting via email:
Mann just told TAM (The Amazing Meeting of the Skeptics Society) that there has been no pause in Global Warming, and says claims that there has been are just ‘Cherry Picking’.
Also he used Marcott et al. as proof that his Hockey Stick is valid.
Surely he must know that the authors themselves disavow that conclusion!! Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.
He did not take any questions, however very few of the other speakers did either.
Hopefully we’ll have video to post here soon.
No word yet what Penn and Teller think.
UPDATE: here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann. Mike looks a bit starstruck.
This might make a good caption contest.
UPDATE2: I’m actually in Houston tonight, and dashed off this posting earlier on my way to a meeting, and in my haste neglected to mention that the report was from Robert Scheaffer, one of the speakers there and I added the links to WUWT articles. That oversight has since been fixed. The photo above is also his. -Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In relation to Cognitive Dissonance and the ‘Mann’
Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:
A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves.
The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief.
The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails)
“Is he deliberately lying? Or is he delusional?”
No reason he can’t be both, Eric.
Andres Valencia says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm
To warm, or not to warm, that is the question.
After the last grand El Niño, on 1998 the Earth stopped warming and started to stay put, statistical analysis shows no significant warming for a longer period, 13 to 16 years?
==================================
This “pause” in upward trend can be one of two things…
A real pause that just lasted to long or;
It shows the fact we have peaked in the larger cycle (thus the longer period) and we are now headed in the reveres trend… the top of a large sign wave is always longer in time period.
The fact we have long since left the normal short cycle trend lines would lead me to believe we are going to get much cooler as we have begun the downward trend to the low part of the larger natural cycle.
Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.
Umm, people of faith can also believe in properly researched science. Many support your endeavors. Maybe a poor analogy.
Um, Anthony, I find references to creationism in posts and comments inappropriate. Taking the ‘science’ side of Darwinism shows ignorance of that debate and opens a topic this website should not be concerned with. Those more familiar with the debate find the same groupthink, gatekeeping, arrogance, career railroading and denying of contrary evidence among Darwinism as is found in climate science (don’t forget whose side the NCSE is on in both cases). Those trying to debate Darwinists on scientific terms are dismissed as ‘creationists’ (whether they are or not) just as climate sceptics are dismissed as ‘deniers’. While both sides of the Darwin debate have their less-than-honest advocates, issuing blanket unsupported ‘creationists lie’ statements are not in keeping with the scientific spirit of this fine website (I am not a creationist or a Darwinist, but see many parallels between that debate and the climate debate).
I realize this comment may open a can of worms. There seem to be many who attempt to prove they are ‘scientific’ by dissing Darwinism critics and calling them creationists. I hope most will support me in suggesting that debate, and the ‘creationist’ term be kept from this website as much as possible.
Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.
Painting with a broad brush, there, friend.
: > )
I believe that Dr. Mann knows full well the tide has turned and that cooling will now take place, but it will be perhaps another decade before the evidence is undeniable. In the mean time he will play the faithful servant of the governments that want CO2 climate catastrophe to be the dominate “truth” of our time — very useful to force the masses to do as they say. We have a world to save after all.
And in ten years? He has a lifetime job and he is storing up those speakers fees. He has no worries.
Gary says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm
The TAM folks fancy themselves as skeptics and critical thinkers, and in many ways they are, but they have a curious blind spot when it comes to doubting their own abilities and questioning their prejudices. …
Yep. I really enjoy some of the podcasts from many of the TAM’ers, including Brian Dunning and the Skeptics Guide To The Universe crew. But, yeah, when they turn to the subject of global warming…. Mann oh Mann…. That IS a huge blind spot. They were glowing over the Cook / Lewdowski (whatever his name is – if correct statistical methodologies are not important to him…. his name is not important to me) studies without really digging in to examine what the problems with the studies are. They bought the “Skeptical Science spiel hook, line, and stinker. It’s sad, because there used to be one guy on the Skeptics Guide panel, Perry, who was very skeptical of the alarmist side of AGW. But, unfortunately, he passed away several years ago. he is sorely missed.
Climate alarmists like Mann use only the land surface temperature record and ignore sea surface temperatures which when both are combined represent the global surface temperature record. The global surface temperature record shows the pause. The land surface record continues increase and that’s all the alarmists need. Alarmists also frequently site the Berkeley Earth project land temperature record as further proof there is no global temperature pause. This is how the ignore the pause game is played.
Like a creationist,…………..
is there anything we can’t all be divided on
@Larry Hamlin –
And don’t forget the land temps are all UHI-affected and therefore falsely ovewrstated.
As for Mann being the last one on the sinking ship, let’s don’t forget that hatemonger der Fuehrer and his satraps at the hate-group EPA can do a lot of damage yet before they are brought down. And no matter who else deserts the ship, der Fuehrer can’t leave it because it is the entire basis for his campaign to destroy the economy and along with it civil liberties.
Andres,
That is a great site but if you decide to go back one year you get warming. In the end it really doesn’t matter what the oceans do for warming, if the land continues to warm like it is doing then there isn’t any stopping its desctructive effects.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/13/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2001&endtrendyear=2012
0.3C per decade over the last 20 years.
Mann in at least one talk has said that he thinks climate models ‘vastly overstate warming’. When asked, he said I agree with that, I think there is a missing negative feedback.
Definition of “satrap”:
: the governor of a province in ancient Persia
a : ruler
b : a subordinate official : henchman
========
I’ve always wondered.
I think our planet is always warming or cooling, always seeking but never attaining equilibrium.
This present stasis seems to indicate a lack of net input for the self-regulated planet to react against.
I watch for next El Niño or La NIña to emerge with some push, one way or the other.
Afterwards, around a new level, some overshoot followed by dampening oscillations.
This until the next plunge into an ice age.
Ryan claims that global warming continues.
Maybe Ryan can explain why The Economist, and the NY Times, and even über-alarmist Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. The only reason that the NY Times would admit global warming has stopped is because their credibility is more important to them than their global warming propaganda.
Ryan goes on to say that the CET is not indicative of global temperatures. Maybe not. But it is indicative of global temperature trends, and the long-term global warming trend has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 cannot have the effect claimed. Not that there is no effect from CO2. But at current concentrations, any warming effect is simply too small to measure, and thus “carbon” should be completely disregarded regarding its influence on tax policy.
===============================
Bob Johnston says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm [ … ]
I think Bob Johnson has Mann’s number. Good post.
“Cherry picking”? Pot. Kettle. Black.
dbstealey,
Yes, and I see the ~60 years cycles proposed by Nicola Scafetta in the Jo Nova link you posted.
That was a great Fonzi jump the shark act
“No word yet what Penn and Teller think.”
=========
It would be nice if they came in, but Willis and Tisdale might give them a run.
I am an atheist and skeptic and have friends who are also atheist skeptics, but some are very liberal and are therefore blinded by politics and believe in CAGW based on their politics alone. A true skeptic doubts CAGW, but James Randi hires some people who are not true skeptics.
It was nice of Mikey to congratulate a cAGW skeptic 😛
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
I’m a geologist. I think Mann is a cheat and a fraud and a disgrace to the profession (he wears one or two geology degrees). And since no one else can explain it, I believe the Bible account of the formation of everything at the outset. No one will ever disprove it. The rocks don’t go back that far.
Who still employs this jerk, the clean energy brigade? How did he go sueing Tim Ball.
Jeffrey Pelt: Listen, I’m a politician which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies I’m stealing their lollipops.
Mann is just practicing the “art of politics”