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.
Mike McMillan says:
July 14, 2013 at 10:21 am
A good bit more ad hominem than I’m used to seeing on this site.
Unfortunate.
Mike….calling a pathological liar and con man just that is not ad hominem.
Mike McMillan says:
July 14, 2013 at 10:21 am …
If you have any moves to extricate us from the cesspool of this guys’ making – we are all ears.
(I know he is not working alone but, there are not so many of these willing tools that have brought us to this point) I think you will find that Mann is vilified more than most – except Gore and Suzuki maybe. Quite rightfully in this disenfranchised, unrepresented and ignored citizens’ opinion.
Just a half-hour special on all channels, in a prime-time slot with no-one from the ‘other side’ involved except as objects of ridicule.
Mann’s “cherrypicking” claim regarding the warming pause (now 17+ years) is of course just another one of his multitude of lies he tells. But hey, he’s got to make a living somehow.
Mann is a continuing puzzle. As an advocate of climate change, here he is in full denial of climate change that is happening in real time right under his nose. Yes there is absolutely a pause in the warming and that pause is nothing less than climate change. It isn’t doing what it did before. Damn deniers! 🙂
/irony
===========================================================================
Who knew that Yamal 06 was a cherry tree?
Rune says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:23 am: Darwin talks about everything that happened since “Everything was empty and then magic happened” and I’m fine with that. But how and why it happened will always be a mystery. You believe your own way, and I’m fine with that, too.
Mann has long since degenerated to a cliche figure out of Clown College. “Who will rid (us) of this turbulent priest?”
Sorry..
Caption – Mann to Randi : I got the idea when I saw you massaging the neck of the spoon
…this clearly should have read ….
Caption – Mann to Randi : I got the idea when I saw your friend, Geller massaging the neck of the spoon …
Re equating Mannism to creationism; as the posting by Don says, ‘what sort is meant’?
I would classify myself as an ancient creationist – ie the earth is very old (~4.5byrs).
I do not think the Darwinist hypothesis works at all well, except in very trivial areas of biology.
I tend to view climate alarmism much as I view Darwinism. Both assume the conclusion and then cobble together ‘explantions ‘ to support that predetermined conclusion. Many Darwinistic explanations, earnestly asserted, are often risibly absurd. Darwinism crashed when biochemistry boomed (further details in my book: ‘While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate change’ foreword by David Bellamy).
He could be completely right that it is cherry picking to claim there has been a pause in the global warming – it very well could be the end of it.
It looks like Dr. Mann has been eating at the restaurant under the GISS.
Wait, if TAM is all about science, skepticism, and critical thinking, what was Mikey doing there? Providing the entertainment?
dayday says:
July 14, 2013 at 9:42 am
Exactamundo.
Ed Davey – a frightened child who … ‘doesn’t even know which way round his name should be.’ makes wildly unsubstantiated claims and Andrew Neil sticks to flat temps v CO2 rise.
There is the ‘97% consensus’ pushed into the public(unthinking or not) mind. Thanks Lew
John Beddington – NOT a climate scientist. Appeal to non-existent authority
Invoking the precaution principle – with zero evidence
Caution — it’s only going to cost us our future prosperity Ed
Met Orofice — Mwahahahahahaha
Warmest decade on record
The heat — It’s hiding in the ‘deep ocean’. Be afraid
Rising sea levels, melting ice cap(s), increasing frequency of severe weather events.
Climate science is new and incredibly complicated
Putting carbon into the air will raise temps and this is uncontested
Making people’s homes warmer, clean energy that doesn’t pollute, more jobs, healthier people
Denies the incredible cost of their (the coalition, but Labour are as bad) policies
Vast majority of ‘climate’ scientists are saying we are doomed
We are ‘looking at’ technology – water, hydrogen, ccs
Rising sea levels, melting ice cap(s)
———–
Save us from this ignorant child and his ignorant childish friends who are provisioned by infinitely more wise bad-guys than they will ever be…
If Michael Mann said words to that effect then he needs to urgently talk to the following people.
Either all the above are wrong or Michael Mann is wrong. I’ll go with consensus. 😉
Over the years, those of us who believe in God have taken many a lump from the ‘Amazing Randi’ for our apparent ‘stupidity’ so it is ironic to see Randi photographed with a person of such unparallelled and unabashed faith.
When it gets too stupid, just show them this (Wood For Trees);
http://tinyurl.com/bq22d72
Any questions? Bueller?
Union of Concerned Scientists at it again:
http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html
[Snip. Try it again, this time without multiple use of “deniers”. — mod.]
Ryan doesn’t like Dr. Spencer’s facts so he attacks his person. Typical.
TAM skeptics are something of an embarrassment to real sceptics. They consist primarily of science fan boys who put their politics before their critical thinking abilities. They are good at debunking haunted houses and tarot card readings, but not much good at anything actually important.
@RogerKnights says:
July 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm
“Four months ago, in March, Steve McIntyre pointed out the same thing in Mann’s AGU presentation:
“There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First, as in Mann and Kump, Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition, like Santer et al 2008, Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison.”
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/ ”
I think, as important to harp on as Mann’s Three Card Monty games in comparing temperatures from unrelated scales, it should be emphasized that he’s actually comparing reality to Ouija Board predictions. Note that “…Mann compared MODEL PROJECTIONS…” (my emphasis). Model projections are not reality. Further, computer climate models are proven, again and again and again to be unable to model all the myriad factors that add up to “climate.” All Mann and his modelers have is guesswork. That they’ve got very high-tech programming, and that those computers are very high end, and that those computers can, in fact, be used successfully in experimentation and crunching numbers, and yes, that watching models can in fact help us to glimmer to an understanding of certain processes by acting as a possible example of what might happen in isolation with controlled factors, all does not change that at the end of the day, their results are nothing more than guesswork, and several layers of abstraction away from the real world.
Should we all bow down to Mann and believe he’s speaking ex cathedra simply because he’s got a computer-generated guess? It’s nothing but a high-tech fortune cookie, buddy.
Once upon a time, people built orreries based on the Ptolemaic view of the universe. His view had epicycles, it had to be frequently tweaked, it was always inaccurate, it was all patches and band-aids and fixes, but it sorta, kinda, maybe worked. Sometimes. Yes, it could be used to predict things like eclipses with a certain amount of accuracy (within a few nights or weeks, but hey, it’s not like anyone had anything better to do: they didn’t have reality TV…), but it did NOT describe how the solar system operated. Yet it was also used as proof to show that the Earth was the center of the Universe—was indeed based on that well known ‘fact’.
How are any of the climate computer models, the results of which are being propounded as if they are incontrovertible fact, different from a Ptolemaic Orrery? I haven’t the skills to do a statistical comparison of the relative performance of the two, but I’d guess that none of the present computer climate models are even as accurate as the old Ptolemaic Orreries.
To the Alarmists: free your minds, and the rest will follow. And stop believing that just because the results came from a computer, that it’s true (No, I know: it’s not The Sims. Get over it).
I don’t pay much attention to the creationist/evolutionist brouhaha, but it does seem an awfully broad assertion that one side is always lying.