The latest propaganda stunt from the Skeptical Science Kidz is underway and it is about as exciting as it is predictable. Every hour, a new opinion is revealed along with a cartoon climate scientist caricature drawn by former cartoonist turned “climate expert” John Cook. Our resident cartoonist, Josh, has different ideas on that. The first cartoon character of the “97 hours of consensus” was Mike Mann, who seems to think that “recent warming does appear to be unprecedented as far back as we can go”.
Apparently Dr. Mann on has limited time travel research skills, like this from his Penn State colleague, Dr. Richard Alley:
================================================================
Update: Some people (the usual suspect) objected to the graph above, for them there’s Loehl 2007 figure 2 below. Still no hockey stick, still no unprecedented temperatures. Even Mann had previously said that “I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,” which you can read about here. So, why does he continue to push it?
(note: Dr. Craig Loehle writes via email that in a 2008 paper, he has updated the graph above to include new and more accurate data. His figure 2 for his 2008 paper: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

Color Version of Figure 2 with reconstruction, CI’s
Data for this graph is online at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/ )
Don’t like that? How about some graphs from NOAA/NCDC?
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html So we are still not seeing “unprecedented” temperature.
Or this one, before global warming became politicized:
Also, commenter mikeishere replotted the Greenland GISP2 ice core data to eliminate the objections over “x axis” compressions and provides this:
The answer is still the same, no unprecedented temperatures in the present as Mann claims.
================================================================
Then there’s the one from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth:
“all weather is now connected to climate change” – Yikes, every cloud is hiding a climate change boogie man now? Even the IPCC doesn’t believe this sort of fear mongering.
I had to chuckle though, because the SkS kids went to all this trouble to make this page where when you mouse over one of the cartoon character climate scientists, their arm goes up in the air to say “hey, I’m part of the consensus!”. That sort of high salute reminds me of the Nazi dress up photos we found last year on the Skeptical Science website. I suppose the SkS kidz didn’t see the connection to that incident, otherwise we wouldn’t have the cartoon climate scientists doing “consensus salutes” at the command of their cartoon creator. I’m pretty sure my Internet stalker Miriam O’Brien aka “Sou Bundanga” at Hotwhopper is having another hilarious conniption fit right now over that inconvenient linkage, even though it is funny to see all these cartoon climate scientists doing the “consensus salute” when you poke them with the mouse pointer.
Unfortunately, that’s about as entertaining as this propaganda stunt gets, though some of the opinions yet to be revealed from the cartoon climate scientists might be pretty funny. We’ll see.
So, we get 97 hours of these cartoon climate scientists and their opinions.
Josh seems to think we’ve heard it all before.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


![loehle_fig2[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/loehle_fig21.jpg?resize=531%2C314&quality=83)


If you, like me, are just too excited about this to wait the remaining hours, you can see the upcoming names here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/nsh/jslogicnsh.php . Last three names are deniers Christy, Lindzen, and Spencer. The file also has the image names so you can get a sneak peek of the artwork, e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/nsh/images/active/100_MZ9_Roy_Spencer.png .
I predict that 97% of the figures will use the word “unprecedented”.
Mann’s time nachine must be a 100% electric, judging from it’s severely limited range.
Later the Spin on this will be a typing error.
Actually we meant 0.097%.
Printers error. Honest.
The 5 stages of recovery?
Where are the bulk of the Easily Alarmed Ones at?
Cause the desperation is lovely to observe.
The upcoming quotes are at http://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/96_1RZ_Alan_Robock_med.jpg etc.
it is interesting that the warmists scientists on Cooke’s blog make vague inaccurate comments rather than answer questions concerning analysis and observations that disproves the extreme warming theory. The observations (even if it is assumed incorrectly that a 100% of the warming in the last 50 years has caused by the CO2 increase) support lukewarm warming, less than 1C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, as the planet resists rather than amplifies CO2 forcing changes. The majority of the warming has occurred at high latitudes which causes the biosphere to expand. There is no CO2 problem to solve. All life on this planet is carbon based. The biosphere expands and thrives when atmospheric CO2 increases and when the planet is warmer in high latitude regions. The climate wars and CO2 limiting policies are irrational, do not make sense regardless of ones’ political views.
There is a reason why the warmist scientists will not participate in a written formal scientific debate/discussion of the climate change issues. Analysis and observations do not support the extreme AGW theory. Clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist warming (negative feedback) by reflecting more or less short wave radiation off into space. The extreme AGW theory requires tropic tropospheric warming caused by increased water vapor to amplify the CO2 forcing (positive feedback) due to CO2. If there is negative feedback rather than positive feedback the warming due to doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C. The IPCC models assume planetary cloud cover decreases rather than increases when the planet warms.
The latitudinal warming paradox and cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record, indicates that the majority of the warming, more than 90%, in the last 50 years has caused by something else rather than the CO2 increase. The pattern of warming in the last 150 years cannot be explained by increases in atmospheric CO2. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is more or less the same for all latitudes on the planet. As the magnitude of the CO2 forcing is proportion to both the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question, the most amount of warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should occur in the tropics as that is the region of the planet that had the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space prior to the increase atmospheric CO2. That is not observed. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years has been in high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere with the most amount of warming occurring on the Greenland ice sheet which is the same pattern of warming that occurred in past dansgaard-oeschger (named after the discovers of the cyclic warming and cooling that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes) warming/cooling cycles. A very strong scientific case can be made to support the assertion that the planet will significantly cool due to the solar cycle 24 changes.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
” …These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglas and Christy paper.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
That’s a good summary of the physical evidence side.
The other major broken legs of the climate seem to be
1) Flawed arguments by authority (positions of scientific groups who previously endorsed cooling, 97%)
2) Reliability of climate models (hilarious SkS page on this, see Soon/Armstrong on methodology problems, Spencer on problems with the models’ hindcasting, and the various models themselves for their inaccurate predictions)
3) Interpretations of past data (hockey stick, GISS problems)
4) Effects (As Ridley and Lomborg have pointed out, there are net positive
5) Policies (not justified per above, and even then no G7 emissions controls will prevent non-G7 countries from pulling up every last economical hydrocarbon and burning it)
There’s another thing.
The only solutions they come up with:
A. Give government and their minions more money and control
or
B. Allow their millionaire buddies to become billionaires trading carbon credits.
How does that save the earth?
It won’t drop the temperature one bit.
When Al Gore finally matches my carbon footprint I will lower mine even more to give him a leader follow. I could even stop laughing at him every time he opens his mouth to lie.
Every time I see the “97%” number I have to wonder, if you asked 100 parapsychologists if they believe in psychic phenomena wouldn’t you get a similar consensus? If you asked 100 manufacturers of herbal remedies if echinacea works I’m sure 97% (or more) would insist that it does. The point is that once you’ve joined a particular field, you’re almost certainly going to accept the basic tenets without much question. That’s especially true if there is a risk of becoming socially and academically irrelevant. Let’s face it, 20 years ago no one was flying half of their geology department to Cancun or paying a climate expert $20,000 for a one hour speech.
When you ask astronomers what is the value of the Hubble Constant to within 1%, you’re not going to get a consensus. When you ask if the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is correct you’ll get a range of qualified “yes” and “no” answers. We know that the 97% is exaggerated, but the fact that a high percentage of climate scientists agree on anything isn’t just meaningless, it’s actually troubling. If Mt. McKinley, a big stationary target, needs to have it’s elevation adjusted by close to 100 feet, no one should feel confident that we’re measuring the temperature of the oceans to .01 C.
I predict project the remaining quotes will be approximately:
29 Heidi Cullen
30 Warren Washington
31 Kerry Emanuel
32 Veerabhadran Ramanathan
33 Ann Henderson Sellers
34 Matthew England
35 Gerald Meehl
36 Gabriele Hegerl
37 Keith Shine
38 Reto Knutti
39 Josefino Comiso
40 Noah Diffenbaugh
41 Paul Shepson
42 Eric Wolff
43 Mojib Latif
44 Inez Fung
45 Richard Feeley
46 Shaun Marcott
47 Pieter Tans
48 Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
49 James Hansen
50 Bill Ruddiman
51 Penny Whetton
52 Marcia McNutt
53 Sir Robert Watson
54 Joanna Haigh
55 Michael Raupach
56 Peter Stott
57 Dennis Hartmann
58 Nathan Bindoff
59 Andy Pitman
60 Julienne Stroeve
61 Andrew Weaver
62 Chris Forest
63 Pramod Aggarwal
64 Ken Denman
65 Thomas Stocker
66 Brian Hoskins
67 Malte Meinshausen
68 Corinne Le Quéré
69 James White
70 Scott Denning
71 David Archer
72 Richard Somerville
73 Josh Willis
74 Philip Mote
75 John Mitchell
76 Donald Wuebbles
77 James McCarthy
78 Sarah Das
79 Mark Cochrane
80 Peter Hildebrand
81 Susan Solomon
82 Ulrike Lohmann
83 John Fasullo
84 Jim Salinger
85 Sylvia Earle
86 Myles Allen
87 James Byrne
88 Anders Levermann
89 Wally Broecker
90 Gifford Miller
91 Michael Oppenheimer
92 Richard Pancost
93 Peter Cox
94 Glen MacDonald
95 Katrin Meissner
96 Alan Robock
97 Greg Holland
Thanks for that collection of nutshells in one place.
I think this SKS approach is interesting as it creates an ‘event’ which is always easier to promote and get PR from than merely producing articles for blogs can’t do.
Has there been any uptick in their viewing and has any interest been created in that very wide world outside of climate blogland?
tonyb
Their site traffic is terribly low. It’s quite rare that activists link to it any more on news sites. They got savvy and now mostly cite the IPCC. When it does pop up I just mention that Cook is an Evangelical “climate justice” Christian comic artist with no advanced degree and then grab the latest 97% debunking links.
His 97% paper and its ongoing falsification and likely future retraction is a wonderful boon for skeptics since it was so hard to counter the original 97% claim but his version is now exposed as fraudulently including psychology papers that his paper claimed were excluded.
Highly public Mann and Cook are now so out on a limb that it’s likely putting pressure on both scientists and journalists to seemingly seize up in a panic as they now merely call for censorship, kind of a silly outlook in Al Gore’s Internet age. But activist policy makers are loudly threatening their organizations to root out potential whistleblowers such as Interior secretary Sally Jewell exclaiming, “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department Of Interior.”
SS site ranking:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2ze9dsx.jpg
97% of people agree with someone just to shut them up! lol
Mann and Cook are now linked quite publicly through Mann’s promotion of this PR stunt that reasserts the Orwellian revisionist hockey stick version of history. And right there is in the middle of it is a quote from Marcott, asserting that his pure artifact hockey stick blade demonstrates anomalous warming rather than anomalous math.
They now stand exposed, attempting an Enron level takeover of our culture just as the world cycles into a cooling phase. It’s delightful to see nearly every anti-Western activist, every obnoxious techno hipster blog, the entire progressive “you didn’t build that” crowd of dangerous idealists, set themselves up for a massive fall into notoriety that will be noted for centuries with their names attached to it, their every typed statement in support of such an obvious scam archived forever in the annals of human folly, calling for energy rationing that would have very much hurt future income levels and scientific progress.
Original alarmist Malthus of the 1700s was resurrected as a Frankenstein monster this time around. That I was so familiar with the hippie bible The Whole Earth Catalog as a kid meant I knew all about Malthusians via the ongoing debunking of resource alarm by Bucky Fuller. That alerted me that these new greenies were no Hippies, just traitorous Marxists that formed a Gaian doomsday cult.
This is not a new link for Mann. About a year ago, he had teamed up with Cook’s mentor (and model?!), Stephan Lewandowski. As I had noted earlier this year:
So Mann’s teaming up with an even lesser-light, i.e. Cook, a Lewandowski side-kick, is not in the least surprising in my view. Although it could be considered a step down from his earlier alliance. And as I have also noted in the past, to my mind, there is very little difference between Mann and the real deniers at whose knees he might well have studied – not the least of whom is David <I see you, I sue you> Irving.
If the list of “participants” is accurate, then it’s going to cause some hard feelings – No Gore, no McKibben, no Lew.
If their argument is “we only wanted scientists on the list”, then we could rightly ask “why should we be listening to all these others, then?”
Pachygrapsus asks, “Every time I see the “97%” number I have to wonder, if you asked 100 parapsychologists if they believe in psychic phenomena wouldn’t you get a similar consensus?”
Yes.
Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. A close look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA 1998 v 279, pages 1005 to 1010.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
– Mark Twain
John Christy has made an appearance (I think), yet doesn’t say anything. Who will be the other two skeptics = make up the 3%ters??
I’m going for Lindzen, and Spencer.
Thank you so much for your post ilmastotiede , we should ALL keep this list and their declarations for the future. They’ve now doubled down on this stupidity and should be held accountable for the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted and needless deaths they’ve caused through redirecting money for aid to other countries for the poor populist starving from malnutrition/child mortality(2 million a year, one every 15 seconds), our OWN health care(cancer, diabetes, you fukin name it) .. 1 BILLION a day wasted… 1 BILLION A DAY !!! Can you imagine what good could be done in the world with that kind of money? You could educate and feed the world !
This is a list of shame and should be ridiculed and held accountable, they had their chance to be scientist doing REAL science but their so rapped up in their own egos and diatribe that it’s sickening. What other kind of science does this? Was it so hard to just say we don’t know? I’ve wasted so much time like a lot of us here running around the internet, almost 30 F-ing year with data showing how wrong they were, I was around for the 70’s ice age scare and I even believed in the global warming crap. All the same, lies and manipulation of data and now it’s so big I don’t know if it can be stopped, I’ve been here before and it just keeps going, you think this is the end but there is always more.
I use to be pleasant and try to discus physics with AGW people, now I just laugh at them and beat them down with data. Most don’t even know the truth but believe. I had a experience with a climatologist who used to work for the military this weekend eating my breakfast at Burger king( of all places! hehe), I did two terms doing a IT audit for DND so I’ve had to deal with computer scientist, they don’t like to have their programing questioned for problems. But this climatologist was taken back by my response to him and came off dumb as a bag of hammers, he soon was calling EVERY weather event a sign of climate change even when I told him that there had been less.
My point is, prepare yourself to confront these types, don’t cut them slack, most times they are just repeating the same old BS(bad science) and deserve a good laughing at. It pisses them off! 🙂
Ken Caldeira equated CO2 emissions with mugging old ladies. So, I asked them:
https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat/status/509029585254490112
LOL. the shorter version – here’s a graph of GISP2 ice – core data that shows Mann is wrong. Ooops – I’ve (well actually Easterbrook) messed up the time-axis, properly plotted it shows Greenland hasn’t been this warm for over 2,000 years (and Greenland is not the globe). Never mind – here’s Leohle (2007). Ooops! That was full of errors, but here’s Loehle (2008). What – you want me to add in the modern record? Nope, not doing that because it would prove Mann correct. But look over here, I found this chart showing that if we go back 140,000 years, NEARLY TO THE LAST INTERGLACIAL or this one OVER 1 MILLION YEARS AGO temperatures were warmer.
So I am right and Mann was wrong. So there.
Keep ’em coming Anthony. I love a good laugh. When did you give up on science? ROFL.
PS – you wrongly credited the graph to Richard Alley. Here (again) is what he said about the validity of your attempt, he thinks you’re either stupid, misguided or misled.
“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). [..] So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response. ”
How long before this chart re-appears? After all, you clearly got nuthin’ else.
Comment on Reddit — John Cook, the neo-Nazi cartoonist, is trying to justify his “97%” nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2ftwt1/iama_scientist_who_wrote_the_study_finding_97/
Give ’em your 2¢ worth!
PJ Clarke,
Apparently your argument is that past warming events were not at today’s levels. That is complete nonsense…
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
…As is the rest of your rant.
I am no fan of Mann, but he does say warming not temperatures. Warming, implying a rate of change in temperature.
I like the way they have skeptics Lindzen and Christy just get a stern look on their face when you move the cursor over them.
Bob Clark