| UPDATE: The slide originals have been found and posted. See link below. It’s identical to Mike’s AGU trick| As promised earlier this week, I’ve gotten my phone connected and have offloaded all of the photos of Dr. Mann’s slide presentation that I took from my vantage point in the front row. I’ve created a gallery of images with some notes about each. As you can see, it is heavy on politics and light on science. The final slide of his lecture, which depicts his daughter and a polar bear where he talks about “children and our future”, I pixelated out to make it unrecognizable as I don’t think children should be used as props.
I think I got most every slide in his presentation, but there may be one or two missing, as I had issues trying to operate the camera and keeping my hearing assistance device functional (I had to hold it at arms length to get a signal, and put it down to get a photo). Slides go from upper left to right, and are in order. Click the first one and you’ll get a slide show applet in a new window.
I’ll have some commentary about the Q&A session and why I didn’t ask a question, along with some additional photos, a bit later in a separate post.
Lewandowsky’s introduction, leaning on the podium.
Mann’s starting slide, book promotion.
Trying to show that just because the CO2 warming theory is old, it is irrefutable
Mauna Loa CO2 curve. Could you show us something we haven’t seen?
Temperature data set – unclear which it is. Looks like it might be GISS land only.
All the indicators of a warming world.
He cites the IPCC AR5 report and the figures from the Summary for Policymakers (SPM)
Models title slide
Trying to convey what climate models are.
Making Jokes about GISS being about Seinfeld’s “Monks” restaurant – made a big point of saying “GISS was there first”.
Sequence start trying to link models and observed temperature.
Here he is trying to show Hansens’s predictions from 1988 and observed temperature. No citation given on dataset.
Here he is trying to show Hansens’s predictions from 1988 and observed temperature, unsure why he does not display all the record. No citation given on dataset.
Here he is trying to show Hansens’s predictions from 1988 and observed temperature, unsure why he does not display all the record. No citation given on dataset.
Listing climate forcings, while leaving out a bunch. I don’t recall seeing a match between observations and models that close anywhere.
Citing the IPCC again.
Makes the famous Yogi Berra joke about ‘It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.’
Listing the model scenarios for the future
Listing impacts of a warmer world, with a full on belief that severe weather will get worse
Showing the graphic from Scientific American’s page spread on IPCC AR5 report.
Doom ahead, slide 1
Doom ahead, slide 2
Doom ahead, slide 3
Doom ahead, slide 4, I think the polar bear was photoshopped in.
Doom ahead, slide 5, citing the now debunked Moose will die story.
Doom ahead, slide 6 what warming show is complete without dried cracked Earth?
Doom ahead, slide 7 – heat waves – I wonder if he got permission from Accu-Weather to use that graphic?
Doom ahead, slide 8, boat ramp on Folsom Lake in CA, I think. He apparently thinks PDO/ENSO have no effect on CA precip.
Doom ahead, slide 9 – Laughable, cites decline of banana slug in CA
Doom ahead, slide 9 – Laughable, cites decline of banana slug in CA, cites paper.
Doom ahead, slide 10 cites sea level rise in Miami as cause of flooding streets summer 2014. No mention of particularly wet June and early July,, or that the heavy rain causing the flooding is not new or unprecedented.
Doom ahead, slide 10 cites newspaper aticle as “proof” of climate change causing flooding.
Doom ahead slide 11 – collage of climate doom.
Doom ahead slide 12, apparently people never died in heat waves before climate change became a known unknown.
Doom ahead slide 13 – AGW will change the jet stream, making more severe weather. Even IPCC doesn’t show this link.
Doom ahead slide 14 – sayign the 2003 European heat wave was due to AGW, pix of children.
Doom ahead slide 15 – trying to blame 2014 flooding of Somerset levels on AGW, when it was simply a lack of dredging.
Doom ahead slide 16 – trying to blame 2014 flooding of Somerset levels on AGW, when it was simply a lack of dredging. Cites BBC article and Met Office graph as proof.
Title slide “why no action?” – maybe because we don’t believe you!
Obligatory portrayal of steam emissions from smoketstacks in backlighting as “carbon emissions”.
Citing this quote from Frank Luntz in 2002 as the reason that apparently ALL climate skeptics are evil paid shills.
Obligatory Naomi Oreskes book cover.
Beginning of the enemies list headshot parade
Quoting Inhofe
The hockey stick makes its first appearance without his book attached.
More Hockey Stick
Hockey Stick political cartoon, goes on to say how many times the HS has been “exonerated” by pal review, er science.
See? Lots of other hockey sticks, cheap consensus ploy.
Beginning of the newspaper clippings showing how the Hockey League gets more press than say, the non-hockey league
More newspaper clippings showing how the Hockey League gets more press than say, the non-hockey league
IPCC again, over hockey league, even though the hockey stick does not appear in IPCC AR5 it’s still golden.
Beginning of politics and science switcheroo animated slide. Trying to portay that science is politicized I guess.
End of politics and science switcheroo animated slide.
Enemies list headshot #2 – Joe Barton
Joe Barton sent me a letter asking for data, code, and correspondence. HOW DARE HE!
Enemies list headshot #3 – oh wait, that’s a friend.
Enemies list headshot #4 – Shherywood Boehlert (R) nNew York
Enemies list headshot #5 – John McCain, though portrayed as a friend becuase he said something Mike liked.
Enemies list headshot #5 – John McCain, though portrayed as a friend becuase he said something Mike liked.
Enemies list headshot #5 – John McCain, though portrayed as a friend becuase he said something Mike liked.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, snicker heard through crowd, Mann starts making jokes.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #7 – James Inhofe, apparently he’s also stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Apparently Republicans in general are just too stupid to accept climate change.
There’s no magic climate bullet, but we all knew that.
Mann’s last slide -picture of his daughter and a polar bear at the zoo. I’ve pixelated it because I don’t think children should be used as props.
UPDATE: A PDF of all the slide originals presented in Mann’s Rutgers presentation was released by Mann on the Penn State web page here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Misc/HSCW_Rutgers_Sep12.pdf
These were the slides used in a September 2012 presentation at Rutgers, which were the subject of Steve McIntyre’s breakdown of the presentation Mann gave to AGU in December 2012 which he called “Mike’s AGU Trick“. At issue was the staleness of temperature data presented which completely eliminates any hint of “the pause”, as seen below. Mann’s talk in Bristol was the virtually identical set of slides. He hasn’t updated them with anything of significance in 2 years, except for some news headline articles about severe weather events. The data truncated at 2005 has not changed. (h/t to Jean S.)
Excerpt from “Mike’s AGU Trick“:
======================================
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. The staleness of Mann’s temperature data in his AGU presentation was really quite remarkable: the temperature data in Mann’s presentation (December 2012) ended in 2005! Obviously, in the past (notably MBH98 and MBH99), Mann used the most recent (even monthly data) when it was to his advantage. So the failure to use up-to-date data in his AGU presentation is really quite conspicuous.
Had Mann shown a comparison of Hansen’s Scenario B to up-to-date Land-and-Ocean observational data, the discrepancy would have been evident to the AGU audience, as shown in the loop below.
…
Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
Figure ^. Excerpt from Mann’s September 2012 presentation at Rutgers.
As reader ZT pointed out, Mann also used his AGU Trick to hide the divergence in his TEDx talk
here.
======================================
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…
Cream Bourbon.
One more point I would like to add. Yes, I have a problem with the graph, it ignores the medieval warm period, it ignores the fact that Greenland was once green and at the time of the Romans conquering Britain, the climate was also warmer.
If Michael Mann had shown DBStealey’s graph at this lecture, or, if it was widely publicised, do you think that AGW is demonstrably a viable theory?. That is what the debate is about, if this graph is genuine then that is the end of AGW theory, since the planet would have suffered from GW 1/2 a billion years ago and the industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels is a total irrelevance.
@Andrew Harding
How does a graph of CO2 ppm ignore the MWP or show Greenland was once green? Or show temperature? Or show AGW is a demonstrable theory? You seem to have wandered off topic.Or I am beginning to wonder if we are looking at different graphs. 🙂
Your last paragraph – how does that graph show the end of AGW theory? Perhaps the planet did have global warming 1/2 a billion years ago? Perhaps the sun output was not as strong then? How does that make the burning of fossil fuels an irrelevance? You are not quite linking your thought processes together so I can understand what you are trying to say.
If atmospheric CO2 rises and temperature does not also rise, than either there is no causation OR there exists negative feedbacks which effectively undo any causation.
This is what the Mauna Loa CO2 graph and RSS temperature since 1998 graph tells me.
Wow!
A talk about the man from the man himself!
What torture!
Mann will never get it, but at least 97% of everybody else knows that Mann’s Number One enemy is Mann.
I continue to look into the oceanic carbon cycle as a possible source of the changing carbon isotope signature. What most people are not aware of is that there is essentially no difference between plant CO2 and fossil fuel CO2. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. An outgassing ocean that has coughed up an ancient and rich store of carbon and carbon dioxide (from a warm land period that once ended sent it all into the oceans) could explain the changing ratio in captured atmospheric samples. Such a large source such as the oceans would have a decidedly regular nature to its signature as well. Remember, in the past CO2 has been both lower and higher. It would make sense to see echoes of this kind of oscillation. Are we in such a period? Maybe.
Doom and Enemies. Good band name.
CB. What I am trying to say is this:
We have been told that there is a “tipping point”, this is when the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is so high, that GW will increase and become exponential and unstoppable. My point is that this did not happen 570 million years ago when there was 20 times the CO2 in the atmosphere as there is now. As Pamela has pointed out there is no difference between CO2 produced by natural means or CO2 produced by fossil fuels.
Why should the world return to a medieval economy to counter a non-existent threat?
@AndrewHarding
It looks like you do not want to justify your comments about the CO2ppm graph so I will give up on that. You want to talk about something else? OK, for your latest post.
There is an example of GW becoming unstoppable on the planet Venus. I do not think anybody seriously thinks that will happen here and not for a long long time. Venus is an interesting case study.
No, unstoppable GW did not happen 570 million years ago. There was global warming then though. 570 million years ago is a long time and not directly relevant to us in the here and now.
Whether there is a difference in plant CO2 and fossil fuels CO2 is irrelevant. It is how much that is ending up in the atmosphere that is the issue. Wherever it comes from.
You are saying that unstoppable GW is a non-existent threat. What about the existent threat of a very uncomfortable temperature rise? Should that threat be ignored as well?
Cream B says:
It looks like you do not want to justify your comments about the CO2ppm graph so I will give up on that.
Since I posted that graph, if there is anything I can help you with, just ask.
You also say:
There is an example of GW becoming unstoppable on the planet Venus.
You are conflating unrelated things. Mars also has an atmosphere of 95%+ CO2. But Mars is very cold and it has never had a problem with runaway global warming. Proximity to the sun explains the difference in the two plantets’ temperatures. Venus is much closer to the sun than Mars. Think: inverse square law.
Cream Bourbon
I have followed this discussion with interest.
It began when andrewmharding wrote saying in full
That is a clear exposition of the “CO2 ppm graph” Mann presented, what Mann did not present, and the opinion of Andrewmharding concerning those points.
You replied to that saying in full
Your assertion of “how unusual the CO2 rise has been since the start of the industrial revolution” was not justified and it cannot be justified. But your assertion did deflect from Andrew Harding’s overall point that Mann’s presentation was “To me it looks same,same,same; cherry picked data, cherry picked newspaper articles (unbelievable!), graphs and charts to exaggerate and mislead and a finale of nauseating sentimentality.”
dbstealey pointed out the error of your assertion here where he wrote
And he provided a graph of atmospheric CO2 going back millions of years as a method to substantiate his point.
There then followed discussion concerning whether the appropriate time scale should be thousands of years or millions of years. And Pamela Gray entered the discussion to request your understanding of carbon cycle dynamics but you refused to provide that.
The discussion then wandered around considering pointless analogies and arguments about dosages.
And then you wrote a post that included this in response to andrewmharding
The graph was NOT “run of the mill and ordinary”: andrewmharding presented it as an example from a set that – as I quote at the start of this review – he said were “graphs and charts that charlatans use”.
Clearly, you have forgotten what the discussion is about.
More debate ensued before Andrew Harding attempted to bring the discussion back to its subject writing to you and saying in full
Your response says in full
Cream Bourbon, that response takes the biscuit.
You had “wandered off topic”, not him. And his comment was an attempt to return you to it.
And you have followed that with more waffle including asserting to Andrew Harding
From the start he was talking about “something else” which was that Mann’s presentation seemed to consist of “cherry picked data, cherry picked newspaper articles (unbelievable!), graphs and charts to exaggerate and mislead and a finale of nauseating sentimentality”.
YOU deflected it onto his illustration as being a substantive point which it never was.
As an observer, it seems to me that Andrew Harding made a strong but correct comment on Mann’s chartmanship, and the entire subsequent discussion has been because you have been attempting to deflect from the truth of that comment.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Thank you for showing an interest in my discussion and your long post to illustrate. However I think you fell at the first hurdle which made the rest rather redundant. You appear to be following the same mistake as others of trying to widen what I said into something you could argue with.
I was just making the simple point that Mann’s graph was not dramatic and if it was extended to the last few thousand years it would look more dramatic. Nobody has addressed that simple point except for you, peripherally, who tried to dismiss it with “Your assertion of “how unusual the CO2 rise has been since the start of the industrial revolution” was not justified and it cannot be justified.”.if you had joined the discussion earlier we could perhaps have discussed that. (I do not think it is particularly controversial to say that CO2 levels have gone up since the industrial revolution.)
The rest of your points seem irrelevant because you seem to be telling me what I should have been discussing. A bit like everyone else who joined the discussion.
I just contend that a graph of Mauna Loa CO2 rise is not dramatic or controversial. And I would have thought even you would accept that.
Cream Bourbon
You say to me
NO! Dear me, NO!
I and others point out that you attempted – with some success – to deflect from the critique by Andrew Harding of Mann’s presentation. Your deflection used the red herring of discussing the CO2 graph Harding mentioned as illustration.
And your “simple point that Mann’s graph was not dramatic and if it was extended to the last few thousand years it would look more dramatic” may – or may not – be true, but so what? Mann’s graph was – as Harding said – a misleading cherry pick, and dbstealey proved that it was a misleading cherry pick by posting a graph with longer time scale.
Nobody disputes that “CO2 levels have gone up since the industrial revolution”. At issue is why, how and to what effect. Pamela Gray and Andrew Harding each attempted to get you to address those matters but you refused.
In summation, your reply to me supports my conclusion; viz.
Richard
@dbstealey
No, you misunderstand. I am talking about the Mann graph which is the primary point of the discussion.
Sigh.
@dbstealey
And how does that mean I conflated unrelated things? (Hint: It doesn’t.)
Do you always take what people say and project them into what you wanted them to say? Try following what I am saying; not what you imagine I am saying.
Re-sigh.
Cream Bourbon
I have a post stuck in moderation which concludes saying to you of this discussion
Richard
@Cream Bourbon:
Now you’re talking to yourself. But keep sighing, and re-sighing; it adds beneficial, harmless CO2 to the atmosphere. That is entirely a good thing.
But it doesn’t do anything else. Except show that you have no credible argument to make.
@richardscourtney
Just saying it all again does not make your points any more valid. You are still falling into the error of trying to widen what I said to something of your making that you would like to dispute. To wit, there is absolutely no justification for you saying I tried to “deflect” from Andrew’s critique. I picked a point he made and commented on it. No more, no less.
So, thank you for your interest but I think I will draw a line under this discussion.
Cream Bourbon
You having twice failed to answer my point concerning your use of a red herring you say to me
I suspect there will be no expressions of surprise.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Perhaps you could count up how many times my point was not answered or addressed? And how many times people tried to deflect from what I was saying into other areas?
Though you obviously still do not accept what I said I will say it one more time. The red herring and the “deflection” are your creation. You are making a sort of strawman argument I think. I initially made one clear point. No more, no less. No tricks. No conspiratorial deflection. No-one appeared to be able to handle it.
So thank you for your interest. I will draw a meta-line under this discussion.
Cream Bourbon
You are trolling.
I take exception to your saying to me
NO! How dare you!
I took the trouble to summarise the entire discussion.
I quoted the original post of Andrew Harding in full.
And I explained with specific quotes how you had used a ‘red herring’ to deflect from his argument.
When Andrew Harding attempted to bring you back to his point you claimed he was off-topic!
He has again returned and iterated his point WHICH YOU ARE TRYING TO OBFUSCATE.
You presented nothing that people appeared unable to handle. You did not make a “clear point” and when Pamela Gray tried to get you to detail your argument YOU refused.
And now you accuse me of creating YOUR red herring and deflection. That is trolling.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Oh, tone down the faux outrage.
To make my point once again in a slightly different way. You said “I quoted the original post of Andrew Harding in full.”
Exactly. You widened the scope of what I was saying so you could drag in other strawman points. I made a point about one detail of Andrew’s post and that was all.
You did take the trouble to summarise the entire discussion and potentially that was a good idea. You spoilt it with a partisan analysis and adding many extras to support your rather biased conclusions.
Cream Bourbon
You must be new here. You write
Most here know my outrage at trolling is very real, and I have repeatedly been given ‘time outs’ because of my disdain for trolls.
Be assured there is nothing “faux” about my outrage at your trolling.
And the worst kind of trolling is to provide falsehoods instead of answering a point, as you do when you write saying to me
There was nothing “partisan”, and I did NOT add any “extras” which is why you cite none.
At first I was mistaken into thinking you were a prejudiced advocate trying to distort the point made by Andrew Harding. It is now clear that I was wrong about that: you are simply a troll attempting to disrupt the thread by any means.
Richard
@Courtney
…
You write, ” you are simply a troll ”
…
Name calling is a clear example of ad-hominem.
…
I point this out to you as you requested me to do so when you posted……..
.
“Well, that is a daft assertion when you cannot cite an example of either Lord Monckton or me having made an ad hominem.”
Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-latest-hand-wringing-myth-buster-video-roundly-debunked/#comment-1749570
beckleybud@gmail.com
You at last get something right when you say
Yes, it is, and that is why I don’t do it.
I said – and explained – that Cream Bourbon is trolling because he is a troll. That is not name calling.
Similarly, it is not name calling to say our host has difficulty hearing because he is hearing impaired.
Please accept Oldberg’s invitation for the two of you to leave for some other blog.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Oh, OK. Tone down the outrage then.
Yes I am new here. Or newish.
Of course it was partisan. And you did add extras. Try reading and understanding the point I keep hammering at you. You quoted the full Andrew Harding quote. There! You have added an extra! You have widened the scope of what I posted. On that base you dragged in lots of other things. They were extras!!!!
And where am I trying to disrupt the thread? I have been trying to keep the discussion narrow and focused. You on the other hand appear to be trying to stoke up the temperature,
“I don’t do it”
…
In your post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/#comment-1749705
…
You wrote: ” you are simply a troll ”
…
That is a clear case of ad-hominem
..
You write “That is not name calling”
…
Yes it is name calling. You called him/her a “troll”
..
Please stop using ad-hominem.
Cream Bourbon
In response to my objection to your trolling you have added more trolling.
You write
NO! I ADDED NOTHING!
You attempted to take one point out of its context and to hammer that extracted point.
I added nothing. You deleted almost everything.
It is a lie that I “have widened the scope of what [you] posted”.
You attempted to forbid discussion of most of the post from Andrew Harding which you claimed to be discussing. But you were not discussing it. You were picking one small nit in that post as a method to obscure the critique of Mann’s presentation which was that post!
Your assertion that you have been “trying to keep the discussion narrow and focused” is true. Your tactic for disrupting the thread has been to be very narrow and very focused on a side-issue. And then you claim it is “added an extra” to mention what you have deleted!
If I can “stoke up” anger at your trolling then that would be good.
Richard
beckleybud@gmail.com
Your assertion that I name called is either idiocy or trolling. In either case it is offensive: stop it.
Richard
@Courtney
You wrote: ” you are simply a troll ” in this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-latest-hand-wringing-myth-buster-video-roundly-debunked/#comment-1749570
…
You write “Your assertion that I name called is either idiocy or trolling.”
…
Your own post demonstrates you calling Cream Bourbon a name.
…
Your own comment stands for all to see.
beckleybud@gmail.com
I repeat,
Your assertion that I name called is either idiocy or trolling. In either case it is offensive: stop it.
Richard
You can repeat all you want.
..
You posted ” you are simply a troll ” in your comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-latest-hand-wringing-myth-buster-video-roundly-debunked/#comment-1749570
..
That is a clear example of you calling Cream Bourbon a “troll”
..
And even you admitted that name calling is an ad-hominem
beckleybud@gmail.com
You persist in proclaiming the falsehood that I name called. I did not.
What I wrote at September 29, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Clearly, either
1
You cannot understand plain English
2
You are an idiot
3
You are a troll
4
Some combination of 1 to 3.
Which is it?
I would appreciate an answer to the question before you leave for some other blog unless, of course, that delays your leaving.
Richard
You now post even more examples of using your ad-hominem technique.
..
You posted ” that is why I don’t do it. ”
(reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/#comment-1749740 )
..
Now you post
“2 You are an idiot
3 You are a troll”
..
(reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/#comment-1749830 )
…
More clear examples of your use of name calling.
..
Please stop using ad-hominems.
..
beckleybud@gmail.com
I see you are still pretending you are too thick to understand what ad hominem is. I don’t ‘buy’ your pretense.
I said I could only think of 4 possible explanations for your untrue assertion that I was name calling by exposing the trolling of Cream Bourbon, and I asked which is true. You don’t answer the question and don’t provide any alternative explanation.
As I said, I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.
Richard
Dear Mr. Courtney.
…
Here is an example of an “ad-hominem”
..
” You are an idiot ”
…
It is taken from this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/#comment-1749830
..
Here is another example: ” you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.”
..
(reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/#comment-1749851 )
…
If this continues, I’m sure I’ll be able to point out more examples of ad-hominems for you.
beckleybud@gmail.com
I have made no ad homs.
Your assertions are all falsehoods.
For example, I wrote
but you claim I wrote
I deny the statement that you claim I made and I deny that I made it.
I repeat, I have made no ad hominem.
And I repeat, I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.
Richard
Mr Courtney,
..
If you examine the statement, “As I said, I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be”
..
You will notice it contains the following, “you are as stupid as you are pretending to be”
…
These are your own words.
…
Now please address the “You are an idiot” statement that you made. I need to understand how you can dismiss that as not being an ad-hominem.
…
Could you also do the same for “You are a troll?”
@beckleybud
To accuse someone of trolling is name calling. You are justified in pointing it out.
@beckleybud
And calling someone an idiot is name calling. I wonder what the denial will be?
Cream Bourbon
That is a good attempt at an excuse for your trolling. And it encourages beckleybud in his trolling.
But it doesn’t work. Everybody can now see that all your excuses for your behaviour are without merit.
Richard
This type of behavior from Mr. Courtney is nothing new.
@beckleybud
And who on earth is Oldberg? Anyway I am out of here. So Oldberg, whoever you are, I accept your invitation.
Goodbye
beckleybud@gmail.com
Please explain why you are pretending to be so very, very stupid.
Richard
Why do you consider my pointing to your use of ad-hominem as “stupid?”
…
Calling people “trolls” calling them “idiots” and calling the “stupid” is quite offensive. You have done that, and you either need to explain why you use offensive tactics, or you need to apologize.
beckleybud@gmail.com
OK, so you refuse to say why you are ;pretending to be so incredibly stupid.
Perhaps you will apologise for your trolling?
And are you another creation of that loony who tried to “mess with the head” of our host. I think Appell was his name. Anyway, you are remarkably similar to his Chuck creation.
Richard
No need for me to apologize for anything. I have been polite, and have not called you names. You are the one that has been calling people names..
Cream Bourbon.
I have followed this thread with interest now that I am back home from work.
Let us forget about the graph for just one minute, the important point I was trying to make is this: Whatever happened 570 million years ago is not irrelevant today.All the AGW supporters for years have been telling us that we are close to this tipping point that means GW is irreversible and will become a positive feedback mechanism causing a runaway effect, which is unstoppable, this is what we have been told on numerous occasions and we must act NOW!
If CO2 was 20 times higher and life continued to exist and evolve, the obviously this is yet another lie we have been told (the other one is that the Earth is getting warmer, which clearly it isn’t).
You need to see that AGW is not science, it is a belief, almost a religion, this is why no-one who supports it can argue logically for it, anymore than a priest can argue logically that there is a God, or for that matter a scientist that can argue that there isn’t a God.
@Andrew Harding
Thanks for a clear statement Andrew that resets the discussion. I have to say that I have had enough of this forum and want to withdraw but out of courtesy to you I will reply to this post.
Naturally, as you probably surmised, I disagree with some of your points.
I do not think that what happened 570 million years ago is irrelevant to today. Just it is limited what we can infer and how it applies to today.
I think you are rather OTT to say all AGW people have been saying GW is irreversible and will lead to a runaway effect. I do not know anyone who thinks that. When what had happened to Venus was understood it was a shocking idea. Naturally people wondered if it could happen on earth but that is not a central point. I think what AGW people argue is that we need to act now because otherwise the temperature rise may be too much for humans or at least uncomfortable.
Yes, life would continue to exist and evolve. After all there is life that survives at very high temperatures. But we might not survive with it if the temperature rise is too much. So I do not see a lie there.
I will not try to argue whether the earth is getting warmer or not. I just question your certainty that it is not warming. That certainty and your next point indicate that you havie more of a religious belief than many others. I would never say to you “you need to see” for instance.
I can most certainly argue logically for AGW. I can also argue logically against it. Along with that I can evaluate the strength of those arguments. I leave you to guess where I think the balance of the argument is.
So, thanks. I am still puzzled why you took exception to a boring graph! 🙂
Cream Bourbon says:
I think you are rather OTT to say all AGW people have been saying GW is irreversible and will lead to a runaway effect. I do not know anyone who thinks that.
But the fact is that the endless predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe were almost universal in the late 1990’s – early 2000’s. That is what still drives the “carbon” scare.
But now the alarmist clique has been doing a slow climbdown. What else can they do, when Planet Earth herself is showing everyone that the global warming scare was nonsense?
Contrary to your belief, there is no scientific evidence proving that AGW exists. [‘Evidence’ consists of raw data, and/or verifiable observations; evidence is not pal reviewed papers, or computer climate models, or repeatedly ‘adjusted’ data that has no traceability to the original data.]
I personally think that AGW exists, but that its effect is so minor that it can be completely disregarded for policy making. But if that is the case, then there is no climate alarm. In fact, a little bit more global warming would be entirely beneficial.
However, if that view was accepted, there would be no justification for wasting any more money on the global warming scare — and the alarmist crowd would be forced to admit that they were wrong all along, just as Planet Earth is now telling them. Their egos won’t allow that, of course. So the argument is never-ending, as you yourself demonstrate, even though there is not the slightest hint of any problem from global warming.
@dbstealey
You say “Except show that you have no credible argument to make.”.
The only argument I had tried to make was that Mann’s graph (CO2ppm) would have been more dramatic if he had shown it for the last few thousand years. That is a perfectly credible argument to make. Though subject to value criteria on what constitutes dramatic,
@dbstealey
You say “Contrary to your belief, there is no scientific evidence proving that AGW exists. “.
I do not think I expressed any belief in this thread. Strange how much people here ascribe words I have not made. Every statement I have made is in the 3rd person or just making an unbiased point. e.g “AGW people think that …”
Whereas you profess your personal beliefs with no holding back. “I personally think …”.
Cream Bourbon
You say to dbstealey
Rubbish!
For example, at September 28, 2014 at 3:37 am you wrote
As dbstealey showed in reply to that “the CO2 rise has …. since the start of the industrial revolution” has NOT been “unusual”.
Your untrue assertion was clearly either a falsehood or a belief because you refused to withdraw it but kept repeating it.
Do you really want to say you don’t believe that falsehood which you have promoted so strongly?
Richard
@”Cream Bourbon”:
You say:
The only argument I had tried to make was that Mann’s graph (CO2ppm) would have been more dramatic if he had shown it for the last few thousand years.
That’s your only argument?
OK, fine. So you don’t object to my other points. Here is the scariest CO2 chart I could find:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif
Contrast that frightful chart with this. Notice that global warming has stopped.
That is solid proof that the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 does not have the effect claimed by the global warming cult.
Any questions?
@dbstealey
Thanks for making the graph and illustrating my (one and only) point so well. That is a lot more dramatic graph than Mann’s bog standard Mauna Loa CO2ppm rise.
At last someone has actually addressed my point! Not so difficult was it?
You have a valid point. CO2 has gone up due to human emissions.
This is where we diverge:
CO2 has risen from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000. The scale of that graph makes that rise look scary. If you want to be scared, use the graph. If you want to look at the situation rationally, look at the ppm rise.
CO2 is a harmless trace gas. There has never been any global harm identified as a result of it’s rise. It has been almost 20X higher in the past, with no harm resulting. As the graph I posted upthread shows, we are at the very low end of CO2 concentration.
CO2 benefits the biosphere. More is better, at current and projected amounts.
CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. It may cause some minor warming, but all of the significant warming has already taken place. Even raising CO2 another 200 – 300 ppm will not cause any noticeable global warming. This is why.
The carbon scare is built around demonizing a harmless trace gas. This is being done, as usual, for money and power. The public can easily be frightened. In this case, there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is any problem at all.
I can support every fact here with plenty of evidence, if you like. But if you accept these facts, why would you go along with the global warming scare? The people doing it have self serving reasons, which are not the reasons they give publicly.
CAGW — and AGW — are propaganda. They use a thin veneer of science to try and make scare them. Sites like this tell the truth. There is nothing to worry about WRT the rise in a harmless and beneficial trace gas. Things like Agenda 21 and a new carbon tax are the real concern.
@dbstealey
Yes, at that point we diverge. Probably best to leave it there. 🙂
Anthony, many thanks for being there and filming the presentation.
If this is the best Mann can do to present his case it gives new meaning to ‘Death By Powerpoint’.
It was all so very last century, tedious and amateur.
If Mann is supposed to be a Keynote speaker, why doesn’t he use it?
I just looked at the post’s UPDATES.
It seems like Mann’s presentations have been geared to making the point, “SEE! I used to right … sort of … from a certain point of view.”