Cabot Institute, Bristol University releases Mann Video

Eric Worrall writes: mannatcabotThe Cabot Institute, University of Bristol has published a full video of Michael Mann’s presentation in Bristol, which Anthony Attended.

I haven’t had a chance to watch the entire presentation yet, but the opening scene shows picture of cooling towers emitting steam – CO2 is transparent to visible light, so it’s a little more difficult to photograph.

Advertisements

125 thoughts on “Cabot Institute, Bristol University releases Mann Video

  1. I am astonished that Anthony could sit through the whole thing….I had to stop after only a few minutes…to vomit.

    • I found the video to be quite educational. However, it stressed me to see Dr. Mann was missing resources to update the graph in which he showed Dr. Hansen´s old prediction versus actuals. I used an average of all data sets and plotted the data on Dr. Mann´s plot, and it definitely look nicer (I hate to see data cut off). Here, take a look

      http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/screen-shot-mann-at-cabot-with.html

      The other issue which stressed me a lot was my inability to understand the concentration pathways used by Dr. Hansen. If anybody knows what Hansen used and tells us he used green house gas concentrations similar to what we see today I would be enormously relieved from my paranoid delusions (that Mann may be showing the wrong model results because he was too busy to prepare the right slides for the talk).

      • Fernando, your excellentgraph might be a good resource for the Steyn legal team in their defense of the defamation suit by MM (or Mr “Fraudpants” as labled by Mark Steyn).

      • Great graph. That Michael Mann is a piece of work.

        The graph is intended to illustrate the prescience of James Hansen’s 1988 warming prediction, and how does Mann do that? He shows an essentially linear rising “prediction” curve running from 1960 to 2020, and over that “prediction” plots the observed temperatures from 1960 to 2005, which are shown to be a reasonably good match.

        10 seconds inspection shows how hollow that comparison is. Hansen gets no points for the 1960 to 1988 part since he had the needed results in front of him. He also gets no points for a confirmed prediction from 2014 to 2020, since we don’t yet know how that’s going to turn out. Consequently the only relative portion of this 60 graph is the 26 years from 1988 to 2014.

        Hansen’s extrapolation worked for the 10 years from 1988 to 1998, but since then, there has of course been a divergence. To minimize the obviousness of that divergence, and with no justification whatsoever, Mann truncates the observed data in 2005 (Hides The Decline).

        This graph shows Michael Mann has learned nothing from his serial public embarrassments. He is still deluding himself, and somehow expecting the rest of us to participate in that delusion.

      • George. The graph I prepared was really hand drawn (I used the Powerpoint free sketch curve). For a legal case the graph would have to be prepared properly. When I did it I wanted to see just how fast it could be done because (it seemed to me Mann was lazy by not extending the graph). Then I saw there was a large difference…the data he failed to show would indeed weaken his case.

        Tyoke, as I pointed out there´s an unresolved question: the green house gas concentrations used by Hansen for that particular case. I suspect Hansen may not have visualized China´s incredible growth burst and the associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand maybe he just extrapolated concentration trends, and overshot methane concentration. I´m trying to see if I can find Hansen´s input data. If the concentrations don´t match within reason then the whole comparison is vaporware.

  2. Well, An-thony…..

    Here’s what we truth-in-science people think of the fake “Clouds of Carbon” photo trick….. double down! Yeah!

    HERE’S SOME REAL CARBON FOR YA! :)

    Go, internal combustion engine!

    Good for our souls and GREAT for plants — fossil fuel rocks!

    God bless America!

    #(:))

    (love that blockquote! thanks again, An-thony! :)

  3. No one else commented, An-thony, because the sight of The Smirk made them so ill they can’t type…. shudder…. ghastly….

  4. Couldn’t stand to watch Michael’s video, but I sure watched the Camaro burnout, woo hoo them good-ole boys were drinkin’ whisky and wine :)

    • I think Don (McLean) wrote “whiskey and rye” not “whiskey and wine” – the good-ole boys I knew were not big on wine… Otherwise I share your enthusiasm.

  5. Technically, what we see coming from cooling towers is water vapour, Steam is also an odourless, colourless gas I do believe.

    This “scare the kiddies” parlour trick is a very dated cheap shot that no one with a modicum of intelligence would buy.
    But those folk are not MM’s target audience are they?

    • I thought it ws the other way around. Water vapour is the gas. When it condenses it forms clouds or steam. Wikipedia seems to agree. Bur what does Wikipedia know?

      • From my high school chemistry class steam is molecular H2O (and is therefor a gas) and is invisible. Water vapor is droplets of water, it forms clouds and is what is discharging from MM’s cooling towers.

      • Wikipedia wrong again? Who knew? Steam is odourless and colourless and highly dangerous in the wrong hands. What you see is condensed water.

    • But isn’t water vapor also on the “list of evil things that will cause thermageddon”? I forget if the water vapor left high up in the air by airplanes is supposed to be good or bad, but apparently it is a good thing if they sometimes fly longer (alternatively: flying to climate conferences is good, everything else is evil). Bottom line: If we don’t do exactly what the cult of co2ists tells us, then we are all doomed! (And as one former acquintance kept telling me: There’s no downside to doing what they want! All hail the big overlords of climate!)

      • Water Vapour is nothing but the gaseous phase of water. As such its clear and cannot be seen. If conditions
        such as temperature change then atmospheric water vapour can enter the liquid phase and clouds suddenly appear to pop up out of nowhere. The same phenomenom causes water vapour to be visible when people breathe out in cold weather and explains why spectacles ‘steam up’ when you walk into a warm room on a cold day.

        Steam is a mixed phase flow produced by heating water above its boiling point. If you want to remove all the suspended water droplets and ensure its a pure gas you heat it further until you get dry steam where all the water is present in the vapour phase. If you heat it beyond that point you have superheated steam.

        What you see issuing from cooling towers, in clouds or the spout of a kettle are liquid droplets of water condensed from the water vapour. They are in effect artifical clouds.

        The role of water vapour in the climate is complex because of these properties. In the vapour phase water is a powerful greenhouse gas and thus increases surface temperature but in the liquid phase as clouds it reduces solar input and acts to cool the climate. To predict at any point in time and space the phase in which the water exists and hence its thermal properties is complex and current climate models are incapable of making the fine grained solution required.

      • Water vapor (indicated only by rings around the sun) in the atmosphere can be a significant block to incoming solar shortwave radiation (up to a drop of 100 watts/m^2) at the surface. Clouds can block almost all shortwave radiation from reaching the surface depending on their thickness. With enough sw blockage, lw blockage by CO2 becomes much less significant. Neither of these very dynamic and often fleeting sw phenomenon are well cataloged in my estimation.

        Bernie

    • It really depends on what the kiddies are being taught. In Australia I don’t think they are being taught anything resembling science. The problem is the leftist teachers are ignorant too.

    • When I was in fifth grade, we had to write a description of the water cycle. In the interest of cutting down the amount of writing I had to perform, I substituted ‘steam’ for ‘water vapor’ throughout my essay. My teacher, Mrs. Schanbacher, politely but firmly explained to me the difference between water vapor and steam before making me re-write my description. So, yeah… that particular distinction is pretty well burned into my brain.

    • We don’t have a commonly-used term for artificial clouds, which are commonly formed by condensing water vapor near steam.

  6. It must be late. I clicked on the advertisement instead of the Mann video, and learned the advantages of McDonalds flash-freezing their burgers.

    Actually, I think I’ll watch that again then off to bed…

    • Flash freezing used to be done with liquid CO2 (from my Liquid Carbonic days), but I understand now liquid N2 is used. Because irrational fears perhaps.

  7. 4 minutes into the video and he raises so many unsubstantiated assumptions straw-man arguments, e.g. solar output, it’s unbelievable! The so-called 200-year old physics has recently been demonstrated ‘unequivocally’ to be wrong. Hanson’s prediction could have been done by a child who understood we’re still coming out of a mini ice-age, so of course temperatures are going to rise over the long term. What he has NEVER demonstrated is that CO2 controls the temperature. Never has and never will. His temperature projections are pure fantasy, and it’s Mann & Hansen that are on a different planet. 4-5 degC rise if BAU?? Pure fiction!

    IPCC, conservative? Not!! However, the IPCC technical reports have a very low confidence in human caused warming. Only the SPM says there’s high confidence in contradiction to the reports. Further, models are NOT evidence. Mann is just SO confused!

    Grrrrr….

  8. Sorry, no time for Mann. More useful things to do. I’ve got some lint to pick out of my navel, then rearrange my sock drawer.

  9. At 2:14 I had to stop watching. What he has learned from history is… nothing, really. He appears to be quite proud of a scientific faux pas of his own making that wipes the MWP and LIA from the scientific record. Only he could be. I also think he does not fully, maybe not even partially understand why he became the comic relief centerpiece in the climate debate he is. His entire life’s work is a retrograde of the progress we’ve made prior to his emergence onto the stage of climate comedy. What an awful thing it must be to be him. Obviously I can’t say enough nice things about him and his work so I’ll stop trying.

  10. Dissemination of information is always good. However, personally, I cannot stomach this sort of nonsense and cannot stand watching it. If I want to hear Michael Mann talking, there is no shortage of examples. However they are all distasteful nonsense and I think that I will continue to avoid them.

  11. I listened to the whole thing. But I couldn’t watch it. It’s one thing to listen to the “hand waving” argumentation but quite another to watch it when he’s wearing a suit coat with sleeves that almost cover his hands. He must have left his own clothes at home and had to borrow a jacket from a man a foot taller than himself. Also he must have left the current graphs home and had to borrow some old ones that didn’t show the “pause”. Imagine highlighting the flood in the U.K. as evidence of your thesis. He’s got nothin’ and he must know it. Poor guy. His theory doesn’t fit reality any better than his arms fit his coat. And don’t forget the polar bears folks, because they’re real cute. You like to end a lecture strong, and, for him, the strong point is a polar bear. You can’t make this stuff up.

  12. I’m stunned that this presentation could pass as a scientific display.

    Here’s a graph, and here are some pictures of people, and here is a red thermometer, and I don’t want to bore you with the details, but here is a quote and ‘unequivocal’ is a sciency word, and look at this bear, and here is a parade of people I don’t like, the end.

    • Yes it did seem rather trivial , which is surprising because if you Wiki him you find a remarkable resume of his achievements and academic awards . Some of the papers quoted there , from what one can extract without access to subscription material, appear to have been researched in great detail. Frankly I was very impressed and therefore surprised by the thinness of the Cabot presentation.

    • Agree, and it is (almost) the exact same talk he has presented many times before now. Here is an example from more than one year ago (2013 TAM-conference, James Randi Foundation).

  13. The James Randi Educational Foundation has also recently released its video of Mann’s talk, this one from July, 2013.

    In it he says that the “pause” in warming is not real, it’s just a deception made up by Deniers.

    He also uses the graph from Marcott et al to ‘substantiate’ his hockey stick – a claim that even the authors of the paper disavow (not statistically significant).

    Caught red-handed in two major deceptions.

    http://web.randi.org/swift/michael-mann-the-climate-change-wars-tam-2013

    • “Caught red-handed in two major deceptions.”

      But only caught by the informed, the astute and the educated. They are not the mass Target Market he is addressing. His targets are those that – like Gore – constitute the majority that get their information from people like them without question. Good marketing strategy goes for the numbers. And these guys are brilliant marketing strategists.

    • He might have training in math and physics, but I’d say his true background it pretty clearly in activism.

  14. Michael Mann. The gift that keeps on giving. Many folks I know, plus myself look to Michael plus on occasion a small dose of Steyn as our comic relief for the day. I hope he knows that.

  15. I stayed the video course because its the first time I’ve heard a Nobel Laureate speak. The Mann is a stranger to reality. He also got it backwards. Climate science is being used to verify and support the political agenda. (When does his next case come to trial?)

      • Unfortunately, the Swedish Riksbank’s price in honour of the memory of Alfred Nobel is not a real Nobel price.

        However, Friedman did indeed receive it, and he is/was an excellent lecturer too (in addition to a brilliant mind). And he dared to debate his adversaries too …

        For instance another lefty loon named Michael M.

        Watch and enjoy MIchael Moore!

      • I agree. Dr. Friedman would be a most worthy choice. And, of course, I was being facetious with my reference to someone like Mann claiming to have been awarded The Prize. That was absolutely the worst, most flawed and frustrating speech I can remember EVER listening to. +5C by 2100? Its unpleasant to snort one’s iced tea – but being forced to snort hot coffee HURTS!

  16. On the top image it says that Mann is a “Distinguished Professor of Meteorology”. Shouldn’t he be teaching physics, math and geology?

    Bio
    Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. His research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system.
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/index.php
    =============
    http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/

    • On the top image it says that Mann is a “Distinguished Professor of Meteorology”. Shouldn’t he be teaching physics, math and geology?

      Nope, he should be taught physics, math, statistics, geology, biology and biochemistry.

      • Especially statistics as Wegman at the senate committee said he wasn’t very good at that as he ended up with a hockey stick.

    • Oh, JT, here it is (found it in an obscure place…heh heh):

      Mann: … happy to field questions.

      College student visiting from Hamburg: Dr. Murry Salby’s work with ice core proxies says that rises in net CO2 lag behind temperature increases by a quarter cycle. Would you please explain this?

      Mann {glancing at wristwatch}: Would you look at the time?! Gotta go! Thank you. You’ve been a wonderful audience! {runs from the stage}

      The End.
      ******************************

      Chronic liars are always cowards.

  17. At 22.31 he shows the UK wet winter.
    Drivers and impacts of seasonal weather in the UK – Met Office
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/…/Drivers_and_impacts_of_seasonal_weather_in...
    14 Mar 2014 – extremes of weather may be affected in the future by climate change?

    “As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the
    recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the
    highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  18. Dr. Mann is the poster boy for modern science. From big pharma backed medical studies to climate models we see con-men spewing propaganda and outlandish stories. It is a testimony to the ignorance of the modern age that anyone such as “Dr.” Mann could become rich and famous spewing the falsehoods that he is famous for.

    And he did “hide the decline” even if the parody video was taken down.

  19. This is so sad.
    Mann is the patsy, a nobody who was elevated and positioned to carry the message forward.
    He’s not the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Science…he’s the Lee Harvey Oswald of Climate Science.

    • Very well said, but may I start from your premise and develop it just a bit more? I would argue that Mann was the Jack Ruby of global warming.

      Whereas Hanson, Holdren et al represent Oswald, in that they actively worked to kill rational climate science, Mann swept in afterwards to “clean up” the untidy inconsistencies of their predictions and the inconveniences of climate history.

      • One argument would be that the “second gun” argument was a straw-man intended to confuse the general public, misdirect attention, and obscure the audacity of the original “assassination” and the subsequent “cleanup” by co-conspirateurs. In this case the Koch Bros might be accused of being the “second guns” .

  20. On the poster: “global uncertainty”.

    Sure. Because climate, and everything were so “certain” until Man came along.

    • No – it was never certain and that is how they operate. To the uninformed public they project certainty. But to the informed (those not on the payroll,) they hide behind an imprecise and complex science to say: ‘catch me out if you can’.

      They were not prepared for the likes of WUWT, The Galileo Movement, Jo Nova and many others that are now catching them out – big time.

  21. After this object lesson from the learned professor, I trust no one reading will indulge in the narrative fallacy, the witch doctor’s tool.

    What is it, one may ask? Squeezing explanation from a mere sequence of facts, that are points on an epistemological map of fractally complex reality, without even looking for intervening contradictions.

  22. Mikey fashions himself as a “reluctant” warrior in the Climate Wars, and as a “victim”. His “poor me” facade is just cover for his passive aggression, though. The truth is he loves being in the limelight, viewing himself as a hero for the Cause. The lies he tells have become part of him now, and are part of his pathology.
    There is either a jail cell waiting for him or a strait jacket, hard to say which.

    • Or …., if he is the “Magic Mathematician” as someone else was the “Magic Negro,” all that pathological l–yi-1ing will get him a seat behind the desk in the Oval Office… .

  23. Sorry, this is perhaps adhominem and gratuitis but Mann in full frontal has a face like a weasel.

    It’s just that it is compelling that someone who acts like weasel has a weasel face.

    • That reminded me of a famous Abraham Lincoln quote (from memory, only, here):

      Lincoln: No, don’t hire him. I don’t like his face.
      Aide: His face?!
      Lincoln: Before age 45, you can’t help your demeanor… after 45,

      the face is the man.

  24. “… but the opening scene shows picture of cooling towers emitting steam…”

    Why is it that the supporters of CAGW continuously must use deceptions, half-truths, and out-right false information to support their belief?

    Ah, I got the answer from a scorpion: “it is their nature”.

  25. He says “What I wouldn’t be able to explain to you as a scientist would be if the earth were not warming up as a result of that” (increased CO2). He can’t explain the 18-year “Pause” in warming, so he acts as if it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t fit with his narrative. Typical.

  26. Bristol University, THE “Centre of Excrement in Climate Science”

    Was he over there interviewing for a job ?

    • Can you imagine Mann and the king of pop-psychologist at the same place , would the mass of those combined ego’s create its own black whole sucking all light and logical thought form the climate ‘science’ universe or have we already gone past that event horizon ?

  27. Wow. I’ve never actually watched him on Video. I’m a EE/Radio Frequency engineer by trade. I consider Joseph Fourier to be one of my heroes. To see this guy show a slide of him in this context makes me feel ill. Seems like Mann has figured out that he can fool some of the people some of the time, and get paid for it. I’ve worked with guys like this in the past. To quote a line from my favorite song writer, from Austin, TX, Bob Schneider, “That guy’s a dickhead. And anyone can tell”. That’s all I’ll say.

  28. I wonder how many times I’ve seen the same talk by Mann?

    I just looked through both this one and his talk at TAM – The Amazing Meeting hosted by the James Randi Foundation.

    And it is (almost) the exact same talk! The slides are the same, talking points are the same, the frases, the pauses for effect and even the little jokes (eg about Sarah Palin) to make the (mostly sympathetic, lefty, CAGW-leaning) audience snicker.

    But there is absolutely nothing new in there. And all the glaring errors and the poor logic he repeats as if it were the pinnacle of wisdom. And by know he knows that he’ll get flak for still only showing temperatures up to 2005, at the very same passage where i accuses skeptics to cherrypick the 1998-year as starting point for the pause.

  29. It’s 2014. Mann’s “Hansen was right, ergo models are right, ergo I am right” charts stop in 2005, leaving off an inconvenient decade.Incredible. Somebody should have shouted out.

  30. The guy (MM) is now moving towards the AGW that actually now means not a climatic atmospheric warming but a planetary whole earth’s and globe’s warming….funny and in the same time silly… especially while climate and atmosphere show significant signs of cooling at the moment.

    cheers

  31. The best point he made as far as I can tell is while actually he claims to be so good scientifically to
    foresee-predicti climate’s and whole earth and glob’s future but he could not even see or foresee where his own so called scientific sh.t-crap would have landed him…..even “petty” does not cut it anymore…very fishy.
    Actually makes me very curious about the diet he is on.

    cheers

  32. Whine, Whine, Whine! Just as Sir John Houghton whined himself silly about push back from the skeptics (__In the Eye of the Storm: The Autobiography of Sir John Houghton__), here’s Mikey “Bogus Hockey Stick” Mann taking his turn. Climate Change whining doesn’t get any better than this…

  33. Mann really gets in to politics, he spends lots of time trying to discredit skeptics, that tells me he is not a scientist, but a politico.

  34. Oh and BTW he said that CO2 is “getting in to the ocean and causing heating” – did I hear him right?

  35. I wish it included the Q/A part.
    I watched parts of it. He’d state the obvious then give it the “We’re All Going To Die Unless…” twist.
    And, of course, the paranoid “Everybody’s Out To Get Me” twist. (If there’s nothing to hide, why hide it? How incriminating can data be?)
    At least in the parts watched.
    But I did like the pans of the audience when I realized that some of those faces are the faces of those who frequent here.

  36. Michael Mann and others with strong backgrounds in physics, math( and other fields) that cling to a view, despite compelling evidence that, at the very least suggests that you adjust the view, are examples of how cognitive bias, ego and agenda can be so powerful as to overtake a persons ability to see obvious contradictions to their belief system.

    This is a condition existing in the psyche of almost all humans which creates a barrier to learning.

    When you don’t know something, it’s easy to learn it. Once you think you know something, even if it’s wrong, it’s extraordinarily difficult to reject what you now think you know in order to accept new information that contradicts what you think you know.

    The longer you think you know something and the more you have invested(on the line) based on this belief system, the harder it is to see evidence that it’s wrong. In fact, a typical response to contradictory evidence is to seek out additional evidence that confirms what you think you know, which only strengthens your initial belief.

    This is consistent with the way almost all human beings think because we grow up conditioned to accept information based on subjective experiences and realities.

    However, this is the opposite of the scientific method.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

  37. “…the opening scene shows picture of cooling towers emitting steam”

    Ah…steam, as in “clouds”?

  38. One way that we can tell that a person is suffering from cognitive bias is that their belief system doesn’t have a well defined, predetermined and stated set of criteria that would negate what they think they know.

    Instead, they move the goal posts and look for reasons to justify keeping their belief system exactly the same vs adjusting it based on objectively viewing new information.

  39. This was an extremely tedious presentation. I struggled! If I was his boss (he must have one) I would be asking “What does Dr Mann Do!” apart from produce misleading powerpoint displays and totally ignore all the latest climate data from the last 10 years. And where is the MWP in his graph? which turns the hockey stick into a sine wave.
    Dr Mann would make an outstanding cherry picker , I am sure he would get the best cherries right from the top of the tree, the ones that had been exposed to lots of sunlight and climate change. But some of the cherries , in tansporting from the tree to the factory, he would alter somehow , using mysterious “Tricks” that change their color, increase their size, decrease their size , turn them into tomatoes or drible them down the road with his hockey stick…………….

    • “What does Dr Mann Do?”

      He brings millions of dollars in grants that pay for his and his boss’ salary. That’s all his boss cares about. That’s the way it is on American college campuses these days.

  40. I just finished viewing Mann’s speech sponsored by the Cabot Institute (@ Bristol University).

    He is unpersuadable because he shows that he completely believes in the mythology that he created; a mythology where he is a hero. I will try to analyze his speech in comparison to Joseph Campbell’s mono-myth. Will let you know results when I have finished.

    Mann’s speech represents anti-Feynman science; see his constant referral to the IPCC as the correct view of climate science.

    John

  41. Took The Hockey Mann only one minute to parade his academic bona fides [translation: debate verboten], then the last third was pure self-exculpatory politicking. Were the audience issued protective [….]?

    [trimmed, .mod]

Comments are closed.