Today I visited the poster sessions again, where I’m not allowed to take photos. I also visited the commercial exhibition, where I am allowed photography. I was surprised to find that Mann’s penchant for hype even permeates that part of AGU 2014. It makes me wonder if they spent more on that big board display than the amount of the award…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann’s appeal for donations for ‘climate change’ legal action is pathetic, sad.
It appears there is something to hide when a ‘scientist’ abandons the normal scientific process.
There is something amiss when a scientist/university will not provide access to data and analysis, related to ‘climate change’.
There is something amiss when a theory cannot be defended in the open, using logic, with written responses to criticism.
We better hurry on this before progressives erase logic and replace it with ‘narrative’.
Maybe he was buying ethics from Peter Gleik …
Can’t see the train coming down the tracks.
It reminds me of hte Leon Uris novel, QB VII, where the doctor who worked for the Germans during the Holocaust won the slander suit….and won a half-pence in damages, the value of his reputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QB_VII
If I had been given only $250 in damages I would be embarrassed that the court awarded that piffling amount.
The last thing I would do is advertise that the court valued my inconvenience at that value.
I guess I value myself too highly…
If only the real damage the hokey stick has done to the future of his own children was only $250!
$250? I just spent more than that for dinner for 4 at a local restaurant. Ok, it was my birthday, and this is Europe.
Is this the only example of climate activists ever ‘winning’ a court case? A very poor ‘win’ at that.
Of coarse, in their world, the Scales of Justice are heavily weighted to the left.
Agnotology: Definition
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.
It appears Mann’s hockey stick paper has created to mislead (agnotology) by attempting using incorrect data and analysis to eliminate the Medieval warm period.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/oh-mann-paper-demonstrates-that-tree-ring-proxy-temperature-data-is-seriously-compromised/
This is a very interesting paper. The conclusion is that it is possible for a biased climate ‘researcher’ to cherry pick data dendro chronological data to push one’s own climate change agenda.
It appears, Mann cherry picked inaccurate dendro chronological data, it appears Mann attempted to hide the cherry picked data from independent researchers (i.e. non-warmist researchers) and attempted to hide the faulty application of a mathematical algorithm that was used to enable the cherry picked inaccurate data to create the ‘hockey’ stick.
An indicate that Mann’s paper is incorrect scientifically is the hockey stick is not supported by other proxy data, not supported by pervious previous analysis by prominent scientists, not supported by the historical record written by people at time (which notes climate facts such as the Medieval warm period or Little Ice Age) and is not supported by agriculture practices at the time (such as which Northern regions that could or could not grow grapes for wine production and famines due to cooling).
P.S. Note there is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The fact that there is cyclically warming and cooling in the paleo record (named after the two discoverers of the cyclic warming and cooling), makes Mann’s attempt to eliminate the Mediaeval warm period and the IPCC willingness to ignore the Mann’s funny science pathetic.
Just for fun, I am going to start a record of agnothologically news articles in the common media.
Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years. This is a graph from Richard Alley’s paper that shows temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. The D-O cycle is clearly evident. As noted there is no correlation in Greenland ice sheet temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels in the past. The majority of the warming of the Greenland Ice sheet observed in the 20th century was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. The majority of the warming was caused by the solar magnetic cycle change and is the same mechanism that caused the past D-O cycles.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
Do you mean agnatology or Mannology?
He is running with Hillarity for prez 2016…
Was it presented with adequate drama?
An abundance of drama, perhaps?
Or an outburst of drama?
Oh good. I’d hate to see someone “err on the side of least drama” and raise the possibility of an ethical violation.
There was more drama present than has been observed in the past 1000 years.
I don’t think I’d take a cheque (check) from this guy.
Eamon.
The check pic shows hubris on display by a third rate intellect. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, he is arguably a fourth rate intellect.
John
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/michael-manns-damages-over-foia-emails-a-piddling-250/ says in part:
UPDATE: From David Schnare, General Counsel, Energy & Environment Legal Institute
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the $250 “damages” assessed by the Court. Any appellant that loses their appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court has to make this payment to the opposing party. It is generally intended to pay for the costs of printing of briefs. It does not include attorney’s fees or any other costs. Mann won’t get a cent. It all goes to the University who may or may not have to transfer it to the Attorney General’s coffers since that is who represented the University and who had to pay for preparation of their briefs.
More importantly, this is not all over. The court only decided the meaning of the term “of a proprietary nature” and they took our (plaintiffs) definition verbatim. They just refused to admit that which was their way of denying us our costs and fees. (We used over $300,000 worth of our time on this case, and thousands of dollars in costs.) What the court did not do was to discuss the rest of the “research exemptions” and that will come up with the next case that is already in the pipeline. That FOIA is seeking all emails associated with John Daly, Steve McIntyre and the IPCC. As none of those were collected by or for the faculty in pursuit of a research project sponsored by UVA, they should not be subject to being withheld. We will see what slimy games the University next plays to prevent the release of those documents. We’ll keep you informed.
Popcorn shares have just gone up.
You can try to justify it all you want, but the fact is you lost.
Private emails do not fall under FOIA.
You are welcome to seek climate science research papers, which are in the public domain.
There is no such thing as a private email on a government system.
Mark
+1 if it is on a .gov domain. Not sure about .edu but since some of the grants were from the government the FOIA should have been upheld. The court’s interpretation is definitely suspect.
A college is not the government. DUH!
The fruits of their settled science and deceptions have made Climate ‘science’ synonymous with fraud. There is another comment feeding frenzy going on now at an Associated Pres Article. Fraud in Science is immediately associated with Climate ‘science’ in comments section.
Japan scientist quits as cell research discredited
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7afd44f9a991472b8395d5d73e8d3326/japan-scientist-quits-cell-research-discredited
So how much of the CSLDF has Mann used so far in his case against Steyn (and others)?
Expect a response from Steyn in …….3…2…1.
Steyn’s lawyers are undoubtedly telling him to hush up. Don’t blow your you advantage with a big mouth. Wait….is that a dirty comment?
In keeping with the Friday Funny theme…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11304792/Russell-Brand-film-on-RBS-bankers-funded-by-City-investors-including-former-RBS-banker.html
Anyone else notice that the “Check” has no transit number, bank ID or account number? It’s as phony as the hockeystick.
I was laughing at the fact the paper it’s written on is worth more than the check is…
So along with his fabricated science data he now writes fabricated fake checks that are illegal to transact? If nothing he’s consistent at fabrication in various forms.
Did he do it in his own , spare, time , or during the hours for which he is paid to teach or conduct research?
I would have thought that he could have used his privileged , tenured, position to better effect. The years when one’s brains and energy are good enough for proper research are short enough .
So, of the 10 million dollars in AGU membership dues and contributions to the “funds”, just how many dollars come back, in cash, from the CLDF to the Executive Officer and President?
Could be big booty in equivalent mass units of Viagra and Cocaine.
Are the “Executive Officer” and “President” crooks?
You bettcha!
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Do not forget upside down Tijlander lake sediments. wink, wink…
Yes, the effort to get rid of the MWP continued on, in zombie fashion. Fancy that. All to try to blame man’s CO2. It’s nothing but agenda-driven pseudoscience, and it is all coming apart now, your Belief system notwithstanding.
Got proof? No? Thought so!
By the way, there understanding of scientific facts about global warming, unlike your belief in fossil fuel industry propaganda.
As usual, that site is lying to you.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/
Thanks for the fossil fuel industry propaganda that no one with half a brain believes!
It’s funny that they think so little of their audience that they just come right out and say obviously wrong things like “They all confirm.” I mean, anyone can find McShane and Wyner or numerous other studies, never mind the IPCC itself abandoning the hockeystick. Why not at least make an honest statement like “we believe the evidence supports?” I feel sorry for them.
If it is obviously wrong, then why can’t you prove it wrong? I feel sorry for you.
kevinschmidtojai,
Skepticalscience is nothing but a propaganda blog.
They say:
…the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years…
Scary, huh? But for the thinking people here, what we see is the fact that a thousand years ago was during the MWP, when temps were higher than now. That was also before human emissions mattered. See? No human emissions; higher temperatures.
Thus, your scare comment isn’t scary at all. It shows that what we are currently observing is nothing more than natural variability.
Skeptical Science posts real climate science from real climate scientists. If you had bothered to read it, you would see the links.
Skepticalscience is a bogus propaganda blog — the only blog with it’s own category on the right sidebar: “UNRELIABLE”.
That blog has low traffic because most folks here know it is a propaganda blog run by a cartoonist who parades around in neo-Nazi regalia. And John Cook isn’t the only one [<–that's Nutticelli].
Really, if you want credibility here, don't link to neo-Nazis. People will just point and laugh at you.
kevinschmmidtojai states “Skeptical Science posts real climate science from real climate scientists”. After all, it says so right on the site’s masthead, so it must be true.
One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts, is that James Hansen erroneously predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater by 2008. James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. A close examination of the interview reveals Hansen did not, in fact, predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years. Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:
“When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”
James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:
“Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.”
The book The Coming Storm and the salon.com article are different. In The Coming Storm the question includes the conditions of doubled CO2 and 40 years, while the salon.com article which is quoted by skeptics does not mention doubled CO2, and involves only 20 years.
To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events. The original conversation was in 1988. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at salon.com about it. As he puts it,
“although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.
Suggestion – save such topics for a later post where your comment is more germane. It comes up often enough. I think there’s a WUWT post on that too, people here are more likely to revisit a WUWT post than one at SkS.
In March 2011, perhaps in reaction to the March 10 SkS item you quoted, AW updated his original 2009 story to correct the record and concede that 40 years was the correct number:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
I notice that SkS, hasn’t taken notice of AW’s concession and continues to smear him with this outdated charge. (“One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts, is that James Hansen erroneously predicted . . . .”) I looked through the entire SkS comment stream. Its last comment was in October, 2012. So SkS had time to post an update that acknowledged AW’s update, even just as a comment. SkS would surely (very high confidence) have been aware of AW’s back-pedaling within 20 days at most of its own thread. It monitors WUWT. But it chose to lie by omission.
Perhaps you’ll say “fool me twice” the next time you encounter one of SkS’s claims.
Oops–I’ll take it back about SkS “lying by omission.” I now realize that AW’s update to his thread would not have appeared as a new item in WUWT’s sidebar, so SkS probably was unaware of it.
I’ve posted a comment on the SkS thread informing it of AW’s update and urging it to update its own thread too.
Here’s a 2013 WUWT thread criticizing the scientific basis for Hansen’s far-outlying claims of a high sea level rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/hansen-falsified-his-extreme-sea-level-rise-projections-are-drowning-in-hubris/
Thanks for the easily discredited fossil fuel industry propaganda nonsense!
kevinschmidttojai,
What a stupid and inane comment. Your opinion means nothing. Try to support it with verifiable facts, and it might matter.
Wrong—we can trashcan Hansen’s prediction right now. 26 years ago Hansen said the West Side Highway nearby his office would be underwater in 40 years. That implied that its initial rise couldn’t be hidden until 26 years in the future. (I read somewhere that the rise since 1988 is 2.5 inches.) If the Hudson hasn’t risen by more than an inch or two in the next four years, his prediction will look very unlikely.
Hansen would only have wiggle room on his prediction if CO2 levels had flattened or declined since 1988. But, instead, they’ve steadily risen, as in his Business As Usual scenario.
Strawman. Hansen’s claim is (and should be) attacked for a different reason: because it illustrates his extremism and his poor prediction record, which therefore justifies not giving much weight to his other claims.
Nicely done. I can’t add much — but I will note the reporter’s “mistake” as very convenient to Hansen’s scaremongering at the time, and typical of press reports that suggested calamity was nigh.
That’s an obvious misquote, very common with the fossil fuel industry propagandists.
kevinschmidttojai,
You can stop now with your meaningless assertions about the fossil fuels, unless you want to continue to be a hypocrite.
See, you use fossil fuels every day, and you would cry like a baby if they were taken away from you. So stop with the hypocrisy, it got old fast.
You are one of the hoodwinked and link to the infantile ‘skeptical science’ site. I ignore all of your posts going forward.
That’s no surprise since you ignore the real science in favor of obvious fossil fuel industry propaganda.
kevinschmidttojai,
EVERY alarming prediction over the past thirty years has failed to happen, from disappearing Polar bears, to accelerating sea level rise, to ocean ‘acidification’, to vanishing Arctic ice, to disappearing glaciers, to runaway global warming itself. In fact, none of the alarming predictions have happened. They were all wrong, every one of them.
When one side has such an abysmal record, rational folks will disregard their arguments. Your side has attempted to scare the public with an endless litany of scare stories. But the public is finally losing interest in your Chicken Little scares. You have cried “WOLF!!” far too often, and it has always been a false alarm.
Finally, if you knew the first thing about radiative physics, you would understand that the result of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is harmless. And more is better for the biosphere. Even if your “560 ppm” eventually happened, the warming effect would be unmeasurable. CO2 is still just a tiny trace gas.
So if you would quit promoting the climate catastrophe alarm, we would appreciate it. And you would do yourself a big favor by ignoring John Cook’s SkS propaganda blog. As the rest of us can see, it only steers you in the wrong direction. That’s what happens when you swallow their lies.
Thanks for posting easily discredited fossil fuel industry propaganda that no one believes!
kevinschmidtatjai,
You reply with a meaningless assertion? Doesn’t your credibility mean anything to you?
Don’t feed the pigeons.
markl,
Right. If he won’t respond to facts, it’s just trolling.
$250 is about what it would cost to have such a large ‘poster’ prop made.