Mann on the run – latest paper ‘dead at birth’, rejected by German warmist scientists, deletes inconvenient Facebook challenge

Pierre Gosselin over at “No Tricks Zone” is reporting that within a day of its publication, the paper from the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has now been debunked and denounced by German climate scholars, some of whom side with the warmer view of climate. He writes:


 

Spiegel and the FAZ pour cold water on paper

Fortunately other media sources have been somewhat more critical and report that there’s skepticism on the paper – coming from warmist circles, no less.

Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) here for example writes that Rahmstorf is puzzled that a part of the north Atlantic has cooled over the last 100 years: “The cooling was stronger than what most computer models calculated it would be,” the FAZ reports. Models wrong again!

The FAZ then writes that, “An independent expert assesses the estimation skeptically”, adding:

Climate scientist Martin Visbeck of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel sees Rahmstorf’s interpretation of the results critically: ‘The study’s focus on the sub-polar part of the Atlantic and the spectral analysis are interesting,’ he says. But there are other AMOC assessments that point to a  completely other development. The paper does not offer any strong indication of the development of the AMOC during the past fifty years.”

When a warmist dismisses another warmists’s science, then you know it’s likely pretty slipshod.

– See more at: Dead At Birth! German Warmist Scientists Slap Down Rahmstorf/Mann AMOC Paper: “Offers No Strong Indication”


JaimeJessup-Mann
And here is the snapshot:
Jessup-Mann-deletedTypical Mann, when challenged, he runs away.
Jaime, you go girl!
See my debunking of Mann’s latest paper here

236 thoughts on “Mann on the run – latest paper ‘dead at birth’, rejected by German warmist scientists, deletes inconvenient Facebook challenge

    • Mann is doing what he does best, that is, sinking his own boat and then dragging down with him as many of his shipmates as he can.

      • Actually I was using a play on words. “C’mon man” is a segment on ESPN showing stupid things that go on during American football games. For the non American readers, “c’mon man” is short for “come on, man, you can do better” or “come on , man, don’t be so stupid” etc. Here’s a segment from the show:

  1. Did Bill Nye consult on this paper with them? Maybe they had their “spacial fingerprints” upside down….

      • As a Brit, can anyone confirm, for the sake of clarity & good order, that the “Gov. Brown (who) was consulted” is the famous ‘Moonbeam Brown’ – a grant farmer nearly up there with our English ‘Capability Brown’, a landscape gardener – perhaps see the wonderful always 100.01% accurate Wikipedia ( I can edit it) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Brown.

        With thanks for correcting me if needed,
        Auto

      • Yes, ‘moonbeam’ Jerry Brown is governor of California. [Although] I believe Dr. Steele was probably jesting about Moonbeam having been consulted. Moonbeam would probably think AMOC is either some illegal Mexican ‘alien’ advocacy group, or a new brand of Mexican weed. Sort of like he said LAX is threatened by sea level rise, without having checked the present elevation of LAX above sea level.

      • So climate models are not even able to predict the past, that is already known. So why would anybody expect them to predict the future, before it happens, when they won’t even be able to predict that after it is already known ??

    • Just an injection into the conversation for anyone just starting the comments. For a bit here there is some fun with Mann, then some low level distraction caused by a troll and the responses he invokes, BUT then there are some great comments starting about here….
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/24/mann-on-the-run-latest-paper-dead-at-birth-rejected-by-german-warmist-scientists-deletes-inconvenient-facebook-challenge/#comment-1890944

      The linked comment is cogent to an RGB post just below. Many excellent comments following with some new information and the real shot at a coming paradigm shift in the view of CAGW.

      No disrespect to those comments in between, many of which have value, but trolls are distracting from science no matter what.

    • Well Mann’s paper had a useful purpose other than this. He threw his hockey stick under the bus to try to position himself ahead of the cooling curve. He states that this cooling of the sea by melting glaciers from Greenland has not happened since 900AD. So he has the MWP essentially the same as now! That puts a blade on both ends of his hockey stick. I hope Steyn takes note of this throwing away his hockey stick. I mentioned this on the other thread.

      Is it unprecedented for a global warming proponent to shoot down a warming paper like this? Or is it because it’s who it is. Or is a big correction coming in climate science. There will be those who brazen it out even if they are freezing to death and there are those who will use the disastrous model projections and the responses of nature to learn something real about climate. The wonderful learning experience that the “pause” has brought has already put the once hated and marginalized ENSO, PDO, NAO, the sun, etc. into the lexicons of those who would take this opportunity nature offers. I say Go Jaime go! too. I think we should all support those with the integrity and reliance on empirical data.

      What is missed by the cheering section for CAGW is that thoughtful skeptics aren’t rooting for the next ice age or seeking rent for their dissent. It has been asked countless times by serious skeptics – show us the data. Like Anthony and most thoughtful skeptics, I didn’t have any reason to reject the thesis of global warming at the outset, but having seen in the last 8-9yrs what has actually being going on, who is promoting this stuff and the cash paid for their testimony by governments, UN and new world order types, yeah, I began to question big time. The icing on the cake was the single tree selected in the northern Urals, truncating the last 30 years of it because of the divergence problem, an upside down and partially contaminated lake sediment proxy from Finland and art mending needlework to splice a yearly temperature record onto data without the same resolution in years to multiply the effect by this very same author. Go Jaime go and put integrity back into science. We will be with you wherever the real definitive data takes you (of course we will need to see what can be salvaged from the tortured temperature data to put it to work).

      • They have discovered that people are more motivated by status than money. These scientists who are in the slip stream of the CAGW meme will begin to feel their status as scientists are being undermined by these constant unfounded alarmist scare stories. It must make them feel they are being associated with a pseudo-science con trick club that is becoming the butt of jokes amongst their colleagues. At some point they will stand up to protect their reputations. I bet there are many embarrassing stories and skeletons, we need some whistle blowers.

      • Gary said “Well Mann’s paper had a useful purpose other than this. He threw his hockey stick under the bus to try to position himself ahead of the cooling curve.”
        =========================================
        I was considering this. Mann was early on the band wagon, likely, like Hansen, aware of the positive ENSO and likely warming. Wit out so much as a how do you do” to all the past climate proxy work, he eliminated the MWP and invented the hockey stick. Now he once again ignores the current peer reviewed work, and creates his own new version of anthropogenic disaster, this one a cooling caused by man.

        It will be interesting to see if the political warmist bandwagon, recognizing the likely coming cool cycle, jumps on the bandwagon.

        We can call the new theory “CAGYY” The YY for yoyo, which as most know is a fad remarketed every 30 years or so.

  2. To be relevant in Mannology, the work must either align with the dogma or be about double bacon cheese burgers.

  3. WOW! (y)

    And the Laughs never stop.

    Rahm (German) = Cream

    Störf (Icelandic) = Jobs

    So another raucous TV episode from “Cream Puff” and “Der Mann”

    Ha ha

  4. Dr. Rahmstorf developed a model of a sea level rise, ignoring an inconvenient fact of a limited water supply on our planet.

  5. Sand pile self-organized criticality at work: The bigger the sand pile, the bigger the eventual collapse. Let Mann’s ego build it high. Nature won’t care when it collapses. And the Schadenfreude will run deep and fast.

  6. Jaime, good job at showing Mann is up sh*t creek without a hockey stick!
    I’m sure some read it before he deleted it.
    Glad you saved it for others to see.

  7. This scares on life support and fading fast. Kelly, Salby now this.

    Clearly academics are starting to turn on people like Mann. I don’t believe it will be long before the initial trickle turns into a torrent of criticism.

  8. What you see here is the inevitable result of a researcher who was involved in the inept hockey stick papers who, by this current paper, continues to show that he has not yet learned to perform a mode of objective research.

    The researcher continues to know he is right on climate even though his climate research corpus does not withstand: (1) independent auditors; (2) researchers who did relevant research independently of his; (3) now wary news media who have seen his science mimicking intellectual tricks before.

    John

    • You’re right, John. They were so confident as to foolishly bet on the come; and it didn’t.

      • Pat Frank on March 24, 2015 at 3:49 pm

        Pat Frank,

        They have the subjectivist’s inevitable overconfidence due to their belief that their ideas have power to replace reality.

        John

    • Good observations, John Whitman. I would also suggest that this is what the Greeks from the Golden Age would refer to as the inevitable result of excess hubris.

      • JayB on March 24, 2015 at 5:26 pm

        JayB,

        Perhaps a hubris of the variety that comes from compensation due to lack of sufficient self-confidence?

        John

    • Speaking of ‘type of person’ Mann is….admittedly I don’t know much about twitter but I was shocked to see what seemed like half his posts were just retweets of somebody else mentioning his name.
      Is that normal on Twitter?

  9. University of Southampton: Specialises in marine science.
    Not surprising considering its location and history.

    And as such it deals with the real world. No surprise that computer model idolaters are held in scorn down on the Solent.

    Also worth remembering that the UK still has real science – not just RealClimate.

    • The University of Southhampton has one of the most warmist professors one would ever wish to come accross. I can’t recall his name, but he is frequently trotted out on TV when extreme weather events are in the news.

    • I thought the UK was pretty much devoid of “real science” based on the policies we read about that are being put in place over there?

  10. Michael Jackson did the moonwalk, sliding backwards while appearing to walk forward.

    Michael Mann has turned it into a loonwalk.

  11. Listen carefully . . . you might hear a keening whimper simultaneous with a deep sucking sound . . . it might be his intellectual credibility imploding.

    John

    • Tom J on March 24, 2015 at 3:36 pm

      Tom J,

      I do not doubt he had potential for objective intellectual development at some point in his early life. He chose to make bad research at some point that was subjectively determined, thus there would be an intellectual implosion or implosions at some point. N’est ce pas?

      John

    • And if you continue to listen carefully, you might hear what sounds like a rather wet [trimmed] followed by an uneasy sigh of relief. That would be the reaction of the scientific community.

      [Cut the language out. .mod]

      • Bryan on March 24, 2015 at 7:30 pm

        Bryan,

        Perhaps climate science can experience a cathartic moment when self-correction away from alarmism occurs.

        John

  12. I posted on Mann’s Facebook page on May 6, 2013 when the Nenena Ice Classic broke (if I remember correctly) the all time record. I took a screenshot, which was subsequently lost when my computer was stolen in downtown LA. Mann almost immediately deleted the post, and I cannot post there now.

  13. they call this “Mann on the moon” :-)

    nice Jaime good work! it often strikes me that when warmists get confronted with REAL data instead of computer models they blow hot and cold and then delete the stuff they can’t answer, or just shoot the messenger instead of trying to debunk the message….

    like i said as a nutral reader with no “pro or contra climate change i often found out that asking just common sense very logical questions make alarmists to go haywire

    an alarmist did post in a forum about the 4000 year old tree stumps that got discovered due to retreating glaciers. alarmists “see global warming is real and unprecedented”

    my unscientific but logical question was: ” if 4000 years ago trees grew there, and that glaciers do move stuff downstream, where did they then originally stand, and how much warmer was it back then to expand the treeline to that spot even if the glacier didn’t move that tree stump at all?”

    you bet that they can’t answer that :)

    seems Mann is a bit of that same type of person

  14. If your looking for honest , Mann is certainly not the person to look to , but then he never was and in reality , it is actual not caused him any professional harm at all . Another mark of the ‘quality’ of climate ‘science’

  15. It’s interesting that Jaime Jessop writes of the AMOC in reference to a “response to climate change.” It is clear that “climate change” has now come to mean ‘impact of CO2 emissions on climate,’ in the entire field of climate science.

    Implicit in the use of that terminology is the assumption that climate would not change absent human GHG emissions. So much has the rhetoric of AGW distorted the field and polluted the thinking within it.

    I’m guessing that Jaime Jessop would dispute the view of an otherwise constant climate, but nevertheless her choice of terms shows a reflexive acceptance of the falsehood.

    • There should be no quarter given. It is global warming they must prove and definitively prove man-made CO2 as the cause. Anything short is moving the goal posts and unacceptable. UN and IPCC funding should be revoked because of this fraud.

    • People for whom lying is a profession of necessity have to be way ahead of the curve. Natural climate change is called “climate change” and phony climate change is called “climate change”. Five years from now, the climate liars will all insist they were talking about natural climate change.

    • Pat, I admit to being guilty of using the term climate change to mean ‘climate change’ (TM), so pervasive has its use in that respect now become.. However, I certainly do not subscribe to the opinion that even current climate change consists almost entirely of ‘climate change’ (TM), much less so climate change of the past. The Univ of Southampton paper I quoted used the term climate change in relation to the predictions of the climate models, so i guess I was just following that convention as well.

      • And if he had addressed your criticism, would you have accepted it? No, it would become another angle for you to attack.

      • You espouse how horrible it is for climate change to be accepted, but you all are trying to force everyone to believe it’s not. Is the pot calling the kettle black?

      • And if he had addressed your criticism, would you have accepted it? No, it would become another angle for you to attack.

        I wasn’t referring to him, I was referring to you.
        You charge in complaining that critics have failed to understand the subject matter. If that is the case, it should be trivial for you to address the critics. If you do not, you’re just posturing.

        Now if I had been referring to Dr Mann, your response would not be posturing, it would have simply been humerous (in a sad sort of way). For, as the record shows, Dr Mann did address at least one critic, and then upon reflection, decided that he was better off deleting both the criticism and his response to it. No further angle to attack. Dr. Mann capitulated and tried to…. dare I say it? …hide it.

      • You espouse how horrible it is for climate change to be accepted, but you all are trying to force everyone to believe it’s not.

        I suggest you protect what little credibility you have left by not putting words in people’s mouths. It is generally accepted in this forum…ooops, now I’m potentially guilty of putting words in people’s mouth’s, let me try again… My observation is that the majority of skeptics in this and other forums are of the opinion that the climate changes, has changed in the past, will change in the future, and is changing as we speak, always has, always will. The question is how much is natural variability and how much not.

      • I am not a climate scientist, so I will defer to them for what I can not answer. I can freely admit that it is not my area of expertise.
        As far as putting words in people’s mouths, I have received nothing but abuse since posting here. No acknowledgement or scientific discourse takes place in these forums, they are a cesspool that is continuously fed by the self reinforcing arguments and rhetoric you use to convince yourselves that you are smarter than people who have doctorates in climatology.
        From my observations no one here is interested in actually having any sort of discussion about the possibility that ACC is real. Just patting each other on the back for putting down “the man”.
        And I’m so glad to hear that you are infallible, and would never delete, edit, modify, or take to another forum a challenge to your ideology. Facebook is the best place for scientific discussion after all.

      • Someone else says:

        I have received nothing but abuse since posting here. No acknowledgement or scientific discourse takes place in these forums, they are a cesspool that is continuously fed by the self reinforcing arguments and rhetoric you use to convince yourselves that you are smarter than people who have doctorates in climatology.

        Aside from the fact that no one is making you comment here, I will point out that plenty of climatologists, physicists, mathematicians, chemists, geologists, and others with advanced degrees in the hard sciences post here, and contribute articles.

        You reject them all, because nothing can penetrate your belief in man-made global warming [MMGW]. You certainly don’t come here to learn anything. Rather, you come here to tell other readers how it is — based on your belief in MMGW. No surprise that you’re getting push-back.

        Now you’re mad, because you’re getting no traction. I suggest you post over at Hotwhopper or a similar alarmist blog. They will love your True Belief in MMGW, and they love appeals to authority. But here, you have to produce verifiable facts, and real world evidence to convince readers. That’s been your weak point all along.

      • someone else – it seems you misunderstand the nature of these forums somewhat. You are right that the conversation can be rough and tumble, but it most decidedly is not limited to that. Intermingled with jokes and sarcasm, you can find some really valuable and original insight. This particular thread is not the best example, though.

        If you are bothered by insults received, I would suggest the following strategies:
        – avoid giving occasion by using careful language yourself
        – if insults happen nevertheless, ignore, don’t engage (“don’t feed the trolls”). Instead, engage with those commenters that give reasonable replies.

        Now there is one thing that never works on here, and that is appeal to authority. “Doctorates in climate science,” or in any other discipline, will impress exactly nobody here. Many of us here have scientific education and work experience well beyond a point at which we put much stock in formal credentials of any kind. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to argue your case yourself, using your own words and reasoning, and not demand of others that they defer to any authority that you choose to invoke.

        HTH, Michael

      • Stealy, what exactly is your scientific pedigree? What are you contributions to the community? Assuming you have any specialized education at all. If you did you would know that being an expert in one field does not magically infer all knowledge to you.
        And being that climatology is not my expertise, I’m not bringing original work to the table. I can post data that you have seen and refused to acknowledge before, nothing is going to change.
        Even articles that are barely climate related quickly devolve into conspiracy pandering among the commenters.
        Your role here seems to be to keep nudging the conversation in the direction of denial and lunacy.
        I don’t know if your participation is explicitly endorsed by Watt (but it is absolutely implied), but you are just as culpable to spreading disinformation as him.

      • Michael, thank you for one of the more level headed comments I have seen here. I appreciate it. I have seen the humor, sarcasm, wit, and glimmers of intelligence here. I may not agree with the Anti-GW meme, but I do understand most people posting here are not one dimensional.

      • One does not need to be a “climate scientist” (Whatever that is) to have studied and understand physics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, planetary science and IR spectroscopy. One does not need computer farms with teraflops of computing power to study physics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, planetary science and IR spectroscopy. Simply studying IR spectroscopy destroys the alarmist claim that the ~4% human contribution to the ~400ppm/v CO2 concentration is the DRIVER of AGW/ACC/CAGW.

      • No acknowledgement or scientific discourse takes place in these forums, they are a cesspool that is continuously fed by the self reinforcing arguments and rhetoric you use to convince yourselves that you are smarter than people who have doctorates in climatology. From my observations no one here is interested in actually having any sort of discussion about the possibility that ACC is real. Just patting each other on the back for putting down “the man”.

        Someone:

        May I suggest a quick visit to the Denizen’s thread over on Climate Etc, link here: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/15/denizens-ii/

        It may give you a bit more respect for the competency of the skeptic community.
        Or it may not, depending on your ability to integrate new information.

      • “Someone else” sounds very much like the typical alarmist posters on the Friends of Science facebook page. The person who runs the page cannot keep up with the alarmists posts and they have swarmed the site ( having been run off everywhere that doesn’t censor skeptic comments ). There are some quality skeptic posts from long time WUWT bloggers ( thank you Mike Bromley !! ), but it is hard to monitor all the time. All ad homs, some cut’n pastes, and the obligatory “oil company shill” comments, but little if any science posted by the warmunists. They run away, or duck/dodge when you ask them to explain what they’ve posted, or to provide evidence for “hottest evah” claims.

      • SE, you are impressive. You’ve got quite a few people feeding you your troll food. But get this, you believe people with credentials actually know what they are talking about. I am quite a bit skeptical about that. Skeptical does not mean I don’t believe them. Skeptical means we want to find out whether they have information that has value or not. We are trying to find out what works in the real world. I’m willing to be swayed by real data. Almost all the models used to justify AGW have failed in the real world. So when people continue to believe in their models when they’ve failed, we lose trust in them. I don’t care about the credentials, I care about the results matching nature, and theirs don’t..

        The scientific method does not concern itself with credentials. If a sixth grader comes up with a model of the climate, and produces data that show the model to be in line with reality, and can be reproduced by others, that is the credential that counts. Not their age or college degrees.

        Having a credential of any kind does not preclude self dealing or dishonesty. When people censor reasonable comments, you can be sure that they are not confident in their work. If a person has followed the scientific method, they don’t worry about criticism. They take the free advice and run with it to see if the criticism has merit. A person who ignores or trashes well reasoned criticism is wasting a very valuable resource.

        By deleting skeptical comments, bloggers can make it look like there is universal agreement on their theories. Deleting such comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with their theory proves them to be dishonest. Over the years, I’ve seen people here comment that their comments on pro-AGW blogs have been deleted. The article this thread is commenting on shows that Michael Mann has been caught manipulating his facebook page to remove comments questioning his position. He exhibits paranoia when he takes questions as attacks rather than attempts to further understand his reasoning. I must admit that since it is his page, he can do what he wants with it. But, by doing so, he has given me and the readers here plenty of reason not to believe him or his theories. Not because of credentials, not because of age. He is trying to have his page look like everyone is in agreement with him. I want to know what he is trying to hide.

        This thread is not about AGW. It is about a person who is preventing people from seeing other viewpoints relevant to his posts. If he lacks the confidence to let opposing views or ideas be explored, then I have even less confidence in anything he promotes. If you want to impress me, you have to show that YOU know what you are talking about instead of parroting others.

        The reason I think you are a troll, that is a person trying to disrupt a thread, is that you come here, claim you aren’t qualified in climate science, and then proceed to tell us we are off base by rejecting their theories when you admit you aren’t qualified to evaluate them. If you are that ignorant, you have no business questioning why we have the positions we do.

    • Someone else,
      You are something else!
      You say nothing. You show up here and denigrate the other commenters. You know nothing. You go on and on about how my dad can beat up your dad.
      Go away and grow up. Learn something. Experience something. Come up with your own understanding of something.
      While you’re about it, ask yourself why you keep showing up here.
      Oh yeah! What I really meant; “stop whining!”

      • SE should take a good look at the treatment of skeptics at alarmist sites. Makes WUWT look like a ladies’ ice cream social.

    • I understand that all of the Climate Science predictions\projections have been wrong — 100%.

      I understand they these theories fail the long accepted Scientific Method, have no predictive value, and scientifically are failures and should be dismissed.

      What is there to misunderstand?

      Enlighten me.

    • Someone else March 24, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      From my observations no one here is interested in actually having any sort of discussion about the possibility that ACC is real.
      ————————

      The reason I frequent this blog is that everyone here is interested in discussing Science, in general, and Climate Science particularly.

      It might surprise you to know that the majority of people who post here have advanced degrees in scientific fields

      You, admittedly, do not.

      No one here denies the possibility that carbon dioxide may play some role in our climate. The burden of proof is on you and the Climate Scientists is to prove it. So far they have failed miserably.

      Possibilities are not science.

      • You are correct, i would be surprised to find out that the people who frequent this blog have advanced scientific degrees.
        And you are incorrect, there are many many many people on this blog who do not believe that CO2 and the greenhouse effect are real, much less affecting our climate.
        I will have to disagree with you on your last point; possibilities are what make science possible.

        The burden of proof as you call it is in the results. And they absolutely show that increased CO2 levels (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere are affecting the climate. The empirical evidence shows that CO2 levels have risen in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. We know what the greenhouse effect is, and that it is real. And yes, natural variability plays the biggest role in our climate, but not the only role. Deniers continuously tout that we can’t possibly understand all the factors in play, and while it is still an emerging science (aren’t most fields? isn’t that why research still takes place? to better understand the world we live in?) it can be empirically shown that human activity has a huge impact on our world.

        Why are sustainable farming techniques encouraged so much? because the nutrient, PH balance, and water content of the earth that provides us with our food are so important. thats why we use fertilizers and do crop rotation, we know that if we don’t, the land will be unable to sustain agriculture. Deforestation is a huge issue as well, they are a huge carbon sink that we are constantly shrinking (and therefore increasing the free CO2 in the atmosphere). These things are all known, and we take steps to mitigate the potential issues proactively. Why would it be so bad to do the same for the atmosphere? Even *if* we are wrong, we still are reducing pollution, and making the world a better place for future generations.

      • my reply is “awaiting moderation”, again. have to make sure i didn’t make too good a point?

      • “Someone else

        March 25, 2015 at 7:32 am

        You are correct, i would be surprised to find out that the people who frequent this blog have advanced scientific degrees.”

        You admit you are not a “qualified climate scientist” (Whatever that is) and yet you suggest others who post here at WUWT who *ARE* scientifically qualified in science are somehow not “qualified” to comment, in your opinion? Remind us of the “climate science” qualications of Flannery or Mann? That’s right…none!

      • Patrick – and your credentials are? how do you determine whom you listen to if its not by area of expertise? you want to talk about arbitrary, look at who you are listening to.

        The work of Mann et al stands for itself; it is peer reviewed and there is a clear history of his contributions to climate sciences. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. (I think you will not acknowledge it, and claim it is “pal reviewed”, then call in people from other fields to reinterpret the data. Conversely, when papers disparaging climate change are published, it is not peers who review it; they call in the people from other fields)

      • and just to be perfectly clear: i am NOT saying that Mann et al is infallible. They should be subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else. What i AM saying is that there is a reason they are at the top of their field.

      • “Someone else

        March 25, 2015 at 9:01 am”

        I don’t listen to the likes of Mann et al, and certainly not since people like Al Gore started bleating on about “climate change” driven by CO2 emissions and ONLY those emissions from human activities. It’s pure political bunkum! It’s why the Earth is proving all those peer reviewed scientists 100% WRONG! I STUDIED the subject. I have STUDIED planetary science and other sciences since I was 8 years old. I was ridiculed for it in school. Now, can you remind readers the first degree level qualification (Climate science credentials if you will) of the Australian ALP/Green Govn’t climate change adviser Tim Flannery is? English literature. Yes!!! That’s right…a non-science related subject! So your point about “credentials” is rather lame!

      • Someone else says:

        The burden of proof as you call it is in the results.

        Wrong. The onus is on the climate alarmist crowd to support their conjecture that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming. They have failed.

        … they absolutely show that increased CO2 levels (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere are affecting the climate.

        That is what’s called a “baseless assertion”. It is your Belief, I understand that. But there is no verifiable, empirical scientific evidence to support that belief. Thus, it remains a baseless conjecture.

    • No one here is forcing anyone to do anything, I was not forced into being skeptical, I was born that way. You, it seems, are the one that belieives what you are told about AGW without question.

      Attempting to force a viewpoint usually comes from the mouths of the alarmists. ‘D*rs should be locked up, shot, have their houses burned down, etc.’ these are all things that have been advocated by alarmists – Now THAT is trying to force people to do something otherwise there is a risk of harm, punishment, etc. The alarmists are so scared of skeptics, they want to shut us up, all of us! If you do not want free speech, then you have the freesom to live somewhere where FoS is not allowed, see if you like it. North Korea perhaps? Somewhere warmer maybe? Iran, Syria?

      • I have never and will never advocate violence or retribution against someone for having a different ideology, that would be extremism; you are lumping everyone into the same CAGW, alarmist camp.
        To your other point, there is a difference between spreading disinformation and FoS (if you even know what that means.). Freedom of speech is not the same as saying whatever the f*** you want. (point emphasized here, that word is absolutely blocked from being posted here. I have the freedom to say it don’t I? and you should have to listen to it?)
        And i HAVE lived in other countries where people ARE punished for having different ideologies, it is deplorable.

      • Someone else
        March 25, 2015 at 7:39 am

        I have never and will never advocate violence or retribution against someone for having a different ideology, that would be extremism; you are lumping everyone into the same CAGW, alarmist camp.
        To your other point, there is a difference between spreading disinformation and FoS (if you even know what that means.). Freedom of speech is not the same as saying whatever the f*** you want. (point emphasized here, that word is absolutely blocked from being posted here. I have the freedom to say it don’t I? and you should have to listen to it?)
        And i HAVE lived in other countries where people ARE punished for having different ideologies, it is deplorable.
        —————————

        So what would you advocate as is fair ?
        Woud you distance yourself from those that do advocate such ideologies, such as Al Gore, saying that Climate d**rs should be punished ? As he clearly does not support free speech.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/16/gore-goes-off-the-deep-end-calls-to-punish-climate-change-deniers/

  16. This paper is a seminal event. Within one day of publication, debunked on multiple fronts.
    And that includes media notice by German MSM Der Spiegel (think Germany’s Time Magazine) and FAZ (think Germany’s New York Times). And, Mann tries to disappear his own obtuseness to the RAPID buoy system for actually measuring AMOC that his paper never mentioned.
    The momentum has definitely shifted.

    • I think the momentum shifted a long time ago, its just really hard to know for certain when it is something so massive and slow moving to boot. But there’s another important clue. In the past, a thread like this would have featured a number of supporters of Mann, some of them well armed with facts and skilled in deflecting arguments against him. More recently, we’ve seen a lot less of that.

  17. Someone else wrote:

    You espouse how horrible it is for climate change to be accepted, but you all are trying to force everyone to believe it’s not.

    ?
    ????
    ?????????
    ????????????????
    ?????????????????????????
    ????????????????????????????????????


    ?*n^2

    • I hope that isn’t gonna be your reply to every nonsensical comment you read on the internet ?
      Cus, my comments alone would require much larger server farms.

      • Someone else says:

        And we’ll need a supercomputer cluster to decipher your drivel.

        Exactly one minute ago you complained on this thread about the “abuse” you receive. So I guess it’s A-OK for you to dish it out. You just can’t take it.

      • Sure did, but I’m still here aren’t i? It was an observation not a complaint, I was well aware of what I was walking into posting on this site. So I can take it, and I’ll dish it too.

        [Dishing is not needed, nor wanted. Contributions and corrections and comments are welcome. .mod]

      • u.k.(us)
        March 24, 2015 at 6:01 pm
        ———————————-
        Lol! I don’t post much but I am sure I fit into that category when I do.

      • Someone else —

        You confuse the issue. Instead of saying you believe in “climate change” you should say that you believe in “catastrophic man-made climate change” — after all, isn’t that exactly what you believe in? Don’t ever shorten it to “climate change”. Always say that you believe in “catastrophic man-made climate change”. That will make it clearer as to what your words are about.

        Climate has always been changing and always will be changing. Everyone here believes in climate change.

        “Climate change” and “catastrophic man-made climate change” are two entirely different things. They are different things that have different names. Please use the correct name for what your beliefs are.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “Climate change” and “catastrophic man-made climate change” are two entirely different things. They are different things that have different names. Please use the correct name for what your beliefs are.

        And i have been. You are confusing the issue by making everyone an extremist. They are two issues, and there are a whole lot of shades of grey in between. I am all for letting natural climate change continue its course, which ultimately will be catastrophic to life as we know it as well. There is no doubt, whether we plunge into the next glaciation and ice sheets extend to the equator, or the ice caps melt and we live in the jurrasic-period-redux.

        HOWEVER, no matter what the result, human activity is altering the outcome and timescale. None of us will likely live long enough to see it in a way that makes you look out the window and say “we did that” to a certain cloud or storm, sunny day etc. So consider the future generations that live between now and whatever cataclysmic end may come for humans, be it natural or manmade.

      • “Someone else

        March 25, 2015 at 9:15 am

        HOWEVER, no matter what the result, human activity is altering the outcome and timescale.”

        And your evidence of this is where? Computer models? Theory? Hypothesis? IPCC claims a “30 year average of WEATHER” is an indicator of “climate”. Well, I’ve been around longer than that and apart from changing country and hemispheres, I see no significant change in climate. No increase in sea levels. No increase in storms. No increase in storm severity. Nada! Zip!

  18. ***the arrogance of Mann:

    24 March: NYT: John Schwartz: Science Museums Urged to Cut Ties With Kochs
    Dozens of climate scientists and environmental groups are calling for museums of science and natural history to “cut all ties” with fossil fuel companies and philanthropists like the Koch brothers.
    A letter released on Tuesday asserts that such money is tainted by these donors’ efforts to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change…
    The letter does not mention specific companies, but it does name David H. Koch, who sits on the boards of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and has given tens of millions of dollars to those institutions…
    The letter is a project of the Natural History Museum, a mobile museum that draws attention to “social and political forces that shape nature yet are left out of traditional natural history museums,” said its co-founder and director, Beka Economopoulos…
    A petition drive, also released on Tuesday and sponsored by environmental organizations including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, urges the Smithsonian and the American Museum of Natural History to “Kick Koch off the board!”
    ***Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University and signer of the letter, said the donors seek a halo they do not deserve. “Cloaked in the garb of civic-mindedness, they launder their image while simultaneously and covertly influencing the content offered by those institutions,” he said…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/science-museums-urged-to-cut-ties-with-kochs.html?_r=0

    • I would like to urge those doing the urging to cut their ties with fossil fuel companies and turn off their heat, turn off the lights and park their cars. Lead on!!

    • “Money talks, bullsh*t walks.”

      Are the “climate scientists” such at Mann and his ilk or Greenpeace or the Sierra Club going to make up for the lost donations should their campaign be successful.

    • Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
      http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search

      From 2003 to present;

      Bill McKibben’s;
      Step It Up ($200,000)
      1Sky.org ($2,100,000)
      350.org ($875,000)

      Total RBF grants to Mckibben = $3,175,000

      Al Gore’s – Alliance for Climate Protection = $250,000
      David Suzuki Foundation = $185,000

      The Sierra Club = $1,665,000
      Friends of the Earth = $777,500
      Friends of the Earth International = $290,000
      The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick) = $670,000
      Greenpeace Fund = $550,000
      Center for Climate Strategies = $5,171,600
      The Union of Concerned Scientists = $75,000
      Media Matters for America = $375,000
      Environmental Defense Fund = $550,000
      Natural Resources Defense Council = $1,660,000
      National Wildlife Federation = $1,025,000

      TOTAL = $16,419,100

      Sceptic ‘think tanks’;

      The Heartland Institute
      The Cato Institute
      The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
      Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
      Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

      = $0.00

      Rockefeller Family Fund
      Greenpeace $115,000
      Sierra Club $105,000

      Rockefeller Foundation
      Greenpeace $20,285

      Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
      Sierra Club $38,250

      • If these “skeptic think tanks” could attract the money, you can be sure they would be spending it to influence policy. Whats really telling is how little they can give to their cause…

      • Someone else

        Whats really telling is how little they can give to their cause…

        No, what’s really telling is how little they “need” to give to their cause to expose the fallacies and propaganda and exaggerated predictions of the Big Government’s Climate Science as completely false! And, what’s really telling is how little they actually “give” to their cause, despite the billions given to Big Science by Big Government for the sole benefit of Big Government and Big Finance.

        “Climate” science is requiring a uniform and mandated 1,000,000.00 dollar annual insurance bill on every 135,00.00 dollar home across the country that will not replace the house if it is flooded, burnt, or harmed; but is required to be renewed each year for 85 years “just in case” the sea levels rise 1 foot.

      • Someone else says:

        Whats really telling is how little they can give to their cause…

        So it’s a “cause” you’re pushing? Thanx for making that clear.

        Also, Heartland operates on a shoestring budget, but it punches far above it’s weight class. The squesling of billion dollar outfits like Greenpeace and their lemmings makes that very clear. And how about WUWT? This site operates on small donations and literally a few dollars a day in online revenue, yet it has far more influence than any of the propaganda blogs you get your misinformation and talking points from.

        That’s what is really telling.

      • RACook – A lack of funding for the scientists who are skeptical is telling. As far as Big Government, do you understand the enormity of what they are tasked with, the lives and welfare of the national populace? which ties directly into the world economy that we live in? Versus Big Corporation, which is tasked with increasing profits and benefiting a select few? Big Science as you call it exists because of the money given for research, not because of the results.

        dbstealey – Its not a “cause” i am pushing, you are taking a literal interpretation of a common rhetorical device. And you over estimate the influence of WUWT; you are certainly king of your little hill, in the midst of a mountain range.

      • @Someone else:

        It was you who used the “cause” label, therefore the climate scare is clearly your “cause”.

        Skeptics see it differently. The job of skeptics is to tear down a conjecture, and in the case of the “carbon” scare, they have done a superb job of it. Not one claim of the climate alarmist crowd has survived falsification by skeptical scientists. Not one alarming prediction has ever come true. So why should anyone believe what you’re trying to sell?

        Your attempt to gain some sort of moral superiority over the fact that a self-serving clique of climate alarmists has gained control of the peer review process, and of most professional organizations, is nothing but a version of the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. It has nothing whatever to do with scientific veracity.

        The difference between skeptics and alarmists is that while skeptics give our own money to fighting the alarmists’ eco-religion, people like you want the the government to confiscate our taxpayer dollars and funnel them to your pet cause. That’s a big difference.

        How much of your own after-tax money have you given to support the climate scare? Money that is not tax deductible? And your side won’t even debate any more! Why not? Because they’re afraid: they have lost every fair, moderated debate. So now reprobates like Mann hide out in their ivory towers, hoping that lemmings like you will carry their water for them. But you have no answers, either. You have no credible measurments to support your eco-beliefs. All you have is your religion. But needless to say, your eco-religion is not science.

        Skeptics require verifiable facts and evidence — the very things that your side does not have. All you have is rhetoric based on lies and misinformation. But rhetoric isn’t science. You have no credible science to support your climate scare. Prove me wrong, if you disagree: post facts! You can start with a verifiable, testable measurement quantifiying the fraction of man made warming out of total global warming. If you can do that, you will be the first.

        Do I sound disgusted with you and your ilk? You bet.

      • Stealey, if you look for flaws, you will find flaws. You keep asking me to post “science” but all you are doing is blowing hot air as well. YOU are not the skeptic community. YOU do not represent them. YOU co-opt the works of scientists into derogatory b * tchfests. YOU have proven nothing wrong, torn down no work.
        To your point about money, no one is giving to the purpose you outlined: tearing down the “establishment” for the sake of it.
        If you don’t like the federal government taking your taxes, then move. Just like the Freedom of Speech argument; if you don’t like it, go somewhere else. And saying taxes are not tax deductible is a recursive fallacy.
        What fair and moderated debates are you talking about? and who is the judge of the winner? both sides will claim victory. Is it the court of public opinion? you know who else was a great speaker that could convince the population of almost anything? can’t say his name here (.mod, you started this). Or is it other scientists? Public debates are for entertainment and to try to bring knowledge to the public, not about determining whose science is correct. The target audience of such material is either: general public, who gains a basic understanding of the issue at hand, or the peers and other scientists who know the field and understand the technical work.

        “You can start with a verifiable, testable measurement quantifiying the fraction of man made warming out of total global warming. If you can do that, you will be the first.”

        Which is what climate scientist are attempting to do. You will not accept it even when it becomes irrefutable. That is why you earn the label that the mod hates so much.

      • “Someone else” is such a complete know-nothing that this reply is directed to other readers. Because trolls never learn, do they?

        S.E. asks:

        What fair and moderated debates are you talking about? and who is the judge of the winner?

        There have been a number of debates between alarmist and skeptic scientists over the years. The skeptic side has won every debate hands down. Here is one example [there are other exampleis in the WUWT archives, and I have more saved in my ‘Debates’ folder]:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union

        Going into the debate the audience was polled, and the majority said human activity was the cause of global warming. Following the debate, the audience was again polled, and the sides had reversed: the majority agreed with the scientific skeptics.

        The skeptics’ side won the debate. That is the “judge of the winner”; the audience that voted, before and after. ‘Someone else’ will not like that, but whenever it comes to facts over belief, ‘Someone else’ is Mr Belief. That’s why he is always on the losing side of the argument.

        Now no scientist in the alarmist contingent will debate. They simply do not have convincing facts or evidence, and the planet is making fools of them and their conjecture. Instead, they hide out, allowing the ignorantii to run interference for them. Cowardice seems to be a hallmark of the alarmist crowd… isn’t that right, “Someone else”?

      • If its cowardly to take a stand, then sure.
        If its cowardly to apply the research to try and preserve the planet for future generations, then sure.
        If its cowardly to stick your head in the sand because change is bad, then sure (oh wait, that one is about you)

        as for the debate, the whole “public consensus wins” argument falls apart because that is exactly what you are trying to use against the AGW crowd.

      • “Someone else”,

        Naturally, you’re going to deflect. It’s what people like you do.

        “Cowardly” is appended to you, specifically for hiding behind a fake screen name. As you know.

        But nice try, and thanx for playing, Vanna has some lovely gifts for you on your way out…

      • Awwe, are you gonna ban me? and my unpopular opinion?

        By the way, how many screen names do you have here? i know it helps to further your sense of consensus on this blog.

        And what is your real name? lead by example, show us how its done.

      • to stick your head in the sand because change is bad

        Another ‘myth’ used by the consensus.

      • Someone else says:

        By the way, how many screen names do you have here? i know it helps to further your sense of consensus on this blog.

        I have exactly one (1) screen name, which is also my real name. I do not use multiple identities. Why should I? I wear my heart on my sleeve. Everyone knows exactly where I stand.

        So, why don’t you post your real name? Afraid to? Is ‘someone else’ just one of your sockpuppet names? Don’t bother answering, with a fake name like you use, who would know the difference?

        And what is your real name?

        As I said. And as we know, thieves presume that everyone else is a thief, too. Liars assume everyone else is a liar. It’s called ‘projection’. Now, why would you assume I am using anything but my real name? Projection, no doubt.

    • …. oh, I see, it’s “overwhelming scientific consensus” now, eh ?

      Not so long ago, it was ” overwhelming scientific evidence” and then the grown-ups came in and asked why this evidence was all such a big secret.

  19. PHILOSOPHY is like searching for a black cat in a dark alley at midnight
    THEOLOGY is like searching in a dark alley for a black cat that isn’t there
    WARMIST CO2 CLIMATE SCIENCE is like searching in a dark alley at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there SHOUTING ALL THE WHILE I’VE GOT IT I’VE GOT IT.

    Not created by me Credit unknown

      • really? is it the word DENIER you don’t like? or is the moderation filter just sensitive to me? If you are going to moderate such “strong words”, there’s a few terms that us ALARMISTS don’t like either. But you know, your blog so you make the rules.

        [Yes, those are the rules. Don’t use the insulting term, or don’t write here. .mod]

        [2nd mod: Read the site Policy. Equating readers with Holocaust deniers is likely to cause your comments to be deleted. We do not tolerate insults like that. There are plenty of blogs that don’t mind. We do. So follow our rules, or go away.]

      • OK, rewording…
        SKEPTIC SCIENCE is like lighting a fire in the alley because the cat is “probably” already dead.

      • Skeptical Science is like lighting a fire, and using the light to see that there’s no black cat in the alley.

      • .mod – No one coming into that conversation would equate what i said with anything remotely connected to WWII. Good job though, Godwin’s Law certainly is the rule of the day. Your campaign to stop people from using that term in any other sense will be about effective as banning any other word or idea. Stop projecting your insecurities.

        [Reply: You seem to have a hard time following simples rules. To put it plainly, if you continue to label readers as ‘deniers’, ‘denialists’, or similar pejoratives that equate people with Holocaust deniers, you will have to find another venue to post your comments. We do not tolerate neo-Nazis here. Clear enough? ~mod.]

  20. Rahm baby!

    Its a dog eat dog world out there in würm-land so don’t go out wearing mink-bone underwear!

    Ha ha :-D

  21. Someone else March 24, 2015 at 7:09 pm
    I am not a climate scientist, so I will defer to them for what I can not answer. I can freely admit that it is not my area of expertise.

    You barged in claiming that we didn’t understand the material, and now that you have been challenged to prove it, you admit that you don’t. Since you don’t, how can you be certain that you’re right?

    As far as putting words in people’s mouths, I have received nothing but abuse since posting here.

    You barge in, call people stupid, and then complain when they challenge you to back up your assertions that you are being abused? LOL.

    No acknowledgement or scientific discourse takes place in these forums, they are a cesspool that is continuously fed by the self reinforcing arguments and rhetoric you use to convince yourselves that you are smarter than people who have doctorates in climatology.

    Which doctorates in climatology should we believe? Dr Mann or his critics? It isn’t about who is smarter it is about discussing the science. Which, when you were asked to do so, you stated that you were unable to. Again, LOL.

    From my observations no one here is interested in actually having any sort of discussion about the possibility that ACC is real.

    Uhm…. of course it is real. As I said above, the debate is about how much is natural variability and how much not. So once again, stop putting words in people’s mouths (and for G*d’s sake stop whining about it when you get called on it).

    There are plenty of threads that are completely technical, and in which heavy weight scientists regularly weigh in. I don’t see you in any of them. Oh yeah… you already said you don’t understand the material. LOL.

    • Do you understand the material? If so, please enlighten me, so that I may repent and see the errors of my ways.

      Please cover all bases, from broad level interpretation, to how the data points support your theory, and the statistical analysis of said data. If you are able to do all of that, you could submit it to other scientists for them to review as well. See how many of them support your conclusions. At that point, you will have a peer reviewed paper, acknowledged by your critics as a valid interpretation of whats going on.
      That would give the skeptic community a boost in credibility. Please, keep us appraised.

      • Someone else says:

        “…you could submit it to other scientists for them to review as well. See how many of them support your conclusions. At that point, you will have a peer reviewed paper…”

        You could do exactly the same thing. I note that people like you always seem to want to assign homework that you won’t do yourself. Where are your peer reviered papers [not that I would give any credence to an anonymous screen name — Anthony refers to people like you as ‘anonymous cowards’ for a good reason]. Man-up, and post your real name, like the person you’re responding to does. Unless you prefer to remain an anonymous coward.

        Regarding your “credibility” comment, no matter how much grant money has been coralled by rent seeking scientists, they still have no credibility. They are riders on the grant gravy train; self-serving feeders at the grant trough, and if you doubt that, read the Climategate I, II, and III email dump. They admit outright finagling tax money, dishonestly gaming the climate pal review process, fabricating the number of citations claimed, cheating on taxes, fabricating ‘data’ to show non-existent warming, and scheming to avoid FOIA questions — among many other reprehensible tactics. And not one of them has ever denied any of those things.

        That’s a pretty despicable group of reprobates you’re attempting to defend.

      • The homework is being done, and the grades are in. Sorry guys, you just didn’t quite cut it. you are like the kids who forgot to turn in the assignment and are trying every excuse in the book to get an extension.

      • I am not sure why you (Someone else) want to spend hours making an appeal to authority argument. That doesn’t even work well arguing evolution with a creationist. What works is asking the creationist to make their case for creationism which they can’t other than their own unique appeal to authority (scripture) and give up.

        Perhaps you fail to understand that skeptics are not making an affirmative claim. AGW proponents have the affirmative claim and the burden of proof. No one writes papers proving negatives, you wont see a paper proving AGW does not exist. The default position is it does not exist until someone proves it. The skeptics position is that AGW and it’s affects have not been well proven and there are numerous articles (traditional-peer-reviewed and blog -peer-reviewed) as well as simple common sense challenging the AGW evidence and attendant unprecedented claims of being able to forecast chaotic non-linear systems out to the next century.

        Bizarrely we are at a point in primarily media and politics where AGW and its most extravagant claims is the default position.

        Creationist often try to poke holes in evolution by finding a trivial fault in the evidence or research. This is not what is happening with AGW. Not only are the core principles, methodologies and assumptions being challenged by skeptics, but also the blatant politicization of science and the daft confusion between activism and science is being challenged. The whole thing from stem to stern is a train wreck. It won’t be the first time in human history when the “consensus” position was the wrong position. Slavery comes to mind…

      • Someone else says:

        The homework is being done, and the grades are in.

        I am calling ‘someone else’ on that nonsense. Post your homework, chump. Let’s see your own pal reviewed paper.

        Of course, it’s all hot air. He’s got nothin’. We’ve seen an endless stream of trolls coming here who post nonsense, and ‘someone else’ is just another one. He never has any worthwhile facts or evidence to contribute. He is just another eco-religionist True Believer running interference as an anonymous coward, who wouldn’t know the Scientific Method or the Null Hypothesis if they bit him on the a… nkle.

      • The second one of us “common folk” get that paper written, it will be derided as coming from the same flawed methodology used by actual scientists. Me reposting the work of others is not helpful, anything new i find will simply generate another misleading headline on the home page.

        I’m calling dbstealey on the fact that he offers nothing either. he simply sits in these forums, waiting for a contrarian to come along so he can pounce.

        Your calls for affirmative confirmation are a red herring. If there is that much evidence that the AGW group is so wrong, it should be an easy task to collect the evidence.

        As to your call for a legitimate pal reviewed paper, i say ladies first. (And your posts on these forums don’t count)

      • ‘Someone else’ says:

        The second one of us “common folk” get that paper written, it will be derided …

        Exactly right, except the word “derided” is wrong. The correct word is “falsified”. Any time anyone posts a paper, it is expected to be attacked from all angles by scientific skeptics. That is the JOB of skeptics. Hiding behind your fear of something you write being deconstructed is typical of the alarmist mindset.

        And:

        I’m calling dbstealey on the fact that he offers nothing either. he simply sits in these forums, waiting for a contrarian to come along so he can pounce.

        Once again, exactly right. And it’s not just me; all skeptics are expected to tear apart conjectures, if they can. That’s their job. Anything that remains standing after the smoke clears is judged to be as close to scientific truth as is currently possible.

        But it doesn’t work if you hide out, and refuse to take a stand. You claim:

        If there is that much evidence that the AGW group is so wrong, it should be an easy task to collect the evidence.

        It is. There is a mountain of evidence debunking catastrophic AGW. But let’s just discuss plain old AGW, also known as man-made global warming [MMGW]. Since you are as afraid to take a stand as you are afraid to post your real identity, you can avoid discussing the reams of evidence that debunk your belief system.

        I keep asking for just one simple, verifiable, empirical and testable measurement of MMGW [AGW]. But you strenuously avoid responding. You prefer to deflect. The fact is that you have NO measurement quantifying the fraction of MMGW, out of total global warming.

        That leaves you with zero credibility. You claim that MMGW exists — but you are completely unable to say if it is 10% of all global warming, or 0.02% — or even if MMGW exists at all. You just do not know. You only Believe.

        That means you don’t know anything. Doesn’t it? You’re just winging it, based on your eco-religious belief.

        That isn’t nearly good enough here at the internet’s Best Science site. All you are doing is mindlessly running interference. There isn’t one iota of real science in anything you post. Thus, your credibility remains at zero.

        If you want to be taken seriously, take a stand. For you, that will be a first.

    • I have not seen this chart before. It is amazing. Perhaps it should be put up as a wall poster in every school to bring some realism into the AGW debate.(Perhaps it is,since it is available from Wiki).
      The only query I have is whether it is appropriate to put in the most extreme (RCP8.5) of the IPCC predictions.
      Such a chart in schools would , with decent teachers , promote many interesting discussions on , for example, how one can deduce temperatures 500MA years ago from the geological record or how the prevailing temperature influenced human evolution .

      • The one thing one has a very hard time getting from any of the graphics is the high resolution/high frequency problem vs the low resolution/low frequency problem. The other thing that this as much as all the rest of the graphs suffer from is the traditional (in climate science presentations) utter lack of error bars. All numbers are presented as if God handed them down on high, pristine and perfect, accurate to the resolution of the display. This is absolutely universal. Even in the rare cases where they do include an error bound on a graphic that isn’t just made up by somebody wielding a mouse, it is faint shading with no discussion of how it was obtained or what it might possibly mean.

        But this graph has one feature we can use to get an idea of the problem. Look at the difference between Epica and Greenland at the end of the Wisconsin glaciation through the Younger Dryas. If you looked only at Greenland, you would conclude that the Earth rocketed up from glaciation, was warm, and then plunged into glaciation again almost overnight in the Younger Dryas. If you looked only at Epica, you’d conclude that the Earth warmed gradually out of the Wisconsin, and suffered only a smallish dip in the Younger Dryas. What is the reality? What is the error on any estimate of the reality? Clearly it is at least the difference between these two measurements, and note that Greenland is highly specialized terrain and would have been (and still is!) kilometers high in plateau and ice, not at all like equatorial Africa. Epica is on the other hand an acrony for European Project for Ice Core drilling in Antarctica, which is largely another plateau kilometer(s) high piled with more kilometers of thick ice sheet.

        Why did Antarctica warm smoothly but Greenland shift abruptly? One theory is that Greenland was reflecting sudden, discrete shifts in thermohaline circulation (meaning that this is actually relevant to this thread). Basically the end of the Wisconsin was associated with a sudden shift of the Gulf Stream to carry warm water to Greenland and warm it, and the Arctic, and Europe, followed by a sudden shift back to a different self-organized thermohaline pattern that carried the warmth much further south so the entire NH went back into the icebox, followed by another switch back into a pattern that subsequently has held for the rest of the Holocene.

        In the other thread on this topic/paper, I pointed out that M&R’s assertion, while not backed by the direct observational data that in fact contradicts it, is not unlike one of the hypotheses for the suddenness of the “switch” in thermohaline circulation — an enormous bolus of freshwater glacier melt when Lake Aggasiz broke through an ice dam and emptied into Hudson Bay and the Arctic, raising sea levels by 1-3 meters in a matter of years and discretely freshening the Arctic so much that a) it froze solid, semipermanently; and b) since freshwater is less dense, completely interrupted the subduction of the cooling warmer waters being transported into the Arctic by the subcurrents of the Gulf Stream. Water can’t enter the Arctic Gyre unless it can also leave it, and currently it comes in at the top, cools, and comes out on the bottom after dumping its heat to space. Block the latter and it becomes “stagnant”, and only can warm/cool at the surface, and even in midsummer, there just isn’t a lot of warming at the poles, less if they are completely covered with “permanent” ice as they are in Antarctica.

        But we don’t even know the extent to which Epica results truly reflect e.g. warming and cooling in the entire tropical and subtropical band, or what happened to the temperate zone. One can guess that temperature variation in the tropics was much smaller, growing as one approached the poles, simply because if the tropical oceans shifted sea surface temperatures by 6 C over only a few centuries (or less!), there would have been absolutely unmistakable observational consequences. Neither of these should therefore be taken as continuous extensions of O18-derived mostly-tropical global temperature proxies such as the ones that make up the rest of the record.

        So, let’s make the joke fully clear.

        Almost the entire Phaenerozoic climate record:

        is known primarily from O18 data. The proxy is necessarily remarkably coarse grained, more so the further back one goes. At the beginning of this record, it is probably measuring/averaging over 100,000 year chunks simply because we are at that point using only very long half-life things like Uranium to date the rocks and we simply lack the temporal resolution to do much better. It is very likely not representative of a truly global average temperature anywhere, simply because we have to use the samples we can get where we can get them — sparse and regionally selective doesn’t begin to describe it. As we move towards the present, temporal resolution gets better as more radiometric dating isotopes kick in, the proxy itself works better, and the availability of fossil-bearing rock that hasn’t been multiply recycled in the e.g. breakup of Pangaea and plate subduction and so on goes up. Resolution increases to (maybe) less than 100,000 years, gradually moving towards 10,000 years. (This is why the log scale is actually helpful in many ways — even so note the disjunction at the 100,000 BP boundary!)

        Within the last 600,000 years, the basis largely shifts from O18 in rock to the much higher resolution ice core data. The ice core data has its own issues (which I won’t address) in addition to the one I did address — it is a highly imperfect metric for global temperature changes which were IMO probably no more than 1/3 as large as the polar changes (and the polar changes themselves aren’t in “great” agreement). This is the basis for our assumed knowledge of the spikes in temperature in the last five or six interglacials, especially the Eemian. There is also other data that supports much of this, BTW — it isn’t just ice cores, there are studies of rocks deposited on the sea bottom when icebergs or ice shelves melted, there are studies of sea level, there are other proxies (shellfish fossils and distributions, plant and animal distributions). We certainly have the events right, even though our knowledge of the details of the climate shifts in e.g. the Eemian are probably much less certain than one would ever assume seeing the thin God-given line of “temperature” from the ice core data presented as if it is a real measure of global temperature accurate to the thickness of the drawn line over the entire Wisconsin and into the Holocene.

        But it isn’t. In the Holocene, we have whole new sets of proxies, and the ice core data itself becomes less problematic the close one gets to the present. Over most of the Holocene, global temperature averages are probably time resolved on the scale of a few centuries — even when we have proxies with arguably better resolution and carbon dating (only possible at decent resolution in the last 50,000 years) we have the following problem:


        This is a great figure, because it is one of the most honest ones up on Wikipedia that addresses this subject. Note well that it shows the underlying source proxies as colored spaghetti on an asserted global anomaly relative to modern temperatures. Those proxies are — wait for it — nothing like coherent. At any given time one part of the world (from one of the very few parts of “the world” sampled by proxies here at all) might well be warming “dramatically”, while three others might be cooling, equally or less dramatically. One proxy will show large variation, where another proxy will show much more subdued variation. And note that none of the curves are particularly sharp — they are all smoothed because the noise in any given proxy is even less coherent or informative. The data is (as is clearly stated) 300 year data — one simply cannot compare it to the warming from 1980 to 2015 as this entire warming cycle might have occurred all the time as warming and cooling episodes in the past record and the proxies we use to infer past temperatures would be completely insensitive to it. Only warming or cooling sustained for centuries produces the wiggles in this graph, and those wiggles are substantial globally and even more substantial locally.

        That takes us to the far right hand end of the log scale graph, the “present”. Here we are indeed running into the Mann/Jones/Briffa era, where “dendroclimatology” makes egregious claims for knowledge of past temperatures based on tree rings that are then spliced onto the heavily adjusted thermometric era smoothly from around 1850 to the present with no particularly clear acknowledgement of the change.

        Now error estimates become absolutely crucial. HadCRUT4 (which I have in my personal climate workspace) has an error estimate built in, although nobody ever actually presents it. The error is even fractionated by what they think are distinct sources of error, and can be totted up into a total error, although it isn’t particularly clear if the result can be taken seriously as a confidence limit within the usual axiomatic statistical theory of such things. In 1850, HadCRUT4 acknowledges between 0.3 and 0.4C error. In 2015, it acknowledges between 0.15 and 0.2C error. Basically, it asserts a knowledge of global temperatures in the present that is only twice as precise as our knowledge in 1850. Both are, note well, based on real thermometers — a lot fewer thermometers, much more sparsely sited, in 1850 relative to the present, but we’re talking not proxies but direct measurements where the issues are the comparatively normal ones associated with reading measurement apparatus and imperfectly sampling some process at non-random locations, not making inferences about temperature from tree rings that are known to be multifactorial — as or more sensitive to things like rainfall, local environmental stress, CO_2 levels in the atmosphere (more CO_2 makes trees grow faster whether or not there is any warming, an effect that sadly they haven’t even thought of or tried to correct for but which affect the normalization of the proxy quite substantially over the last century of overlap with the thermometric record), fertilization by e.g. thunderstorm activity, land use change, fauna/ecology change — almost all of which is not known and SHOULD reduce the precision of the temperature inferences to the point of making them almost entirely useless, but hey, what do I know, I’m just a physicist who happens to be reasonably expert in statistics.

        Still, in a sane Universe, the uncertainty in HadCRUT4 across the 150 years used to normalize and select the tree ring proxy is the starting point for the uncertainty in the proxy derived estimates. Personally, I cannot see any possible way that the proxy error could be less than twice that of the thermometric record in 1850, and I think that true probable error in the thermometric record in 1850 is almost certainly more than twice that of the present. I’d be absolutely amazed if the tree ring proxy were more accurate than 1 whole degree C, and am dubious in the extreme of any claim for a smaller number. But 1 C means that they are pointless! The total temperature variation from the LIA to the present is (asserted to be) order of 1 C or a bit less. We cannot be particularly certain that true global warming has occurred over this interval at all, let alone be able to assert that it is some very particular value!

        OK, fine, that’s not quite true partly because, again, we have multiple proxies, and while all of them singly probably have errors on the order of 1 C or more back 400-600 years, collectively the error is at least somewhat smaller and the conclusion of warming more believable/plausible. Still, even during the LIA, we don’t really have any clue as to what temperatures were doing in the middle of the Pacific ocean, and most of the world’s continents at the time were terra incognita to European observers and what limited knowledge we do have comes almost entirely from a mere handful of proxies. Again, if hundreds to thousands of actual thermometers can manage at best 0.3 C, what could possibly be the precision of tens to hundreds of multifactorial proxy “thermometers”? The numbers alone imply a precision \sqrt{10} times larger (less precise) and that is before we start to worry about kriging, where the errors properly should dwarf the simple measurement precision, or consider covariance and confounding.

        In the end, we are comparing apples in the present to oranges in the immediate past to bananas in the intermediate past to guavas in the distant past to pineapples in the truly remote past, without any due consideration of the suppression of all statistical detail and knowlede of shorter term fluctuations across the boundaries and presenting the upper bound of 1000 or 10,000, or 100,000 or 1,000,000 year old “global temperatures” in comparison to warming in an interval so brief that it would probably have been missed entirely even if it happened once every 300 years in almost all of the proxies used to develop the older estimates to assert that current conditions are “unprecedented”.

        Let me state this clearly and categorically.

        Bullshit.

        You cannot make that statement with any possibility — without even the possibility — of quantitative support.

        What one can do, but is basically never done, is use our present observations of climate variation to make assertions about the probable range of shorter term climate variation dressing the past data. That is, we could assume that the noise at different time resolutions is preserved as one moves back in the lower resolution data. So if early Holocene temperatures were, on average, as warm or a bit warmer than today on a 300 year coarse grained basis, and we have direct knowledge of fluctuations of order 1 C over 300 years, we could assume fairly safely that there were century long discursions of as much as 0.5-1 C warmer or cooler “dressing” the smoothed record of the Holocene Optimum. Indeed, it is almost certain that the highwater temperature across a several thousand year period was at least 1 full degree C warmer than the present. If we use the Eemian data for the same purpose, we might conclude that it could have been 2 C warmer than the present for at least some 50 to 100 year interval over the last 12,000 years.

        Instead, the data is presented without any such analysis at all, leaving one with the impression that the Holocene was smooth, slowly varying, and entirely predictable with nothing much going on until humans came along and messed it up. Only when you look at the colored spaghetti in the graph I posted above does the falseness of that particular presentation or conclusion become clearly evident.

        rgb

    • Nice graphic — I have the non-log-scale version of this linked, but the log scale adds a certain perspective. I saved the link to use it again.

      rgb

      • monumental schooling this morning ! Thank you for all that you covered !

  22. Mann has no integrity at all. How does one get that unethical?
    Is it an acquired affliction or is it in his genes?

  23. “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
    ~ Richard Benedik United Nations

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhoffer United Nations

  24. Poor Michael . All you guys are like the town bullies picking on the impaired .
    Should be ashamed of yourselves .

  25. It does seem that scientific debate or rational discussion is becoming rarer on this blog. Sadly, it seems to have been replaced by a bun fight of ad hominin attacks. Any dissenter who makes an inconvenient point is automatically called a ’troll’. That’s a shame and reminds me of a posting on the Bishop Hill site.

    Good discussions used to take place, on occasion, at WUWT or BH. There were brief periods when the old Collide-a-scape blog and Bart Verheggen’s site provided such moments. They are hard to come by now. Maybe the consensus and conspiracy poison spread mindlessly and artlessly throughout the blogs by certain people is to blame.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/12/2/niceness-at-home-and-abroad.html

    • On the other hand , go back just 3 days to the comments following Tim Ball’s post on the MWP and LIA:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/22/relative-homogeneity-of-the-medieval-warm-period-mwp-and-the-little-ice-age-lia/
      A heavy post of comments , many illustrated with charts and links., Much of the information original and illuminating to the general reader such as myself . That is what keeps people returning to this site, sometimes to the detriment of domestic duties.

    • The number of postings and frivolous comment has gone up significantly. Over the past 7 days there have been an average of 4 postings per day, a few of which have meaningful contribution to the subject. My interpretation is that there is little going on in the field that has the potential to shape opinion and people are marking time and consolidating their thoughts and opinion.

      • pmhinsc:
        There may be some justification in your comments about people “marking time” at present re; their thoughts and opinions , but it does not mean that the process of education does not still continue. To take just one example: from the Tim Ball post there were many references and links to papers that most probably will not have read unless in the field and I found , by tracing paper to paper , one from the famous Jones that seemed very sensible and informative, which changed my preconception of him. There are many such occasions throughout the posts . Look down at the contribution from Bill Illis . Did you know of the detailed geography and temperatures of the North Atlantic before seeing that? . Perhaps you did but I bet many of us did not but now we do.
        Since WUWT has such a large comparative readership the distribution of interests and informed opinion will also be larger than other sites and the scientific basis for AGW is just one aspect of the whole picture . That scene also includes the questions :
        how damaging would the AGW be in real, human , terms if the mean of IPCC models came about ?
        how much money should be taken from western economies to mitigate emissions ?
        are renewables practical?
        and these socioeconomic factors may interest a section of the readership more than the purely scientific questions – but they are IMO worth addressing . It was through the WUWT that I came across the work of Weissbach who shows how damaging to a previously flourishing economy would be a change to purely renewables power sources . Where else could I get such information – not through the established media and their political and commercial confederates.

    • WUWT is not a tiny blog — it is a mass event. The talents and abilities of the people who read and comment on this site vary.

      At the top are the scientists who do discuss the articles from a position of expertise. They are the backbone of this site.

      The majority of us get the gist of what is being said and are ever gaining a better understanding of ALL climate issues. WUWT is not narrowly focused but gives us the broad view of not just climate science but also climate politics. Examining the latter is just as important as examining the former.

      If some of the comments seem frivolous to you bear in mind the inanities of some of the junk that the left tries to pass off as science.and some of the political dirty tricks they have pulled. (Willie Soon for example.)

      The truth of the matter is that WUWT — besides being highly informative — is also a damn good read.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • I skip over many comments but never skip over yours or Ball’s comments because they are quite educational and I want to thank you, Eugene, for posting here.

      • I agree with emsnews, and I’d like to add that I appreciate Eugene’s poetry. An example:

        The Hockey Stick

        There was a crooked Mann

        Who played a crooked trick

        And had a crooked plan

        To make a crooked stick

        By using crooked math

        That favored crooked lines
        
Lysenko’s crooked path
        
Led thru the crooked pines

        And all his crooked friends

        Applaud what crooked seems

        But all that crooked ends

        Derives from crooked means

      • Well said, Eugene. I’ve learned a lot since I started coming here. The social and political side of this debate tells me “where we are” and is every bit as important to me as the science. Both draw me here on a daily basis. I even enjoy the “trolls” as they get more active when WUWT strikes a nerve. They often give me a smile for the day as the rebuttals are so wonderfully delivered and so very informative.

  26. Paul in Sweden March 25, 2015 at 12:03 am
    “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
    -Richard Benedik United Nations

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    Ottmar Edenhoffer United Nations

    Interesting. A quick look at Wikipedia:

    Since 1994 Dr. Benedick has also been President of the National Council for Science and the Environment, an organization of over 500 universities, scientific societies, industry and civic groups dedicated to improving the scientific basis for environmental decision making … Ambassador Richard Benedick has played a major role in global environmental affairs as chief U.S. negotiator and a principal architect of the historic Montreal Protocol on protection of the ozone layer,[1] and as Special Advisor to Secretaries-General of both the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994).

    Ottmar Georg Edenhofer is a German economist dealing with climate change policy, environmental and energy policy as well as energy economics. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin was appointed one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change”. He is Deputy Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change [etc etc etc] … [his] research explores the impact of induced technological change on mitigation costs and mitigation strategies, as well as the design of instruments for climate and energy policy. He specializes in the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization, Social Cost-Benefit Analysis, Sustainability Theory, Economic Growth Theory, Environmental Economics, Welfare Theory and General Intertemporal Equilibrium Theory.
    In a profile published in Nature in 2013, Edenhofer says that his interest in philosophy and economics was influenced by his readings of the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Dewey. Regarding climate change he says: ”Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position.”

    Political elite or what?

    Their Nirvana would presumably be an unelected UN-based Global Government working to a Manifesto styled around Agenda 21 and driven roughshod over the interests of the majority through rigid promotion of ‘scientific consensus’ on a trumped-up global threat. They would cheerfully use and justify any and all means of control available to them to marginalise ‘deniers’.

    It’s been well said – freedom is something we must all defend, every day, in lots of little ways. Remember Churchill: “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science …”

  27. The stupid point is that Mann had stumbled onto something of interest, namely the divergence issue/problem. This was a significant finding, and one that warranted research and publication.

    There are two obvious explanations for the divergence issue/problem. First, trees are not thermometres and hence tree rings are a poor proxy for temperatures. Second, that IF trees rings are a good proxy for temperature, may be the land based thermometer record post the late 1960s is running warm (due to UHI and/or the artefacts of station drop outs and/or incorrect homogenisation/adjustments).

    But rather than highlighting this finding and enquiring into its cause, Mann chose instead to hide the decline.

    Just think what if Mann had been the first person to highlight a significant problem with the land based thermometer record and to show that it was running warm and that the satellite record post the late 1970s which shows no warming (it is essentially flat between 1979 and the run up to the 1998 Super El Nono) was a more accurate account of what was happeningf on planet Earth.

    He might not have received the immediate plaudits of his contempories, but his long term place in climate science (just like Lamb) would surely rest on sounder footings.

    • Mann knew what ‘product ‘ was needed at the time and supplied by any means possible , now the sad reality is that no matter what we think of him and his ‘work’ The stick has been nothing but good for his career since , and when you look at his rather rubbish standards and awful personality you see it really has given an advancement he otherwise would never have seen .
      The bottom line was Mann judge the situation right and he was lucky enough to work in an area where effective lies have more value then honset data .

    • Mann is paid to deny reality thus, even when he stumbles over it, he continues to deny reality even if his head hurts and his knees buckle.

  28. “Mike’s Nature Trick”… in this case is also very simple: R/M 15 take take the difference between SST of Atlantic Subpolar Gyer ( SPG) and the temperatures of the northern hemisphere ( Tnh) as measure for the strength of the AMOC. In a long list of literature is mentioned, that the SSTspg and/or the SSHspg is a good fingerprint of the AMOC allone. In the paper is not justified, that the subtraction of Tnh ist usefull and leads to better approximations of the AMOC. After making this operation using the data of Mann 2008 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full.pdf%29 ( NH Reko with a hockey stick shape)… it’s no wonder that one gets an “inverted HS” : http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/files/Rahmstorf_2015_3b.jpg ( from the Rahmstorf Blog with the operation explicit namend: “SPG-NH”). That’s all, this is the essence of the whole paper.

  29. What bugs me the most is that Michael Mann and climate science have no clue what really drives the AMOC or the thermohaline ocean circulation system.

    He thinks the Gulf Stream cools off and then sinks to form the North Atlantic Bottom Water somewhere south of Iceland or something or the water coming off of Greenland..

    That is completely wrong. The NABW comes from under the sea ice throughout the central part of the Arctic Ocean 1000s of kms away and 1000 of metres of ocean depth away. Just like the Antarctic Bottom Water forms under the sea next to Antarctica and then sinks to the bottom from there, the Atlantic Bottom Water forms under the sea ice in the Arctic basin..

    The Arctic Ocean basin water is actually about as cold and dense as water can get (in liquid form). Almost noone knows this but the majority of the Arctic ocean at depth is actually between -0.5C and -1.0C. Even in the deepest part of the ice ages, it would not have been colder than this.

    This cross-section (not in English but is about the only depiction available) shows the temperature distribution of the Arctic basin.

    It flows out of the Arctic basin wherever the deepest channels can be found. It is the densest water on the planet and it will always be at the deepest part of the ocean. It more-or-less overflows at the very bottom of these canyons.

    By the time it gets to Michael Mann’s “north atlantic AMOC sinking region”, it is already 2500 metres deep and is about 1.0C.

    The Gulf Stream now at 10C at the surface at this location is NOT interacting with the bottom water flow at 1.5C and 2500 metres down.

    By the time this water is joined by the other bottom water coming from the channel between Greenland and Newfoundland at 35N now, the water temperature is still 1.5C and it is now 4000 metres deep.

    Mann’s garbage paper has nothing to do with what really happens in the ocean conveyor belt. There is tons of more charts one could show.

  30. @Someone else;

    Let’s be clear. No one in their right mind “denies” climate change. I am categorically certain that 99.999% of the people posting here believe that we have periodic ice ages on this planet, and we have periodic warm interglacial periods. Further, we also believe that there was a Minoan warm period, a Roman warm period, and a Medieval warm period, and a Little Ice Age. Climate, BY DEFINITION, changes. Always has, always will.

    Can we agree on at least that much?

    If we cannot agree on at least that much, then there is no point in continuing the conversation any further, since we wouldn’t even be “speaking the same language”.

    Many skeptics believe that CO2 concentration does have SOME effect on temperature; although there are also a certain number who would argue that it either has vanishingly small to no effect, and even some who argue that increasing CO2 concentration actually has a radiative COOLING effect, rather than causing any warming whatsoever. It takes all kinds, right? Myself, I believe that CO2 concentration does have a minimal effect on temperature, but it is so minimal as to be nearly completely swamped out by natural variability. If you actually read many scientific papers on the subject, you will note that there are MANY estimates of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) to CO2, but, in the main, these estimates of ECS keep getting lower and lower as more studies are done, indicating that there is probably no way whatsoever that CO2 can act as a giant control knob which directly controls temperature.

    That is where the whole problem with CAGW theory occurs. We have been told by the “Climate Scientists” that CO2 is the MAIN DRIVER of the climate system. That very premise appears to be nonsense given that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 in fact appears to be quite low, and the estimates of ECS are getting lower all of the time.

    Further, to say that we don’t discuss science here is complete nonsense (and rather insulting to many of us here). Yes, some threads (like this one) we degenerate into Mann-Bashing (but who can blame us really???). The majority of threads on this site tend to be quite valid scientific discussions, and many of us participating in them are, in fact, scientists of one stripe or another.

    The “Climate Scientists” tend to base nearly all of their “studies” on models. There is a problem with that. No model could ever be sufficiently complex to describe the atmosphere, oceans, sun, and climate (without being precisely, exactly as complex as the whole climate system itself). We are told that the models are currently “the best we have”; however, all of the models a priori ASSUME that CO2 is a giant control knob which regulates the temperature of the Earth, so it is quite possible that the models are designed incorrectly to begin with. Further, it can be demonstrated that none of the 40 or so models currently in use actually give “the right answer” when it comes to the current state of the climate. “Climate Scientists” try to solve this problem by AVERAGING the results of all of the multiple runs of all of the 40 or so models, and then claiming that this average is somehow “the right answer”. There is a fundamental problem with this that ANY scientist should instantly recognize – if you average 42 wrong answers, the only way that the result will be the right answer is by COMPLETE ACCIDENT. At that point, you aren’t doing science anymore, which is what, basically, most of us here have a big problem with.

    We don’t “deny science”. We simply recognize that most of the alarmist brand of “climate scientists” are not, in fact, following the scientific method and are not “doing real science”. So, if we are denying anything here, we are basically denying the VALIDITY of the “science” being done by many of those on the alarmist side, and, for the most part, we are using valid science in our criticism of what they are doing.

    • Since Mann attacks anyone defying him using lawyers, etc. bashing him is required. He deserves richly to be pilloried. This is the only rational way to deal with his sort of bullying.

  31. “davidmhoffer

    March 24, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    My observation is that the majority of skeptics in this and other forums are of the opinion that the climate changes, has changed in the past, will change in the future, and is changing as we speak, always has, always will.”

    Indeed. You say “majority of skeptics”, but I can’t help but wonder if there is any skeptic who does not hold this opinion?

    The question is how much is natural variability and how much not.”

    Agreed, and even more to the anthropogenic CO2 emission point, the question is: does the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humanity have a discernable impact in the temperature of the atmosphere?

    At this point in our ability to observe, the answer is “we are unable to discern this impact.”

    • If there are any skeptics who truly believe that the climate was constant in the past and did not change at all, then those skeptics would be in full agreement with the first thousand years of Mann’s infamous hockey stick.

      I cannot speak for ALL skeptics, but I believe the “scientific consensus” among skeptics is that change is a perfectly natural part of climate.

    • In fact, given the shape of the first 1000 years (or more) of Mann’s hockey stick, it might even be fair to say that Mann and those who agree with him are the ones who deny (natural) climate change.

      • True and how is that for irony that the prophet for ‘the cause ‘ is a climate change ‘denier’

      • knr
        March 25, 2015 at 7:23 am

        “:True and how is that for irony that the prophet for ‘the cause ‘ is a climate change ‘denier’”
        ——————–

        Is even worse actually, while till lately before this last work of his, somehow he got to be credited and considered as a kimda of a “prophet” by the AGW relegion , the AGW “church” , the “high priests” of that relegion and the AGW flock, now he has resolved to contradiction and contempt to the very AGW orthodoxy,….. he is claming lately for a “prophecy” that by the canonic rules of the AGW consist and can be regarded as only a blasphemy.

        He has become a lose cannon.

        I will not be surprised even if the very “high priests” have a go and a move against him in this one.

        He is trying to have his own new AGW relegion……. completely in contradiction of the orthodox one.

        Most probably he is very aware of his actions and the meaning of such actions.

        cheers

      • knr
        March 25, 2015 at 7:23 am

        “:True and how is that for irony that the prophet for ‘the cause ‘ is a climate change ‘denier’”
        ——————–

        Is even worse actually, while till lately before this last work of his, somehow he got to be credited and considered as a kinda of a “prophet” by the AGW religion , the AGW “church” , the “high priests” of that religion and the AGW flock, now he has resolved to contradiction and contempt to the very AGW orthodoxy,….. he is claiming lately for a “prophecy” that by the canonic rules of the AGW consist and can be regarded as only a blasphemy.

        He has become a lose cannon.

        I will not be surprised even if the very “high priests” have a go and a move against him in this one.

        He is trying to have his own new AGW religion……. completely in contradiction of the orthodox one.

        Most probably he is very aware of his actions and the meaning of such actions.

        cheers

        -Mods please do delete my first reply above to knr-
        thanks

    • …and much more to the point is that influence harmful, catastrophic, or beneficial. (The overwhelming observable evidence is beneficial.)

  32. As I’m sure all on this blog know only too well, the fact that this is junk science will go unreported. The wild claims it makes, however, will not. Right now on Yahoo’s front page:

    The Gulf Stream system may already be weakening. That’s not good.The Gulf Stream system may already be weakening. That’s not good.
    Scary New Proof That We Have Seriously Screwed Up the Planet’s Oceans
    Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences

    So the “Mankind is EEEVVVIIILLL!” is getting plenty face time, claims to the contrary are not.

    • Notice that the article linked to on Yahoo is actually posted at Vox. Vox is known to have one particular point of view, so “climate catastrophism” coming from them is absolutely no surprise whatsoever.

  33. Here’s a guy who thinks he’s the worlds #1 climate scientist, but his experience is in dendrochronology. Really, there shouldn’t be a link between these two as the tree rings give an approximation of the “sum of conditions” not necessarily climate, but he already knew that.

    • Quite so, Abram. Mann thinks he is #1. Tree rings show not just temperature but also rain amounts and incidentally, insect attacks. Yes, we have regular years every 20 or so in the Northeast where we have all the trees stripped of their leaves simultaneously by caterpillars who come out of the ground where they hibernate.

      So on these years, the tree rings are smaller than other, normal years.

      Tree rings most certainly do not show us cooling or heating alone.

    • Good one. Imagine what Mann would do if he had any power or authority.
      He’d be the Pol Pot of Climate Science.

  34. IIRC this is literally the truth. In one of the directories released with the original tree ring data, there was a record of email conversations where some of the goals of the work were clearly discussed with colleagues, and dealing with the MWP and LIA were on the list, as they were clearly visible on (IIRC) Jones and Briffa’s reconstructions that were also published in AR3/TAR. But the JB result wasn’t a hockey stick, and hence didn’t tell the right story. IIRC there were climategate emails that said almost exactly the same thing. The simple fact of the matter is that there was a body of climate scientists — a substantial body — in direct communication with one another and at the very least displaying their utter lack of scientific objectivity as they were “gunning” for the MWP and LIA in order to support their assertions of catastrophic warming (and the funding cornucopia gold rush that followed, where they were regularly interviewed on radio and TV and became “famous” — and who can resist the seduction of all that?).

    But my favorite thing is this:

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm

    Note well — for the trees used by Mann as proxies, we expect to see roughly 12% increased growth rates of tree rings from 1850 to the present due to the increase in atmospheric CO_2 itself, not due to increased temperatures at all! Indeed, the growth rate due to temperature increases is also documented in this short review as being expected to be around 10% over the same interval.

    The problem with this is that it means that the tree ring proxies were almost certainly incorrectly selected and normalized across the overlap using Mann’s procedure of only using trees that were in good correspondence with the temperature data and then extrapolating the ring widths observed into the past. In the past there would have (possibly, even probably) much less variation in CO_2 level, so that they underestimate warming by roughly a factor of two by attributing growth due to two factors in the recent present to only one of the two, but not correcting for the absence of variation in the other in the remote past.

    Tree rings based climate estimates probably underestimate past warming by a factor of roughly two, outside of the additional confounding of heat with or without adequate water under the conditions of lower CO_2. That is, hot dry low-CO2 conditions actually decrease plant growth rates as they are water-limited in growth and (as the article points out) have large stoma through which water loss occurs, experiencing a very severe increase in plant stress. As CO_2 increases, plant stoma sizes needed to maintain CO_2 perfusion decrease, water loss decreases, and in addition to growing faster in response to the otherwise rate limiting CO_2, the plant grows faster still in warmer conditions even when less water is present, as they lose less water to respiration through the smaller stoma.

    This additional confounding factor could make tree rings underestimate past temperatures by an additional factor of 2, or it could cause tree rings to infer cool conditions where in reality the conditions were hot, but CO_2 stressed and dry.

    I first realized this when I saw a paper (probably linked through this site) that was trying to make inferences about tropical storms and temperatures using growth rates of certain tropical trees (in the Phillipines, maybe? Can’t remember.). The trees have showed a systematically increased growth rate that the article (naturally) attributed to global warming even though the data they presented did not show any sort of good correlation with global average temperature in detail. It did, however, follow a curve I had recently worked out for probable well-mixed CO_2 content in the atmosphere over the last 1850 years, and the numbers — 15% overall, IIRC — worked out almost perfectly for the increase in growth expected from the increase in CO_2 alone.

    This may be the next big shoe to come crashing down on the global warming dendroclimatologists. AFAIK, they have all to a Mann completely, utterly, totally neglected the effect of CO_2 itself on growth rates of the very plants they are using as proxies. In many cases — notably this case in the Phillipines or Malaysia or wherever it was — consideration of CO_2 completely eliminates any correlation with temperature at all in the residuals (that is, after taking CO_2 increase into account, there is nothing left to explain via temperature variation). In any event, correcting for it will, without question, substantially lower the anomaly these methods report when it is taken into account.

    This is the one thing that the catastrophists don’t want to draw attention to, but even my friends in Environmental Sciences are perfectly aware of — the increased CO_2 alone is responsible for over 10% of the crops harvested worldwide every year. If one takes the increased drought resistance and increased growth rates due to warming (whatever the cause) into account, the number goes up closer to 20%. We feed, clothe, and shelter somewhere between 1 and 1.5 billion people a year with this food mass, with the plant fiber mass, and with the trees mass that we know, quite reliably and on the basis of literally hundreds if not thousands of greenhouse experiments, is available only because of the increased CO_2 in the atmosphere.

    This is why even some otherwise rabid ecologists are starting to change their stance on CO_2. Yeah, maybe it will cause a global catastrophe in 100 years, maybe not, but up to now its effects have been so overwhelmingly positive that the world would almost certainly have voted to burn enough carbon to take the atmosphere to 400 ppm regardless if they were actually informed of its benefits.

    1 to 1.5 billion people.

    That’s how many people would potentially starve if we waved a magic wand and dropped CO_2 right back to 280 ppm tomorrow. At the very least, to prevent the worst catastrophe humanity has ever even dreamed about we’d all have to tighten our belts and equitably distribute the food we have to the world’s poorest 2 or 3 billion people, as naturally the hardest hit would be the poorest and most populous nations, nations that can only feed their own populations because of the CO_2 benefit.

    Here’s the really, really sad thing. The climate news this week has been fabulous. Seriously! A paper is being published that through careful work reduces aerosol cooling uncertainty by over a factor of two and reduces the probable cooling itself to a mere 0.5 C! This in turn invalidates 80% of all of the climate models — 100% of the ones predicting catastrophe. This in turn requires one to re-tune the surviving ones so that they work at all with the much smaller aerosol cooling, which eliminates almost all of the positive water vapor feedback which is the only thing that could cause a real catastrophe. The probable implication of this paper is that the “crisis” is decisively over! ECS from 1 to 2 C is simply not likely to be catastrophic even in RCP8.5, and most probable ECS is on the low side of this range, with basically no net feedback on top of CO_2-only forcing!

    Throw in the observation that the hockey stick neglected direct CO_2-driven growth and hence is incorrectly normalized. Throw in on top of that the simple observation that the CO_2 increase in the industrial era is feeding one person in five who is alive today (and not just humans — this effect pervades the entire biosphere!). If we had anything like objective reporting on this issue, anything like non-politicized science addressing it, anything like simply human selfishness in analyzing it, this would be headline news.

    And in 1 to 2 years, if the aerosol result holds up, it will be. It is simply inevitable. If the strict upper bound of aerosol cooling is only 1 C, it will simply no longer be possible to maintain the illusion that the GCMs are useful in some way. The modelers will be forced to recalibrate the models, and the recalibrated models will, without any doubt at all, show far, far less warming than the old ones.

    There will be two important social results from this. It will become common knowledge that the claims for precision and accuracy in these models and their suitability for purposes of “projecting” future climate have been from the beginning sheer bullshit. Numerous papers will appear proving what is and really always has been perfectly obvious, that there is no statistical basis for any claim for predictivity for the entire procedure that has been used to “project” a future climate, that every single assertion of “confidence” in documents presented to policy makers has been a deliberately deceptive misuse of a statistical term in a political context. Pitchforks and torches may appear as it becomes clear just how much public money has been wasted and stolen and misdirected as a result of this deliberate, self-interested deception. Second, it is barely possible that we will stop demonizing coal burning power plants and gasoline burning cars long enough for science and technology to do its job and actually invent better alternatives without the panic and without the incredible misdirection of resources into climate research on the hypothetical effects of a hypothetical catastrophe that will no longer be hypothetically likely at any level worth the money.

    All good, from my point of view.

    • Thanks RGB.
      Long ago, before I discovered WUWT, I brought up the issue of CO2 fertilization disrupting tree rings in terms of both temperature and precipitation response in what I soon came to understand was a “science” forum in name only. I was patted on the head and told not to worry about the issue, and to leave the science to the “scientists”. Kinda forgot about it until your comment just now.

      • David, I though of it affecting the recent period (1950 and on) I did not make what should have been the obvious connection of the historical flat line of CO2 causing them to under estimate the past warmth.(CO2 past is somewhat controversial with “Beck”, but, hey maybe they will revive Beck to save the tree studies, oh the tangled web)

    • rgbatduke
      March 25, 2015 at 8:58 am

      Hello rgb

      You say;

      “This in turn invalidates 80% of all of the climate models — 100% of the ones predicting catastrophe.
      This in turn requires one to re-tune the surviving ones so that they work at all with the much smaller aerosol cooling, which eliminates almost all of the positive water vapor feedback which is the only thing that could cause a real catastrophe. The probable implication of this paper is that the “crisis” is decisively over! ECS from 1 to 2 C is simply not likely to be catastrophic even in RCP8.5, and most probable ECS is on the low side of this range, ….”

      ———————-

      If the CS of an average of ~3C (1.5C to 4,5C range) is lowered as you imply then you lose to the error 100% of climate models predictions, with 0 survivors left for any meaningful tuning as you suggest.

      Is THE INTERPRETATION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE PROJECTIONS THAT SUPPORT AND UPHOLD THE ~3C CS, not the other way around, as far as I can tell, if I am not wrong.
      If CS happens to be in reality any much different than that, then the projections of all of the GCMs are wrong, 100%, none will be of any good for any such re-tuning unless corrected.

      The projections up-hold and support the AGW (either catastrophic or not), not the other way around…….

      cheers

      • Whiten,

        I have seen numerous papers in the past 2 years (many of which were reviewed right here on this site) in which ECS has been estimated to be < 2C. I think that your 3C estimate of ECS is hopelessly out of date given the recent literature on the subject.

    • RGB says, “This is the one thing that the catastrophists don’t want to draw attention to, but even my friends in Environmental Sciences are perfectly aware of — the increased CO_2 alone is responsible for over 10% of the crops harvested worldwide every year. If one takes the increased drought resistance and increased growth rates due to warming (whatever the cause) into account, the number goes up closer to 20%. We feed, clothe, and shelter somewhere between 1 and 1.5 billion people a year with this food mass, with the plant fiber mass, and with the trees mass that we know, quite reliably and on the basis of literally hundreds if not thousands of greenhouse experiments, is available only because of the increased CO_2 in the atmosphere.”
      ============================================
      Thank you. For years I have said the predicted harms of CO2 are failing to manifest, the benefits of CO2 are know, manifesting, and continue to increase in a fairly linear fashion, unlike the exponentially decreasing atmospheric warming affect of additional CO2. For those interested, the NIPCC and CO2 science document the benefits of CO2 well. The also well document the predicted harms of CO2 are unlikely to manifest in the real world.

      So, attention to all CAGW enthusiast, the peer reviewed science based on observations is solidly skeptical and consist of thousands of papers based on ten of thousands of real world studies, laboratory and in field experiments, and fundamental science.

      The proponents case for CAGW consist of failed models, failed what if, maybe, it night in the future happen projections, based on the FAILED model mean of the WRONG IN ONE DIRECTION climate models.

      BTW RGB, it has been awhile since I read Climate Audit on the many problems with tree rings. I do not recall the brilliant but “why din[t I think of that” implications of the perennial flat CO2 levels being used as a proper baseline for determining the relative warmth of the past. Has Steve McIntyre explored this?

    • @RGB,

      To paraphrase Keynes (The General Theory 1936, p.192): Mann and his models offer us the supreme
      intellectual achievement … of adopting a hypothetical world remote from observation as though it were the world of observation and then lived in it consistently.

      Too bad our policy makers don’t understand the difference between an ergodic and nonergodic world.

  35. Sorry, I meant that that Malaysian trees didn’t follow the known local temperature but were in good agreement — really excellent agreement — with the CO_2 curve itself, a thing that eluded the authors of the study as it has eluded the entire discipline AFAICT. My bad.

  36. rgbatduke says:

    “Pitchforks and torches may appear as it becomes clear just how much public money has been wasted and stolen and misdirected as a result of this deliberate, self-interested deception.”

    Well said rg. If anyone wants to know why roughly half of this country’s eligible voters don’t bother going to the polls on election day, this could be one example of the reason why. While I don’t expect the American people to literally hit the streets with pitchforks and torches when this fraud becomes fully exposed someday, there will no doubt be a lot of red faces and explaining to do when it does. I just hope I’m still around to see it when it does happen.

    • “While I don’t expect the American people to literally hit the streets with pitchforks”
      =========================
      Really, we can’t? aw shucks. Is tar and feathers ok?

      The truth is I hope our system can find some appropriate justice.

  37. The AMOC is the far north / European end of the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift) AND the return current below the surface. Now Mann was all “unprecidented” all over this slow down, and absolutely certain that it is an unusual and human caused thing.

    Unfortunately, it is highly precidented and happens to even greater degree with very significant tendency to ‘regularity’. (I note in passing that we just had a ‘super tide’ event with folks coming out to see it as there will not be another one for decades… yet there will be another one as tides are driven by lunar / solar orbital mechanics.) My speculation is that much of the cyclical change is related to water flow changes directly driven by tide cycles in both water and air and that’s why we have what looks like 1500 ish year cycles along with sub cycles at 750 and about 300 years, along with a 5000 ish year cycle on the long end.

    But far from speculation. This paper looks at Florida weather and how it relates to changes in the Gulf Stream and through it AMOC (by implication).

    http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/publications/Jacobson%20et%20al.%202012%20Hg%20in%20L.%20Tulane%20ES%26T%2046%20%2011210-11717%5b1%5d.pdf

    While it mostly looks at Hg concentration and transport with sea level and temperature changes, there’s an interesting chart of changes in the ratio of oak to pine pollen (which shifts with temperature and rainfall).

    Figure 3. Lake Tulane Hg flux in relation to organic matter and selected plant taxa over the last 60 000 years. Horizontal green bars indicate Tulane Pinus periods (TP0 through TP6), which correspond to YD and Heinrich Events H1 through H6.14 Sea level in the Gulf of Mexico since 25 000 years BP is based on ref 17.

    And:

    The second of the dramatic peaks of the accumulation rate of
    Hg (ca. 13 000 and 5000 years BP, Figure 3) is slightly before
    the sharp increase in Pinus pollen, which lags a few hundred
    years. The Pinus rise is interpreted as a change in water regime,
    with increasing warmth and higher summer precipitation. If
    correct, the result would be an acceleration of the rise in
    regional water table, creating conditions for increased reductive
    dissolution of secondary Fe (and release of Hg). The soil,
    nearly at its present groundwater state, apparently was then
    rapidly depleted of stored Hg.

    So we have periodic peaks of warmth and rain (Florida “summer pattern” today) happening when there are increases in Hg accumulation (leaching into the lake) in sync with the Younger Dryas and Heinrich Events. Heinrich Events being a rise in ice rafted debris on ocean floors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event

    Heinrich events appear related to some, but not all, of the cold periods preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which are best recorded in the NGRIP Greenland ice core. However, difficulties in synchronising marine sediment cores and Greenland ice cores to the same time scale cast aspersions on the accuracy of this statement.

    So they are during cold events, preceding the rapid warming spikes of D-O events.

    What’s the point? While there is a lot of speculation that Heinrich Events are caused by some kind of fresh water flow or ice dam collapse leading to a slow down or halt of the AMOC, that isn’t known. IMHO it could just as easily be a natural shift of the current under extreme tidal forces (and would explain the quasi-periodic nature of D-O events that happen on the same schedule as Bond Events during the Holocene and their Heinrich Event fellow travelers). But what is clear:

    When the AMOC slows and shifts, and Europe goes cold, the solar heat backs up in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida gets warmer and wetter. This is not at all unusual, and has been happening for tens of thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years. The pine and the oak trees are clear testimony to that. The Mercury is a bit more complicated, but also suggests the same.

    So all you folks in the frozen north and tundra Europe, Florida is the place to head when the ice doesn’t leave “on time”… but you already knew that ;-)

    This is also indirectly testimony for the W. Thunderstorm Thermostat Thesis. Florida gets warm, and wet, and fires up a whole lot more thunderstorms to hold total heat flow constant (less from the Arctic, more via thunderstorms and convection / precipitation). Even now during full on interglacials, it is very clear that the heat can only build up so far before the thunderstorms kick in and take it to the stratosphere for direct radiation to space. Hard to get much over about 88 F in Florida for very long before a thunderstorm cools things off again. Even when the Gulf Stream backs up and the AMOC shuts down; it just goes to “Summer Mode” and rains out the heat…

    So, IMHO, this is pretty direct evidence that Mann has no clue about what real science has been done showing natural variability far more extreme than any proposed human caused changes. And just how much the AMOC is an oscillator and not a steady state.

  38. Apparently deleting a rational thoughtful conversation in your own blogs comments section with another poster is not too low for Mann. How low can one go? With Mann we may never know, could be limitless.

  39. @Someone else,

    You sing the praises of John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” which is neither sceptical or scientific. Cook Nuccatelli et al. are a bunch of Mimophants:

    Arthur Koestler coined the portmanteau word “Mimophant” in “Suicide of a Nation”:
    “Throughout the ages, painters and writers of fantastic tales have been fond of creating chimeras (a monster with a lion’s head, goat’s torso and a serpent’s tail). My own favorite brain-child is the mimophant. He is a phenomenon most of us have met in life: a hybrid who combines the delicate frailness of the Mimosa, crumbling at a touch when his own feelings are hurt, with the thick-skinned robustness of the elephant trampling over the feelings of others.”

    Proponents of world government need problems that require “Global” solutions. CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a problem that only globalists can solve. Around the world, governments, supported by lick spittle academics and hordes of useful idiots are focusing on our wallets. The money they extract will be used to save us from ourselves.

    For sure, it is a noble cause but is it real or just another “Holy Grail” that will inspire the best of our citizens to do amazing and heroic things that in hind sight will be seen as meaningless? The great pyramid at Giza was a heroic achievement based on ideas that seem quaint today. The role of government and academia promoting windmills and solar panels is an example of wasted heroism. None of this could have come about but for the “Greenie” movement that has somehow achieved real political power. One of the magnificent achievements of the Greenies is the mobilization of folks like John Cook and his SKS team.

    If the “Science” that John Cook promotes, backed by untold billions of government dollars was valid it would vanquish the counter arguments with ease. Instead the proponents of CAGW have been humbled by unpaid bloggers who have noticed that the “Emperor has no clothes”. In a better world John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” would be an open forum for exchanging ideas, rather than a sounding board for a new Lysenkoism much more dangerous than the one that created famines in the USSR.

    • gallopingcamel,

      Kudos for an excellent post. I suspect that ‘someone else’ will hide out and ignore it, rather than trying to respond. There’s too much common sense for him to respond to it.

  40. @Someone else,

    You don’t seem to have any substantive arguments yet you say the people who blog here are not qualified to have an opinion on climate, basically “argumentum ad hominem”.

    So you won’t make a bigger fool of yourself don’t try that on rgbatduke. He is a physics professor.

  41. Someone else March 24, 2015 at 7:09 pm
    I am not a climate scientist, so I will defer to them for what I can not answer. I can freely admit that it is not my area of expertise. […] No acknowledgement or scientific discourse takes place in these forums, they are a cesspool that is continuously fed by the self reinforcing arguments and rhetoric you use to convince yourselves that you are smarter than people who have doctorates in climatology.

    And

    Stealey, what exactly is your scientific pedigree? What are you contributions to the community? Assuming you have any specialized education at all. If you did you would know that being an expert in one field does not magically infer all knowledge to you.

    and

    i would be surprised to find out that the people who frequent this blog have advanced scientific degrees.

    Would that you applied the same standards to Skeptical Science. Cook’s a shrink, still earning his degree in that, btw. One of them is an ex-cop. Lotsa’ authority there. Not.

    Obviously, you haven’t bothered to inform yourself about rgbatduke, Dr. Robert Brown from Duke University, who not only teaches theoretical physics, but is a statistics expert.

    The first PhD in climate science did not come off the boards until 1979 at the University of Wisconsin, hardly an ancient science, 36 years old. PhD degrees in Geology, Atmospheric Physics, Chemistry, Meteorology, Physics, Mathematics, and other hard sciences sufficed before then…and since. There are climate science advocates who claim they are scientists when they are lowly social scientists with the science background of a gnat.

    • And I say lowly not to denigrate social scientists, but when they presume to be hard scientists, they’re not.

    • And let’s not forget the excellent engineers on this blog who use the hard science they studied in applied science as engineers.

      @Someone else, you are out of your league casting aspersions on this group here.

      • policycritic,

        Since ‘Someone else’ asked, I spent my 30+ year career designing, testing, calibrating and repairing mostly weather-related instruments of all kinds. I worked for one of the country’s largest private sector employers, in a large Metrology lab with more than 140 engineers. We received all the latest literature, gratis, from vendors, and I clearly recall the 1970’s cooling scare, and watched it morph into the current warming scare. But during that whole time, nothing really changed. The view out the window remained the same.

        My turn: what’s ‘Someone else’s’ CV?

    • “There are climate science advocates who claim they are scientists when they are lowly social scientists with the science background of a gnat”
      =========================================================
      Well, well, but, but they can tell you that the oh so prophetic and predictive climate models tell us that there will be massive and unprecedented future droughts and hurricanes and SL rise, and then write a paper on the psychological affect this will have on our destroyed society.

      • then write a paper on the psychological affect [sic]

        Well, that’s what they need John Cook for. /sarc

Comments are closed.