A review of Steyn's scathing new book about Michael Mann: "A Disgrace To The Profession"


Yesterday, I received my advance copy of this book, and after spending about an hour with it, I Tweeted this:

Just received advance copy of book “A Disgrace to the Profession” from all I can say is: Mann, that’s gonna leave a mark!

And today, after spending a full day with it, that statement still holds true.

I remember when Mann decided to sue NRO and Steyn for defamation, and despite all the laughing at the time there was this prescient thought from Dr. Judith Curry:

“Mark Steyn is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”

Well, Part 1, or should I say, Volume 1 of that prediction is now in press. It’s a scorcher, hilarity, and a tale of science and politics gone awry all in one.

Steyn realized the word of a political pundit like himself can only travel so far in certain circles, and in a brilliant move, he has gathered a compendium of what other scientists have to say about Mann’s work on the “hockey stick”. And of course, he’s had it illustrated by Josh. My favorite is Mann as Yoda, wielding a hockey stick rather than a light saber, seen in this collage below:


The book has twelve chapters plus an introduction, prologue, and a postscript. In it. You’ll find quotes from scientists like this one:


and this one:


And there are many, many, more even harsher than that. Such as this one:


The final word of the last chapter goes to Dr. Judith Curry:



And there’s even a final chapter called:


…where you can read what the IPCC has to say about it. I’ll give Steyn credit, he strives for some balance here, but there’s just so few positive reviews that he could barely fill that chapter, much like there were no amicus curiae briefs filed with the DC Circuit Court on Mann’s behalf. I suspect many science professionals know what they are dealing with here, but fear coming forward. After all, who wants to be sued by Dr. Mann, and have discovery drag on for years?

I do like the chapter “Mann Overboard!” taken from one of our WUWT headlines by that name.

I quipped at the time this silliness with lawsuits all got started that “a Mann’s got to know his limitations” (With apologies to Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan). We’ll know soon if any of this has sunk in to Dr. Mann’s understanding of what he is really up against.

So far, Mann’s predictable supporters haven’t weighed in, except for the borderline Harvard man, Dr. Russell Seitz, who didn’t bother to buy the book (Amazon notes “Verifed Purchaser” in such reviews), but has plenty to say about it on Amazon (see below). Like the hockey stick itself, Seitz’s review is done by proxy, not by actually reading it. It’s sad and yet hilarious that this sycophant posted a review for a book that not only he apparently didn’t read, but wasn’t even available yet for shipping!

That right there symbolizes the whole problem of climate zealotry in a nutshell: it’s what they believe is there, and they won’t look beyond their own beliefs to form rational opinions, and so cling to the irrational tribalism that has polarized the climate issue.


I recommend Steyn’s book highly, because it really gets to the heart of the matter about that lack of scientific rigor in climate science that has become a poster child for “noble cause corruption”.

You can pre-order it on Amazon here, shipping starts August 14 15th.

Click to pre-order

The text from Amazon says:

The “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN’s transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation.

And yet what it purports to “prove” is disputed and denied by many of the world’s most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world’s scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.

After you buy it and receive it, I recommend posting an Amazon review based on what you’ve read, unlike the irascible Dr. Russell Seitz, who apparently posts fake reviews by proxy.

3.5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 11, 2015 1:35 pm

Buying the book will help Mark pay his large and growing legal bills, too.

Reply to  starzmom
August 11, 2015 2:38 pm

That thought crosed my mind too.

Bob Diaz
Reply to  starzmom
August 11, 2015 3:34 pm

This raises an interesting problem, Michael Mann can sue, BUT doing so means that he can be forced to testify under oath. In a civil case, you can be forced to testify. This could bring up some rather embarrassing things he has to answer.

Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 11, 2015 4:00 pm

I think that’s what everyone’s waiting for!

Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 11, 2015 5:11 pm

“Forced to testify under oath”
Under ‘oath’ of what,arrogance or ignorance?

Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 12, 2015 12:33 am

Bob, it will never come to Mann testifying under oath, what he does is put his antagonists through the pain of the libel process. Dr. Ball has been in litigation with him longer than Mark Steyn. If it ever gets to court Mann will pull the plug before answering questions under oath. He is a truly awful human being.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 12, 2015 1:40 am

Geronimo, Steyn has counter-sued, so even if Mann drops his end of the case, Steyn’s case will continue.

Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 12, 2015 10:45 am

I can’t wait to see Michael Mann testifying under oath!

Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 12, 2015 1:07 pm

… he can be forced to testify under oath …

That’s right. In a civil case there is no protection against giving evidence that will lose the case for you (although you can plead the fifth if you will incriminate yourself).
It gets better. In the discovery phase of the case, you can be compelled to provide all your records including email. If you destroy the records (that’s called Spoliation of Evidence), you can get a variety of penalties including jail. If you have reason to believe that something may be required as evidence, you aren’t allowed to destroy it. This could get sticky for Dr. Mann.
Having said the above, this case could drag on forever. In 2003, SCO started a series of (losing) actions that ran on for the better part of ten years. As far as I can tell it was a scorched earth campaign designed to limit the penetration of Linux into the market. SCO’s lawyers produced crap briefs. IBM’s lawyers produced wonderful legal masterpieces. It didn’t matter if SCO lost everything as long as they could drag the proceedings out as long as possible and inflict the maximum amount of damage on the other parties. link IBM had no problem but I think Novell was badly damaged. In particular, one judge allowed SCO to squander money that should have been used to pay damages to Novell.
The ability to string out a lawsuit as long as possible is a serious flaw in the justice system. Mark Steyn knows what he’s up against. Kudos to him; everybody should buy his book.

Reply to  Bob Diaz
August 12, 2015 6:33 pm

I think we all know how it will turn out if Mann ever winds up in the witness chair:

Jay Hope
Reply to  starzmom
August 12, 2015 12:44 am

What is the publication date?

Stephen M. Saintonge
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 12, 2015 6:05 am

        Available NOW from Steyn Online, available Sept. 1st from Amazon and the rest of that crowd.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  starzmom
August 12, 2015 9:32 am

I bought an advance copy of the book from Steyn directly, partly for the same reason – to help finance his legal defence – but also because I enjoy reading him. I received the book two days ago and have read 116 pages so far. I find it remarkable, even being very familiar with Climategate, how many scientists think the Hockey Stick is junk science and I still have 184 pages to go!!!
I have to believe the revelations in this book strongly strengthen his defence against Mann.
Recommended reading.

August 11, 2015 1:39 pm

I hope Steyn bankrupts the mighty Mann

Daryl M
Reply to  Tony Rohl
August 11, 2015 7:01 pm

I really doubt that Mann is paying the legal bills. It would be interesting to follow the money back to the sources to find out who is paying.

Reply to  Daryl M
August 11, 2015 10:58 pm

According to Steyn in May 2014: “Mann has, at last count, four white-shoe lawyers on the payroll in DC, plus his Canadian lawyers in Vancouver, all funded by some ideological “climate defense fund” or some such.” http://www.steynonline.com/6384/the-climate-of-fear

Reply to  Daryl M
August 12, 2015 4:04 pm

Every penny they waste defending Mann is that much less to spend on their other PR efforts.

Reply to  Daryl M
August 12, 2015 11:24 pm

As much as the Biggest Oil Rockefellers are pushing this “climate change” hoax, I wonder if their deep pockets are involved, if not directly, perhaps indirectly through their many projects or companies.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Daryl M
August 13, 2015 2:52 am

Definitely not the Koch, but maybe the Cook helps out from the tips his head waiter Lewandowski’d collected.

Ted G
Reply to  Tony Rohl
August 14, 2015 10:38 am

Tony Rohl says.
I hope Steyn bankrupts the mighty Mann. I would hope so too but his cost are paid for by a defence fund,
BUT Mann is and will be totally exposed to the glaring fact he can’t support his data. That his castle built is built on a foundation of sand/conived data. It will be delightful to see this man fall!!!
Go Mark Go!!!!

August 11, 2015 1:43 pm

[snip over the top -mod]

August 11, 2015 1:45 pm

Isn’t it something when the whole of a scientific discipline has become so cloistered that it takes a sarcastic satirist to stand up and call them out? I can’t think of a better man for the job than Steyn.

Reply to  Scott
August 11, 2015 2:23 pm

It would be useful to reissue the cartoons with relevant quotes as postcards that could be sent to MP’s, Senators, NGO’s etc.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  climatereason
August 11, 2015 2:43 pm

climatereason “It would be useful to reissue the cartoons with relevant quotes as postcards” They should be sold in Paris for the up coming party.
They would become collectors items with the postmark and date.

Reply to  climatereason
August 11, 2015 3:47 pm

Fabulous suggestions! Those will became collector’s items.

Reply to  climatereason
August 11, 2015 7:15 pm

Great idea; only,
Calendars, definitely calendars with quotes of the day.
sticky notes.

Reply to  climatereason
August 11, 2015 7:55 pm

Yes! I think it needs to go beyond Steyn, perhaps give him an “exclusive” on Mann cards.
If Anthony could sell several of Josh’s cartoon in North America, Bishop Hill in the UK, and Joanne Nova in Australia, they’d be great things to dash off a note to your congresscritter. They might even look forward to receiving them. (Umm, all mail to US congress may get routed through Anthrax and other detectors or sterilizers, but state reps need to receive some of these too.)
Wind turbine execs, EPA mine inspectors, John Cook….
The ICCC conferences could hand some out. Maybe someone could get the UN CoP organizers to pass out one of Lord Monkton….

Reply to  climatereason
August 11, 2015 10:16 pm

@Ric Werme “Mann Cards” Ha! Love it! Make a full deck of them and come up with a game to go with them.

James Bull
Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 12:01 am

There are just so many things that these could be put on but I do like the idea of post cards to send to your local politician/warmista, so much of what heads to politicians ends up being dealt with by minions but something funny and to the point may well get through.
As for putting them on sale in Paris I’m sure the thought police would do all in their power to stop them. Who wants facts when the fate of the gravy train is at stake.
James Bull

Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 12:36 am

““Mann Cards” Ha! Love it! Make a full deck of them…” With Mikey as all four knaves?

Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 1:22 am

And of course, the obligatory free set sent to the character behind the caricature.

Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 2:21 am

——–or a set of mugs* with said cartoons, greetings cards, *( mugs for climate mugs — get it??! Oh never mind!!)

Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 4:46 am

Less Moonpig* than Mann-bear-pig, cards?
* https://www.moonpig.com/uk/

George Lawson
Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 7:36 am

I disagree with climatereason. The subject should be taken seriously when communicating with those that have some influence in the matter. As much as I support Steyn, I regret that it will not help his very strong arguments to have included derogatory cartoons within its pages.

Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 7:42 am

@George Lawson:
Well, the cartoons help solidify Steyn’s position as being a satirist.
Someone under the umbrella of “comedy” can get away with saying things that otherwise may not be considered proper.

Reply to  climatereason
August 12, 2015 11:27 pm

Excellent idea. I’d like to send my legislative reps.

Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
Reply to  climatereason
August 13, 2015 12:05 pm

Postcards to legislators go through the Capitol Post Office. You’d probably get a call from the IRS!

Reply to  Scott
August 11, 2015 2:28 pm

Sorta like Trump. Seeing a pattern.

Reply to  Scott
August 11, 2015 3:04 pm

Even worse, the silence of the whole climate community puts the whole community in the position of supporting Man’s fraud by their silence. That silence shows that the entire climate alarm research industry if thoroughly corrupt.

Reply to  Scott
August 11, 2015 3:51 pm

I don’t need a book to see how corrupt this fellow is.
It is quite wrong to allow Mann and the rest of the CAGW brigade to be described as belonging to a profession.
Given they ignore the accepted scientific method and language, they have no place in the company of scientists who do adhere, OR doctors who ignore their Hippocratic Oath, Lawyers, who defraud or engineers who scam with phoney designs or work.
The entire ratbag army and the politicians and journalists who support and promote them should “tarred and feathered” then run out of town…

Reply to  cnxtim
August 11, 2015 6:10 pm

You don’t need it, but buy it anyway, because your support will help the cause of science, and science needs all the help it can get just now.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  cnxtim
August 12, 2015 5:39 am

Hey there! Steady on. In my profession, as a structural engineer, if we get something phoney or faulty, somebody could get injured, or worse killed! We take the profession very seriously. Apart from ruining lives, lawyers done do too much harm. Doctors only kill in ones. Engineers? Hell we could take out an entire block full of thousands, if we were useless enough! 😉

Reply to  cnxtim
August 13, 2015 7:51 am

Alan the Brit:
Now that you’ve framed the human impact; climate scientists are responsible for $trillions wasted, many thousands whose lives are damaged or destroyed, along with climate activists apparently bent on world subjugation.

Reply to  Scott
August 11, 2015 11:05 pm

There are few satirists taking on the state and its knaves for the time being. Oh well, they should come back when a Republican is president. We will also be reading about little old ladies eating cat food.

Reply to  jamesbbkk
August 15, 2015 3:18 am

Little old ladies able to afford cat food? That’ll be progress!

August 11, 2015 1:48 pm

Mann oh Mann, thats gotta hurt!

Reply to  Brant Ra
August 11, 2015 3:01 pm

Apparently it’s only Volume 1 …..

Reply to  RD
August 12, 2015 8:32 am

Well, there was Mel Brook’s “History of The World – Part I” – but we never got the other parts. Unless you consider “Space Balls” to be “Jews In Space”.

Louis LeBlanc
Reply to  RD
August 12, 2015 11:09 am

“The Lord has given me these fifteen– (CRASH) — ohhh, ten…ten commandments….”

August 11, 2015 1:48 pm

Mark Steyn’s blog posting about his book:
“A guy can’t sit around waiting for litigious fake Nobel Laureates to agree to discovery and deposition. So, with the Mann vs Steyn Trial of the Century currently stalled in the choked septic tank of the DC court system, I figured I might as well put some of the mountain of case research clogging up the office into a brand new book – all about the most famous “science” graph of the 21st century and the man who invented it.”
It’s on my reading list. 🙂

August 11, 2015 1:48 pm

Looks to be a good read. There is a typo in the jpeg of page 291, “disinlined” should be “disinclined”.

Reply to  skeohane
August 11, 2015 2:49 pm

Any mug could have spotted that. Here’s mine: On page 289, there’s a double space between “sword” and “to”.
Of course, I’m a pro.

Adrian Mann
Reply to  Graphite
August 11, 2015 4:14 pm

Good spot on the double-space Graphite – did you also spot the two widows, on pages 275 and 291? Another pro.
Are there still any good old-fashioned proofreaders out there?

John M. Ware
Reply to  Graphite
August 11, 2015 6:14 pm

I have done some proofreading and would be happy to go through a book like this. I do look forward to reading it.

Reply to  Graphite
August 12, 2015 2:03 am

>>did you also spot the two widows, on pages 275 and 291?
Unfortunately, due to ePub books, widows are no longer a factor. The ePub has selectable different sized text and so the publisher has no control over whether a widow is created or not. And this spills over to the print book, because few publishers want to keep a completely separate print-text and format, to the ePub text and format.
Sorry, but the whole ePub format was a disaster from start to finish, that has debased standards throughout publishing.

Ian W
Reply to  Graphite
August 12, 2015 2:16 am

Adrian, just bleed the widows into the gutter 😉

Reply to  Graphite
August 12, 2015 3:11 am

When my proofreading/editing career began, low-level work was produced on Linotype machines and high-class work on Monotype. The guys operating these machines were tradesmen, men who’d served five-year apprenticeships. They set marks of elision, or ellipses, as three full points with fixed spaces between (. . .), rules were either en rules (–) or em rules (—) and fractions were rendered as they should be (¼, ½, ¾).
Then the computers took over and the work of typists went straight into type without any input or oversight by typographical craftsmen. So now we have … for ellipses, — for rules and 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 for fractions.
The typesetting element of the printing trade has disappeared and proofreaders – pedants such as myself who know the difference between “effect” and “affect”, “who” and “whom”, “it’s” and “its” – are considered an expensive luxury.
I guess Steyn’s book is a product of its age. If he’s going to smack Mann about the head (metaphorically, of course, and an action I applaud), it would have been preferable to see him do it with something with a bit of class. The warmists will be looking for any reason to dismiss the work; you don’t want to hand them an easy out.
And brother, I miss those tradesmen.

Reply to  Graphite
August 12, 2015 3:14 am

Goodness me. Two hyphens do make a rule. Seems to be somewhere between an en rule and an em rule.

Reply to  Graphite
August 12, 2015 8:34 am

The entire thing is right justified, so the extra space is there to accommodate the justification.

Reply to  skeohane
August 11, 2015 4:34 pm

Darn it folks. I have over 200 such goofs flagged in my own last ebook on climate and energy.. Despite 6 months proofing citations and text, not to mention a publisher’s editor for text. These days, digital stuff just happens. And MS Word spelling and grammer makes it worse, not better.
Like for the EPA in Colorado. Of course, happening stuff importance might also matter.
I am buying the Steyn ebook version as soon as available, since literally ran out of room for physical books several years ago. Plus, you can annotate, link, underline, xref,… ebooks. Saves a heck of a lot of post it notes and hilighters. Short 3M?

Reply to  ristvan
August 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Rivers run through every page. A curse of poor leading and kerning. Appreciate the whimsy. Back to the topic, it must suck to be such a demeaned little Mann.

August 11, 2015 1:52 pm

It would be nice to see a review of the status of the lawsuits (isn’t Steyn counter- suing Mann?)

Reply to  fossilsage
August 11, 2015 2:14 pm

Yes but basically Mann’s lawyers are blocking everything by saying that all parties that are being sued(think its 3 steyn personally, NRO and someone else) must agree and go on trial at the same time. However the other parties are still trying to throw the suit out on the simple fact its a purely fake lawsuit from the very start designed solely to threaten and harm them.
DC court keeps jumping through hoops to aid mann while at the same time trying to pretend to obey the law that strictly forbids the type of suit that mann filed.
Basically DC court is desperate to prevent steyn’s counter suit to make it to court because it has a near 100% of success and could result in some judges/court clerks going down with mann for the way they handled the case. Its a mess and typical of today’s very corrupt court system.

Reply to  temp
August 11, 2015 3:48 pm

Part of the issue is that the DC Court has clearly been asked to delay any trial moving forward till after the “Paris Climate Show” in December….

Reply to  temp
August 11, 2015 4:50 pm

Temp, been following this. The issue is complicated legally, but clear politically. Originally, joint defendant NRO filed to dismiss under the poorly drafted DC antislapp. Judge Green screwed up and denied the motion. NRO appealed. Steyn then severed and wanted to go to depositions and trial. Seperately. The appelate court decided with Mann that he could not severe until the appeal was decided, since originally joint defendants. The absurd issue is whether, under the DC law as drafted, Green’s decision is even appealable at this point in the process. Septic tank law is too polite, especially since Mann forum shopped. And has had to refile his complaint amending his claim to be a Nobelist. FUBAR.

Louis LeBlanc
Reply to  temp
August 12, 2015 11:17 am

I haven’t kept up with the legal details, but hasn’t NRO settled with Mann?

Reply to  temp
August 12, 2015 4:13 pm

Louis: No

Reply to  fossilsage
August 11, 2015 2:24 pm

One would hope, but courts are courts and not subject to everyday common sense. In fact, if a case gets to a court you can be certain that common sense has already failed.

Reply to  Duster
August 11, 2015 3:52 pm

I seriously doubt the courts are quite that bad. Half the time, maybe. But I never saw anything so hated in all my life as Truth was hated in a Child “Protection” court room in California. And one in Colorado ruled that I have a divorce from my sister (I’m female, never married). An “acrimonious” divorce from my favorite sibling.

August 11, 2015 1:59 pm

Steyn chose three quotes as promo material to represent the book’s contents. One of the scientists has recently co-authored a paper confirming Mann’s hockey stick graph, and notes that his quote only appears damning because it lacks all context. A second has worked on a major paper that also confirmed Mann’s hockey stick graph, and has stated that the attacks on Mann “have no justification.” The third quote is from a physicist who doesn’t work on climate change, so he can’t accurately be described as one of Mann’s scientific peers.
For all his quote mining, it seems like the best Steyn could do when it came to finding criticisms from Mann’s peers is write up two quotes from scientists who agree with Mann’s findings and one from someone who’s not a climate scientist at all. Looks like Steyn’s efforts here fall as flat as the handle on Mann’s hockey stick.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 2:14 pm

So, warrenlb, are you Russell S or do you simply feel that cutting and pasting his remark without attribution is the proper thing to do?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JohnWho
August 11, 2015 3:01 pm

Way to go, johnWho. Despite the wayback connections to Daily Kos, etc. I’m thinking that you just outed warrenlb as Russell Seitz. Long- term participants in the conversation at WUWT will instantly recognize the identical style of both writers. “Both” post reams of meaningless logical fallacies and other forms of subterfuge, but nary a scientific truth to bolster their arguments.

Reply to  JohnWho
August 15, 2015 3:26 am

Where are all the amicus briefs from these Mann supporters? Happy enough to mud-sling in the comments but shy about putting themselves into court on oath? Steyn is gagging for the trial. Mann and his acolytes, not so much.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 2:19 pm

Would you please kindly provide citations for what you say? I’m not saying you’re wrong but it would be nice to verify please.

Reply to  jones
August 11, 2015 2:26 pm

Since warrenlb’s entire comment is a “cut and paste” from Russell S’s comment to his own “review” on Amazon, it would seem warren’s citation would be “Russell said”.
Otherwise, I agree, it would be helpful for either, both, or “one in the same” of them to provide your requested citations.

Robert Austin
Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 2:22 pm

In your dreams, warrenlb. And are these your words? I saw the same words on Bishop Hill from a certain Russel and those words were attributed to the Daily Kos. Or maybe you are the Daily Kos. Anyway, the backfiring I hear is just a normal bodily function.

Reply to  Robert Austin
August 11, 2015 2:31 pm

Thanks for the correction, Robert.
In that case, Andy, warrenlb’s citation would be that “Russell said that the Daily Kos said”, or something like that.
/more grin

Rick K
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 11, 2015 2:59 pm

Can we sue warrenlb for plagiarism?

Reply to  Robert Austin
August 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Is it plagiarism if you are copying yourself?

Keith W.
Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 2:28 pm

I’m trying to find your references to quotes. Steyn on his blog only uses quotes from Judith Curry and Jonathan Jones. There are no quotes on the Amazon site for the book. So, where are you finding these quotes and to whom are you referring, as the quote from Curry is not taken out of context, as I have read that blog post.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Keith W.
August 11, 2015 3:07 pm

Read the Customer Review and Comments content on Amazon, regarding Steyn’s book.

Reply to  Keith W.
August 11, 2015 5:05 pm

You can buy the paperback via Steyn now, or wait for the Amazon paper and ebook versions apparently next month. Nothing prevents nonverified Amazon purchasers drom flaming at will. Verify purchase, then review. Overwhelm the warmunists.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 2:33 pm

Warren, Warren, Warren. No one can “confirm” the hockey stick. It is a cut and paste of different kinds of data, a collage. No one, alarmist or sceptic, before Mann or after actually disputed that the globe had warmed since the 19th century. Mann was dead set on “proving” the warming of the late 20th C was greater than anything. After all he had “discovered” it – not. The tree ring data failed to confirm “warming” in the late 20th C, so Mann pasted in adjusted temperature data that fit his assumptions. That, Warren, is not science, it isn’t even journalism. It “might” be politics, but even many politicians seem to at least know what the word “integrity” means.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 3:34 pm

warrenlb it is normal courtesy to identify quotes from others (in this case Daily Kos) and attribute original sources (in this case Greg Laden’s Blog).
At least Russel did that when he posted basically the same comment as yours at Bishop Hill (he just got the year of the Daily Kos piece wrong)..

Reply to  HAS
August 11, 2015 3:36 pm

Sorry that’s “Russell”

Reply to  HAS
August 11, 2015 3:45 pm

Apologies, didn’t refresh when I came back to my computer – I’m an hour and half behind the times.
Some would say they are glad I’m finally catching up.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 7:28 pm

Warrenpoundsit russel:
All of manniacal’s ‘scientific peers’ are with him under the foulest rocks in the cesspool called agw.
Post the names, quotes and where the ‘quotee’ makes their comment about their quote, ya goof!
Besides, you’ve made this false claim before. Long before any copies were released.
False one, you’ve already posted a false review at Amazon, for a book you’ve never read and that you are unlikely ever to read.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 9:31 pm

Why lie to the whole world, warren? Is your ego so elevated it can’t carry the weight of truth? I’ve never seen such deception. You realize false witness is unacceptable in any profession, do you not?

Reply to  RockyRoad
August 12, 2015 1:30 am

“You realize false witness is unacceptable in any profession, do you not?”
Ummmm.. he is a climate alarmista… anything goes, fabrication, falsification, lies, fraud, deceit…..
All part and parcel of the job description..

Reply to  warrenlb
August 12, 2015 9:26 am

‘One of the scientists has recently co-authored a paper confirming Mann’s hockey stick graph, and notes that his quote only appears damning because it lacks all context. A second has worked on a major paper that also confirmed Mann’s hockey stick graph, and has stated that the attacks on Mann “have no justification.”’
Yeah, a midnight visit from the Gestapo tends to result in tergiversation. But, just as the Rorschach test depends on initial reactions to unearth the underlying truth, so their initial reactions reveal their true inclinations.

August 11, 2015 2:03 pm

I’ve been a fan of Steyn for a very long time and I also predicted that Mr. Mann had vastly underestimated the difficulty of engaging in a PR battle with one of the preeminent satirists of the era. I recall Mr. Steyn’s long fight against the hate speech Nazis in Canada, who had an unbeaten string of unchallenged intimidations against offenses to political correctness, for which crimes even absolute undeniable truth was never allowed as mitigation. Like this conflict it dragged on for years but in the end it was the thought police who had their fiefdom closed by public outrage generated by Mr. Steyn’s devastating humor. If Mann were not such a completely objectionable person one might almost feel a little sympathy for him as someone in so far over his head in this contest.

August 11, 2015 2:06 pm

Dang, Anthony, you made me do it – I “reviewed” Russell S’s “review”.
But, too be fair, I did read his review before I posted my remarks.

Reply to  JohnWho
August 11, 2015 2:15 pm

I “helpful” ed your comment. RS comment has lots of unhelpfuls.

Reply to  joelobryan
August 11, 2015 2:21 pm

Thanks. I need all the help I can get.
Seriously, RS’s “review” and then first comment about his review will probably promote more purchases of the book than not.
So, in a “backasswards” sort of way, his review IS helpful.

Reply to  JohnWho
August 11, 2015 7:59 pm


August 11, 2015 2:08 pm

…and Penn State University hired him.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 11, 2015 3:41 pm

with any luck, the state pen will be his next address

Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2015 7:31 pm

Careful – you could get sued for a comment like that! 🙂

Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2015 9:35 pm

Not if he uses the dyslexia defense. Why, anybody can now claim to be anything and at least the Democrat Party won’t object.

Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2015 4:14 pm

or worse … expelled.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 12, 2015 2:12 am

>>…and Penn State University hired him.
Followed swiftly by State Penn…… 😉

Bruce Ploetz
August 11, 2015 2:09 pm

I have my three signed copies (got to support Steyn some way, he is taking one for all of us) and agree with all of Anthony’s points. It is also a rollicking good read for those who enjoy a little dry snark with their science.

August 11, 2015 2:10 pm

ordered placed.

Phillip Bratby
August 11, 2015 2:13 pm

I didn’t know Josh was from “England’s grim north”. Has somebody told Josh?

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 11, 2015 2:15 pm

Hmm… does that mean that England has a cheerful south?
Just wonderin’.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  JohnWho
August 11, 2015 2:24 pm

England’s north (where I come from) has arguably some of the most beautiful countryside in the world – apart from the bits ruined by wind turbines.

Reply to  JohnWho
August 11, 2015 6:40 pm

It’s telling, isn’t it, that matey boy tries to bad-mouth Josh as being from England’s ‘grim north’ – as if that somehow negates his consumate skills as a cartoonist?!
And by the way, the north of England is not grim!
(Mostly, anyway, and when it’s not raining)

James Bull
Reply to  JohnWho
August 12, 2015 12:45 am

Russel Seitz maybe needs some help with where places are in the little old UK.
My Josh calendar has a return address of Kingston upon Thames which is only 10 miles from where I live which is about 16/17 miles from the center of London and Kingston is closer to London than I am. So not only is he climatically challenged he seems to be geographically challenged as well. As for “grim” I think that has more to do with your state of mind than where you are.
James Bull

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 11, 2015 8:17 pm

Well I’m from England’s grim North, with its dark satanic mills and dark satanic discotheques (possibly too obscure of a quote). I may even be a true climate refugee, before it was fashionable even. Will someone give me some money please.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 11, 2015 8:18 pm

I’m guessing poster Billy Liar will get that quote !!!

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 12, 2015 2:04 am

Josh is not from “England’s grim north”. He regularly attends events in the London area to do his cartoons so he can’t live too far from there. Furthermore, England’s north isn’t grim, as PB points out. That statement is just as wrong as the rest of Russell’s bogus ‘review’.

David Chappell
Reply to  Paul Matthews
August 12, 2015 3:25 pm

Strictly speaking Josh can be from “England’s grim north” even though he now lives in the effete south. I live in East Asia but I’m still from England’s not quite north.

August 11, 2015 2:16 pm

Mark Steyn is not just up against Mike Mann and his Climate Change/Global Warming/CO2 kills lie, he is up against the whole of the Media/Tax and Spend Two Party Evil Money Cult in Washington D.C..
All of it lie based, thus they can not allow any of the foundation of their lies to fail or the whole of all the walls will come tumbling down.

Reply to  fobdangerclose
August 11, 2015 2:42 pm

My current read is Mark R. Levin’s Plunder and Deceit: Big Government’s Exploitation of Young People and the Future.
Chapter 7 he devotes to the EPAs green agenda. An agenda Levin calls, “..an endless staircase of planned governmental actions intended to phase-outcarbon as an energy source, institute by coetcion majorparts of the degrowth agendathrough deindustrialization, drive up the cost of energy production and use, and ultimately drive down the quality of life and living standards of Americans – who are supposedly fouling the earth with their capitalist extravagances.” (pp 125-6).
I Highly recommend the book to understand how both sides (R’s and D’s) are plundering our children

Reply to  joelobryan
August 11, 2015 3:43 pm

From an article on Drudge, it seems that during Obama’s first three years in office, the IRS approved a grand total of one conservative group for tax free status.

Reply to  fobdangerclose
August 11, 2015 2:52 pm

That’s what the communists in Berlin belived, yet the wall came down. There’s always hope so long as there are good folk like Steyn to stand up and not be intimidated.

August 11, 2015 2:16 pm

Not available for pre-order on amazon.co.uk strangely enough!

Reply to  Charlie Wardale
August 11, 2015 2:44 pm

But Amazon.com will deliver to the UK – though at a slightly inflated price of c£17 delivered

Reply to  Patrick
August 12, 2015 2:21 am

Depends where your bank details are registered. If you have a UK Amazon registration, it will usually not allow the purchase of US books. But if you are an American living in the UK, it will.
It is all to do with VAT taxes. The big majors like Amazon, Star Bucks, Google, Apple etc: etc: were passing their VAT payments through low VAT nations, like Luxembourg. So the new rule is that the VAT must be paid where the item is purchased.

August 11, 2015 2:18 pm

The people promoting climate alarm over our CO2, whether in the political or the technical sectors, are a most unimpressive lot as far as character goes. They have been very impressive at orchestrating the panic, but that is nothing to be proud of.

Dems B. Dcvrs
August 11, 2015 2:28 pm

Got my copy on order.
Will be fun, Fun, FUN, to cram some of book’s quotes in faces of Global Warming Scammers!

August 11, 2015 2:33 pm

I received my (pre-ordered) copy Saturday afternoon and finished it around midnight the same day. It was just that hard to put down.
The striking thing is how little use even those who agree with him have for Mann. And the number seems to be shrinking daily.

UK Sceptic
August 11, 2015 2:34 pm

What will it take for the hockey stick guy to admit that he’s well and truly pucked?

Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 2:36 pm

Seriously, an entire book devoted to attacking a person, does civility in science exist anymore?
Would the people on this blog sing the same tune if such a book was about a skeptic? This blog was better back in 2008 when there was a lot of general science discussion on the proper measurement of temperatures and the how the climate really worked.

Keith W.
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 2:49 pm

Adam, Steyn isn’t a scientist. He’s a pundit, a writer, a commentator who expressed his opinion of Michael Mann in a blog, and was sued for libel as a consequence. I begrudge no man their freedom of speech, and this book is Steyn exercising that freedom. Anthony is also exercising that same freedom by letting people know that the book is available. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 2:55 pm

Civility in science .. Dr. Mann sued Mark Steyn, and he is getting a reaction. Adam, would you rather recommend a duel?

bit chilly
Reply to  Curious George
August 11, 2015 5:22 pm

things were far simpler a couple of centuries ago . my solution would be to put them in one of those cages that seem popular for televised human duels today. my money would still be on steyn.

Reply to  Curious George
August 11, 2015 5:43 pm

Assuming Mark Steyn is tall enough, I’d recommend the blacksmith’s answer to a challenge by a short duelist. For weapons he chose sledgehammers in six feet of water …

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:00 pm

The book is part of Steyn’s response to a lawsuit. That lawsuit is a much more vicious attack than merely publishing words. The lawsuit entails real risk to the defendant and is expensive to fight.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:07 pm

Since when is exposing the truth about someone “attacking”? I think the word “self defense” is a far better term to describe when someone takes you to court, using millions of dollars donated by silent others, to “attack” you for having the audacity to call their fraudulent work fraudulent! Do you consider Mann and his flying monkeys to be “civil” to anyone who dares to disagree with them?
This blog STILL has a “lot of general science discussion on the proper measurement of temperatures and how the climate really works” every day. And yes, I very much suspect that if a “skeptic” was as “civil” and “honest” and “accurate” as Mr. Mann has been, the people on this blog would sing the EXACT same tune if such a book was written about them. Because it’s not about sides, it’s about FACTS.

Adam from Kansas
Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 3:27 pm

It’s true that general science discussion goes on, but I have noticed how the blog has been slowly invaded by an ever-increasing number of political articles. These aren’t, say, the articles about data adjustments or the claims from scientific journals, but articles more or less simply devoted to snide commentary against the believing side with readers rushing to join in.
I’m not saying the other side is civil either, but this can be seen as a clear example where the so-called “Golden Rule” falls flat on its face and encourages others to tear down as a response to aggressive critique rather than build up. It in essence becomes a negative feedback loop where both sides feed ammunition to the other and ultimately leads to a situation where everyone loses.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 4:17 pm

“It’s true that general science discussion goes on, but I have noticed how the blog has been slowly invaded by an ever-increasing number of political articles. These aren’t, say, the articles about data adjustments or the claims from scientific journals, but articles more or less simply devoted to snide commentary against the believing side with readers rushing to join in.”
Wow. You started reading this blog in 2008 and yet you seem to have NO idea that this blog is NOT a science blog, but in Anthony’s own words, it’s about:
“News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts” (it used to actually say approximately that under the actual title of the blog on every single page…but its still on the “About” page)
Commentary means “to offer an opinion”, and while there are some political articles, those political articles are almost 100% directed at the politics of climate change/global warming. And as for your inclusion of the term “Golden Rule”, perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the concept that it goes both ways. Surely the way you approached and judged others here is the way you wanted to be treated in return…right?

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 3:46 pm

Global warming was never about science, as has been proven over and over again for years.
The battlefield these days is the political realm.

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 4:08 pm

Can you be seriously decrying the lack of science on WUWT after Bob’s blockbuster post today?:
“No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models”
That is a 106 howitzer blasting CAGW science to pieces.

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 4:13 pm

Adam, I have loved this blog’s very funny comments against believers ever since i first found this site in the aftermath of Climategate. btw–the site’s spell checker made me capitalize Climategate. It is officially a word.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 4:26 pm

Adam, you are not in Kansas anymore
Which of the last 10-15 articles have been just political pray tell.
This one is not. Face it Michael Mann has done for climate science what “[Piltdown] Peking Man” did for Anthropology. Perhaps worst.
No, Adam from Kansas; no one here is going to sing Kumbia with you, in a Greenie, warmist lovefest.
But do have nice day
see civility

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 5:25 pm

“Peking Man”
Piltdown Manncomment image

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Erm, do you mean ‘Peking Man’ or the hoax ‘Piltdown Man’? For my money, Mann’s work is comparable to the Piltdown Man fakery, but with far less integrity!

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 6:20 pm

ferdberple , Mod thank you
I remembered it wrong.

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 9:36 pm

Adam from Kansas,
Yes, everything was better in the old days!
There was even a time when the climate was perfect.
If only whining could return us to those halcyon days….

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:13 pm

When Mr. Mann destroys peoples careers and urges government wasting of taxpayers dollars, etc, etc…It is a well deserved counter attack and a peek at the truth.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:28 pm

Adam, I find your comment to be completely disingenuous. Your words are typical of a particular type of troll behavior, feigning discontent whenever a CAGW crusader is pilloried and then bemoaning a descent of WUWT commentary, in general. There are many examples of virtually identical posts from known trolls. I suggest that you people update your playbook.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 11, 2015 4:25 pm

Alan: Down, boy! I have been reading Adam’s comments for a long time; he’s no troll. “Friendly fire” can do a lot of damage to one’s own allies.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 11, 2015 5:48 pm

Alan, I agree with you. I have noticed exactly the same, frequently from newbies claiming to be “disappointed” in political stories or social impacts and harping on about how WUWT should “stick to science”. The bottom line is, this blog has a huge audience and there are CAGW crusaders who don’t want unfavourable events to reach that wider audience. Pachauri’s exploits springs to mind. The EPA breaking the law is another example. There are more.
I love the science here, but I also love the social and political insights this site provides. It’s the political goings-on that have ramifications for everybody on the planet and I for one want to know what the dastards are up to. I also want to know when they trip up and the responses that generates.
So please (A.W. and all contributors), don’t let “disappointed readers” manipulate this blog away from reporting news stories that matter.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 11, 2015 5:50 pm

Sorry, that should be “the reporting of unfavourable events”…

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:34 pm

I have a tendency to agree with you…it’s a bit over the top.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:44 pm

I love the way concern trolls try to change the subject.
Mann attacked first, and has been attacking anyone who disagrees with him for years.

Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2015 4:27 pm

What I find amusing is when someone who wants to appear so deeply concerned about “the science” never wants to discuss the facts or the evidence, but instead wants to moralize and condemn based on ethics that originated in “evil, anti-science” religious ideologies. (and often in a most obvious hypocritical manner as well).
Irony Fortified?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 3:54 pm

Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Seriously, an entire book devoted to attacking a person, does civility in science exist anymore?

Seriously, an entire lawsuit (lawsuits) to attack a person (persons), does civility in science exist anymore?
Any step, including this book, to remove the politics and egos from climate science is a step in the right direction.
PS Who is paying for all Mann’s legal assaults on those who question him?

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 11, 2015 9:45 pm

Adam from Kansas forgets that to the CAGW crowd, it’s 100% political. They avoid the science like the plague. So much for his devious attempt to be straight with the science.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 5:26 pm

Tell you what adam…
put together a collection of quotes regarding anthony, publish it and probably, someone here will give it an honest review.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 6:14 pm

” devoted to attacking a person”… last time I checked was the warmist attacking and forcing people to be sacked because they didnt agree with their religion. Steyn might be attacking a person, a person that has contrived a lie and still refuses to recognize that his results were made to fit a theory, a theory that has global repercussions, a theory that will destroy democracy, a theory that will cost all of us our livelihood and in the end it will be the destroyer of civilization bar a few supreme ones of the political class.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 7:34 pm

Devoted to attack the maniacal?
Or does Mark Steyn devotedly attack the falsehoods Manniacal is struggling so hard to keep in play by defaming and if possible ruining the careers of more honest scientists?

old engineer
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 8:37 pm

Adam, back in 2008 many of us believed CAGW was about science. That pointing out what was wrong with the science would correct it. Climategate proved us wrong. CAGW wasn’t about science, it was about politics. So the blog necessarily has to include politics.

Reply to  old engineer
August 12, 2015 8:05 am

+10 – So very much this. It is regrettable that what *should* be about science has turned into a political fight, but there it lies due to no fault but those proponents of the CAGW side; so of necessity it must at least in part be carried out in that arena because the ramifications are simply too consequential.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 11, 2015 9:07 pm

Shorter Adam: “How dare Steyn fight back after being attacked by Mann?”
Such an obvious troll.

Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 12, 2015 10:54 am

“does civility in science exist anymore?”
“the so-called ‘Golden Rule’ falls flat on its face”
These are worthy concerns. However I must ask, are you posting similar comments on pro-global warming sites which are also characterized by a high level of invective? If so, providing links to such comments from you could increase the credibility of your comments here on this aspect of the issue.

August 11, 2015 2:37 pm

The title says it all.

Serge aka Sirius
August 11, 2015 2:43 pm

You’ve convinced me!

August 11, 2015 3:03 pm

I note with interest that this book is “Volume 1”.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JohnWho
August 11, 2015 3:31 pm


August 11, 2015 3:07 pm

The trouble I have with this book’;s title is that in reality Mann’s’ poor professional and personal pratice is not “A Disgrace to the Profession” but normal even rewarded and celebrated with the profession of climate ‘science ‘
True he takes it to an extreme level , which is partly why so many on his own side cannot stand him, but much of what he does is typical of his profession.
When the profession is selling snake oil , then lying is the norm not the exception.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  knr
August 11, 2015 4:39 pm

I believe the title is actually an excerpt from one of the quotes.

August 11, 2015 3:07 pm

Just placed an order for ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ from the Steyn book store online at ‘Steyn Online’.
From the various reviews and from Steyn’s own descriptions of the book, I think it shows that Mann is an intellectual cross breed of: a) a mentally challenged Faust, b) a clueless Humpty Dumpty and c) the wacky con$piracist Naomi Oreskes.

Jeff B.
August 11, 2015 3:11 pm

If an injury has to be done to a Mann it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli

August 11, 2015 3:24 pm

Sooner or later a second book is going to come out and it’s going to include you Mr Watts and Judith Curry and all the other Luke Warmers as well as the alarmists who doggedly hold to the notion that there is a “Greenhouse Effect”. Michael Mann has got what’s coming to him, but I advise you not to be so smug about it as the total extent of scientific incompetence is yet to be revealed.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
August 11, 2015 4:40 pm

Did you peer into a crystal ball or do you just randomly post predictions without any sort of evidence to back them up because perhaps you’re on some Scientific Competence Authority Committee?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 9:57 pm

Auditioning for a job with the IPCC.

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 11:47 pm

That would be the “SCAC” my friend Aphan. Membership is limited, but for you, I can get you in for a mere 500 pesos. You would then have” Scientific Authority” my friend. A certificate for your “Wall” and a signed “welcome” by the esteemed Dr. Michael Mann to go with it.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
August 11, 2015 5:21 pm

WWF, study up. I did for now near 5.5 years. Your blathering just feeds ammunition to the other side. Get over it. CO2 is a GHG. Tyndall showed that to the RS in 1859. Now, Arrhenius got the details wrong. Fixed. The issues are feedbacks and sensitivity. Models fail at that, recently previously posted as to inherently why. Stop making really ignorant comments. Please.

Reply to  ristvan
August 12, 2015 12:54 pm

If you are going to quote Tyndale at least get him right he identified. H2O as the only significant greenhouse gas. CO2 was an also ran.

Reply to  max totten (@max_totten)
August 12, 2015 1:17 pm

“CO2 is a GHG. Tyndall showed that to the RS in 1859.”
“If you are going to quote Tyndale at least get him right he identified. H2O as the only significant greenhouse gas. CO2 was an also ran.”
If you’re going to correct ristvan you should:
1. At least correctly spell the name of the scientist you are talking about.
2. At least understand what an actual “quote” is, and when someone else has actually used one.
2A.- Saying “CO2 is a GHG” is accurate, and has no bearing at all on the significance of H2O as a greenhouse gas.
3. Use punctuation where it makes sense.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 11, 2015 4:31 pm

It only took 11 years to rewrite 1000 years of climate history. No wonder Michael Mann thought he won the Nobel Prize.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 11, 2015 6:54 pm

Thanks for the comparison – I sent the link out on email

August 11, 2015 3:28 pm

If Mann had a beautiful smile like Naomi Oreskes, I would like him more.

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 11, 2015 3:55 pm

comment image

Tim Channon
Reply to  John Whitman
August 11, 2015 5:03 pm

Did you have permission for a camera in the the mann’s room?

Reply to  John Whitman
August 11, 2015 6:16 pm

Great pic. Looks like the height markers in a line-up.

Reply to  Jeff
August 11, 2015 7:37 pm

Is it just me, or does it look like he has a giant nail through his head?

Reply to  John Whitman
August 11, 2015 10:15 pm

Why do these guys all have little devil beards? Or as we call them in the joint ” prison pussies””

Reply to  John Whitman
August 11, 2015 10:43 pm

@Aphan, yes, That explains everything ( and +100).

Reply to  John Whitman
August 11, 2015 11:39 pm

What a beautiful mug. [trimmed, excessive]
If I had no honor… And was a much better liar without a good conscience, i would be tempted to join his fellows… The group think, brainless, followers of his, and screw over my fellow citizens, like he and his ilk has for the money. The tax money that us citizens have no choice of in forking out for the brainless, political idiocy that this ass promotes.

Jonas N
Reply to  John Whitman
August 12, 2015 10:28 am

Fine pic … but what’s that copper spike in his one ear, coming out of the other?

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 12, 2015 6:40 pm


August 11, 2015 3:31 pm

Wouldn’t Mann first have to be professional, before he can be said to be a member of any profession?

August 11, 2015 3:31 pm

“Just received advance copy of book “A Disgrace to the Profession” from @MarkSteynOnline all I can say is: Mann, that’s gonna leave a mark!”
Would have been even better had you capitalized “mark”.

August 11, 2015 3:36 pm

From personal experience, I know that you don’t even have to be a climate scientist to have your job ended because you dare to dispute the global warming gravy train.

Eugene WR Gallun
August 11, 2015 3:40 pm

I wrote this a few years back. Truth ages well.
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
Eugene WR Gallun
Hey, Steyn, yours to use as you want if you decide
your next volume could use a little poetry in it.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
August 11, 2015 4:01 pm

And you may also use this if you think it will advance “the cause”.8-)
Stopping by Yamal One Snowy Evening
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 11, 2015 6:20 pm

Now all we need is a short opera, say, “Yamal and the Night Visitors” (apologies to Giancarlo Menotti)…

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 12, 2015 2:01 am

Very good. I have added your two fine poems to my collection here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/p/climate-culture-poetry-and-song-from.html

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 12, 2015 3:19 am

Mann’s on the run…

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
August 11, 2015 4:35 pm

And a little limerick . . . . at Mann’s expense . . . .

Now Mann is only unmanned
As his work is being trash canned
But he should have been fired
Yet still employed he inspires
All warmists who say mankind is damned

Enjoy . . .

August 11, 2015 4:03 pm

Not much arguing going on here, lol. Pan the Mann.
Here is something of interest (if the mods would like to consider).. unless its been covered before. A suite of satellites monitoring where our “agw” gasses are coming from, or not, as the facts now remain.
Well, it made me smile 🙂

August 11, 2015 4:03 pm

Will there be a Kindle release soon? I no longer buy books I will use a reference in paper form. I Like carrying my reference library on my smart phone.

Reply to  Don Tabor
August 11, 2015 5:22 pm

Per Steyn, Yes. Soon. Next month.

August 11, 2015 4:04 pm

***Mann gets corrected in The Guardian today – LOL:
11 Aug: Guardian: Scott Walker wants to fire academics with whom he disagrees politically
Universities are the latest target of conservative politicians with an agenda to push
by Michael Mann and Randi Weingarten
The work of scientists often produces facts that are uncomfortable and inconvenient to the interests of those in power…
In discussions about climate change, for example, ‘think tanks’ like Wisconsin’s Heartland Institute use their well-financed public relations machines to create the impression that the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is still debated…
CORRECTION: The original version of this piece stated that the Heartland Institute is in Wisconsin. It is in Chicago. The piece has been amended to reflect this.

Reply to  pat
August 17, 2015 10:13 pm

Sorry, I’m a little late to this party, but …
It’s also somewhat amusing to note that in his more visible public pronouncements, for some reason – perhaps best known only to himself – Mann teams up not with other “climate scientists”, but with the likes of 3rd rater, Lewandowsky [See: here] and – for his latest and greatest whine – with a US.labour union boss; i.e. Randi Weingarten who, according to the Graun, is “president of the American Federation of Teachers, the largest higher education faculty union in the US.”
To the best of my knowledge, neither Weingarten nor Lewandowsky has any expertise pertaining that oh-so-noble discipline known as “climate science”.
Makes one wonder … How low can the little bully, Mann and his stick schtick, go, eh?!

August 11, 2015 4:20 pm

Okay, why would Seitz give TWO stars to this book, which he hasn’t read, and which he disdains. ‘Polemicism’ people!! Shouda stuck to one star, the big mealy-mouthed phony.

Reply to  heysuess
August 11, 2015 4:55 pm

By giving it two stars he is likely to get more people to read his review. Think about it: many 1 star reviews are rants. People know this. So they are less likely to pay attention thinking it is just a disgruntled person. I know I do. I only consider 1 star reviews legitimate if there are many 1 star reviews (and the subject is not political). By giving it two stars people will think Seitz actually read the book and thus is giving an honest opinion. It is a mind game.

Reply to  alexwade
August 11, 2015 10:03 pm

Seitz’s review was even worse than a rant. It was pure deception. He hadn’t even read the book!

August 11, 2015 4:27 pm

I just ordered mine. I’m thinking of buying another to send to Greg Laden.

Reply to  jim Steele
August 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Don’t. You’ll just have to explain all the big words and cartoons for him if you do. 🙂

August 11, 2015 4:33 pm

Your comment about verified buyer says my comment will carry more weight if I am a “verified buyer”–through Amazon. But I want to buy mine from Stein to help him more.

Ric Haldane
August 11, 2015 4:36 pm

Please give these two men a break. Russell Seitz would never do such a thing. Look at all of the love that Russell has showered on Anthony and this site. You know he has the respect of the 97% for his idea of geoengineering the oceans with Lawrence Welk bubble machines. I just hope they play a little champagne music at the same time. As far as Mann goes, you must remember that he got his physics degree at Berkley. Berkeley, being a progressive school, must teach progressive physics. His heart, black as it may be, is in his work. Lighten up guys. Why worry about truth, honesty, and trillions of dollars.

Reply to  Ric Haldane
August 11, 2015 4:48 pm

Ric…snicker…the tin Mann has no heart, R. Seitz has no brain, and neither one has the courage to admit their mistakes.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 5:43 pm

…..and I don’t think that going to see the Wizard will do them any good.

Reply to  Aphan
August 11, 2015 6:22 pm

And they’re both lion…

August 11, 2015 5:19 pm

I am buying one for our Alberta Premier and one for our Alberta Environment Minister aka Minister of “Climate Change” aka Minister of Truth. (and one for me.)

August 11, 2015 5:23 pm

Is there a way to purchase this book via a Paypal account? I’m currently unable to use my bank account to purchase anything due to some mess with fraudulent charges (last I checked, I’m ~$200 in the hole because of them), and my only other alternative at the moment is Paypal. As far as I can see though, there’s no way to use that. Mark Steyn’s site doesn’t seem to offer it as a payment option, and Amazon never has.

August 11, 2015 5:39 pm

Best response to R. Seitz on Amazon so far:
“Amazon Customer says:
It is traditional to read a book before reviewing it.
Or is the review based on a modeled simulation?”
Cannot. Stop. Laughing.

Reply to  Aphan
August 12, 2015 8:18 am

+1,000!!! That. Is. BRILLIANT.

Jim R
August 11, 2015 5:42 pm

Ha ha! “Volume 1” is a nice touch.

Steamboat McGoo
August 11, 2015 5:49 pm

I received my book a few days ago. I’m LOVING it!
My signed copy from Steyn reads, “Wow, Mann – put that in your pipe and smoke it!”

August 11, 2015 5:54 pm

Steyn used three quotes by Scientists to promote his book: (for full text from my source, see link at the end)
1) “Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.”
-Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford
2) “Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred …because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”
-Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research
3) “Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.”
-Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh
“…Simon Tett, a mainstream climate scientist, contributed to the Hockey Stick reconstruction by advancing research on the role of aerosols. Tett and Michael Mann published together on this issue.
Simon Tett said, “I think my criticism was that it was likely missing some variances. My view then and still is that recent warming is very likely outside the range of natural variability.” This is an argument over variability in Mann et al’s reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last thousand years.”
“Tett’s contribution to climate science has been to address that variability. He has recently co-authored articles with Mike Mann that confirm the Hockey Stick pattern of temperature changes and seek to understand that pattern in terms of natural and human drives of climate. Clearly, he is one of the nearly 100 percent of scientists who view global warming as real and caused by human greenhouse gas pollution.”
So, Steyn got it wrong.
On Zorita: He said the quote is essentially accurate, and that he has put it on his personal web page several years ago. He was concerned about the perception of objectivity in the IPCC process, so perhaps these researchers should not be part of the process given the controversy at the time caused by the famous Climategate hacked emails.
However, he was careful to note that his statement was “not related to the quality of their scientific work. Actually, my statement was a suggestion to isolate the IPCC process from the credibility crisis linked to Climategate.”
So this is about perception, not about the quality of the science or the validity of the Hockey Stick.
He went on to say, “I feel that those political attacks, especially those against Michael Mann in the US, have no justification.”
Jonathan Jones, at Oxford, the third quoted scientist, is a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. He published a few things many years ago then seems to have trailed off in academic activity, but nothing on climate science.
The original quote by Jones was a lengthy screed critical of the climate science and the scientists in which he explicitly implores Richard Betts to denounce the hockey stick. (Betts is a climate scientist at the UK’s Met Office, and a lead author for the IPCC 4th assessment report and other IPCC documents.)
Jones indicates that the whole global warming thing is pathological science, will eventually go away, and he hopes he can soon get back to his own research in an utterly unrelated field. Which, I think, he may have done. Maybe Jonathan Jones, as a non-climate scientist who is also a climate science denier, is an appropriate person to quote in Steyn’s book. One in three … not a very good result.
“I’m thinking this is not going to be a very big book. Certainly not a very good one. Maybe Steyn is counting on a lot of pre-orders.”
So two of the three quotes were taken out of context by Steyn, from Climate Scientists who supported and even worked on the hockey stick results. And the third is by a scientist who has done no work in Climate Science.
In other words, Steyn’s new book is a trashy screed, without the Scientific support he’s claimed.
full text here: http://www.desmog.uk/2015/06/24/mark-steyn-s-newest-attack-michael-mann-and-hockey-stick

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 6:32 pm

Thank you for your insightful comment with a plenty of reliable links. Do you publish on desmog frequently?

Reply to  Curious George
August 11, 2015 6:55 pm

The article being referenced was authored by “guest”.
“guest” says he/she contacted each of those three noted people.
Hey, when “guest” talks, it appears desmog listens.
I supposed he/she “guessed” we would, too.

Reply to  Curious George
August 11, 2015 7:40 pm

johnWho “guest” is Greg Laden. See http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/ for the original source.
warrenlb is still having difficulty reporting primary sources despite all the help he’s been getting.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 6:37 pm

warrenlb says:
“Clearly, he is one of the nearly 100 percent of scientists who view global warming as real and caused by human greenhouse gas pollution.”
Nonsense. As always, warrenlb makes an assertion as if it is based on verifiable measured data, quantifying a specific amount of global warming due to human CO2 emissions. But as always, he cannot produce any measurements of man-made global warming (MMGW). He is winging it because he lacks testable (falsifiable) data.
MMGW is no more than an opinion. A conjecture. Because there are no verifiable, testable measurements quantifying the supposed fraction of a degree of MMGW, out of total global warming from all sources, including the natural recovery of the planet from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. It would be astonishing if the planet had not warmed up. The current cycle of global warming over the past century is no different than numerous other global warming episodes, which occurred before any significant rise in CO2.
So after wasting untold $billions of taxpayer dollars paying highly educated scientists to find, measure and quantify the extent, if any, of MMGW, there are still NO such measurements! No one has ever produced a single verifiable measurement, after many decades of diligent searching. What does that tell us?
People like warrenlb are nothing more than True Believers. Their view is based on their religious eco-faith, not on verifiable, testable scientific measurements. Because there are no such measurements. If MMGW exists, it is ipso facto so minuscule that it should be completely disregarded for all public policy questions. At this point, MMGW has become nothing more or less than a deliberate hoax on the taxpaying public.
In science, data is everything. Measurements are data. But because he has no measurements quantifying MMGW, warrenlb has to fall back on the only kind of argument he has left: his baseless assertion that MMGW exists; that it is significant; and that is leading to a climate catastrophe. That is mere snake oil. Anyone can make assertions. But they mean nothing without supporting data.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 7:18 pm

As you well know, there are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers published with all the evidence needed for every scientific academy on Earth to conclude AGW. Your inability, or refusal, to consider that evidence is a deeper problem than I , or any mere mortal can solve. Perhaps a long vacation, to view the vanishing arctic sea ice or glaciers. would help.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 7:24 pm

warrenlb says:
As you well know, there are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers published with all the evidence needed for every scientific academy on Earth to conclude AGW…&blah, blah, etc.
Just more baseless assertions, which mean nothing.
If you want credibility, post a testable, verifiable measurement, quantifying the specific fraction of man-made global warming, out of total global warming from all causes — including the natural recovery from the LIA.
If you can do that, you will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
Or, you can continue making your baseless assertions and endless appeals to corrupted authorities. So far, that’s all you’ve got.

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 7:36 pm

dbstealey: “the natural recovery from the LIA”
What is physics and/or physical process that causes a “natural recovery?”

Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 7:44 pm

Jerzy S,
Good question. Negative feedbacks enter into it. And of course it is a natural recovery; it happened, and it may be continuing to happen — and it certainly is not un-natural, is it?
However, I am interested in finding a testable measurement quantifying “MMGW”. So far, no one has been able to provide any such measurements, and I’ve been asking for years.
That tells me that either MMGW is so minuscule that it is unmeasurably small, or that it doesn’t exist. Personally, I think human emissions may cause a very small rise in temperature. But that increase in temperature is so tiny that it can be completely disregarded, since it is too minuscule to measure. Thus, it is not worth worrying about.

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 8:15 pm

dbstealey: Since you do not know if it is or if it is not natural, and you have no physical/physics explanation, you better not call it “natural”

You don’t have a clue in other words.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Jerzy Strzelecki Wrong. Just because you cannot identify the boundaries of a natural process does not prevent you from identifying it as natural.
That is truly a lame attempt to score coup.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 11, 2015 11:59 pm

Warrenlb and Jerzy Strzelecki:
You each dispute the correct and true statement of dbstealey concerning man-made global warming (MMGW) which said

MMGW is no more than an opinion . A conjecture. Because there are no verifiable, testable measurements quantifying the supposed fraction of a degree of MMGW, out of total global warming from all sources, including the natural recovery of the planet from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene.

There is no empirical evidence of any kind for anthropogenic (i.e. manmade) global warming (AGW); none, zilch, nada.
Three decades of research conducted worldwide at a cost of $5billion per year has failed to find any such evidence. If you were to find some then you would certainly be awarded at least one Nobel Prize and probably more. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found such evidence but that was soon revealed to be a result of his having selected data from the middle of a time series and the ‘evidence’ collapsed when all the data set was used.
The issue is the inability of climate data to indicate difference from the Null Hypothesis. I again explain this for the benefit of onlookers who don’t know.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate in the Holocene, no recent climate behaviours are observed to be unprecedented so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause local warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the local warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect (and can distort temperature measurements). Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 1:33 am

But . . . [appeal to authority], [appeal to quantity of government-funded studies], [appeal to peer-review a process that may in the past have been credible], [appeal to the government-funded “scientific academy” that somehow toes government lines and is populated with people skilled at honing in on the best grant-receiving opportunities, sinecures, big houses, nice cars, and free first-class or private jet travel to the best confabs], [ad hominem], [ad hominem], [appeal to authority], [ad hominem], [ad hominem]. I win! You lose! See?

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 1:57 am

Jerzy S,
The warming 1910-1945 was as high and fast as the warming 1976-2000. CO2 increases in the first period were 10 ppmv, in the second period 50 ppmv. The warming in the second period was not 5 times faster…
In the period 1945-1976 there was a small cooling with increasing (15 ppmv) CO2 levels. In the period since 2000 there is no statistical warming with increasing (20 ppmv) CO2 levels.
What is the contribution of CO2 in the whole temperature series based on this variability in effect? If “something natural” (ocean oscillations?) countered the warming from CO2 since 2000, may that same “something natural” not responsible for (most of) the warming since 1976 or even since 1850?

Frank K.
Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 6:06 am

“Perhaps a long vacation, to view the vanishing arctic sea ice…”
Oops…no ice free arctic this year…lot of ice in the Hudson bay too. All in all, a pretty dangerous vacation.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 9:41 am

Jerzy Strzelecki says:
“You don’t have a clue…”
Jerzy, you have admitted before that you don’t have an eduction in the hard sciences. IIRC, your specialty is sociology and psychology. You also wrote that you read this site to learn. Instead, you’re arguing without providing any supporting evidence.
May I suggest that you take the opportunity to study the comment by Richard Courtney above? If you can understand it, you will see that the claims of warrenlb and others like him are not science, they are simply logical fallacies like his constant Appeal to Authority fallacies, and similar pseudo-science.
Science is rigorous. In order to falsify the Null Hypothesis (thus showing conclusively that MMGW exists), you must provide verifiable, testable measurements, quantifying the specific amount of global warming directly attributable to human CO2 emissions. You must be able to quantify the change due to human emitted CO2.
But so far, no one has been able to quantify man-made global warming. It has never been measured. Thus, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. The alternative hypothesis of MMGW remains an unproven conjecture; an opinion.
You can accept the scientific method, or not. But if you reject it then I suggest you read about the famous 1950’s psychology experiment conducted by Dr. Leon Festinger, who studied a group called the “Seekers”. Despite overwhelming contrary evidence, their belief in what they had been taught by their leader, ‘Mrs. Keech’, became much stronger even as the evidence falsifying their beliefs became more obvious. Once they accepted their original belief system, all the facts in the world were not sufficient to change their minds. We see this same effect throughout the climate alarmist world. Facts do not matter, only their belief matters.
You reject the climate Null Hypothesis, just like the Seekers rejected the fact that the flying saucer did not appear as predicted. (A more recent example is the Rev. Harold Camping, who predicted the end of the world — several times. But his followers still believed him.)
So look in the mirror, Jerzy. A strong belief means nothing in science. Facts, evidence, testability, data, and measurements are what matter. But the MMGW crowd lacks those things. Like warrenlb, they rely on assertions and logical fallacies instead of verifiable facts, data, and measurements.

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 10:57 am

dbstealey….I see from your response that you indeed have no clue. If you did, you would have explained what caused the “recovery” instead of delegating it.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 4:21 pm

Jerzy Strzelecki,
Why are you being so obnoxious? Several of us including Richard, Mike, me, Ferdinand, and others have sincerely tried to help you understand the problem here. Your repeated response is to call people “clueless”, but you offer no evidence even though I’ve repeatedly asked you, or anyone else, to post verifiable measurements quantifying man-made global warming (MMGW).
You asked what caused the recovery from the Little Ice Age. If we had widely accepted answers explaining everything happening with the planet, that issue would be settled. But the fact is that no one knows for sure what caused either the LIA, or the subsequent recovery. There are various hypotheses, but there are still more questions than answers in the climate debate.
Eventually we will get most, if not all the answers. The only way to do that is by using the scientific method, and falsifying every possible conjecture and hypothesis. Then only the scientific truth as it currently exists will remain standing, after all the debunked conjectures have been discarded.
You don’t have the answers and neither does warrenlb, yet you don’t demand that he must give you answers to your questions. Labeling others as “clueless” indicates that your mind is made up. MMGW is an emotional issue with you.
Science works like this: when a scientist makes a conjecture, he designs an experiment to test it. If the experiment supports his opinion (his conjecture), then other scientists try to replicate his experiment, and also design their own experiments for further refinement. If enough experimental evidence accumulates to support the original conjecture, then over time it becomes an accepted hypothesis.
However, no matter how many experiments may support a conjecture or hypothesis, it only takes one experiment to falsify it. That has happened with the CO2=CAGW conjecture, as several commenters here have tried to explain to you.
The conjecture that a rise in CO2 will lead to rapid global warming has been decisively falsified. Despite the recent large increase in CO2, global temperatures have not risen in almost twenty years. So that conjecture has been falsified. Human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of rapid global warming because emissions have risen substantially, but global temperatures remain in stasis. In fact, all the available evidence indicates that the rise in CO2 has been completely harmless, and in fact, very beneficial to the biosphere; the planet is measurably greening as a direct result of more CO2.
If you accept falsifiability and the scientific method (and for that matter, Occam’s Razor and the climate Null Hypothesis), you have no choice but to agree that the claims of man-made global warming are either flat wrong, or that any MMGW is so insignificant that it should be completely disregarded as a waste of resources. In either case, the claims made by the climate alarmist crowd have been thoroughly debunked by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 4:24 pm

As the climategate e-mails made clear, peer review has been corrupted to the point of meaninglessness.
Of course the useful idiots will continue to proclaim their lies hoping that this time someone will believe them.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 4:25 pm

Jerzy, since it’s easy to demonstrate that man didn’t cause it, then it has to be natural.
Unless you want to posit that it was a supernatural cause?

Reply to  dbstealey
August 12, 2015 4:30 pm

Jerzy, let me see if I have your argument straight.
Are you arguing that unless we can prove that man did not cause the recovery from the little ice age, we must assume that man is causing the current warming?

Reply to  dbstealey
August 13, 2015 12:34 am

db stealey said: “I’m still waiting for a verifiable MMGW measurement that is accepted by all your ‘authorities’.”
This has been published before, including on this site: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

Vic Veron
Reply to  dbstealey
August 17, 2015 8:22 am

Chris August 13, 2015 at 12:34 am:
Seek and ye shall find. Seek hard enough for what you’re looking for and you’ll find it – even if it is a mirage or an anomaly.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 7:05 pm

As I understand it, Desmog is a paid propaganda site, paid for by D Suzuki, with funds from TIDES, a political lobby fund, who have a contributors J Kerry’s wife, plus wind and solar interest billionaires. The money even is said to flow to band chiefs to oppose pipelines.
So I think Desmog is the propaganda face to a network of green activists with green capitalists paying the bills..
In other words, imo Warren is posting trash talk here, and he is likely being paid to do it.

Reply to  Ed_B
August 11, 2015 7:21 pm

Yes, I became a zillionaire. Its obviously the only reason one would have to post real facts on this website.

Reply to  Ed_B
August 11, 2015 7:27 pm

So, warrenlb, when will you begin to post those “real facts”?
I’m still waiting for a verifiable MMGW measurement that is accepted by all your ‘authorities’. I’ve made that same request of you for a few years now, but you’ve never produced a single measurement. The reason is simple: there are no such measurements. Thus, your baseless assertions…

Reply to  Ed_B
August 11, 2015 8:01 pm

Actually, warrenlb and his tribe of incompetents and assorted nitwits are better off not having any verifiable evidence for any causative effect of CO2 going from 280 ppm to 402 ppm on any global climate parameter. If they did, it would only go to show mathematically how pathetically small the effect was, and they’d be out of business instantly.
They’re way better off with the actual effect being hidden down in the noise and ready, for the first time in the history of the universe, to disobey the Second Law of Thermodynamics and spring out on us at some point in time that is only defined within the tops of their heads.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  warrenlb
August 11, 2015 8:00 pm

Okay lets start with your statement;
“Jonathan Jones, at Oxford, the third quoted scientist, is a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. He published a few things many years ago then seems to have trailed off in academic activity, but nothing on climate science.” By the same token, Michael Mann is not a historian, and is not qualified to speak on historical records. Such as the climate records encompassing most of the hockey stick. He clearly did not follow any of the methods of verification a trained Historian would have used. Nor that of an Paleontologist. He is a hack and would have served the human race better as a meat cutter in a butcher’s shop.
Oh and the last part of your statement “but nothing on climate science” the same cam be said for Michael Mann. What has he done other then muddy the waters? Nothing but a waste of endeavor

Reply to  warrenlb
August 12, 2015 7:08 am

“a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change”
You really haven’t been paying attention, have you?

Reply to  CaligulaJones
August 12, 2015 4:33 pm

The scam they are trying to pull is the claim that only those recognized as “experts” on climate science are allowed to talk about climate science.
And of course how do you get yourself to be declared an “expert” on climate science? The only acceptable method is for those who have already declared themselves to be “experts” in climate science to declare that you to are an “expert”.

David Smith
Reply to  warrenlb
August 12, 2015 12:57 pm

Here’s another comment from Tett:

“I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!”

A few more choice one’s from The Team that I believe are in the book (H/T Paul Matthews at Bishop Hil)l:

Phil Jones “you’re on very dodgy ground”
Briffa “I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area …”
Wigley “At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work”

What have you got to say about these Warren?
For years, warmists such as yourself have been promising thermal armageddon (50 million climate refugees, ice-free arctic, New York flooded, etc.) and none of it has happened. That is why the public ain’t listening to the CAGW rubbish anymore and also why governments such as the Conservatives in the UK are starting to dial-back on the massive subsidies given to useless ‘green’ tech.

Ron Sinclair
August 11, 2015 6:28 pm

Hi Anthony
I don’t know any way to reach you other than through this vehicle.Some many months back you ran a special edition posting on your experience obtaining Starkey hearing aids and the tremendous help they were to you. As one that has a disability very similar to yours – you showed your test chart – your piece set me off on a three month project trying to improve my situation. I tried 3 different products, including Starkey but could not find an aid that outperformed what I was already wearing in a hearing-in-noise situation as in a normal restaurant. Essentially all the top brands have the same limitation as to what they can do with just a hearing aid.
I finally came across a product called the Roger Pen, by Phonak, another large aid manufacturer and the brand my current aids were made by. This little device makes eating out in a restaurant with for instance your wife a doable thing again. Your partner wears the Roger Pen, a highly directional microphone, on a lanyard around their neck. When they speak to you, their voice overpowers the background noise and you can clearly hear what is being said through a wifi circuit direct to your aids. You might still struggle with what the waiter says, but your wife you will hear clearly. Phonak have a way of adapting this device to other brands of aids. Any aids dispenser that handles Phonak could fit you with this excellent product.
If it weren’t for running that piece on your disability solution, I probably would not have come across this particular solution. Thanks so much for running that post last fall.

Reply to  Ron Sinclair
August 11, 2015 7:07 pm

I really feel for you. My brother in law has serious hearing impairment, and when he’s out at a restaurant or other place with lots of background noise, his hearing aids fail him, and he is basically cut off from any meaningful contact and hence very isolated. It’s painful for him AND his loved ones.
I’ll pass this on to him 🙂

Reply to  Ron Sinclair
August 12, 2015 4:40 am

Under the About menu there is a Contact form for Anthony:
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  Ron Sinclair
August 12, 2015 6:44 am

Actually, I have starlet hearing aids and they also have a device much like the lanyard pen you use. It’s great for meetings too!

Reply to  Ron Sinclair
August 12, 2015 7:01 am

I also have starkey aids. I purchased a remote that also acts as a lanyard-attached directional microphone. It works well in restaurants (and meetings)