Mark Steyn’s illuminating and entertaining testimony to the Cruz hearing on climate today

L-R Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Will Happer, and Mark Steyn at Senate hearing today. Photo: Dr. John Christy

L-R Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Will Happer, and Mark Steyn at Senate hearing today.

STATEMENT TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

Data or Dogma?

Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change

December 8th 2015

My name is Mark Steyn. I am not a scientist. I am an author. My main interest in climate science is that Michael E Mann, the inventor of one of its most notorious artifacts, is suing me for “defamation of a Nobel Prize winner” – a crime that I was not aware existed, especially in his case, as according to the Nobel Institute he is not a Nobel Prize winner. So I recently edited a book about it called “A Disgrace to the Profession”: The World’s Scientists – in Their Own Words – On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science, Volume One – which I’m proud to say was Number One on the Climatology Hit Parade. I have been Number Four on the Amazon books chart, and Number Seven on the Amazon easy-listening chart, and earlier this very month the Number One Amazon jazz vocalist, but I had no idea there was also a climatological bestseller list. Still, I’m happy my book was credible enough to get to the top of it.

That said, at a hearing on “Data or Dogma?”, given the distinguished scientists here to address the data, I thought I should confine myself mostly to the dogma.

THE CLIMATE OF FEAR

 

In the three years that I have been ensnared in the dysfunctional court system of the District of Columbia, I have come to know well what I call the “climate of fear” within climate science. Professors Christy, Curry and Happer are sufficiently eminent that they can, just about, bear the assault the Big Climate enforcers mount on those who dissent from the dogma – although that assault is fierce and unrelenting. If you’re a professor emeritus, you’re told you’re senile. If you’re one of the few women in this very male field, you’re told you’re whoring for Big Oil: The aforementioned Michael Mann of Penn State, who is too cowardly to be here today and has instead sent his proxy, approvingly linked to an Internet post accusing Dr Curry of sleeping with me. This is how a supposedly distinguished climate scientist treats those who disagree with him.

On May 13th last year I wrote:

It’s always fun in a legal battle to have something bigger at stake than a mere victory. In Canada, we put the ‘human rights’ system itself on trial, to the point where the disgusting and indefensible ‘hate speech’ law Section 13 was eventually repealed by Parliament. It seems to me that in this particular case the bigger issue is the climate of fear that Mann and his fellow ayatollahs of alarmism have succeeded in imposing on an important scientific field.1

The very next day the distinguished 79-year-old Swedish climatologist Lennart Bengtsson was forced to resign from a dissident climate group after the Big Climate enforcers took the hockey stick to him in the back alley. He had agreed to participate in a group headed by Nigel Lawson. Some of you may know Lord Lawson personally. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mrs Thatcher’s ministry in the United Kingdom. He’s nobody’s idea of a fringe madman: He’s a

clip_image001

1 http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud

member of the House of Lords, a Privy Counselor; his daughter is a popular celebrity chef on America’s Food Network; his fellow trustees include a bishop of the Church of England, a former private secretary to the Queen, and an advisor to two Prime Ministers from the Labour Party. But they disagree with the tight little coterie of climate alarmists, and so Lennart Bengtsson could not be permitted to meet with them. As Professor Bengtsson wrote:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.2

Because it’s no longer about “meteorology”, it’s about saving the planet. Bengtsson was a former director of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, winner of the Descartes Prize and a WMO prize for groundbreaking research, and even a friend and collaborator of Mann’s at scientific conferences. But he made the mistake of, ah, seeking to expand his circle of climate acquaintances, and so Michael Mann now sneeringly dismisses him as “junk science”3. Nate Silver is the hipster statistician who correctly predicted the 2012 election and then set up his own “538” website dedicated to “data journalism” – just the data, the facts, the numbers, the analysis… But, when Mr Silver made the mistake of hiring Professor Roger Pielke Jr, then Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth were obliged to explain to him that these considerations do not apply to climate science4. So Nate Silver fired Professor Pielke – who has now withdrawn

from all climate research. When Professor Willie Soon co-authored a paper earlier this year on why the turn-of-the-century climate models all turned out wrong, the Big Climate heavies did not attempt to refute the paper, but instead embarked on a campaign to get him fired from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

For every Judith Curry or Willie Soon or Lennart Bengtsson, there are a thousand lesser names who see what happens to even the most distinguished people in their field and decide to keep their heads down. Professor Ivar Gievar recently spoke out against, among other things, the recent adjustment of figures by NASA – an agency overseen by this sub-committee – at the annual meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau. Professor Gievar is a Nobel Laureate. A real Nobel Laureate, I mean, not a fake one like Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth and many other climate scientists who falsely claim to be Nobel Prize winners on the grounds that the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and they once contributed to an IPCC report. Mann falsely claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner on his book jacket, on his website, in his court complaint about me – even though the Nobel Institute told him he wasn’t a Nobel Prize winner and he should cut it out. But this serial misrepresentation of credentials by Mann, Trenberth and others is also part of their intimidation technique. If you’re a real Nobel Laureate like Ivar Giaever, who won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, or if you’re older, tenured and sufficiently

clip_image001[1]

2 http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html

3 https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/467310861237760000

4 http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconvenient-statistics/

eminent, you can just about withstand the Big Climate enforcers jumping you in the parking lot and taking the hockey stick to you.

But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career. I’ve been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world.

When I look at what has happened to those who speak out, I recall the wise words of Stephen McIntyre:

As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate ‘community’ believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society.5

Mr McIntyre is exactly right: If we take Big Climate at their word that the entire global economy needs massive re-orientation on a scale never before contemplated, it will require the largest societal consensus – left and right and center, in America, in Canada, in Britain, in Europe… Yet all Big Climate does is retreat ever deeper into its shrinking echo chamber and compile ever longer lists of people who are beyond the pale – Professor Curry, Professor Christy, Professor Bengtsson, Professor Pielke, Professor Soon, Lord Lawson, the Bishop of Chester, the winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics… It might be quicker for Mann, Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt and the other climate enforcers to make a short list of those to whom they are prepared to grant a say in the future of the planet.

In shoring up this cartoon climatology, the alarmism industry is now calling on courts and legislatures to torment their opponents. I shall outline my own particular experience, and then the general climate.

MANN vs STEYN et al

 

On July 12th 2012 former FBI Director and special investigative counsel Louis Freeh issued a devastating report regarding the behavior of Pennsylvania State University and its most senior figures, as they ignored, abetted and covered up the systemic and brutal child sexual abuse conducted by Gerald A Sandusky, longtime football coach at the university.

The following day Rand Simberg posted an article on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s website entitled “The Other Scandal in Happy Valley”, which suggested that, in light of the revelations regarding the “rotten and corrupt culture” at Penn State under the presidency of Graham Spanier, it might be worth revisiting the other sham “investigation” on Spanier’s watch

– of Dr Michael E Mann, creator of the famous global-warming “hockey stick”.

The very same day The Chronicle of Higher Education also tied together the sham Sandusky and Mann investigations in a piece titled “Culture of Evasion”6. As you know, after the Freeh Report was published, criminal charges were filed against Penn State President Graham Spanier and other senior administrators. Spanier is currently under indictment for grand- jury perjury, obstruction of justice, child endangerment, conspiracy and failure to report child abuse.

clip_image001[2]

5 http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/14/the-cleansing-of-lennart-bengtsson

6 http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/a-culture-of-evasion/33485

Two days later, I wrote a 270-word blog post for the opinion page of National Review Online7 referencing the Freeh Report and Mr Simberg’s piece. That post appears below in its entirety:

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

‘I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey- stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing. If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s ‘the Jerry Sandusky of climate change’, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his ‘investigation’ by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

 

I asked what I thought was quite an obvous question: If an institution is prepared to cover up the systemic ongoing rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?

It’s a legitimate question for an institution that receives taxpayer funding, a certain portion of which falls under the oversight of this committee. Penn State has a representative here today, and perhaps he will address some of these questions about his institution and its integrity.

Graham Spanier, the now disgraced president of Penn State who presided over the joke investigations of both Sandusky and Mann, remains the President Emeritus of Penn State, and a professor of family studies. His absolution of Michael Mann was widely regarded at the time as a total joke even by many who are by no means “climate deniers” – for example, the venerable American institution The Atlantic Monthly:

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann — the paleoclimatologist who came up with ’the hockey stick’ — would be difficult to parody.8

Professor Harold Lewis, one of the most distinguished members of the American Physical Society, resigned from the organization over the whitewashing of Mann, writing:

When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise.9

 

 

clip_image001[3]

7 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

8 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/

In other words, Spanier’s depraved regime at Penn State turned a blind eye to Mann for the same reason it turned a blind eye to the Sandusky rape epidemic: they couldn’t afford to take the financial hit.

In this case, unlike football revenue, the money comes in large part from taxpayers, via you and the agencies you preside over – suchas the National Science Foundation. Given Penn State’s refusal to disclose materials relating to the Mann investigation under the corrupt Spanier regime, it would be appropriate for you to put a hold on all NSF funding of Penn State, including Mann’s two current grants totaling half a million dollars. And I hope this sub-committee will ask the witness here today representing this deeply corrupt institution whether he will join in a call for Spanier’s successor to let the sunlight in on all the dank, fetid corners of Spanier’s legacy.

Dr Mann did not want the world to be reminded that the same man who turned a blind eye to Sandusky also turned a blind eye to him. He filed suit against me and three other parties in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where neither Mann nor I work or reside. Indeed, I never set foot in this benighted jurisdiction except to come here for matters arising from the court case, such as this hearing. The case was assigned to Natalia Combs Greene, a since reprimanded landlord-and-tenant judge appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by this honorable Senate. After a botched ruling in which she confused the parties, she said the case was “complicated” and shuffled it off on a colleague, but not before procedurally mangling it so that, for a while, two different trial judges were ruling on the case simultaneously – something that’s a big no-no in functioning jurisdictions, but which was partly caused here by Michael Mann falsely claiming in his complaint to be a Nobel Laureate and then, after the Nobel Institute told him he wasn’t, having to file an amended complaint.

At this point, my fellow defendants chose to test the DC Anti-SLAPP statute, which was assented to by this US Senate in 2010, but was so poorly written as to leave unanswered such basic questions as the standard for dismissal and whether or not that decision is immediately appealable to the DC Court of Appeals. The ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times, and various other media bigfeet all filed amici briefs opposed to Mann – not because they disagree with him on global warming (most of them are as hot for climate change as he is) but because they understand that putting climate science beyond criticism and into the courtroom would inflict the greatest damage on the First Amendment in over 50 years. Not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann’s behalf.

Oral arguments were heard over one year ago, yet judges Vanessa Ruiz, Corinne Beckwith and Catharine Easterly, all confirmed to the DC court by this Senate, have failed to rule. I note that, in writing to President Obama recommending a second 15-year term for Judge Ruiz, the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure nevertheless observed:

The Commission would be remiss if it did not address the serious issue of Judge Ruiz’s backlog of opinions… Of crucial importance to the proper functioning of the Court of Appeals is the timely resolution of disputes. The public’s confidence in the Court is eroded when litigants must wait multiple years for decisions to be rendered. The Commission believes that this problem is not only about the pace of opinion production, but also about a less than fully adequate appreciation on the part of Judge Ruiz as to how her backlog adversely affects the litigants, the Court, and her colleagues.10

 

 

 

clip_image002

9 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

10 http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/commission-on-judicial-disabilities-and-tenure-report-vanessa-ruiz.pdf

As a result, an interlocutory appeal has dragged on for almost two years. Judge Ruiz is an activist judge who is, inter alia, a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which aspires to be the first global think-tank and is very active on the transnational climate scene. All very fascinating. But she’s supposed to be a DC judge first and a condition of the Commission in exchange for recommending her for a second term was that her obligation to clear her appalling backlog of cases took precedence over her “outside activities, no matter how worthy they may be”. A dissenting member of the Commission, Noel J Francisco, was shrewder about Judge Ruiz’s failings:

It should go without saying that an appellate judge’s primary duty – if not her sole duty

– is to decide cases. On this score, as my colleagues have described, Judge Ruiz’s backlog is ‘the highest by far of any of the appellate judges on the DC Court of Appeals” and, as a result, litigants often ‘must wait multiple years for decisions to be rendered’ by her… As the old adage goes, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.

The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to prevent the use of litigation to chill free speech – on climate change and many other issues. When it takes up to three years to get a ruling (as it apparently does with Judge Ruiz), there is no point to anti-SLAPP legislation. Indeed, when it takes three years to get a ruling, the case is not the issue, the judge is. When it takes three years from oral arguments to ruling, it may be that the judge is just an incompetent sloth who’s spending far too much time on extra-curricular activities working on world peace. Or it may be that a sclerotic and incompetent DC court system has three-year backlogs because it accepts cases from venue tourists like Michael Mann who have no connection whatsoever with this jurisdiction – and, as a result, the court system is incapable of serving the people it’s meant to serve.

Nevertheless, this Senate confirmed Judge Ruiz. Under the Home Rule Act, the District of Columbia operates in a constitutional no-man’s-land whereby it enacts legislation for which this honorable body is ultimately responsible. In practice, that means they pass slapdash, poorly drafted laws, and you guys rubber-stamp them. The constitutional limbo allows serial plaintiffs like Michael Mann to use the DC courts to torture non-DC residents: this is a disgrace, and ultimately it is the responsibility of you and your colleagues.

I responded to Mann’s discovery requests almost two years ago. He has yet to respond to mine. No court around the world within the Common Law tradition to which this country is heir has ever presumed to adjudicate science. Judge Natalia Combs Greene is not competent to rule on landlord-and-tenant cases, never mind the extent of the Medieval Warm Period. Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that, by the time she does rule on the science, global warming will have kicked in and the rising sea levels will have washed away the Maldives, Tuvalu and, with luck, the District of Columbia. My three years in the stagnant swamp of DC “justice” demonstrate why science in particular and public policy disputes in general are beyond the competence of the judges you confirm and the courts you fund. They belong properly in what the eminent jurist Lord Moulton called “the domain of manners”.

BIG CLIMATE vs EVERYONE

 

Why is this relevant beyond the travails of one obscure immigrant? Because too many people within the climate cartel are demanding that dissent from the alleged “consensus” should be not merely a civil offense but a criminal one – and far too many legislators and bureaucrats are willing to entertain it. Your colleague, Senator Whitehouse, is among those who favor criminal

penalties for those who disagree with him on climate policy. Earlier this year, you, Senator Markey, were rebuked by the President of the Cato Institute for “an obvious attempt to chill research into and funding of public policy projects you don’t like… You abuse your authority when you attempt to intimidate people who don’t share your political beliefs”11.

Likewise, Raúl Grijalva, the Congressman from Arizona and Ranking Member of the House UnEnvironmental Activities Committee, earlier this year sent a letter to seven scientists, including professors Curry and Christy – a quite disgraceful letter that no citizen-legislator in a representative parliament has any business sending to anybody, demanding among other things details of speaking fees, travel expenses, and email communications stretching back a decade12. Commissar Grijalva presumed to be able to do this because these scientists had voluntarily testified before his committee, and thus, as he saw it, had submitted to his jurisdiction over every aspect of their lives. I hope this Senate sub-committee will distance itself from Commissar Grijalva’s deformed understanding of his role. But, in the event that, following my voluntary appearance here today, any Senator demands in five years’ time to see my emails and know what hotel I stayed in in Cleveland or Copenhagen, I might as well give you my answer now: You ain’t getting’ nuthin’.

It takes quite a lot to stand up to powerful congressmen and senators threatening to plunge you into half-a-decade of investigative torture for exercising your free-speech and public- advocacy rights. The ultimate verdict of such inquiry is largely irrelevant: The process is the punishment.

The Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, is presently using securities law to do an end run around the First Amendment and sue Exxon for not holding the same views on climate change as the more pliable oil companies have been forced to adopt in public.

Recently, a group of scientists mainly from George Mason University wrote to the President to demand that climate dissenters be prosecuted under the RICO laws. RICO, as you know, is supposed to be used against racketeers and mobsters and, granted the unfortunate tendency of sloppily drawn federal laws to metastasize under opportunist US Attorneys, one marvels nevertheless that such an absurd and ideological expansion of this legislation could ever be seriously entertained.

Needless to say, as with the Spanier regime at Penn State, it is in fact George Mason’s climate community that most closely approximates a mob racket. The first signatory on that letter demanding RICO be applied to his enemies is Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason, who additionally controls a “non-profit” the Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc. which is part of George Mason’s College of Science. In 2014 alone, this “institute” received over half a million dollars in federal climate grants, including from bodies you oversee. As you know, the NSF and other federal agencies have supposedly strict rules about enriching oneself from grant monies. As a general principle, during college vacation you’re allowed to earn no more than your monthly salary in research grants. So if you’re paid, say, $100,000 per year, you’re allowed to top that up to 20 grand of grant money during the summer. Instead, Professor Shukla essentially tripled his income, and since 2001 has taken some 63 million dollars in federal science grants for a “non-profit” that employed him as president, his wife as business manager and his daughter as assistant business manager. There’s a little bit of congressional oversight just waiting to be done, don’t you think? Sixty-three million bucks! But instead Commissar Grijalva wants to know whether Judith Curry got upgraded to a junior suite at the airport Hilton in 2007.

clip_image001[4]

11 http://www.cato.org/blog/message-catos-center-study-science

12 http://www.steynonline.com/6831/the-warmish-inquisition

This climate of intimidation, led by influential legislators of the most lavishly funded government in the world, sends a powerful signal to others. Professor Curry has noted the latest stage in the grim descent of the journal Science, whose editor Marcia McNutt recently published a statement confirming her journal’s wholesale embrace of advocacy over science: “The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.” The other most prominent science journal on the planet, Nature, appears to be going even further, publishing a statement by three climate scientists arguing that “climate justice” is “more vital than democracy”:

Democracy emphasizes the mutual roles of actors: all preferences are treated as equal. In many regions of the world, however, the results of democratic choices can be strongly influenced by power relations and inequitable social arrangements, owing to differences in economic development, access to technology and knowledge.

Elites may use democratic processes to entrench their status or encroach on other social goals. This can lead to incremental or undesirable results, which might explain why large democratic nations such as the United States continue to oppose progressive climate legislation.

In our view, sound climate and energy planning should not treat all stakeholders in the same way. Instead, preferences and roles should be weighted to consider criteria related to equity, due process, ethics and other justice principles.13

So the fake 97 per cent consensus is no longer enough. These scientists are saying that, because there’s a supposed 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, they don’t need a 51 per cent consensus from the electorate.

The relationship between government and science today would be unrecognizable to real scientists – to Sir Isaac Newton, to Charles Babbage, to the Curies. The creation of the IPCC in particular has led to the establishment of a closed, largely Anglo-American climate jet set that, as demonstrated in the Climategate emails, has had a wholly corrupting effect on peer review among other things. In this culture, what is the proper role of the political class? Is it to do as Senator Whitehouse, Congressman Grijalva and Attorney General Schneiderman are doing, and make climate alarmism a state ideology from which it is forbidden to dissent? Or is it time for legislators to exercise their responsibility to ensure that the people’s money is used in the service of science and not propaganda?

In that respect, let me close by turning to my area of expertise. I am not a climate scientist, but I am an acknowledged expert in the field of musical theatre14. Last year, a show called The Great Immensity opened off-Broadway. It ran a week and then closed after largely stinking reviews from The New York Times et al. It had received a direct grant of $700,000 from the agency for which you are responsible, the National Science Foundation. There is no science in putting on a musical: If there were, the Broadway adaptation of the Tom Hanks film Big would not have lost its entire investment, nor the Stephen King musical Carrie, nor the supposed blockbuster of America’s bicentennial year 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, by Leonard Bernstein and Alan Jay Lerner, which closed after five days and led Bernstein to conclude that he never wanted to get mixed up with Broadway again. If only the National Science Foundation was that savvy. The difference between those shows and The Great Immensity is that, with your blessing, only the last had American taxpayers’ money in it. The Government of the United States is the

clip_image001[5]

13 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/full/526323a.html

14 http://www.amazon.com/Broadway-Babies-Say-Goodnight- Musicals/dp/0415922879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449452540&sr=8-1&keywords=Steyn+Broadway+Babies

brokest entity in the history of brokeness. It has to pay back $20 trillion just to get back to having nothing at all. Which nobody in human history has ever done. Yet it apparently is not so broke that it can’t throw down the toilet 700 grand of funds marked for science on a lousy musical.

I have been around the theatre my entire adult life, and once in a while one runs into an example of an official government musical. There was the celebrated socialist operetta, The State Department Store, which was produced in Hungary and other Warsaw Pact countries after the Communist regimes banned all the old-school operettas for having too many singing princes and countesses as the principal characters. There was also Zabibah and the King, a musical version of Saddam Hussein’s allegorical novel in which the nubile virginal heroine represents Iraq and her manly yet tender expert lover the King represents Saddam. Unlike the NSF-funded Great Immensity, it got rave reviews from the Baghdad critics – because, if you gave it two thumbs down, you got one head off. The National Science Foundation does not yet enjoy that power, although clearly Dr Mann, Senator Whitehouse, Congressman Grijalva, Attorney General Schneiderman, and those scientists demanding that climate justice trump democracy are moving in that direction.

And in fairness neither the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe nor the Baathist tyranny of Saddam Hussein had their scientific bodies invest in musicals. That grotesque innovation came from an agency for which you are responsible. If you click on the YouTube link below15, which I hope we might listen to during the hearing, you will see just how little American taxpayers got for their $700,000. Even if the show were not total garbage, it would be tainted and disfigured by the $700,000 in direct funding from a government agency. That moves it into the same realm of state propaganda as Saddam Hussein’s musical and The State Department Store. Propaganda can only disfigure art and science, and it has no place in either. The National Science Foundation has no more business sinking three-quarters of a million bucks into The Great Immensity than it would have into my cat album, released this month – although,

in the latter case, the American people would at least have got a return on their involuntary investment.

In the world of arts funding, bureaucrats and administrators often talk of the “arm’s length” principle. There is no “arm’s length” between government bureaucracies and contemporary climate science: They are entwined like Saddam Hussein and his lush, curvaceous lover in that boffo Baghdad smash, and it has done untold damage throughout most of the western world. As a final thought – and here I stray from dogma to my colleagues’ field of data – it seems to me that there are more similarities between musical theatre and IPCC climate science than there ought to be. As Irving Caesar, the celebrated lyricist of No, No, Nanette, characterized Broadway to me many years ago: “Remember, kid. No one knows nothing.” You hire the greatest composer, the hottest choreographer, the biggest star, the best orchestrator, and, when you put ‘em all together, it just lies there and it dies there. Likewise, as I have come to learn, with climate science: when someone’s up in northern Finland collecting lake sediment, that’s science; when someone’s taking tree rings from the Gaspé peninsula in Québec, that’s science; when someone’s up to his neck in ice cores in Antarctica, that’s science. But, when Michael Mann feeds them all into his magic processor and tells you here’s the planet’s temperature for the last two millennia, that’s not science. When the IPCC distills it further into “This is the hottest year of the hottest decade of the hottest century in, like, forever”, that is way beyond the realm of science. And, when politicians distill that further still into “Give us all your money or

clip_image001[6]

15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EASpzOX2UNQ

the planet gets it”, we have flown the coop of science and are free-floating through clouds of totalitarian fantasy.

Climate alarmism is going nowhere. The two-decade global-warming pause, which no late 1990s climate model foresaw, led the public to doubt Big Climate’s confident predictions for the future. In response, federal bodies such as NOAA and NASA have adjusted the past to make the present appear hotter, and thus supposedly demonstrated that in fact there is no such “pause”. As a result, public opinion, which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950. A recent poll found that, notwithstanding the urgings of the President and the Secretary of State and others, only three per cent of Americans regard climate change as their major concern. Three per cent. There is your 97 per cent consensus, gentlemen.

At exactly the time when climate science needs to acknowledge its own failings, and the uncertainties of which Dr Curry speaks, and the inability of cartoon climatology and fraudulent gimmicks like the hockey stick to capture the complexities of the planet’s climate system, a narrow unrepresentative group of activists is demanding ever more brutal penalties against those who refuse to toe the line.

There is certainly a role for the state to play in this – not in prosecuting climate dissenters under RICO laws or in dumping taxpayer money into unwatchable propaganda musicals, or in having feckless lethargic judges in the District of Columbia reward serial plaintiffs for nuisance suits, but rather in standing firm for the most expansive definition of free speech, which is vital to scientific inquiry and sorely overdue in this particular field, and against the abuse of government funds, which has been disastrous for it.

264 thoughts on “Mark Steyn’s illuminating and entertaining testimony to the Cruz hearing on climate today

      • Pappa, Dave,
        Absolutely.
        It was always likely that the Laureate Mann – hey don’t dis the Man, ‘cos I am a co-Laureate, being a citizen of the EU when we won a Nobel for, oh I dunno, tidying our bedclothes?, bringing Galactic Peace?, singing loudly, something like that I expect, maybe, back in – uhhhhhh – whenever, although I know I went to sleep that year, several times – always likely that Mann would elicit a Steyn comment that would take the paint off a Rolls Royce at a thousand paces.

        Auto – not actively looking for my share of the Nobel EU prize for – well, whatever

    • I’m a regular reader of SteynOnline, which is great by the way, but have been slightly disappointed over the past few days because he hasn’t recently published much in the way of meaty content.

      Now I see what he’s been doing.

  1. Wow. Mark tagged about all the bases.

    I’ve just finished an interesting book on USA “forefathers” and the particular care they took to draft the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as statements against tyrannical government.

    Reading Mark’s statement simply resonates with reasons to fear a tyrannical government.

  2. Oh boy! Brilliant. I wish I’d been there to watch it live. Now let’s hope for a positive reaction; or will they bury it in the long grass as they have done all similar testimonies.

  3. yes wow – he was the only one really standing up to the Demoncrat bullies at the Cruz hearing. I got tired of watching – it was all the Dems loading up snoftballs for adm Titley, a real sleaze artist.

    • “Titley”! A new name for well paid consultants from the bottom of the ocean. I watched the whole drama too by the way. Mark had to stand up for Judith Curry. Well done Mark!

  4. I suggest voters in the US support Cruz for President–he will make sure justice is delivered to people like Steyn and the corruption Mark has had to endure will instead land on those who have caused such a malicious miscarriage of justice.

    • Cruz is the first political candidate I have ever supported with (a small amount) financial support. And I am 72 yrs old. My first vote for president was for Barry Goldwater. (but I did vote for Dukakis vs the first Bush).

    • I decided to change who I am voting for in the primary’s after watching the hearing. Ted Cruz showed that he has a very good understanding of global warming science and the harm to the economy that has been and is being done. I have been spending several hours each week on this subject for at least two years. I am amazed he knows so much.

  5. Mark Steyn never disappoints with his wit, humor, logic. I love how he worked in the NSF grant to the musical indoctrination effort. When are our representatives going to put a stop to this complete and utter nonsense? C’mon Congress, let’s get the EPA back into worrying about real pollution rather than CO2, and please stop all funding for the IPCC, for broken and unscientific computer models and their broken modelers, their super computers, and for the love of God, stop the all administration agencies from granting science money to propagandist / alarmists.

    • To the extent that the United Nations is morphing into the Global Nation, I would want the U.S. out of that organization; and that organization out of the U.S.

  6. Among the early comments I made here was to the effect that, “I should be able to tell you that Jesus Christ is lord and that God raised him from the dead. You should be able able to tell me that you think he was just a nice Jewish boy who went into his father’s business. Neither one of us should be able to call upon Government to silence or punish the other.”
    (PLEASE, Please, please don’t derail this thread because of that. I won’t respond. I ask others not to take the “bait”. My point is….)
    “Science” should not be subject to the authority that any Government can bring to bear.
    Data, methods, hypothesis should all be open to critique without fear of Government and the current politics that controls it.
    “Science” should not be in fear of those who “speak loudly and carry a big stick.”

    • The problem is that the Government is funding almost all science, so by default, they control it. Who gets funds, analyzing how it was spent, the process of prosecution for fraudulent data (whether real or imaginary fraud). The list goes on and on.

      • As has been repeated on WUWT many times over the years: President Eisenhower warned us against the unholy alliance between the military industrial complex and the U.S. government. The same warning needs to be sounded and heeded regarding the unholy alliance between climate “science” and the U.S. government.

      • And, unfortunately a huge proportion of this federal funding goes to the soft science, destructive soft sciences such as Cultural Marxism, etc., and not enough to the important sciences as medical research, defense research, mathematics, etc..

      • Noaaprogrammer,
        Eisenhower also warned against federal funding and control of scientific research in the same address:

        Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

  7. Well even if we’re wrong it was worth it just to be able to read that!

    (Intended to be an ironic reference to the farcical idea, often expressed by the faithful, that even if the ‘consensus’ is wrong it doesn’t matter because going back to the dark ages will be a good thing.)

  8. Cruz was devastating. I think he’s a much better legislator than executive however.

    I like how the admiral impugned the satellite record but provided no data on the adjustments of the record.

    Of course, unless like the GISS record, the old versions of the satellite data are public, and the adjustments are far smalller…

    Peter

  9. Oh mann, it doesn’t get any better than that. Mann has done a lot of stupid things in his life, but suing Steyn was far and away the dumbest.

  10. That was awesome, but not quite what I expected.

    I expected more of this:

    Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that, by the time she does rule on the science, global warming will have kicked in and the rising sea levels will have washed away the Maldives, Tuvalu and, with luck, the District of Columbia.

  11. “Climate Ayatollahs” – that is a phrase that sums up these mad men of climate science (it seems it is mostly a man thing)

    • “Ayatollahs of alarmism” was a classic Steynism. I had a different “A” word in mind instead of “ayatollah” but his is better because it links how religious this whole thing has become.

  12. Mark Steyn, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Christy and Dr. Happer all put in sterling presentations today.

    Sadly, Dr. Titley came across as a professional propagandist. He was there after all for the Democrats and represented the consensus. Only all of the Democratic Senators repeated CAGW gospel and verse and then asked Dr. Titley for confirmation of their preachings.

    Dr. Titley responded in pure echo chamber sense with much if not all of his ‘facts’ coming from the failed cartoonist false skeptic site along with some dana-isms.

    I do not understand how Dr. Christy kept his seat and his mouth closed while Dr. Titley bad mouthed satellite data with old complaints and some false assertions; or for that matter Dr. Happer who also have clarified or rebutted every one of those items.

    Dr. Curry did not fully keep her seat though and did manage to stick some facts back into the Senator’s ear.

    Mark Steyn refused to keep quiet and challenged the Democrat Senators several times. Though the senators never actually responded to either Dr. Curry or Mark Steyn; instead hey turned to their mouth organ Titley to play hymns.

    I do wonder about Dr. Titely’s motives.

      • As a graduate of Penn State with two engineering degrees, it is extremely discouraging to see how this once-great university has floundered in the last few decades (roughly coincident with Spanier’s tenure.) When I was a student there (nearly fifty years ago) the school was well known to have one of the best, if not THE best, meteorology department(s). Now it is a world-wide laughingstock and symbol of corruption and political correctness gone wild. Truly sad.

    • Dr T is among a growing list of military officers who are rising in the ranks because they are tying climate change to defense readiness. You don’t hear much about it because they are behind the scenes. Because of the might and reputation of the American military, they typically command respect in mixed venues. I think you will see more military leaders slathering themselves with CAGWness in order to advance in the ranks.

      Apologies for the Slate link, but it was the easiest example to find.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/david_titley_climate_change_war_an_interview_with_the_retired_rear_admiral.html

      “In a similar vein, last month, retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley co-wrote an op-ed for Fox News:

      The parallels between the political decisions regarding climate change we have made and the decisions that led Europe to World War One are striking – and sobering. The decisions made in 1914 reflected political policies pursued for short-term gains and benefits, coupled with institutional hubris, and a failure to imagine and understand the risks or to learn from recent history.

      In short, climate change could be the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the 21st century.”

  13. Astounding! I have been a fan of Mark’s for years, have always enjoyed his command of the language but this is up there with Orwell for the precise and clinical evisceration of the climate issue. This should be required reading for every politician.
    Just one small point, Mark: why don’t you tell them what you really think of them?
    Tony Windsor

  14. Bravo, Mr. Steyn, a tour de force. The final flourish of the 97% consensus in your peroration was genius.

    • I’m not saying his testimony is crap, I’m just saying holy crap. The sheer chutzpah required to stare down a US Congressman at a hearing and tell him he is a totalitarian is amazing.

  15. Thanks Mark. You never fail to deliver an accurate analysis of “cartoon climatology”, and a defense of the most critical democratic freedoms, in a most hard-hitting and entertaining manner.

  16. “Give us all your money or the planet gets it.”

    Bravo!!

    And what Steyn’s comparison makes vivid is that the NSF
    is in business to advance ITS interests – not the public’s.
    It’s time those responsible were put out of business.

  17. I heard the entire hearing and Steyn and Curry were especially illuminating, though these printed remarks must have been too long since large sections of it, including some of the most entertaining parts, were not delivered by Mr. Steyn. That being the case, I have to honor Steyn for delivering the most urgent message, the one regarding the punishment of ‘heretics’ and leaving out much of his own story vis-a-vis the Mann lawsuit and other material that you might expect if he were there merely to aggrandize his own ego. Steyn is a class act.

    I would have like to hear more from alarmists like Rear Adm. David Titley rather than some of the Democratic blowhards but at least he showed up. Maybe he had to to? I thought he tried to give some of the warmist evidence at least, rather than leaning on the consensus, but my respect for him dropped when he did not correct the senator who equated the alleged 97% consensus with an alleged 97% certainty in the conclusions. Titley instead said that he would love to have intelligence that he could rely on with 97% certainty, instead of correcting the confusion invoved, which I needn’t explain to most of this audience, but briefly: If all you know is that 97% of those fans you poll think the home team will win the next game then that may mean the odds are something like 55% that they will, but it won’t mean that it is 97% certain — don’t count on winning that bet 97% of the time! But Titley pretended he didn’t understand the fallacy, which he must have, right? (I sure as hell hope so — though I’m not sure that a fool makes a worse military leader than a deceiving scoundrel.)

    And of course no honest look at the supposed 97% consensus can fail to see that its wildly false to start with because of the method used in the study. I’d like Sen. Cruz to have a hearing on just that alleged 97% consensus while he is at it.

    • Yes, there should be a hearing on the bogus 97% scientist figure:
      I wish that every time they bring up the 97% that there is a response that it is actually simple – that the survey was conducted by a cartoonist, and that 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. It is based on only 75 or 76 scientists…I think that Cruz should be informed about why this 97% figure is bogus. – the facts about the survey…

      • I had texted Cruz in advance of the hearing, pleading that he have the scientists empirically dispute the 97% meme. It’s thrown out so often but rarely refuted, which has been done handily by many. Not unexpectedly, such info rarely makes it through the media filter.
        BTW – is there an archive of the bogus press conference by Dems before the subcommittee hearing?

    • Some good points RalphB. I was hoping that someone would explain how and why the 97% nonsense came into existence and how meaningless it is.

      • It came into being due to the surprising agreement between different methods of assesing the level of the consensus.

        It was necessary to come into being to counter the claims that “both sides of the argument” should be represented. If it can be shown that there is really only one side, and the other side is vanishingly small, there is no necessity to represent the “other” in education and media. For example, few people think we need to teach about flat Earth in schools, even though some may adhere to that belief. We do not need to have a “HIV does not cause AIDS” spokesman on every media story about AIDS, and we do not generally think we should teach creationism as science, although we should be free to teach it in church.

        Given this incentive, different methods have been used to measure the consensus. Two of these are catagorising published papers and surveying scientists. It is somewhat surprising that using both of these methods the figure of 97% of climate scientists could be claimed. When you get the same answer from different ways of measurement you are usually on to something. The exact figure of 97% is not really that significant. Maybe it is a bit lower than this, depending who you include, but it is the large majority.

        To counter this the “others” have a petition, from which no conclusion at all can be drawn as to the level of the consensus. This is because it asks only those of one opinion to sign, and takes no measure at all of the numbers that have to oposite opinion. I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently it is not clear to some people. It is like asking p[eople at a Republican convention how they will vote, then predicting a landslide because you have 30,000 republican voters. There is also the picking of holes in the studies that showed 97%, which may introduce some uncertainty into the figure, and then pointing out that the c9nsensus is not about everything, which it never claimed to be.

      • Seaice,

        The supposed consensus was achieved in both types of “study” because both were totally bogus attempts to show what their perpetrators wanted to find.

        There is no scientific consensus at all for this proposition, the only one that matters: “Climate change observed since (pick a date) is primarily (more than 50%) man-made and so catastrophic that extreme measures are urgently needed to counter it.”

        There is probably a consensus of relevant opinion that earth has warmed since c. 1690 during the depths of the LIA. It has probably warmed since the end of LIA, c. 1850. It is less clear that it has warmed since the 1930s. Science cannot know this, even if it were theoretically possible to measure the difference, because the “data” have been so intentionally corrupted.

        There is however no consensus that GHG increases and other human activities are primarily responsible for whatever warming has occurred over the past 300 years, 150 years, 75 years or 37.5 years. Nor is there any actual evidence supporting the contention that it has been. For all anyone knows, humans might well have a net cooling effect, but in any case, human effects are negligible globally, although possibly measurable locally or regionally.

        There is also no reason to imagine that the effects of human activity, whatever they may be, are catastrophic. There is no actual physical evidence suggesting that conclusion. Quite the contrary. So far increased CO2 levels have been beneficial.

  18. Ooh it sucks to be a warmist.
    No fun, no sense of humor, no joy in life.
    When one reads Mark and laughs it must hurt like hell to respond through gritted teeth and grumpiness.
    What a sad life they have saving my world for me.

  19. Mark Steyn’s analogy of the threat of ISIS terrorism versus the threat posed by the global warming scam was appropriate and brilliant, but the fact is that Obama’s terrorism against US citizens is also very much out of control, and censored to a similar degree as climate science. BLM attack on the Hammond Ranch and neighboring ranches, OR:
    https://www.youtubedotcom/watch?v=U1BCMJlV83E

  20. Wonderful.
    I’m sending a copy of this to my state governor, should he return to Vermont from Paris.

  21. Wow. I always have enjoyed his work. That was great. Now if the great unwashed masses would just pay attention. At least only 3% still are complete liars or fools.

  22. “A recent poll found that, notwithstanding the urgings of the President and the Secretary of State and others, only three per cent of Americans regard climate change as their major concern. Three per cent. There is your 97 per cent consensus, gentlemen.”

    I sure am glad Mark Steyn is on our side. :-)

  23. Mark Steyn seem to be attempting to shame the Democrats on the panel by pointing out their hypocrisy and posturing. Although he’s doing it brilliantly, THAT will never happen. They have NO shame.

  24. And for those of you who enjoyed listening to Mr. Steyn today and would like more of his wicked wit, sabre-like logic and detailed command of the facts, I suggest that you buy his book about Mann (“A Disgrace to the Profession.”) You’ll love it.

    • It will also help towards his funding in the Mann trial……if it ever happens.
      I’m beginning to have my doubts.

  25. Forwarded to Canada’s Minister for Climate Change and requested to be forwarded to the huge Canada COP21delegation in Paris for compulsory reading before agreeing to anything!

  26. Titley by name titley by nature.
    I want to congratulate Mark on his performance and his constraint in not slapping the Titley up she side of the head. It can’t be easy sitting next to such a slithy tove for such a long time.

  27. It’s not very often I read that much text due to having a crappy concentration span these days, but that was awesome and held my concentration from end to end. Two thumbs up!

  28. Forward to Climate Bull Chit also, Canada’s official agit prop radio station. Honestly, listening to CBC is what I imagine North Korea is like. Loud speakers on every corner blaring a steady stream of climate propaganda. Everyone should go now to Mark Steyn’s website and buy any or all of his store. I am proud to say I was an early supporter in his case against Mann. I think I have one or two of everything and a couple of gift certificates to boot.

  29. Hopefully Mann will now sue Styen again for exposing him in front of the Senate.

    I’d love to see Steyn in a live debate with Trenbath et al – He’d slaughter them.

  30. I have a shelf of Mark’s books and they all read like this! I watched through Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal hearings seeking to prosecute Mark Steyn for his writings in McLean’s Magazine. He quoted from his book “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it.” The Muslim Association of Canada launched a human rights complaint stating it was hate speech (All his stuff is quotes from activist Mullahs – scary things they said themselves). Against several Muslim lawyers from the association, Mark not only prevailed against a stacked deck of anti-Steyn tribunal members, a liberal press, and academics braying hatred of Mark, he succeeded in causing the repeal of the federal hate speech statute of Canada.

    Mark is an international one-man free speech advocate who speaks and writes in North America, Europe, Australia, etc. He is one of very few to whom everyone owes a great debt. He is banned from flying on United Airlines (I believe it is). The US and UK State Departments issued travel advisories to their citizens when he was invited to the Danish Parliament to speak on the 10th anniversary of the Danish Mohammed cartoon uproar!! All those here who praised his Senate testimony should buy this guy’s books both for the most wonderful writing but to support him in his Michael Mann law suit.

    He is a gem, a talent and the best friend democracy and freedom ever had. I read the horrible stuff written about him by cowardly, designer-brained commenters at Hot Whopper Sue’s which put me in mind my signature image of those saving the Nile Crocodile from extinction while the crocs are trying to bite their asses off.

    • In my opinion, Mark should not only get the Pulitzer prize for his essays, but several of them. Heck, just rename it “The Steyn Prize”.

  31. I was as usual gob smacked by the man’s writing skills, and more than a bit jealous too. But what really blew me away is that he absolutely trashed a sitting judge whose opinion on his own case has not yet been rendered. Were I to have giant brass balls, they’d not be the equal of his by an order of magnitude.

    • indeed , nice to see some people still have a spine. well done mark steyn. american people need to wake up to the path they are being led down, though when i see the people that hold office in america i realise they are just a reflection of the public that voted them into office in the first place.

  32. I knew the academic world was off the rails but I’d had no idea how deep and crass were the ruts. Steyn was a revelation. What clarity, what guts, what heroism. I’ll be following his site, buying his books. He’s a stellar personality, the opposite of those conventional, join the club for a mutual backscratch mediocrities of academe and congress.

  33. If I am not mistaken, Steyn just got on the official US Congressional record a detailed and comprehensive statement about both: (1) the integrity challenged and rather sordid hockey stick work product of M. E. Mann (Prof Penn State University); and (2) M. E. Mann’s intent to intimidate, via the legal process, the basic freedom of speech needed to expose the fatally flawed CAGW hypothesis.

    Amazing!!! Steyn is a hell of an opponent.

    As to Senator Cruz, he conducted the hearing in an impressive presence. Now, I might look a little more into his presidential bid’s platform, policies and strategies.

    John

    • SouthPark will need to retract its “Blame Canada” meme.

      He laid bare the usurping of science by political advocates.

      It took a Canadian to defend American values of free speech, due process, and limited government.

      Wish he had H.L. Mencken as his wing man.

      • FTOP_T,

        Indeed, Mencken had a razor sharp way of expressing ideas.

        Example,

        The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught. – H. L. Mencken

        John

    • I would never ever want to face Cruz in a debate our a courtroom, but not sure that makes him presidential material. Completely awesome senator and attorney general, sure.

      • Peter Sable on December 8, 2015 at 8:20 pm

        “. . . not sure that makes him [Senator Cruz] presidential material . . .”

        Peter Sable,

        I am starting now looking at his platform, strategies and policies. I am already convinced he is material for president, but what kind of president with what political philosophy is what I shall look more closely at. Is he the type of presidential material who can create retreats from our current trajectory of escalating socialism?

        John

  34. A brilliant and eloquent statement. One that every senator present should take to heart, and cause him or her to sincerely reconsider his or her shallow partisan positions. Unfortunately, I expect that next week, he will begin to receive form letters from 97 of the 100 senators stating something like:

    “Dear Mr. Stein, Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about runaway climate change. I share your concern, and have been working tirelessly in the Senate to ensure that Deniers are silenced, and carbon emissions are reduced to zero. Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla …………… Wa wa wa wa wa………………….. Please send your donations to ………..”

  35. Excellent. When, not if we win this, these people who are defending not only us, the skeptics but others who aren’t involved, should get medals and recognition of the highest orders.

  36. Steyn wrote:

    “Climate alarmism is going nowhere. The two-decade global-warming pause, which no late 1990s climate model foresaw, led the public to doubt Big Climate’s confident predictions for the future. In response, federal bodies such as NOAA and NASA have adjusted the past to make the present appear hotter, and thus supposedly demonstrated that in fact there is no such “pause”. As a result, public opinion, which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950.”

    I laughed out loud on that one.

    I also liked the way Steyn pointedly criticized the Democrat Senators and a Representative, and did so to their faces. Don’t you love free speech! It’s so liberating!

    TA

  37. I think I have the video streamer for the website blocked somewhere within my hosts file (which has around 200 thousand IPs blocked)…

    Is there another source where I can watch the full hearing?

    • I had a similar problem with the flash on mozilla which asked to use some local space, but failed to acknowledge the clock authorizing it. It worked much better on Chrome.

      • No I actually utilize blackholing which denies (heh) certain IPs from recognizing my computer at a lower level than my browser. Some of the IPs I block are from governments so I suspect that their video streamer has been detected as a threat to my privacy…Meh, I’ll just wait.

  38. I read this and I weep. What has become of a once great Nation founded on a Constitution devised to protect the individual against this exact Government Persecution. If America goes down this rat hole what hope for the rest of civilisation on this planet.

    • America died when JFK died with executive order 11110 which was meant to bring the control of our currency back to the citizens. Every president since Kennedy has been a puppet of a shadow oligarchy. After all, ‘representative democracy’ is a misnomer and more of a wolf (oligarchy) posing in sheeps’ (democracy) clothing.

      • I mean if you look back far enough, you’ll discover that America has been the grounds of a corporate war since its inception. Look no further than the original 13 states all of which initially started out as corporations according to their ‘charters’. So yeah, America started out as a base for a corporate empire under the guise of a free nation. It’s all a lie and it worked to create the most powerful nation in history within under a couple hundred years…

    • Cruz should have said 1550 or 1600 instead of 1650. By 1650, IMO many if not most scientists were already heliocentrists, despite Galileo’s imprisonment in 1634 (and prior threatening with torture) and the continuing geocentrism of the Catholic Church.

  39. I still don’t understand why this case wasn’t moved to Federal Court. 1. Mann is a resident of Pennsylvania and Steyn is a resident of New Hampshire. 2. The damages claimed are in excess of $75,000. Those are the two criteria that give the Federal courts first jurisdiction.

  40. Regarding the “two-decade global-warming pause”: I thought that even according to C. Monckton it was 18 years 9 months, and that’s of the lower troposphere as a whole, and radiosonde data indicates the surface-adjacent troposphere has had .02 possibly .03 degree/decade greater warming rate during the “satellite era” than the lower troposphere as a whole, and the last 18.75 years has a century-class El Nino spike very shortly after its start point. HadCRUT3 is looking like a good surface dataset in light of radiosonde data (HadCRUT3 outwarmed the satellite-measured lower troposphere by .019 degree/decade), and in HadCRUT3 the start date of the longest flat linear trend ending at the end of HadCRUT3 is in 2001. Breakpoint analysis for finding where a fast-rising linear trend meets a largely flat one mostly indicates 2003 to 2004, depending on the global temperature dataset. I don’t think it’s good to do overstatements of how long the pause has existed just because the loudmouths saying we have a problem are doing overstatements.

  41. Reading this on the heels of the tale about alarmist reindeer. Great antidote….but the disease is gargantuan.

  42. One of the things that I’ve had trouble with is getting a main stream climate scientist to defend their science with the laws of physics, specifically the claimed sensitivity. There’s a unique opportunity that I hope is taken advantage of and offers the potential to change everything. Senators may ask other questions of the witnesses within the next week which those witnesses are compelled to answer in writing. If the right questions are asked to Titley, the insanity of the IPCC claims will become self evident.

  43. Dog

    I have visited America and cruised at my will the land from North to South and East to West. No visa no nothing and met the most courteous people outside of Canada. I have visited China and been refused exit of my hotel without direct visual surveillance of my tour guide. Allowed to see only prescribed places. I have roamed every country of Europe at my will. Not always so courteous. I did not bother chasing a visa in Russia….too difficult and I only wanted to see the Hermitage via the cruise ship in St Petersberg…..under close surveillance again of the tour guide. I felt Americans wanted me to see EVERYTHING. The place seems to work OK.
    Are American citizens fleeing their country.

    • Niceness is all very well. But the intentions of the US are irrelevant if it is impotent.

      The US NSF is investing in musicals.
      China is investing in research.

      My New Year’s Resolution will be to learn Mandarin.

    • Yes, Americans are indeed renouncing their citizenship or living abroad as expats in unprecedented (!) numbers.

      We have willfully destroyed our manufacturing base and taxed ourselves into declining real GDP, while throwing our borders open to invasion. Both the US and Europe are in danger of committing cultural, societal and economic suicide in the name of PC. Like Rome and its disastrously low birth rate, we are at risk of decline and fall from decadence within and barbarian invasion from without.

  44. He kicked a lot of nutsacks in that testimony. Looks to be the kind of guy that has sacred cow for lunch. Really well done.

  45. Dr. Titley was absolutely appalling but I muscled through listening to his every word.

    He states that he is a private citizen and only just got into ‘climate’ in 2009…Why would CAGW proponents send this jar head with barely any background in climate science as their main and opening representative?

      • More seriously though, it seems clear that the CAGW proponents, having already decided among themselves that they have won the argument, put up a ‘Muppet’ opposition to show those at the hearing how futile their cause is. They regard the hearing as a joke.

        This is, however, a severe misreading of the situation and an insult to those attending.

        I hope the people of America and worldwide recognise this.

  46. The same thing is happening to France’s top TV weather reporter. He has been sacked because he published an embarrassing book shortly before the Paris Climate “jolly” currently under way.

  47. Reading Mark’s testimony, it seems to confirm what is becoming obvious … that America is truly in a state of decline. When a judge just cant seem to get on top of her workload and deliver a timely judgement, it says everything.

    Sadly, Mark delivered his testimony before the very people who are members of Congress … the very body that has been failing America for the last 7 years.

    I always remember the words of my cousin on the very day her husband retired from the CIA … “The whole American political system is corrupt.” She and her husband were serious.

  48. In part this mess is made possible because in 1913, the US government gave itself the power to create near-infinite amounts of money through the Federal Reserve. Up until that point, government spending was pretty well limited to the amount of money that people were willing to send in the form of tax payments. Bureaucracy can only expand when there is money to pay salaries and expenses. When government can create any amount of money it says it needs, it can buy any amount of bureaucracy it says it needs. And what do bureaucrats produce, exactly? Well for one thing they “support” activities that they approve of or activities in the private sector that can be useful in advancing political or ideological goals of those in power.

    It is for this reason that limiting the ability of the federal government to create money out of thin air must be substantially curtailed. The more money sloshing around in the government’s treasury, the more foolish and downright dangerous things it will find to do above and beyond the simple and mundane things like running the post office and defending us from our enemies, foreign and domestic.

  49. Absolutely one of the best presentations of all time.
    I actually had some tears when I finished reading it.

  50. Man(n)…I wish this was available on video! Steyn on full offense. He handed the Senate a list of people to go after. This guy really has a killer instinct. Hope he wins.

  51. «The same thing is happening to France’s top TV weather reporter. He has been sacked because he published an embarrassing book shortly before the Paris Climate “jolly” currently under way.

    Reply
    Edmonton Al December 9, 2015 at 5:18 am
    I think the Russians hired him……………..»

    Yes, RT France. He is not even a « denier », he admits climate warming, he is just questioning the political urgency.

    • EL,

      Galileo was not wrong on the science for which he was convicted and punished, ie that the earth goes around the sun and turns on its axis. The Church held that the sun goes around an immobile earth.

      • «Gloateus Maximus December 9, 2015 at 9:47 am

        Galileo was not wrong on the science for which he was convicted and punished, ie that the earth goes around the sun and turns on its axis. The Church held that the sun goes around an immobile earth.»

        (Sigh) Galileo could not prove his theories but was very adversarial. That’s what happened and what explain that Copenic had no problem. As far as his tide theory was concerned, the clerics in front of him during his trial told him that the number of tides predicted by his theories was manifestly wrong (he predicted one): he just needed to go to Venice and *observe* (two). The problem was that Galileo could not prove and was dogmatic. Yes, yes, sounds strange but true.

        I’ll come back to this latter if needed. (Appointment).

        If you can read French:

        http://www.xn--pourunecolelibre-hqb.com/2010/06/la-verite-sur-laffaire-galilee.html

      • EL,

        Deeper sigh.

        You could not possibly be more wrong, in any language. The fact is, as I stated, that GG was condemned not for his hypothesis regarding the tides but because, and I quote from his condemnation document, he advocated that the earth moves, going around the sun in a year and turning on its axis daily, and is not at the center of what would now be called the solar system:

        “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

        “The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”

        http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

        Moreover, GG’s observations of Venus had in fact shown the Church’s favored Ptolemaic system false. The phases of Venus left open the possibility of both Copernicus’ and Tycho’s systems, but GG’s observvation of a mini-solar system orbiting Jupiter convinced him that the simpler geocentric system was correct. It didn’t help his case that his character Simplicius mouthed the arguments of the pope.

        Besides which, Copernicus died promptly after his book was published, so could hardly have been expected vigorously to promote it. His publisher printed a forward stating that the geocentric system was merely a mathematical model and not physical reality, but Copernicus was convinced that the earth did actually orbit the sun, albeit in perfect circles rather than elliptically.

  52. As far as Galileo is concerned, I’m getting tired of him being quoted. He was wrong as far as his science was concerned (his tides theory was manifestly wrong and proved so during his trial/enquiry) that’s why he was asked to pipe down and simply say it was a theory. Copernicus was never subjected to the same criticism from the Catholic Church (he was less of an adversarial figure) and was in fact rather encouraged by the Catholic hierarchy (archbishop Nikolaus von Schönberg encouraged him, Pope Clement VII never criticized his work, Pope Paul III got a dedicated copy of De revolutionibus coelestium, etc.)

    [Copernicus delayed giving permission to publish his landmark theory until his final (near-deathbed) acts of 1543, and then ONLY after years of strong encouragement/management/man-handling of the German printer Johannes Petreius. .mod]

      • Gloateus Maximus

        Copernicus would never have published in full but for the intervention of German Protestant mathematician G. J. Rheticus, who arranged the printing in a Lutheran city.

        Ah, so you would hold Petreius only as the publisher of , Shoner and Frisius as early readers of the first manuscript versions, while lifting Rheticus to both editor and enthusiastic promoter (for example, as the author of Narratio Prima)? Where do assign Reinhold’s influence?

    • 1) Copernicus was dean in the Catholic Church (he was never banished, he was interred in the Church of Frauenburg, his tomb was as anonymous as other canons). Martin Luther was opposed to Copernicus’ work: “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon … This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” So was Melanchthon. This is not a Catholic vs. Lutheran question.

      2) Urban VIII was actually a science enthusiast in a way and protected Galileo ($$$). Despite an early friendship and encouragement for his teachings, he summoned Galileo to his trial after what was seen as provocations. Galileo was never really punished (his sister recited at his place the prayers he was supposed to do as punishment) beyond house arrest in a nice villa (“The Jewel”) in Arcetri nearly Florence, sipping delicate wines. The villa was next to the convent where Galileo’s daughter was a nun, Galileo received prominent visitors till his death.

      3) In Spain, rules published in 1561 for the curriculum of the University of Salamanca gave students the choice between studying Ptolemy or Copernicus. One of those students, Diego de Zúñiga, published an acceptance of Copernican theory in 1584. Copernicus book was published with an imprimatur, then briefly (for 4 years) put on the index (70 years later!) and then allowed again after removal of nine passages where he said that the Bible promoted geocentrism and that the Bible was wrong.

      4) The Catholic Church (see Bellarmine’s letter, for instance, to Paolo Antonio Foscarini) was ready to revise its astrological/theological position if only Galileo proved his allegations (but that he could not, his system was in fact inferior scientifically to Copernicus’ one, see Stillman Drake) . Pierre Duhem, a nineteenth-century physicist and philosopher of science, “suggests that in one respect, at least, Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a ‘strict proof of the earth’s motion,’ on the grounds that an astronomical theory merely ‘saves the appearances’ without necessarily revealing what ‘really happens.'” Copernicus is a much better poster figure for the innovator against the mainstream ideas of his time.

      5) See http://www.amazon.ca/The-Galileo-Affair-Documentary-History/dp/0520066626, a nice summary about Galileo’s defence during his trial : “was quite pathetic and transparently dishonest. He claimed that: in the Dialogue “I show the contrary of Copernicus’s opinion, and that Copernicus’s reasons are invalid and inconclusive” (p. 262).”

      6) Heliocentrism was not that important to the Church, what was important is that Galileo was meddling with the interpretation of the Bible and above all faith, while that was seen as the prerogative of the Church. St. Augustine already said that “God did not want to teach men these things which are of no use to salvation”. How is heliocentrism/geocentrism of use to salvation? Allegorical/non-litteral interpretation of Scriptures was already well established in Alexandrian Judaism… http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter3.html

      7) The Catholic Church was in fact only following the old mainstream interpretation, most scholars had believed that geocentrism was more reasonable than heliocentrism which had already been proposed by Aristarchus but which had never really convinced most people. The Church wanted solid reasons and proofs to change the multi-secular interpretations of the Scripture, it was ready to reinterpret passages if proven wrong (Bellarmine’s letters) but did not like at all the way Galileo went about it (Pope caricatured as a fool in a book, reneging promises, very weak defence at the trial, absence of proofs, manifest errors in the number of tides predicted, etc.)

      Galileo is not a good example.

      • Au contraire mon ami…

        Galileo is an excellent example of what happens when one voice challenges the cacophony of the crowd. (Best metaphor that comes to mind…) and is wrongly persecuted, simply for offering up a differing opinion.

        And if the RCC had not thought so, too (albeit; three centuries later), Pope John II would have not formally moved to correct the egregious wrong by the church of condemning Galileo. I am reminded of the fact in present day, the most zealous of the Climate Warmists have demanded for the conviction and incarceration of anyone and everyone refusing to spout the Global Warming/Climate Change meme.

      • @Stark
        Galileo is an example of what happens when a narcissistic, opinionated bully gets the intellectual drubbing he so richly deserves. He insisted that the circular motion of the planets was a fact, not a theory. He was ruthless in condemning the suggestion that the orbits were non-circular. He couldn’t demonstrate his “fact”, and until Foucault in the 1800’s no one could provide physical evidence of the earth’s rotation. His circular orbits still required epicycles to deal with orbital eccentricity.

        For a Catholic perspective on things, I suggest the following:

        http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-galileo-affair.html

  53. The State of California has a Commission on Judicial Conduct to discipline and remove judges whose conduct on the bench falls below the standards expected of the bench. For all I know every state has such a disciplinary and oversight panel. What a pity that if there is such a body for the federal judiciary it cannot have disciplined, or better removed, the like of judges Easterly, Beckwith, and Ruiz.

  54. I’m glad Steyn is on the right side – the side that is interested in the truth. And not coincidentally, the side that wants freedom – freedom of dissent, freedom of research, freedom from coercion and government control.

    How “science” has been perverted and subverted such that it no longer represents a search for the truth, is the great shame of our age.

  55. I’ve always feared that when the history books are written about the appalling climate scam and the conspiracy of academia to deny real science, they would be able to use the excuse: “but no one knew” – that somehow, despite the millions of words from us sceptics, they would say “well there was no one credible saying anything else”.

    That excuse just got flushed down the pan. Those who are culpable, will no longer have that excuse – when the data shows they are wrong as it does overwhelmingly right now – they will be found guilty of reckless criminal disregard for the truth, for humanity and for science.

  56. They don’t ‘get’ the 18 years pause is nothing to do with selecting a starting point. The starting point is the last data point. The start point defines itself. They could have shot Titley down in flames.

  57. Mark Steyn is one of my favorite writers and political satarists and this is another shining example of why. Clearly thought out, devastatingly accurate and satisfyingly sardonic to boot. I hope he didn’t use too many big words.

  58. “As a result, public opinion, which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950. ”

    This line is gold. Kudos.

  59. I love Mark, but the PSU/Sandusky comments are lazy in the same way as when climate alarmists cite their 97% figure. State College police investigated one incident while Sandusky was a coach and found nothing to pursue, other incidents happened after he retired. The event which the administration was accused of covering up is the only one that did NOT result in a guilty charge. The “victim” in that event only ever said he wasn’t abused. Quite a bit of the Freeh report has been found in error.

    None of that absolves Sandusky, but don’t tie him and Mann to the greater PSU community.

    • Let’s separate the two. Who was responsible for supporting the width of tree rings that supported CAGW when certainly the isotopic data from tree rings clearly shows past global warming warming and cooling while co2 levels were constant? The administration surely had to be fully aware of that 1970 s study.
      Whether the two are related or not, I think that the pursuit of money has become an end into itself. The only thing that they understand is jail time and lose of money.
      Same people want to throw us in jail for questioning CAGW. Others don’t want their emails read, it would have a chilling effect on their gravy train. Meanwhile that’s tax payer funded research, I think I’m entitled to know. This isn’t the secrets to nuclear weapons. Some might say there is a conflict of interest between CAGW and the funds they are receiving.

  60. I have read this several times. It’s brilliant, and pulls no punches. The video is well worth watching; it’s simply so refreshing to see a few of those smug Senators being told some home truths.
    A short version, of just the MS testimony, is here:
    http://tinyurl.com/p2j78eq
    The full video is here:

  61. Killer quote (among many, I’m sure):

    Judge Natalia Combs Greene is not competent to rule on landlord-and-tenant cases, never mind the extent of the Medieval Warm Period. Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that, by the time she does rule on the science, global warming will have kicked in and the rising sea levels will have washed away the Maldives, Tuvalu and, with luck, the District of Columbia.

  62. Wouldn’t you love to see Mark Steyn in the Senate, making speeches like this all the time. A ticket to the Senate gallery would become the hottest deal in D.C.

  63. A completely awesome read that. Steyn is a miracle of our time. God only know how we need men like him in our world. Pleased I’ve bought his books. I’l buy something else now.

  64. This is all very entertaining, Mark but the larger picture is lost. You might think about expanding your writing career to include comedy and/or science fiction because that’s all that’s here: comedy and science fiction. You do a good job eclipsing the real issue and getting all your readers caught up in what amounts to nothing more than nonsense. Although you do open with the caveat that you’re not a scientist, you quickly start in with the oh-so-typical smear campaigns against the scientists, scientists such as Michael Mann, to discredit him and, by extension, everything he says, publishes or stands for; this, in the hopes that all the simpletons will forget what is being discussed. No one ever said Mann was a boyscout. If he gets the science right who cares about the other stuff when one considers THAT MANY COASTAL REGIONS OF NORTH AMERICA WILL BE UNDERWATER IN 10 YEARS! Who cares about Penn State, Sandusky and all these other distractions. As you state in your opening line: “My name is Mark Steyn. I am not a scientist”, so why do you presume to speak as if you were (a scientist). Regardless of Mann’s Hockey Stick (I’ve read it and there’s nothing wrong with it), the global climate is changing-in some regions it is warming, in others it is just changing, there is a clear and compelling correlation between human energy generation through the burning of carbon-rich fossil fuels, increasing CO2 levels and average global temperatures (this mental “image” looks like a Hockey stick). It’s that simple; the science is simple and so is reading the data. So why the hell aren’t we all on the same page trying to address a very real threat to our way of life rather than focusing on how some grownups behave badly, regardless of whether they get the science right or not. At this moment, even if we shut down all the coal, oil and gas-fired power plants now and stopped using cars powered with an internal combustion engine, it would take 150 years for atmospheric CO2 to return to pre-industrial levels!

    • T. Madigan

      If he gets the science right who cares about the other stuff when one considers THAT MANY COASTAL REGIONS OF NORTH AMERICA WILL BE UNDERWATER IN 10 YEARS!

      Name a single mile of the US coastline that will be underwater in ten years.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • The Mississippi delta base floor of mud and sand is subsiding by feet, NOT the 1/2 inch that water level is increased is important.

        Just as the Baytown Texas subdivisions that were underwater in the early 1970’s due to water pumping, but are now above water by several feet. And the NY measurement stations that are higher now, than when they were installed in the early 1910’s.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown,

        Your own link says:

        The causes of coastal erosion are elaborately interlinked — simplistically, they break down to sediment deficiency and saltwater intrusion. Sediment from upriver is what builds deltaic land.

        The issue is global warming. If that caused coasts to be under water, then all coasts would be under water.

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • But “deltification” of the mouth of the Mississippi River has absolutely NOTHING to do with “global warming.”

      • BusterBrown,

        You really didn’t understand that the question referred to rising sea levels due to AGW? Really?

        Then you’re just not up to speed. I suggest Hotwhopper for the slow learners, you would probably be happier there.

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

  65. I just watched your Senate testimony, Mr. Steyn. Why do you think strong-armed tactics are required? Because of procrastinators and deniers (like you) holding everything up while they carry on these internal debates. Yes, the science is in and we need to act now! First amendment rights are still in play; no one ever told you that you couldn’t voice your opinion, just don’t expect anyone to listen to you. And where is it written that we have to entertain and listen to every opinion simply because the First Amendment says its ok to express it? 97+% of all scientists agree that AGW is real, Nobel Laureates or not.

    • T. Madigan

      So, how many people do YOU demand we kill through YOUR demand for artificially high energy prices, and deliberately high carbon trading schemes that will do nothing but raise 31 trillion dollars a year for YOUR international bankers and governments, but do NOTHING to reduce YOUR much-hyped but NON DANGEROUS much-feared global warming?

      YOU are causing the early death of millions, and the continued poverty of billions.

      • If all of the bad effects of CAGW were true, it doesn’t even come close to the squalor that millions of people live in right now. Is there a price on that? Further, CAGW is a lost argument. I should have said in 2000 that I was a psychic and predicted the opposite of everything that CAGW said. I’d be the most talked about person in the world.
        Want to know why nothing happened in Paris? It’s beginning to dawn on people CAGW is a truck load of crap. How long has it been since Kyoto?

      • Wow, you need to relax! Why these ad hominems in the first person? I am not harming anyone so why are you attacking me? As a scientist, I’m simply voicing my support for over 97% of my colleagues who assert that AGW is real and that if we don’t act now, there won’t be much left to save. In fact, we’ve already passed the tipping point; at this moment, even if we shut down all the coal, oil and gas-fired power plants now and stopped using cars powered with an internal combustion engine, it would take 150 years for atmospheric CO2 to return to pre-industrial levels! This response and many just like it are amazing because the science is so simple; CO2 traps the heat; the higher the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the more heat is trapped. You don’t need to be a Nobel Laureate to understand that. Emerging green technology is *the best way* to support developing countries and the third world; your hyperbolic doomsday language that I’m (or people like me who advocate for aggressive deployment of green technology) the boggy man is simply a smokescreen for lack of a coherent response or rebuttal; as we quickly deplete the remaining, non-renewable oil and fossil fuel resources and fight more and more oil wars for the dwindling supply, the demand for green-based energy technology will soar–everywhere! Although there is enough coal to sustain us at current consumption levels for the next 200 years, it is quickly becoming quite the non-starter. If you have any doubts about the warming sea and climate, take a look at this: http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ice-glacier-calving-filmed-2015-1. And, if you’re big on conspiracies (as you apparently are), why don’t you do a simple search for Koch+Oil and see how much money Koch Brothers Industries is pumping into the Climate Change hype-denial machine, big oil and their cronies in the GOP-controlled US congress? For starters, take a look at this: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence.

      • If you were a true scientist, you would have done the research to learn that 97% is based on a flawed study, done by activists, and statistically mangled to get a desired result. But, sadly you seem too busy quoting Koch brothers nonsense to check out your own citations.

      • Explain to me, Anthony, what is to be gained from the deception that you suggest is occurring? The creation of more green jobs and improvements in renewable technology, energy independence, authentic development for the third world? Would you have them as slaves to big oil & coal? What happens when the oil runs out? Then what? Regardless of what you believe is happening, scarcity of oil and its eventual depletion is the reality. That the vast majority of the world’s scientists are complicit, ignorant or uneducated and that you, not they, are correct, people like Bill Nye and N.dG.Tyson, among others. I am a true scientist with advanced degrees in Mathematics and Astrophysics. I teach physics, astronomy and mathematics at the university level and I am certainly qualified to opine here. I don’t consider myself an “activist” but just someone who sees grave deficiencies in education, especially science education, and how that is having dire, real-world consequences. Those who set policy need to be informed by real science not just someone’s opinion; I am one of those people who is trying to sound the alarm, the clarion call!

      • Explain to me, Anthony, what is to be gained from the deception that you suggest is occurring? The creation of more green jobs and improvements in renewable technology, energy independence, authentic development for the third world? Would you have them as slaves to big oil & coal? What happens when the oil runs out? Then what? Regardless of what you believe is happening, scarcity of oil and its eventual depletion is the reality. That the vast majority of the world’s scientists are complicit, ignorant or uneducated and that you, not they, are correct, people like Bill Nye and N.dG.Tyson, among others. I am a true scientist with advanced degrees in Mathematics and Astrophysics. I teach physics, astronomy and mathematics at the university level and I am certainly qualified to opine here. I don’t consider myself an “activist” but just someone who sees grave deficiencies in education, especially science education, and how that is having dire, real-world consequences. Those who set policy need to be informed by real science not just someone’s opinion; I am one of those people who is trying to sound the alarm, the clarion call!

        Jumping in because it’s juicy and potentially may improve the critical thinking skills of young hearts and minds. The relationship between and student and teacher is a 2 way street. If I am the student, I am simultaneously trusting you to help me learn to think for myself as well as honoring you and the time you put into me to do so.

        If I was one of your students who read (i hope they read what you write) what you wrote above, I would have to take a deep breath and wonder whether my trust in you is warranted. You say you aren’t an activist but you are pounding the drumbeat for a call to action to save the world from a dependence on fossil fuel. That sounds like activism for a cause does it not ?

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBalls

        Often times what scientists do first is a historical review of what already exists. Thorough ones include the seminal work of the person who proposes the validity of the theory. They look for replicability, accuracy, rate of error, daubert factors. Since one of the seminal moments for CAGW was the hockey stick, we go back and look at how that was done. Fortunately, so many curious folks from many different walks of life have done this that you can actually go to webpages that help you do it yourself.

        http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Buster, that was fast. Were you able to do the math that quickly ?

        What your doing is a good try (attorneys try it often btw), but a review via daubert factors doesn’t require best management practices such as simple arithmetic to be peer reviewed in a journal. In fact, arithmetic is such a well known fact that any plaintiff can submit an honored objection if he shows the math. I hope you can wrap your head around that concept. Many a client waste lots of money listening to an attorney who tells them that they can get away with challenging simple facts in the manner you misapply.

        The real red flag is why the original authors have not answered the rebuttal and to this day refuse to. They hide behind the peer review process that you are misrepresenting that likely colluded to approve his work.

        The above is true even though later correspondence admitted to using NON best practices to monkey with the math. No shame, no rebuttal, just hiding behind their protectors. Shocking display of corruption on the most basic levels.

        Try again, but do yourself a favor and go do the math.
        It’s fun and it may help you with your cognitive dissonance.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Oh Buster

        What your doing is called distraction by attempting to change the subject and inappropriately applying processes that you have some familiarity with. It’s okay though.
        They are common, easy to see and a desperate reflection of the sub conscious need to be loved.

        Save the link and do the math (so few do) when you have some down time.
        When you see how boldly you’ve been lied to, change your name and come back.

        Unlike alarmists, I won’t badger you with twisted risk assessments or a call to a superior value system.

        Someday you’ll do the math and you’ll come back.
        Many do.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Cowtan & Way have been so thoroughly debunked here that only newbies seem to be unaware of the giant flaws in their paper. Here are a few articles that will help noobs get up to speed:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/curry-on-the-cowtan-way-pausebuster-is-there-anything-useful-in-it

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/cowtan-and-way-the-magicians-red-scarf-trick-with-linear-trend-lines

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/03/cowtan-way-and-signs-of-cooling

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/cowtan-way-off-course

        Of course, the eco-religionists will ignore the thrashing that C&W get, and go right ahead with their globaloney beliefs. For the rtest of us, C&W can be completely disregarded. Their conjecture is falsified to the point that it can’t be rescued. See the articles and comments (there are more; these are just a starting point).

        After reading those articles and comments, just put ‘Markey’ into the search box. He has been equally debunked. It’s fun reading!

      • DB

        Once of the things I’ve noticed is an increasing free for all concerning what gets to be defined as a “fact”.

        This is compounded by the belief that if a conclusion makes it into a peer published paper then you can turn off the light switch and go home because there is nothing more to discuss.

        This “concept” is also causing a growing groundswell of uncertainty in the courts as they apply daubert.

        I can’t prove this to be true but I am beginning to suspect that the quality of peer review is being allowed to be undermined so that uncertainty increases to a never before seen state.

        This uncertainty will force judges to allow far more crackpottery into the judicial process.
        It will undermine the quality of decision making that comes from the courts.

        I often wonder if this is purposeful.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Oh Buster

        Aren’t you the least bit concerned that your hockey stick master won’t allow his journal article to be challenged in court ? Does it smack of fear ? What’s he afraid of ?

        If you had a million dollars and he asked you to invest in his stick, wouldn’t you think twice about signing that money over to him ?

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Perhaps you haven’t heard of the Daubert Factors.
        Science is a broad term. Science increasingly finds itself resolving disputes concerning the science used in risk assessment and management in the courtroom. Countless examples of this Buster.

        You may not like that scientific disputes end up being resolved in the courtroom but it is a reality.
        This book might help you understand.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=iLfTTVBwweAC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=how+is+science+resolved+in+the+courtroom&source=bl&ots=XTilVStIgl&sig=PMgQkR_AWACyb0TI7JSdHRBZ5Mc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3sNSK6N7JAhUCbD4KHU7TCGkQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=how%20is%20science%20resolved%20in%20the%20courtroom&f=false

        Broaden your horizons and do the math Buster.
        Last time I gave testimony, arithmetic didn’t need peer review validation but then again I don’t work with rookies.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Buster

        I detect a kernel of curiosity in your manner.

        A company called NPG publishes both Nature and Scientific American. While you will hear many people defer to peer review publication as the end all be all, it is not. Think of it in terms of some pubs are better than others and NONE are the end all be all. There are a few glaring moments in NPGs history that they would rather forgot. One that comes to mind involves stem cell research which turned out to be an embarrassing fraud.

        Keep your mind open.

        Way back in the post WWII stone age of research you’d find many publications about the FAILURE of experiments to demonstrate the theory. It was the sign of the times that failure to prove was valuable. Those times are hard to find anymore because of the businessification of science.

        Arithmetic is your friend.
        Semper curiosus
        Knute

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Citing articles by themselves don’t debunk C&W. But logiuc and rational analysis do it very well. And since you could not possibly have read even one of the linked articles and comments, much less all three, your opinion is worthless.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Look at you buster.
        Learning and everything.
        I knew you had that kernel or curiosity.

        Some courts are very found of using an impact factor index.
        Others not so much.
        Other courts don’t allow them at all in certain types of cases or for certain sciences.
        As you can imagine there is tremendous opportunity for bias.

        What does get very high respect in the courtroom are cases that SHOW THE ARITHMETIC.

        ::: hint hint ::::
        semper curiosus

    • @ T. Madigan,

      “the science is so simple; CO2 traps the heat”

      Sigh. We have to start right back at square one with this one.

      • So, tell us about BlackBody radiators, David; tell us about how increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have destabilized the equilibrium state between solar irradiance and reradiation by the earth’s surface, how a runaway dynamic between a warming atmosphere, trapped heat and increasing global temperatures will soon be in play. Please, educate us, since you purport to be the expert.

      • Professor Madigan

        Assuming this is the equivalent of a classroom, I was expecting to broaden my ability to think for myself. I remember reading that you are not an activist. Have you decided that natural variability no longer accounts for the current changes in climate ? If that is so, can you please provide the evidence for man made global warming (assuming you are advocating that vs cooling)

        Btw, I really don’t care who pays for your salary and all that ad hom stuff. I also don’t care if you use hair products from petroleum based products. I was taught that a fact is a fact and it will stand on its own. I will however look to verify and validate your evidence, just like I would with anyone.

        My previous professor taught me those tenets and I thought he was a rather objective sort.
        Cranky but objective.

      • @Madigan

        Firstly, fair play to you. I think you’ve convinced quite a few that you’re genuine. But you are just **too** much of a perfect stereotype not to be a Koch plant (Hi to Charles). It’s an impressive effort.

        Secondly, on the slim, slim, chance that I’m wrong (and you are actually for real)…

        You are being inconsistent. Firstly you talk about CO2 “trapping” heat (those naughty molecules), on the other hand you talk about re-radiation. If a substance absorbs, and then re-radiates it hasn’t “trapped” anything.

        Heat transfer in the lower atmosphere is **dominated** by conduction and convection (otherwise known as “weather” – you’ve probably heard of it). At these levels in our glorious thick atmosphere, radiative transfer is a player, but a bit part, its two big brothers are overwhelmingly the main factors. In the upper atmosphere it’s different of course, the air is much thinner so as we go higher radiative transfer becomes **the** fashionable method of transferring heat. But here’s the rub, at these high, frigid, altitudes Newton’s laws of heat passing from heat to cold still hold. The main direction of flux will be from the high atmosphere out to the big kahuna of heat sinks; space. That’s not to say that radiative gasses won’t have an effect. They will. They can reduce the flux of the lower atmosphere, BUT increase the flux of the upper atmosphere.

        Our planet is as much cooled by radiative gasses as it’s heated by radiative gasses. It’s insulation, not a “trap”.

        Then there’s the nature of the insulation itself. It’s common to talk of CO2 being of the order of 400ppm in dry air. IN DRY AIR. Air in the lower atmosphere is not dry. It’s commonly got 25,000ppm (or even more) of water vapour in it. An increase of 100ppm makes little difference at the mid-latitude surface.

        If we have a CO2 forcing as large as reported in the lower atmosphere we would see a moistening of the (normally dry) lower and mid troposphere (@ say 300 hpa) and a subsequent warming there. Warm air rises you know. The satellite (and balloon) data-sets would show an enhanced warming **above** the surface rate.

        Madigan: It’s not observed. The surface data-sets show more warming (ignoring for a moment the built in MANN made adjustments).

        You are a scientist. As a scientist, when the observations don’t fit the theory, what should you do? The current approach seems to be to change the observations, when we should be re-examining the theory.

        But then maybe you aren’t writing as a scientist. Maybe you’re a politically driven activist who just happens to work as a scientist. Or maybe (it is a weired weired world) you really are actually a paid Koch employee sent here to make the enviro-mentalists look bad. Those Kochs eh? :-).

      • @ t. Madigan

        Refresh my memory , Which year was that suppose to happen and didnt? At what co2 levels as if they never occurred before? What happened to the run a way greenhouse effect? The sense of urgency was initiated by CAGW because of the math showed that, along with computer models, terrible things were going to happen, soon. Like 2013. None of them happened. Let me repeat that … NONE. Which part of none do you not understand?

        So when are these things going to happen? 2030? 2050? 2100? Any date beyond today invalidates all of CAGW. It real simple, it’s the math, and it’s wrong. You could get more things right if you guessed

        The only answer CAGW has in response to the MWP and LIA is that they didn’t happen. In spite of overwhelming evidence that both were world wide events. They wrote a story then made the numbers fit the story. Co2 levels? Let me give you a clue something is wrong, there are no negative numbers in the last 200 years. CAGW can’t tell me about at any time, nor anybody else, how big the sinks are. For the year 2014 19 billion metric tons was sunk. The best estimate from 1860 to 1880, 20 billion metric tons was produced. What’s the reason there were positive ppm during that time? By CAGW on accounting, cooler oceans, less acidic, cooler temperatures, more tropical forests, and less land development. How is it the eco system was so finely in balance that it couldn’t absorb in 20 years what it does in one now? Oh, 2014 isn’t a fluke, it’s been that way. The earth got bigger? The atmosphere grew? And there’s a reason this doesn’t get published. Guess.

    • I believe this is one of the images I found on the internet in 1997 when I first heard of global warming. In my opinion, this shows the recent rise in temperature and CO2 are not statistically significant. In other words, the recent (last 150 years) rise does not prove anthropically caused global warming.

      • Thanks Jeff
        I see the same.
        The grand silliness of it all.
        I’m sure the page is a thorn in NOAAs side.
        I couple this page with the “do it yourself” takedown of the hockey stick by iowahawk.
        Then I slather on the woeful model of the IPCC.

        There is shame in this field.

        No justice, no peace /sarc

  66. Thank you Mark Steyn, especially for your honourable defence of climate scientists who have been attacked by the thugs of Big Climate/

    A grammatical question:
    Can the new word “titly” be used as an adjective, an adverb, or both?

    Examples:
    Senator Markey made a titly attack on honest climate scientist Judith Curry. (adjective?)
    or
    Senator Markey spoke titly about climate science, displaying his utter ignorance of the subject. (adverb?)

Comments are closed.