Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Michael Mann, inventor of the “hockey stick”, wants to reassure us that we still need his climate research, even though a few weeks ago he said climate “tools” are “increasingly unnecessary”.
How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts the Climate Change Discourse
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix, Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heat struck Phoenix.
I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.
What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle.
…
My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer.
It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone).
So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that.
…
What is the take-home message here?
As we head into the 2016 presidential election, it is clear that polluting interests and other bad actors are mobilized. They are doing their best to continue the attacks on science and scientists whose findings threaten their bottom line, to distract the public, to promote climate change denial propaganda and to support politicians who will support their agenda of denial and inaction.
The best defense is to study the positions of the candidates and make sure that climate action is at the top of your agenda when you go to the voting booth this fall.
Read more: http://www.ecowatch.com/right-wing-denial-machine-distorts-climate-change-discourse-1924120031.html
I cut out the boring part, the bulk of Mann’s article which details his theory that there is a vast right wing conspiracy which is trying to destroy him.
While it is true that right wing (and left wing) people have criticised Mann’s research, the reality is that some of Mann’s strongest critics were his fellow climate researchers, people on his own team.
The following comments from 2002 were written by CRU Professor Keith Briffa, who worked closely with Mann on his tree ring proxy climate reconstructions. The subject of the email appears to be the need to tiptoe around Mann’s ego when “setting the record straight”. The recipient of the email was Edward Cook of Columbia University.
Climategate email 2119.txt
… My overall opinion is that you are just about right in balancing firm response to get the record straight with a need to keep composure and preserving the probability of continuing constructive interaction with Mann (and his diminishing support). Perhaps the one point I would make though, is that you underplay the questionable nature of much of Mann’s verbiage ,in as much it is a response to imagined rather than real conflict between your Science paper and his reconstruction. Most of his comments I feel are addressing what he imagines (rightly or wrongly ) the greenhouse sceptics will say about recent warming after reading your paper , not what you actually say. … Mike could be a lot more open about the real uncertainty of his early temperature estimates (as we discussed in our first perspectives piece). …
Why would anyone need to mount a vast “right wing conspiracy” against Michael Mann, when there is public record that some of Mann’s closest colleagues seem to think much of what he says is questionable?
We need the faulty climate models as much as we need Mann’s faulty temperature pseudo-reconstructions.
We need grandma’s recipe for preparation. Dress in layers and keep the larder filled. Plant like there is no tomorrow when it is warm so that you will survive the cold.
I just checked to be sure I still have the woolen long-johns I bought back in the ’70s to be ready for the then predicted climate change.
Many Climate Scientists are coming to the realization that Mann isn’t the sharpest Tool in the Shed, though he is a real Tool
He touts publishing a bunch of papers in the last year. And sure, in academics that is viewed as a valuable thing. But when the science is already settled, and all these new papers don’t make it any more settled, why should society continue to fund his unnecessary work?
There are other projects that aren’t being funded and other scientists who are closing down their labs while he runs on his hamster wheel.
especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research
Is there something in the water at Happy Valley that causes people to be unaware their pecuniary self-interest is unseemly? This is not the first time I have read Penn State people talk openly about their money motives.
KTM: ” But when the science is already settled, and all these new papers don’t make it any more settled, why should society continue to fund his unnecessary work?”
I really, really, like this point of logic. Now that the science is settled, funding for all CC studies could be cut back, not expanded.
Funding should be redistributed to those performing research that disputes the status quo. Science can only advance by correcting misunderstandings and climate science is full of them.
As long as we give importance to Michael Mann and his hockey stick, he goes on publishing dozens of papers every year. If we stop giving importance to Mann and his hockey stick, automatically his number of papers will come down. Unfortunately, it has come common to refer climate change in the papers, just as an adjective so also Mann and hockey stick are referred to get their paper published.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
You are apparently under the assumption that if we ignore him he will shut up and go away…
I don’t see us having that kind of luck. A sudden downturn in temperature would make him irrelevant and is the best we can hope for.
The “pause” isn’t enough, we need a “decline”.
He’s right, climate tools like him are unneccesary.
mfflloiewilalsslolololol!!!!
Bruce, I think you made another easily-correctable-by-the-reader typo. “Tools” should be “fools.”
Actually, I think Mann is more of a tool than a fool…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tool&defid=1687477
R
“I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone.”
Hold it! More than a dozen articles in one year and no questions are asked about how it is/was possible to do this?
But he is right about what comes from the boob-tube.
“More than a dozen scientific articles in one year…”
And man, Mann naively and “proudly” tells us !
As once pointed out at this pace of “scientific progress” the speed at which the scientific journals accumulate on the shelves of the university libraries will finally exceed the speed of light, though no violation of the relativity principle will be involved since absolutely no information is conveyed.
The answer to the question is grad students. They do 99% of the work and then the advisor puts his name on it. And with a well-known co-author, their acceptance rate is greater. That way everyone gets a share of the pie, which includes future employment opportunities and grants..
Mann has “a name”. No need to check his work anymore. Just who would he deem worthy to double check a paper with his name on it?
No need for him to do the work anymore. His minions do the work and he signs his name.
That’s how serious scify is done these days.
Too bad few are buying a book with his name on it anymore.
(At least none of those who did showed up in court.)
Right?
First of all, notice he’s preaching to his particular “choir.” They have a political agenda to dismantle the energy industry. How far would his nonsense fly if he was pitching same to a Republican committee?
His “data” points are absurd. “Record” heat in Phoenix? How long has there been anyone in Phoenix with a modern thermometer keeping accurate records, less than 100 years? Means nothing.
Wildfires, any person who’s investigated in any depth knows, are caused far more by poor land/forest management than anything else. Nature intended for them to burn themselves out as a regular part of the habitat renewal process in many of the regions prone to them. Again, proves nothing.
“We don’t need climate models” because we have the whole world on board with The Narrative is what he’s really saying. Carpet-bomb enough minds with context-free, one-sided and made-up assertions, circulate the idea that “All right-thinking people believe this,” and you have a recipe for a belief system.
The earth couldn’t care less. This is a “problem” existing only within the confines of SOME human minds.
Mainly those born since 1990, or who never went outdoors much before that. The rest are harder to fool!
Hey Goldrider! ““Record” heat in Phoenix? How long has there been anyone in Phoenix with a modern thermometer keeping accurate records, less than 100 years? Means nothing. ”
Even more to the point, this year (just like last year and the years before) marks a new Phoenix record of more concrete, more asphalt, more automobiles and more air conditioning exhaust. Any thinking person would be totally unsurprised that there might be a new record high temperature as well.
Mark Steyn has compiled the definitive compilation of negative assessments of Mann’s work/actions/advocacy/whining by others in the climate “profession”
Buy another copy of “A Disgrace to the Profession” and help support Steyn’s countersuit against the odious little goateed cretin
He’s right, climate tools like him are unneccesary.
The bigger problem is the “climate tools” aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed.
Unusability is a bigger problem than unnecessary.
Is Michael Mann a good programmer who deliberately created the Hockey Stick program, or a naive fool who stumbled into an attractive error?
He had to splice in data from instrument temperature records when his tree rings did not yield the results he desired. Without that splice there would be no hockey stick. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/08/data-splices.html
He also had to grossly overweight bristlecone pines in order to obtain an HS shape. There’s no way that was an accident.
Everything about consensus climate science is the consequence of naive fools falling into the trap of confirmation bias.
Mark Steyn provides a whole list of quotes from prominent scientists which trash Mann’s hockey stick and the methods he used to produce it in his book: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’. https://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc
I used to have a pretty high opinion of Penn State but their retention of Mann and their 40 year cover up and defense of that pedophile Jerry Sandusky destroyed that forever.
The only way to eliminate the supporting cast of climate change science fraudsters in the universities is to end the government funded gravy train which has made it possible for frauds like Mann to exist and which empowers them to have the influence they have on their institutions.
RAH – The court dismissed all of the cover-up charges against the Penn State administrators. The claims were complete nonsense. Please stop repeating the false narratives, spread by some of the same media groups that spread false climate claims.
Much like the media pushed the false climate change agenda for ratings, they pushed their false claims regarding Penn State.
Louis Freeh, whose incompetent report was full of unsubstantiated and dishonest statements, admitted under oath that it was only his “opinion.” That is, the facts don’t match the false, incompetent and ratings-driven media narrative.
As such, the rush to judgement and false media reports created hysteria that panicked the NCAA. When confronted with reality that they were wrong, the NCAA retracted all of the outstanding sanctions, including the restoration of all scholarships and all of Penn State’s and Joe Paterno’s wins.
It is an important lesson, regarding a corrupt media spreading false claims, that in many ways parallels the alarmist climate change hysteria campaigns. It also parallels the rush to judgement in the Duke lacrosse case, where the public was grossly mislead to false conclusions by a zealous and incompetent media campaign. Grossly unfair and unethical.
Rational people still demand due process, based upon full review of the evidence, under oath and justice for all, based upon reality.
Jerry Sandusky got due process and is serving time. However claims of a coverup by Penn State were also given due process and the charges were so incompetent, they were dismissed by judicial review, as they had no basis to even have a trial.
Ben
Please refrain from typing falsehoods. You make it sound as if it was all a big mistake and it’s all over with now. It isn’t by a long shot! The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has charges of child endangerment and various others of that nature against the following and are taking them to trial:
Timothy Mark Curley: Former Athletic Director Penn State University
Gary Charles Schultz: Former Senior Vice President for Finance and Business for the Pennsylvania State University
and
Graham Basil Spanier: Former President of Penn State University
Here is the link to the information on these ongoing proceedings from The Dauphin County court website .
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Pages/default.aspx
[snip – policy /mod]
“I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.”
Crap In Crap Out. At least an ostrich only sticks its head in the sand …
“trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.”
Obviously, as in teasing blood out of a stone.
Massive assumption here that there is a human signal to tease out in the first place.. I dint think science was supposed to make that kind of assumption… confirmation bias much??
When you dedicate your life to finding something, I guarantee that you will find it.
“…trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.” Perhaps one of the most accurate and honest statements he’s made. We should encourage this self-awareness, not deride it.
It certainly seems that his head has been buried somewhere where the Sun doesn’t shine. Perhaps this is why he doesn’t understand that only the Sun can actually ‘force’ the climate system. Varying CO2 concentrations changes the system slightly which is distinct from forcing. They cast this change in the system to an equivalent change in forcing TO THE SAME SYSTEM and then apply the equivalent forcing to the modified system.
Mann is pushing us back to the Dark Ages! We do not need data? Weather is Climate? Michael Mann is a distinquished professor Penn State? Scarry!
Is it just me, or does he look like he’s morphing into a Pokemon?
http://pre10.deviantart.net/3221/th/pre/f/2015/146/5/a/preview_zbrush_02_by_mrbrownstonemb-d8uweyc.jpg
More like a bald version of an American icon.
Can anybody photoshop a goatee into that shot?
The guy reminds me of a person that had a tough time in High School. The kind other kids locked in his locker and taped “Kick Me” signs on his back. Bet he couldn’t get a date for his Sr. Prom.
What? Is Tony Blair american?
I see Gollum. Just sayin……. precious shoe fits
Well…
We have a number of atmospheric models for things like hurricanes or El Nino, etc.
The models generally bracket the phenomenon and the actual event proceeds close to the mean of the ensemble.
If hurricane prediction models were like global warming, the models would predict landfall 100% of the time and the reality is that one or two hurricanes reached “brush off” distance and the rest went far out to sea. After the 2nd or 3rd unnecessary evacuation, NOAA would get the equivalent of a “come to Jesus” meeting from congress. Some careers would be imperiled – as well they should be.
The mean of the ensemble should track with the actual warming, much like we expect hurricanes to go where the models predict. We should defund “high warming” models and continue pruning until the remaining ensemble brackets the measured temperature trend as would be expected from models in any other field.
Except you can’t duplicate the run or the model that gets it right. There is a built-in random component meant to duplicate possible natural weather which when multiple runs are averaged, weather is supposedly averaged out, leaving the proposed scenario trend. There are no models that consistently get it right when using the averaged scenario trend, but there are individual runs that do. But even the natural model doesn’t get it right, since it does not do an adequate job with ENSO teleconnections between oceanic and atmosphere, and ignores the long term stadial/interstadial mechanisms yet to be modeled.
Which brings up the question: If model runs are supposed to average out random weather under the assumption it is the natural component, not the anthropogenic component, how can weather then be said to be indicative of the anthropogenic component? Hmm Mikey???
I see him as a spider entangled in his own web by the wind.
The more he struggles to repair his opus, the more nature thrashes him.
“Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee”
Pure coincidence that Mannian Science just happens to support a particular political party’s platform.
Andrew
The Democratic Party no longer exists. It has morphed into the Progressive Socialist Party. Although, if they changed their name to reflect what they promote, those who are misled by its current name would likely jump ship.
If they changed their name to reflect what they promote they would call themselves the Regressive Authoritarian Socialist Party or, Communists for short. But, that’s even less marketable then your suggestion.
Bernie Sanders got quite a ways calling himself a socialist. If Hillary weren’t the appointed winner, he might actually have pulled it off. There are many, many people who love handouts. These people never ask where the handouts come from, of course. Except they know their Bernie would be the one making sure they got the handout. Hillary is not quite so obvious, though she did promise to make coal miners unemployed.
Bernie thinks free market capitalism is unfair, yet what he thinks is unfair about is is why it works so well even as it’s actively suppressed by an administration whose ideology is so messed up it defies explanation..
If you look back a bit in history, the Democratic party was considered to be the more conservative party while the Republican party was considered to be the more progressive party.
Yes, and Lincoln, who did more to advance civil rights than anyone since, was our first Republican President.
Actually, Lincoln fought an illegal war against Southern Independence. He was a notorious violator of the Constitution. Lincoln’s war did nothing to advance civil rights or help the slaves. He said that was not his objective. It was to keep the southern agricultural states subservient to the northern industrial states. Today, the war continues by other means. The south is now a victim of cultural genocide. Illegal immigrants get more respect than southerners who fought to defend their homes. Robert E. Lee thought secession was a mistake but was committed to defending his home state of Virginia. A true patriot is now accused of being a traitor.
The Civil War South sacrificed states’ rights on the altar of slavery. The U.S. has never recovered from that ruination.
“If you look back a bit in history, the Democratic party was considered to be the more conservative party while the Republican party was considered to be the more progressive party.”
Barbara, I concur. I once met one of Bill Clinton’s economic advisors, a former economics dept. chair who retired to Hot Springs Village AR, a friend of my father. He told me about the big shift that occurred when LBJ signed the civil rights bill. It was something I was never educated about.
Mr. Frank, I think you are wrong about the cause. It was northern aggression that destroyed states’ rights, but you are correct about the consequences. That is why our schools have been destroyed as a result of federalization. Wars are not fought over principles; they are fought for economic reasons. Follow the money.
SRI, there were running armed battles between rival militias over the slave question for some years before the Civil War broke out. The South seceded over the slave question, and for no other reason.
The South invoked a constitutionally legitimate states right over the ethically illegitimate crime of slavery. States rights have been improperly tarred and delegitimized by that association ever since.
I believe the Civil War was indeed fought over principle. That some people criminally exploited war and chaos to their economic benefit does not change the basics.
And the Homestead Act and Land Grant Colleges which are now Ag universities.
The last of the Homesteads ended in California in c.1939.
Homestead Act made it possible for people to own their own land and become independent.
the reality is….people with the slightest bit of common sense are marginalized as a vast right wing conspiracy
I’m never able to identify myself as part of some vast (and apparently well-funded) conspiracy, simply because I investigate claims for their veracity. I’ve been paying attention, sometimes vaguely, since the late 60’s to claims of immanent ice age; catastrophic overpopulation and famine; death of the oceans; man-made catastrophic global warming; claims of on-going mass extinctions; catastrophic man-made climate change; species under immanent threat such as penguins and polar bears…oh I could go on. None of it – I’ll say it again, none of it is happening as predicted; and in many cases, isn’t happening at all. And by recognizing these facts – I’m part of a well-organized, well-funded conspiracy? Really.
First, Latitude, I wouldn’t describe Mr. Mann as having “the slightest bit of common sense”, and the least capable group of marginalizing anybody would be a “vast right wing conspiracy”.
. . .”trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.” Therein the rub. He assumes such a signal exists a priori when the whole point of controversy is wether or not any such signal does in fact exist in the first place and if so does it have any discernible effect whatsoever. The fact that he’s “. . . spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data . . .” would indicate that if any such signal even exists, its impact must be trivial at best.
Not only does he assume this, this has been assumed by the IPCC since its inception. In fact, its inception was predicated by it which is what makes it so difficult to get the science right since the IPCC has positioned itself as the gateway for what is and what is not climate science.
Hey Shocked Citizen! Well said! Yeah, this CAGW is the most mysterious catastrophe we humans have ever had to face. It is powerful enough to tip the Earth into a climate like Venus. It is so omnipresent that “global” is its middle name — and yet, and yet… Where the heck is it?! It is like the Invisible Pink Unicorn which is both invisible and pink at the same time.
The horror!
I think what MM is trying to say is he can see climate change from his backyard.
I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change
Didn’t someone point out there is no ‘try’, only do or not do. The statement by Mann indicates he has not succeeded in finding the “signal of human-caused climate change”. Therefore he has nothing but his faith to buoy him from drowning in the reality of his failure.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2i7mfex.jpg
You betcha!
The Blue steel pose is 😀
Like Cook, when you take a nothing hack and promote them, it goes to their heads
Mann is mostly wrong in what he says, but this kind of mockery is juvenile and feeds into his claims about those who oppose his ideas. Mockery of his attempts at scientific research are fair game; personal appearance isn’t.
For a simpler problem with a scientifically supported and even self-evident knowledge, we do not even have a consensus (i.e. social, political agreement) when evolution (i.e. chaotic process) of a human life begins. In the age of scientific mysticism, guesstimates and opportunity are favored over reality-based observations and principle. I wonder what axioms, fantasies, or articles of faith they have adopted in order to speculate to the edges of the universe and beyond. The profits have an uncanny god-like perception.
n.n,
A big assumption is that space-time is mostly flat, much like it is locally. For example, what we detect and explain as Dark Matter and Dark Energy can both be quantified as non flat functions of space-time curvature presented by Galaxies and the arrow of time on the Universe, but that defies the assumption of a mostly flat Universe.
Mann did not provide “testimony”, he gave a speech. Testimony implies (and is generally considered) under oath. “Climate change …. played out on the 24 hour news cycle” is called “weather”. And he believes that “we don’t need sophisticated techniques” to find AGW. In other words their collection of Rube Goldberg models is more than enough for them. And, as he points out, they have the media on their side.
The most amazing thing is the number of people who are convinced by nonsense like this.
It’s right up there with the longhairs who used to carry sandwich signs saying, “Repent! The End Is Near!”
imho, the most amazing thing about this whole thing is that even with all the money and treasure that has been pissed away on CAGW, the media, academia, government and ngos are about the only people that believe CAGW is a problem worth addressing.
Maybe if I could make money from CAGW, I might promote it too.
I think his head has been buried elsewhere…
A prime candidate for plexibody surgery.
In his statement here, is he, a State employee, telling people how to vote?
I, don’t, know.
Michael Mann, inventor of the “hockey stick”.
I think ‘inventor’ gives him too much credit. Inventors are more often constructively creative, rather than destructively creative.
I think that depends on your definitions of constructive and destructive. Weren’t Alfred Nobel and Richard Gatling considered inventors?
SMC,
Dynamite while destructive made mining and construction much safer. Weapons of war are constructive when developed to defeat a destructive ideology. Mann’s war is against science, so the appropriate response must be a scientific weapon so powerful, it makes the flawed ideology he believes in as quaint as an Earth-centric Universe.
Ah, so, the definitions depend on your point of view. 😄
Yes, it depends on whether your point of view of a controversy is based on facts, logic and immutable truth, or is based on the fear of imaginary consequences. In other word, when the left brain conflicts with the right brain, how is that conflict resolved.
Lobotomy?😄
I it’s more like the bugs in the TV show ‘Brain Dead’.
SMC – dynamite and firearms are tools. The problems arise when they are misused. A local gun shop has an ongoing experiment. It has an AK-style rifle along with loaded magazines in a glass display case. So far this gun and ammo combination has killed no one. On the other hand, many use firearms every day to defend themselves and their families and friends. The courts consistently rule that the police have no obligation to defend or protect anyone from a criminal attack. We are responsible for our own defense and we have the moral right to decide how to do that without interference from the government.
As a Canadian, hockey sticks are sacred symbols. Mann’s creation is an abomination. He should be taped to a net without any equipment for slapshot practice. More seriously, no scientist should be that invested in a particular outcome. He can’t do good work with such a bias. And he doesn’t!
As a SJ Sharks fan, I agree.
[snip -namecalling /mod]
Ok, so I want call him any names. I’ll just point-out that Mark Steyn frequently calls him “Doctor Fraudpants”…
Is it my imagination or does Michael Mann have a pair of close-set eyes? Sometimes a photo is not always complimentary.
Did I not include the entire quote?
Bad on me.
When climate is a 1 trillion dollar industry, and no serious person is talking about ending our use of coal, oil, or natural gas for the forseeable future, exactly which side has financial interests to protect?
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2015/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2015-full-report.pdf
Half of coal consumption is by the Chinese. 2014 coal consumption in megatonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE)::
Total World 3881.8.
India 360.2
US 453.4
China 1962.4
Europe/Eurasia 476.5
In a few years India will burn more coal than the US or Europe/Eurasia. Between China and India they burn 60% of the worlds coal and their share is headed for 70%. India is burning 20-30 MTOE more per year. China’s coal increase varies between 26-80 MTOE per year. The remaining world consumption is on average slowly declining.
Since green interests have little or no influence over China and India, 2/3rds of the consuming base, no person talking about the ending of coal is serious, period.
Well Hillary is not a serious person, but she is bragging that she is going to put coal miners out of work.
“form the bread and butter”
on my table. Without models, I’d have nothing to eat.