Michael Mann: We still need Climate Models, Really

mann-video-satellite-record

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?

165 thoughts on “Michael Mann: We still need Climate Models, Really

  1. 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”.

    • Bruce, I think you made another easily-correctable-by-the-reader typo. “Tools” should be “fools.”

    • “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.

      • More than a dozen articles in one year and no questions are asked about how it is/was possible to do this?

        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.

  2. Is Michael Mann a good programmer who deliberately created the Hockey Stick program, or a naive fool who stumbled into an attractive error?

  3. 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

  4. “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??

      • “…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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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???

  7. “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.

      • 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.

  8. 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”.

  9. . . .”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!

  10. 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

    • 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

        • 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.

      • 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!

    • Ok, so I want call him any names. I’ll just point-out that Mark Steyn frequently calls him “Doctor Fraudpants”…

  14. Is it my imagination or does Michael Mann have a pair of close-set eyes? Sometimes a photo is not always complimentary.

  15. “I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried…”

    Did I not include the entire quote?
    Bad on me.

  16. 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.

  17. “form the bread and butter”
    on my table. Without models, I’d have nothing to eat.

  18. “How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts the Climate Change Discourse”
    Shouldn’t this be
    “How the Left Wing Denial Machine Distorts the Climate Science Discourse”

  19. Why limit his description to being, “inventor of the ‘hockey stick?'”
    He also invented the claim that he won the Nobel Peace Prize!

  20. “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.”
    The above states volumes and creates a great opportunity to “read between the lines”…….
    1) He has spent much of his career with his head buried in output from his skewed data
    2) He is desperately trying to find something – that is – too “tease out” any signal that I can stick on humanity
    to prove the nonsense I spew to justify my continued funding over what I’ve told you is already
    unnecessary.

  21. “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.”
    Is the frequency of forests burning down, regrowing and burning down again increasing? Is increased CO2 causing faster growth of forests and other greenery? How do these clever climate scientists distinguish between heat cause and greening cause?

  22. Michael Mann produced the “hockey stick” which purported to show that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did not exist. His dubious statistical analysis of tree ring data was presented without a single word of discussion as to how (very well documented) historical and archaeological evidence about climatic changes through the last thousand years could possibly be reinterpreted. That’s not good science – if you are trying to refute well-grounded and widely held historical concepts, you need to address the evidence that led to those concepts being well grounded and widely held.
    Instead, he was basically saying “my data show this, and everything that points elsewhere can be ignored”. It’s not really science, it’s polemicism. Although I believe that he managed to deceive himself before attempting to deceive others. And now finds it impossible to undeceive himself without destroying his self-image. Really, a very tragic figure, I can’t help feeling sorry for him.
    The “right wing conspiracy” bothers me. I’m a born sceptic (probably not born, I must have learned it while studying sciences). Anyone who thinks of me as right-wing doesn’t know me, and I’m sure I’m not the only left-of-centre climate sceptic. “Conservative democratic socialist” is not a recognised term, but I would bet that there’s a lot of people who fit that label. We just don’t cohere into movements or parties. Or rather, the parties that could attract our support just don’t exist. I voted liberal in the last Canadian election only because they promised to legalise marijuana. I bet they don’t.

    • Smart Rock: “I can’t help feeling sorry for him [Michael Mann].” In the extremely unlikely event that I ever get so much as a hint of a twinge of “feeling sorry for Michael (squirrel-mouth) Mann”, could I borrow some sorrow from you?

    • “…Really, a very tragic figure, I can’t help feeling sorry for him…”
      Pfffft. Check out the lawsuits he started and get back to me.

    • I use “Kennedy Democrat & Reagan Republican independant Libertarian”… as all three are roughly the same… and not like either the current Progressive Socialist Democrats nor the Crony Corporatist Republican Establishment…
      I’ll take Bernie over Hillary OR Trump over {any establishment republican}. Does that make me socialist, conservative right wingnut, or just Pro-American Populist?
      Mostly I’m just fed up with the D.C. Ripoff…

      • I’ll take Bernie, etc…” — first time I’ve ever seen you write something foolish, E.M.

    • Although I believe that he managed to deceive himself before attempting to deceive others. And now finds it impossible to undeceive himself without destroying his self-image.

      Here’s a Russian proverb:

      A lie can move you forwar, but you can never go back.

  23. ‘over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone.’
    well that explains why all the court cases are getting no where , he busy pushing out epic levels of BS , as normal.

  24. Nice to know Mann is feeling the burn, he must be a bit of a joke among most scientists in private. CRU were not fond of him to say the least.
    Being dishonest and devious is not going to win you any friends, especially if you are a hack, you end up with other hacks, Schmidt and Mann don’t only think alike, both cast from the same mold if you ask me, both try lying their way out of being wrong, something I learned not to do at a very young age

  25. >>polluting interests and other bad actors are mobilised.
    I am still waiting for that Exxon cheque.
    Is it in the post?
    Ralph

  26. Of course we need models. A model is an extended physical equation. It is a hypothesis of the behavior of a system. A good model with good data gives the output values that match measurements of the reality.
    Climate modeling is in its infancy. Sun, ocean currents, clouds and water vapor are not well understood. Data is temporally and spatially deficient. Computers can’t have enough computing power for example to handle small but important things like tornadoes.
    We can use models to test our assumptions and reject bad conjectures and keep the ones that match with the observations. No model averages but keep the Russian model and trash the GISS if data shows that.

    • Some things are fundamentally unsuited to computational modeling. Chaotic systems with ill defined starting parameters and divergent evolution, for example. Like weather and climate…
      I ran a Cray Supercomputer center doing plastic flow modeling for a half dozen years. Using only ONE well defined fluid, at KNOWN temperature, injected into a precisely defined mold at SPECIFIED conditions of themperature et al; we still had 10% failures of the resultant dies and needed rework. That after about a 10 hour run and full convergence.
      Now make it three fluids (air, water, watervapor / cloud) poorly characterized (salinity, mineralization, aerosols, humidity), add phase changes (ice, water, evaporation), have no real clue of the starting values nor how key parts work (clouds, water vapor, lunar tidal effects, etc), over ill defined surfaces for key parameters (roughness, thermal conductivity, evaporation, specific heat, permeability, etc), and leave out key bits (tidal and wind ocean mixing, solar variation of UV, etc.) and it is just a hopeless computerized fantasy.
      And I’ve only listed a few of the problems…

      • True hence why even with all the computing power they have and all the education they go through they cannot predict the weather worth a dam more than 24 hours ahead .
        In reality climate ‘science’ is full no unknowns, poorly knows and not well understood with the added factor of a level and accuracy of measurement, especially in the historic sense , that in other sciences would cause great concern and mean claims of ‘settled science’ would never be made .
        But when your practising ‘heads you lose tails I win ‘ and your career depends on you given the ‘right ‘ not honest results , then you can see why none of that matters at all. And given all in the areas do the same and you see if fraud being rewarded and honoured, as in Lew paper , why change ?

      • EM,
        Yes, attempting to simulate at that level of detail requires so much information to get right, it’s nearly hopeless. However; the LTE behavior of the climate in response to change, that is, the result after all the chaos if the state transition has averaged out, is much more predictable and dictated by basic thermodynamic laws. For example, in your fluid flow example, it’s trivial to predict what comes out one end of a pipe based on what goes in the other, but calculating the trajectory of each individual water molecule along the way from one end to the other and then summing up all the molecules to see how much comes out the other side is not.

      • Models are a good way of testing our understanding of chaotic systems where simple causal relationships do not work. Statistical correlations are not meaningful. The truth is that we don’t understand the climate system. We are are nowhere near to that.
        Even though I agree with you about the problems. some of the models might be useful, interesting. A simple model with only a few parameters could tell for example is the cloud feedback negative or positive. Probable answer is that it depends which helps in further studies.
        In forecasting the global temperature in 2100 I would start with a simple model that says that it is the current temperature.

  27. 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.
    OMG! Mr. Mann could be the perfect running mate for Hillary Clinton! The are both fighting a great right-wing conspiracy. (does that make both of them “conspiracy theorists”?)
    As a bonus, neither is known for their integrity. What a match.

  28. We Skeptics are tragically, grieviously, and hideously handicapped in our inability to see climate change, either with the help of sophisticated climate tools, or by simply turning on the tv, or looking out the window. I’ve been using the zen trick of studying a leaf, allowing my mind to go blank, to get in touch with my “inner climate”.
    So far, I’ve been unable to, but I will keep at it, and report back.

  29. This is the first poem I wrote about the “climate liars”. An oldie but a goodie.
    Michael Mann
    The Hockey Stick
    There was a crooked Mann
    Who played a crooked trick
    And had a crooked plan
    To make a crooked stick
    By using crooked math
    That favored crooked lines
    Lysenko’s crooked path
    Led through the crooked pines
    And all his crooked friends
    Applaud what crooked seems
    But all that crooked ends
    Derives from crooked means
    Eugene WR Gallun

  30. “I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output” -now ain’t that the truth.

    • “I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in …….. a place where the Sun does not shine?

  31. 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.

    It is true that a vast right wing conspiracy is trying to destroy him but that distinction exists only because the vast left wing conspiracists are ignoring his dull blathering. Conspiracies are not by default unfounded. – especially so in climate science where science is seldom practiced.

  32. climate “tools” are “increasingly unnecessary”.
    Maybe right, who needs climate science when Michael Manns Attorneys General settle the science.

  33. “trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change”.
    If he has to work hard to try to tease out the human caused signal, doesn’t that mean that there are other more easily detectable causes of a changing climate? And is he therefor implying that humans are not the biggest contributors to climate change? 😉

  34. “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.”
    – Best evidence Manns position is political, science is but boilerplate.

    • This is no surprise as climate science hasn’t obeyed the rules of science since before the IPCC was formed. Once the IPCC was fomed, they canonized the idea that the rules of science need not be obeyed since the ends justify the means when its for the ‘greater good’.

  35. Why spend all this money on Climate Models when you can get better results using Lord Monckton’s spreadsheet model? If you want to predict the weather, why not just buy the Old Farmer’s Almanac.
    I am reminded of Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography – I can’t tell you what it is but I know it when I see it.
    Same with Michael Mann’s claim that we can see “Climate Change”. He can’t tell you what it is going to be, but he will know it when he sees it (or doesn’t see it).

  36. Apparently the models that Dr. Mann has been using are all wrong and hence his research findings have been all wrong as well. What he needs to find are correct models that he yet does not have. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and Dr. Mann has yet to find any such evidence because it does not exist. A good measure of the insulating properties of the troposphere is the natural lapse rate which is unaffected by the LWIR absorption properties of CO2. Apparently Dr. Mann has ignored all the scientific rational that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really very close to zero which is why there is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.

    • willhass,
      There is solid theoretical evidence that CO2 emissions have a finite effect on the climate. What is completely unproven and unjustified by either physical laws or measurements is the size of the effect claimed by the IPCC. While they claim a 3C +/- 1.5C effect from doubling CO2, most skeptics are in the range of 1C +/- 0.3C. Since seasonal variability can exceed 12C per hemisphere and natural variability in the global averages can vary by more than 1C from year to year, the few tenths of a degree in warming we can attribute to CO2 since the 19’th century is difficult to pull out of the data, especially since its only been in the last couple of decades that we can even attempt to make global measurements with enough precision, moreover; there is certain to be some natural long term trend in the data as the climate is always changing in one direction or the other (for example, entering and leaving the LIA is a natural change) and the average rate of change we see in long term averages extracted from ice cores and sediment cores often exceeds the rate of change observed in contemporary short term averages, including all the bogus adjustments.

      • There is no solid theoretical evidence, only partial science speculation. From first principals it can be shown that the convective greenhouse effect, which is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient is responsible for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. An additional radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be detected. Without a radiant greenhouse effect the AGW conjecture is nothing. For those that still believe in a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases, I read a recent article that showed that the original calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 were too great by a factor of 20. Those that made the calculation forgot to include the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the dry lapse rate to decrease which is a cooling and not a warming effect. Then there is the issue of feedbacks. Those that believe in the AGW conjecture have forgotten that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. H2O provides negative feedbacks not positive. These feedbacks have to be negative for the climate to have been as stable as it has been over at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to have evolved because we are here. A real greenhouse does not stay farm because of the heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces heat loss by convection. There is no radiant greenhouse effect anywhere in the solar system including in greenhouses. If CO2 were such a good insulator then there should be some applications where such is the case but there are none. Theory that CO2 promotes warming is based on incomplete science and hence is science fiction.

        • Willhaas,
          It’s only a radiative effect. GHG molecules absorb specific frequency photons, either emitted by the surface, other GHG molecules or clouds and then either spontaneously, consequential to capturing another photon or upon a collision, will likely re-emit another photon. The emitted photon can have a slightly higher or slightly lower energy than the original, where the difference is added to or removed from the linear kinetic energy of the GHG molecule in motion. It’s equally probably that the emitted photons are slightly higher or lower in energy, thus the NET effect on the velocity of molecules is approximately zero.
          The photon can be emitted in any direction and most of those photons will be captured by another GHG molecule until one is lucky enough to get all the way to space contributing to the radiation emitted by the planet or all the way back to the surface which they do in roughly even proportions . The energy returned to the surface combined with solar energy sets the LTE surface emissions and the consequential temperature which will be larger than what solar power can do alone and the required emissions will increase by the amount of power returned to the surface by GHG’s (and clouds). The difference between GHG’s and clouds is that GHG’s are narrow band absorbers/emitters while clouds are broad band absorbers and emitters.
          The reason convection is irrelevant is because it represents energy transported by matter, rather than by photons and only photons can leave the planet (rockets excluded). Energy transported by matter can only be converted into photons by BB radiation and for the emitting matter to be in equilibrium, it must be absorbing the same amount of energy as it’s emitting or else perpetually warm or cool. The energy transported by matter that enters the atmosphere can only be returned to the surface, thus this is another zero sum effect. Don’t let Trenberth confuse you as he conflates the energy transported by photons with that transported by matter.
          O2/N2 emit nothing, thus have little influence on the radiative balance or the sensitivity, nor do they interact at the photon frequencies emitted by GHG’s. Only aerosols and atmospheric water (clouds) can emit BB radiation. GHG’s, including water vapor, emit photons in their absorption/emission bands which while not BB radiation, contributes equally to the equivalent temperatures (atmosphere/surface) on a joule by joule basis.

      • In the lower troposphere, the mean time between a CO2 molecule absorbing an LWIR absorption band photon and then re radiating it is about .2S. In that tine that same CO2 molecule will undergo roughly a billion encounters with other molecules exchanging energy with each encounter. In the lower troposphere, energy transport by convection and conduction dominate over energy transport by LWIR absorption radiation. At the top of the troposphere and beyond, energy transport by radiation becomes more important and much of that radiation makes it to space with an extremely low probability of it being absorbed directly by the surface. And yes you are right that clouds enhance radiation to space. If more CO2 really contributed to the insulation provided for by the atmosphere then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

  37. Why hasn’t Michael Mann been indicted yet? Oh that’s right, the he’s been protected by the Church.

    • Nahhhh… the Clintons don’t part with any of their loot, Steve. Their “foundation” is actually a collection basket.

  38. Some perspective: today at work we are going to observe a minute’s silence for the Nice victims. All I can do as a simple citizen is to channel the anger I feel into doubling my efforts to unmask frauds like Mann and his kind.

  39. “Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heat struck Phoenix.”
    Anyone who refers to “heat” when they mean temperature is automatically ignored.
    Almost as bad as “forcing”!
    SimonJ

  40. Michael Mann, (not related to Thomas or Heinrich, they are truly writers of FICTION which they happily acknowledged) writes: “we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle.”
    The 24 hour cycles and aggregating them for week to week, month to month even, year to year IS NOT CLIMATE. What he speaks of is WEATHER. Simply. To tell people, that weather “anomalies” (is – or are – there a standard/s/ EVERYWHERE, for millenia, or what???) are climate and that it is ill-conceived (by humans!!) and evil (??) is more than lies. It is religion, or not even that. Simple superstition.
    Mann, Michael, and all the others will shine in the history book of humanity, though. As those, who inspired REAL scientists and “helped” to realise what are the REAL problems and how to solve them.

  41. Right Wing Denial Machine
    Interesting phrase, is this Michael Mann admitting he is a leftwing tool.

  42. Anybody who points to wildfires in Western North America as evidence of CAGW is a shaman and an abject fraud.
    And this can be demonstrated in very short order using only the simplest of terms to anybody who cares to listen.

  43. That party meeting he attended and testified to in Phoenix is the real power play that runs the country and the Nexis of political climate science. Everything else is just the usual personality nonsense of American elections as far as the media hype goes. We also need a cost analysis of those party planks.

  44. Would anyone in the party audience have a clue what to fact check on Micheal Mann, or is fact checking even allowed?

  45. He was just sucking up to Hillary with the right wing conspiracy language. What job is he looking for now?

  46. “I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried….”
    Couldnt resist.

Comments are closed.