Michael Mann’s Climate Rebellion: Scientists are … a Reticent Lot


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Michael Mann, inventor of the infamous climate “Hockey Stick”, has written an article to promote his book, and to promote the idea that scientists are rebelling against the new Trump administration.

Climate change denial is not dead


The era of climate change denial is over. Rejection of the unequivocal scientific evidence that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable. Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.

So why dignify the notion of climate change denial by writing about it?

Such was the criticism I received from many well-meaning fellow climate scientists last fall after I published my latest book, “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy,” co-authored with Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles.

It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.

Indeed, that assault was enough to motivate my fellow climate scientists and me to participate in a rally at the annual meeting of the largest Earth Science organization in the country, the American Geophysical Union, last December. And now there is a much larger plan afoot for a scientists’ march on Washington next month.

We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot who would much rather spend our time in the lab, out in the field, teaching and doing research. It is only the most unusual of circumstances that gets us marching in the streets. Trump’s assault on science is just such a circumstance. And we are seeing a rebellion continue to mount.

Read more: http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/317102-climate-denial-is-dead-long-live-climate-denial

The obvious next step in this rebellion is mass resignation, to show the Trump administration that climate scientists cannot continue taking tainted money from a government whom they accuse of subverting science.

I look forward to reporting about all the heroic, principled climate scientists who rejected their secure academic tenure and fat government grants. No doubt Dr. Michael Mann will lead by example.


220 thoughts on “Michael Mann’s Climate Rebellion: Scientists are … a Reticent Lot

  1. “…The obvious next step in this rebellion is mass resignation, to show the Trump administration that climate scientists cannot continue taking tainted money from a government whom they accuse of subverting science….” Beware the stampede! Ri i i ght.

    • Resign before you’re fired for cause, so as to retain a pension.

      And where will Mann’s vaunted funding come from now? You know, those grants that were the reason Penn State didn’t fire his posterior for malpractice.

      • well someone is paying for the noxious gent
        ( used as in the Aussie version “gent “meaning MAGGOT you fish with)
        to come here and dribble sh#t on aus media
        ABC radio the govt warmist shill site is promoting the mongrels visit
        if ever a plane could fall from the sky…i dibs his!

    • The obvious next step in this rebellion is mass resignation, to show the Trump administration that climate scientists cannot continue taking tainted money from a government whom they accuse of subverting science.

      MIKE & COMPANY – PLEASE DO THE HONORABLE THING, After all is was never about money,

    • We should cut some climate scientists in half and count the growth rings to see how fat they got during the Whoreobscene Optimum.

      • Probably wouldn’t need Mike’s Nature Trick to hide a nonexistent decline. A decline in ring girth won’t be observable for at least 4 years

    • “The obvious next step in this rebellion is mass resignation”

      And Trump is the dumb one?

      Again, Monty Python had it decades ago:

      Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!

      [they all stab themselves]

      Suicide Squad Leader: That showed ’em, huh?

  2. “The era of climate change denial is over.”

    Lol because Mann says that just as Trump takes over. THE PEOPLE voted for climate skepticism (less illegal-laden CA). A relevant tweet by Tom Nelson:

    Tom Nelson ‏@tan123 31 Dec 2016
    Richard Lindzen: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’ https://twitter.com/tan123/status/815181170552033280

    It’s not over for the people. It’s over for the effete buffoons of the left like Mann that continue to spout their endless lies.

    Here’s a video for Mann, HIDE THE DECLINE:

  3. “It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”
    Yes Mikey, so why don’t you stop doing it?

  4. There’s a very obvious reason the left is starting to panic about what Trump will do with the EPA. From https://www.bna.com/trump-freezes-epa-n57982083120/

    “The EPA spent about $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2016 on grants and contracts,”

    That is a HECK of a lot of money, not spent on programs but simply sent out to 3rd parties. I submit to you that almost the ENTIRE climate movement inside the US has been funded, either overtly or covertly, by political operatives inside the EPA. Yes, there are university departments across the country that do much of the work, but if we were able to get inside the budgetary smoke screen, I think we would find that much of that funding has been funded by grants which ultimately trace back to the EPA.

    It will take a while for this have an openly visible effect, but I think the entire climate movement inside the US is about to have its funding cut off completely.

    And oh will the howling reach a fever pitch then!!!

    • How will the howling reach a fever pitch? Many proclaim a love a Gaia and a disdain for money and other earthly pleasures. But the people actually behind it suffer from no such altruism. Once the money begins to evaporate – and it will quickly – no one will be interested in “running their ads” for free.

    • A heck of a lot of that money sent out to 3rd parties was sent to for-profit companies held within the endowments of environmental NGOs who are charities. The money is used to demonstrate and lobby government for more climate studies and to support politicians who support their objectives. It is simply racketeering. There is no other way to describe it. Just follow the money.
      They have not only damaged science, they’ve damaged the environmental movement and NGOs generally. NGOs are now looked on with suspicion by the public and rightly so. That’s why you hear so much controversy in the general news about the percentage of donations flowing into projects vs. administration and overheads. As soon as I hear the word “activist” now I mentally replace it with “self-serving liar”.

    • The EPA practice of funding NGOs so that they could sue the EPA leading to the EPA entering into consent decrees must also end.

    • “The EPA spent about $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2016 on grants and contracts,”
      Let’s see that’s almost 1/2 of the southern border wall in just 1 year of apparent “waste” I suppose they are virtually all environmental wacko’s living off our tax dollars.

  5. Michael Mann isn’t employed by the government, so he won’t be resigning. He did receive a $541k grant as part of the Federal Stimulus Program spending — which may give us all some idea about how the stimulus plan failed to create jobs.

    But calling himself “reticent” seems to strain all credibility.

    reticent — not revealing one’s thoughts or feelings readily. syn. reserved, withdrawn, introverted, inhibited, diffident, shy

    Does anybody have that impression of Michael Mann? Is he shy?

      • State government employee plus he received federal grants which come with legal restrictions and requirements making him a contractor. Basically a 1099 employee.

      • Penn State is not a public university. In Pennsylvania, the public universities are all called “{City} University of Pennsylvania”. For instance, “Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania (SUP)” and “Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP).”

        Penn State is a land grant university which means that it has a charter from the state and receives limited funding from the state, but it operates as a private university. In Pennsylvania, Penn State is closer to Temple and Lincoln than the state universities in that it receives some funding from the state, but it is not run by the state.

    • ACTIVISTS MARCH, NOOOT “reticent” SCIENTISTS. Data clearly shows Activism Prevents Objectivity.

  6. I keep insisting that no one, no one, believes that climate doesn’t change. Where are all of those climate change deniers?

  7. Mann
    CO2 went from 280ppm to 281 ppm circa 1850. The shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend was much greater than the warming trend from 1980 to 1998 when CO2 went from 300ppm to 350 ppm.

    Any explanation as to why the an increase in 1ppm of CO2 caused a greater increase in warming than an increase in 50ppm?

  8. Mann- your 2015/2016 study showed the pause is caused by the cooling side of the AMO/PDO cycle

    Any explanation as to why the flip side of the same AMO/PDO cycle had nothing to do with the warming of the 1980/90’s?

  9. Wow I have never seen a picture of that guy, what a total dweeb. Probably got more money than me….life ain’t fair.

  10. Why don’t we ask them all to jump off a cliff in protest? Oh, it will cause pollution. But then they all exhale…

  11. Pew Research: Only 27% of Americans Don’t Believe The ‘97% Consensus of Climate Scientists’ Claim: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/05/many-americans-are-skeptical-about-scientific-research-on-climate-and-gm-foods/

    Yes. Only 27% believe in the 97%!!!

    THE PEOPLE realize that, first off, those “consensus” numbers are obviously inflated and based on trickery.

    Secondly, the people realize that this supposed consensus of “97%” is … a consensus of ideology, not a consensus of science. It’s a consensus among leftists like the radical Berkeley educated Michael Mann. If you correct for ideology then there is zero consensus, and a poll of conservative scientists shows a consensus against the climate idiocy.

    Mann is a leftist. Who hobnobs with leftist politicians day in and day out. Like all the other leftist climate loons. End the politicized insanity!

    • Who in this world does he think is going to buy his book?

      Leftists don’t need a primer….and conservatives wouldn’t touch it

      • Yup. DO believe. Funny that it’s phrased in terms of belief. That’s what it’s about. “Climate change” is a religion. A religion for religion-hating leftists.

    • Think you meant “Only 27% of Americans DO believe…”

      And that’s great news, suggesting there are fewer gullible Americans than there might be.

  12. “Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus”

    Perhaps that was what the Pope said to Giordano Bruno just before they lit the fire.

  13. “scientists are rebelling against the new Trump administration.”
    Hilarioius, reading that line from pudgy chops, the “very master of the tree ring circus” (to quote Mark Steyn).
    An open enquiry into the actual science by the new administration would be welcome, and revealing.

  14. Bugger, a typo (Hilarioius):
    “scientists are rebelling against the new Trump administration.”
    Hilarious, reading that line from pudgy chops, the “very master of the tree ring circus” (to quote Mark Steyn).
    An open enquiry into the actual science, by the new administration would be welcome, and revealing.

  15. co-authored with Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles.

    We’re very serious about climate science. That’s why only climate scientists can have opinions about climate science. Oh, and cartoonists. Climate scientists and cartoonists can talk about climate science. Oh, and movie stars. Yes, climate scientists, cartoonists, and movie stars. Oh, and psychologists. Yes, climate science is very serious and can only be addressed by climate scientists, cartoonists, movie stars, and psychologists. Oh, and Al Gore. Yes, so… climate scientists, cartoonists, movie stars, psychologists and clowns.

  16. What “unequivocal scientific evidence”? I don’t think he knows what “unequivocal” means. Or “evidence” for that matter. And the talk about consensus and “socially acceptable” is not science. That is politics. And when it is no longer “socially acceptable” to question whether the output of process models is scientific evidence, or debate the usefulness of synthetic benchmarks like average global temperature, we are talking about oppression. When the consensus is used to shout down the minority and declare victory, that’s tyranny. Not science. If there has been an assault on science, it has been by the likes of Mann and Jones, not the Trump administration.

    • It should be not “unequivocal scientific evidence” but “unequivocal politicization.”

      And when we say “politicization” we mean leftism.

      Climatology now is leftist advocacy that masquerades as “science.”

      In other words, it’s not science. *Everything* these activist scientists do is geared toward advancing their leftist “cause,” not toward uncovering truth as actual science is charged with.

    • I don’t think very many people know what “unequivocal scientific evidence” is. They confuse probability with certainty, believe in “may”, “could”, “might”, “is associated with”, etc. The idea of “proof” is what the media tells them or some politically active no longer science journal reports. At this point in time, I question how many “scientists” in many fields know what unequivocal evidence is.

      • Sheri, I’m 100% certain that the probability of rolling a 7 with two fair dice is 1/6. If you disagree, please contact the pit boss at your nearest casino. I will also suggest that you poll scientists to find out if they know what “unequivocal evidence is.” If you do that you’ll find your answer.

      • Martin Clark –

        Martin Clark on February 1, 2017 at 6:23 pm
        Sheri, I’m 100% certain

        clark away.

      • Sheri,
        I know a few scientists that understand what “unequivocal scientific evidence” is, and they don’t use such language casually. They reserve it for things like the laws of thermodynamics, not theories like CAGW and the nebulous “evidence” its supporters cite. I also think that most scientists outside the “climate” specialties would agree with me here, but they are afraid of being called deniers and losing their funding. For all their brilliance, most scientists (and engineers) are not terribly adept at the social game and so are more easily manipulated and bullied.

      • Martin Clark: So will you get a 7 or not? Should you bet a bundle on getting a 7?
        Polling is not the proper way to ascertain if scientists understand “unequivocal evidence”. Most would say “yes” even if in reality they don’t. Testing them is the only way to find out.

        Paul Penrose: Agreed. Such a term is never casual and not widely used. It’s reserved for a few very specific things in science. Or it was.

      • Indeed. I work with a computer modeller (healthcare spending). He’s qualified in math, trust me.

        A few years ago I was trying to point him to Climate Audit, explaining that one doesn’t need to know the actual physics (or chemistry or what have you) of climate change, but like Steve McIntyre (also qualified in math), one can at least check the numbers.

        I mentioned flipping a coin. Yes, its 50/50 every time you flip a coin that you will get a head, or a tail. That’s the “settled science” of the math.

        Here’s the gist of the conversation:

        If you say you flipped a coin 10 times and got 5 heads and 5 tails, i.e., 50/50, I’d say that its a small sample, and can I (pretty, pretty please) see your raw data. Just checking. Its science.

        You ignore me, slander me in emails to other scientists, then eventually deign to provide your awesome model. It shows that, indeed, you got 5 heads and 5 tails, but there were exactly 5 straight heads and 5 straight tails. Hmmm…

        I then take your exact model, and flip a coin 100 times. Again, no surprise, and I get 50 heads and 50 tails. Again, its 50 straight heads then 50 straight tails.

        I get a $200,000 grant from the government and flip the coin 100,000 times. Same 50/50 result, same run of 50,000 straight heads then 50,000 straight tails.

        The question is: when you question that you may be getting the “right” answer for the wrong reason?

    • “If there has been an assault on science, it has been by the likes of Mann and Jones, not the Trump administration.”

      Here, here. It’s the assault on science we elected Trump to STOP.

  17. Quoting:
    “Rejection of the unequivocal scientific evidence that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable. Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.”

    He uses both politics and science interchangeably in the many switchbacks he uses. He shames the politicians with scientific authority, and then shames the scientist with social authority. I’m getting dizzy. Can he just make a claim and back it up with evidence? [everyone together now] NO!

    What future generations will not comprehend is the fact that these failed ideas, once exposed, still do not go away. Perhaps they will still be there in the mid forties, claiming that “any day now!”

    • “Rejection of the unequivocal scientific evidence that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable. Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.”

      He’s describing AGW, which few deny, and using it as a strawman to defend CAGW.

  18. We scientists …

    In my career, I heard sentences start that way only a few times. Each time the rest of the sentence was crap. My reaction was always something like:

    Wee scientists … sure and what do the big scientists think?

  19. An argument for Trump works like this. You present your cost-benefit analysis, return-on-investment case, and you can get his admin to look at it. Screaming does not work. His admin has MBA DNA so you have to make an MBA argument. Everything else is just blather. What is surprising is the inability of Mann to understand his new boss and adjust his presentation. Even if his ROI case is simplistic, I think Trump would be impressed he tried.

  20. I think ol’ Mike is in a CYA mode – and perhaps a little too cocksure having had that CYA provided for him for WAY too long – he was extremely lucky to have Obama in the White House when Climategate broke.

  21. If I were Michael Mann, I’d be hiding in Mexico. Once people start looking into the “Science” behind this work they will demand he be put behind bars.

    Smoking Gun #21: The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.
    Smoking Gun #22: Climate “Science” isn’t science at all. Some described it as “Politicized” science, but in reality, it is just cleverly disguised politics.

  22. It sounds like Mann is denying that climate changes. Only 20 thousand years ago the US was covered in a mile of ice. Then, when CO2 was at its lowest the planet started to warm. Proving that low CO2 causes climate change.

    • So since both low CO2 and high CO2 can be shown to cause climate change, there is no way to adjust CO2 to prevent climate change.

      • You make a thought provoking point. I went back and looked at charts of C02 overlaid with the temperature trend from 1880 and even at the lowest points of C02, the temperature trend is rising. So how could returning C02 levels to around 285 ppm cause the temperature trend to do anything but what it did before? Assuming of course there is any cause and effect relationship going on.

  23. I believe that Michael Mann is a fraudster and should be held to account for the lies that he has expounded.

  24. Mann’s argument indicts HIMSELF; HE has been the one “taking tainted money from a subservice government”.

    By the way, I found a picture of Mann’s cousin:

    • Her brief is on behalf of CEI/NR, not Steyn (who severed his suit). See longer explanation at a comment to CliScep.com. Devil is in details. Still, well worth a read.

      • I have read Judy Curry’s brief and second ristvan’s opinion that it is well worth the 10-12 minutes that it will take to read and digest.

    • “……and they are largely ignored.”
      I think Scott Pruitt failed to get that memo.
      EPA and NASA scientists can try ignoring Pres Trump and let’s see where that will get them (See:Yates, Sally Q.)

    • Scientists who participate in marches are no longer scientists. (Except if you’re carrying your dog that’s a member of the UCS, of course.) Once one crosses over to the activist side, one is completely blind to anything other than their own beliefs. That’s pretty much the definition of activists—irrational allegience to an idea or belief. The scientist-turned-activist will do as Mann does and do whatever it takes to “win”. It’s no longer about science, it’s about “WINNING”.

  25. How to get the skeptics to believe in your theory (believing is apparently the most important thing in the world).

    … Proof; or,
    … Evidence (enough evidence gets you pretty close to proof in most cases).

    Well, on the straight-up “proof” side, we are getting nothing. If they would have just spent their last $20 billion trying to prove their case they would have been better off. You would think some would have tried to do so, but they probably failed to get there. In any event, there is Zero progress on the proof. Instead, the last $20 billion just went into propaganda efforts about how we need to “believe”..

    On the “evidence” front, well all we see here is the climate astrologers trying to adjust and make-up the evidence. A line going up (when half of that line is just unjustified adjustments) is not evidence. It is only evidence that we should be entirely skeptical of whatever is going on.

    So Mikey, proof and evidence first (and less you have to “believe”, that is for religions not science).

  26. The March on Science is scheduled for April 22 – “Earth Day”. It will be a fact-free, science-free day devoted to emotionalism, although billed as being “for science”. In short, it will be a circus atmosphere Leftist free-for-all, with lab coats, for that sciencey patina. Polar bears and anti-Trump signs will be in abundance. Talk about a madhouse.

  27. “the unequivocal scientific evidence”

    How come when ANYONE makes this type of statement (which I’ve been referring to as Climate Premature Ejaculation) it is ALWAYS followed by zero evidence ??

  28. What about this idea

    We should be able to quickly determine the money budgeted in 2017 for climate change related spending. We keep those things like satellites which require operational fund.

    Most of the other money we shift to lawb enforcement, education, and housing for distressed communities

    That should work well

  29. In the immortal words of Mel Brooks in “Blazing Saddles”, “We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately!”

  30. Once again, Michael E Mann mischaracterizes the whole argument, and has been playing the game too long for this to be accidental. The real argument is, and always was, that the warming effect appears grossly exaggerated, not that it doesn’t exist at all.

    Donald Trump (the 45th President of the United States of America) clearly understands this quite well. Yet Michael E Mann doesn’t? Not likely.

  31. Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.

    That’s got to be one of the most deranged and delusional quotes I’ve seen from Mann. Nothing quite like calling the current president of the United States “fringe” to wet you whistle is there?

    I wonder where he goes from here? Maybe he’ll impugn the Galactic Overlord next? What a complete waste of perfectly good air.

    • Oh, and thanks for the heads up Eric. I don’t spend nearly enough time scanning the media for little “gems” like this one. Without you I’d have missed it completely. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated.

    • And remember Trump got nearly 49 percent of the popular vote in PA so a strong plurality voted for what Mann is calling a “fringe politician” . A prime example of how disconnected from reality so many Academians in their isolated Ivory towers are. Is it any wonder how the produce the snow flake students that need “safe places” and counciling when reality Pierce’s their bubble?

    • In that respect, Mann is just following the Soros led attack on the President. Next Mann will be calling the President illegitimate

    • bartleby says “i wonder where he goes from here ?” .hopefully jail at some point,or at the very least into bankruptcy as a result of losing the steyn case.

      • I don’t know, it’s almost tempting to keep him a member of “the free range rude” in the words of Thomas Harris’ Hannibal Lecter character. As long as no one takes him seriously you have to admit he’s become a source of entertainment many of us enjoy. Locking him up might reduce his output? Maybe not though, it might give him more time to come up with idiocy.

        I actually read someone recently quoting a paper he’d co-authored in a conversation about the “Karl report” on the site “The Hill” (http://disq.us/p/1fz2mgk). The paper was offered as a criticism of Karl’s “work”, and I thought to myself, if I’d had to pick a paper to use as representative of sound criticism of Tom Karl, I wouldn’t pick anything Mann was involved with. He’s a laughingstock.

  32. I looked at the whole video. It was a chore but I wanted to know it from the horse’s mouth. He has his science wrong at critical points but fills in time with simple general explanations. Here is how he and others try to use observations to back up their phony climate predictions. Thiswas videotaped before the rains came to California which makes the current observation possible. He immediately starts up by claiming that the California drought was caused by global warming which thereby becomes a threat to us.. No go, it went away. So he tries another ssituation, one that involves Arctic warming. With that he is completely off reality. To him, Arctic warming is just like the rest of global warming despite the failure of models to explain it. He was objecting to the fact that Arctic warming was faster than the nodels predicted.and he started to complain that it was going twice as fast as his climate models were predicting. Those models are worthless of course and have never produced any correct future climate predictions. As to Arctic warming, it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect of the models and is kept going by warm water from the Gulf Stream. I proved that it started with a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century. For two thousand years prior to that there was nothing in the Arctic except for slow, linear cooling. Present warming started at the beginning of the twentieth century as a result of a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system. It caused the the Gulf Stream to be pointed more directly into the Arctic Ocean. Gulf Stream begins by leaving the Gulf of Mexico through the Florida Straits. It then heads north parallel to the east coast, and eventually turns west into the North Sea as Ben Franklin knew. In 2010 Spielhagen et al. made an Arctic excursion and discovered by direct measurement that Atlantic water temperature entering the Arctic Ocean was warmer than had been recorded at any previous time. The original warming was interrupted by cooling in mid-twentieth century, but then recovered in 1970 and has been active since. All measurements of Arctic water temperature started in the late seventies and people taking them have no idea of what happened before that. I expect the warming to eventually reach an equilibrium state and establish a new Arctic standard. All this and more you can read about in my article in E&E, Volume 22, issue 8 (2011). Mann missed all that by refusing to read science written by unbelievers such as myself.

    • “He was objecting to the fact that Arctic warming was faster than the models predicted.and he started to complain that it was going twice as fast as his climate models were predicting. ”

      I just want to note that models warming too fast mean the model is broken, not that “it’s worse than we thought”. There seems to be some confusion on that point when conversing with warmists.

      • Does that mean that you acknowledge the fact that the Arctic is warming faster than predicted? Or are you just trying to change the subject because you don’t like the fact that the Arctic is warming?

      • Let it warm, Martin–what has that got to do with CO2?

        Are you saying there’s a super concentration of CO2 in the air over the Arctic?

        Or could that “warming” simply be a natural phenomena or it could be a relict of extrapolation of peripheral temperatures into an area unsupported by actual temperature stations.

      • I can’t say either way, Martin. Insufficient data. It’s warmer this year and was warmer last year. The model creators say it’s warming faster than their models predicted, and since it’s their models, I must take their word for it. How much warmer it is in reality (than whenever it’s being compared to), again, I cannot say.

    • Yes, Martin, the models as usual, are wrong. They show no predictive ability, so why should we believe them. As to why the Arctic is warming, all I can say is “natural variation”. And since we have very sparse data before the satellite era, nobody can prove its not. But what’s the problem here? An ice free Arctic Ocean would be a good thing as it would open up new shipping routes. Notice I said “Arctic Ocean”, as the entire Arctic is not going to become ice free (or even remotely close) within any time frame that concerns us.

  33. If they modeled the past 800,000 years of stadial/interstadial periods including the current interstadial, it would be indistinguishable from current observations. Therefore the null hypothesis must be accepted. Current warming and CO2 levels are behaving as if natural drivers are at work. It baffles me that a so called distinguished professor does not admit to that.

    • Pamela Gray says: “If they modeled the past 800,000 years”
      They didn’t, making your premise false, which allows you to logically conclude anything. Not only can you conclude the null hypothesis must be accepted, you can also logically conclude the null hypothesis must be rejected. Isn’t logic fun?

      • The past 800,000 years has been determined using ice cores, Martin. What’s to model?

        (Of course, their modeling has failed to model the past say nothing of failing to model the future–where’s the logic in that?)

      • Thank you RockyRoad for confirming the fact that they did not model.
        Pamela Grey, per your link, they used data, not a model, so again your assertion that that they modeled the past 800,000 years is false

        Now Pamela, what can one conclude from a false premise ?

      • PS Pamela, nowhere in ANY of the ice core record for the past 800,000 years can you find evidence that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been at 400 ppm (as they are today.) Due to this fact your assertion that the null hypothesis must be accepted is incorrect.

      • Martin, do you have any proof that climate modelers have NOT modeled the past 800,000 years?

        It’s rather absurd that you should make such a claim–you may assume they haven’t but their hind-casting has been so terrible that publishing such and expecting to remain at the funding trough is absurd.

        You also lied when you said I confirmed the fact that the modelers did not model the past 800,000 years–I made no such assertion. The main point is that science has produced data against which models can be compared.

        But I’m willing to bet a month’s wages that they HAVE modeled the past 800,000 years, perhaps over and over and over, and found that their models were crap.

        I bases my assumptions on personal experience: much of my career was spent modeling another natural phenomena–that of ore deposits, then modeling the economic results. And I always modeled similar deposits and compared them with their actual (mined) results as a to of my modeling procedures.

        So if climate modelers are being professional, they also would model the past and use it as a check on their procedure and assumptions. The fact they’ve not been willing to divulge these results in no way means they didn’t do them.

        No, it most likely means the results were so bad they didn’t want to admit it.

        (“Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan” would undoubtedly apply to them.)

      • Modeling can include data. Several current models encorporate observations in the framework. So it appears Mr. Clark may not be up to speed on the various ways past temperatures can be used to create models that produce synthesized output.

        Further more ice cores homogenize CO2 layer after layer, which then demonstrates degradation at depth. So one cannot say whether or not CO2 has been at 400 ppm in the past 800,000 years. Mr. Clark is likely using the inappropriately spliced ice core graph for his assertion, as many do without realizing it. That graph splices the ice core index to current direct measures, which creates a false impression of continuity.

        So far Mr. Clark appears to be standing on a soap box spouting someone else’s talking points without having done his due diligence in applying discernment to those talking points.

  34. These guys should remember Trump was famous for “you’re fired” before he became famous for “Make America Great again”.

  35. ” The era of climate change denial is over ”

    And here the critics of the hysteria induced climate change are still here. Chipping away at their immortal and unchanging laws, according to them, etched in granite.

    Isn’t that a tactic of communists to project a power base by illusion ? Rebellion by scientists on the government dole? What are they going to do, adjust the data? Falsify reports? Hide the decline? I can see the outraged “scientists” certified by card card and donations, ( isnt Kengi marching? ) But you’re not a climate scientists are you?

  36. “The obvious next step in this rebellion is mass resignation..”

    Just like our worried overlords, academics and publicly paid officials all tweeting and demonstrating that they will no longer tolerate being airconditioned, just like the ancestors, all for the sake of the grandkiddies. Rug up or strip off for the planet is their battle cry as they set the shining example for all those working in the great outdoors and in the natural climate of our workshops and factories. Hollywood to the fore!

  37. I believe Mann’s words need some clarification:

    “We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot [heh, heh–my first lie] who would much rather spend our time in the lab [distorting our results], out in the field [searching for the best data point to support our self-serving world-view], teaching [falsehoods to further our career and guarantee our funding] and doing research [on how to use the legal system to destroy our enemies]. It is only the most unusual of circumstances [when our long list of nefarious deeds will expose us and destroy our careers] that gets us marching in the streets [to riot, break windows, torch cars, and injure cops]. Trump’s assault on [our bogus ] science is just such a circumstance. And we are seeing a rebellion continue to mount [or else we’re bound for the dust bins of history and maybe the penitentiary–oh dear!!]


  38. What if Trump said “Climate change is real, its man made, but we are zeroing out the federal climate change budget” That would upset Michael Mann and his group more than if Trump said climate change is a hoax but we’ll continue funding the climate change budgets. The “denial” they are upset about is the denial of the gravy train of money that has developed for climate change related studies and research.

  39. Mikey Mann wrote: “Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused,….

    I’ll reword Mikey’s claim to make it more representative of the actual state of affairs: Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the consensus of scientists payed to show that climate change is real and human-caused, …

    Put that way, I’m as convinced climate change is real and human-caused as I would be convinced of a defendant’s innocence because the consensus of lawyers paid to represent the defendant proclaim the defendant’s innocence.

    • Not necessarily. If he really believes he’s right, there is no dissonance. Cognitive dissonance only occurs when someone is doing something against what they believe. If he went out and said he adored Trump in the hopes of getting more grants, that would produce cognitive dissonance.

  40. “changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable.”

    Presuming mankind could control climate:

    Mann, please explain the social acceptability of the climate reference point at the end of 1800’s. Those days Finland suffered a year without a summer. Crops failed. People suffered from cold, famine and mass starvation. Why should they return back to it? Thank you.

  41. “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron because science is not a democracy. The Laws of science is not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated via a voting process. There is no “scientific consensus” with regarts to the AGW conjecture because sceintists never actually registered and voted on the matter. The AGW conjecture must be very problematic if those who believe in it must use “scientific consensus” as a reason why it must be true. I myself would like to use AGW as an additional reason to conserve on the use of fossil fuel but the AGW conjecture has a few problems. Some of them are.

    1. The AGW conjecture depends on the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases but to date such as effect has not been detected anywhere in the solar system. Because the radiant greenhouse effect is fiction so must be the AGW conjecture.

    2. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

    3. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.

    4. The initial calculations of the Plank effect climate sensivity of CO2 were found to be too great by more than a factor of 20 because the calculations did not take into consideration that doubling the amount of CO2 will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate which is a counteracting cooling effect. So instead of a value of 1.2 degrees C, the climate sensivity of CO2 is less than .02 degrees C, a rather trivial amount.

    5. To be significant the AGW conjecture depends upon H2O providing a positive feedback to the warming effect of CO2 so as to amplify CO2’s effect on climate. But, besides other additional reasons, based on the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry laps rate, more H2O acts as a coolant and hence provides negative feedback diminishing any warming effect that CO2 might have.

    6. The IPCC’s models that include CO2 based warming have all been wrong and have predicted warming that never happened.

    7..After more than two decades of work the IPCC has failed to measure the ture climate sensifity of CO2. It is as if the climate sensivity of CO2 were really zero. They have been unable to narrow the range of their guesses one iota.

    8. The AGW conjecture ignores the fact that heat energy transport by conduction and convection in the troposphere dominates over heat energy transport by LWIR absorption band radiation.

    • Climate “Science” needs to change from being a religion to being evidence based. They need to start believing what they see rather than seeing what they believe.

  42. I can’t help but feel that this whole argument is a political distraction from the main event! Maybe the climate isn’t changing, maybe it is? Maybe it’s man made maybe it isn’t? Maybe Government money is being wasted, but then there is nothing new in that and research has to have many losses, many dead ends, to make real progress?
    So why is this all a distraction? The crux for me is that many of our energy resources are finite and we are using them up at a tremendous rate, on the cheap. By that I mean we have, perhaps, greatly underestimated the externalities and ‘discounted’ benefits for future generations. Society and energy companies seem to have no interest in re-valuation and this whole argument has got politicians and the public confused (which I suspect was not unintentional). Thus allowing politicians and energy companies to stitch together climate change and renewable energy, so ditching (or hiding) renewable energy R&D and downgrading financial support for its use to combat the under-valuation of current energy.

    Just a thought?

    • Paul you make very little coherent sense. Your argument seems to be rooted in a version of the conspiracy theory that “fossil fuel” companies have secretly known there is a “climate crisis” but hid this vital information from the world. Feel free to respond evidence and not conspiratorial b.s..

    • Paul,
      You make the mistake of assuming that our present valuation of fossil fuels – as valuable when your car needs a tank – will be held valuable still by those future generations you mention.
      Who can really foresee specific future values in a world that sees so much rate of change as for example, with computers?

      • Why is this an mistaken Geoff? without urgently searching for alternatives, funded by current energy use, they will be more valuable as they become more scarce, at least Economics 101 would have us believe. Only extensive R&D and infrastructure development will ensure this is not so, it won’t just happen( or do you know something I don’t about future energy sources?). The AGW denial argument seems to be being used to support profligate fossil fuel use and cutting government funding from sustainable alternatives. I’m suggesting the AGW line of argument is erroneous, and a distractor for the public ( and politicians)from the main issue.

      • Paul,
        Your use of “denial” is as bigoted towards us as if you were calling African Americans ‘ni@@e&’ for being too uppity and complaining about the condescending haters who controlled the discussion for far too long.
        Your intellectual bigotry and reliance on conspiratorial claims is a pretty good tell you have no idea of what you are talking about and are not interested in a serious honest discussion.

      • Paul: “By that I mean we have, perhaps, greatly underestimated the externalities and ‘discounted’ benefits for future generations.” My grandfather farmed with mules, came to America on a boat, and lived to see people walk on the moon. Now, we talk to each other on cell phones, can put locators on things so we can find them anywhere in the world, real-time events are broadcast on Facebook and pictures are zeros and ones on a computer drive. How in the world can we foresee the needs of future generations?
        How could the people in the 19th century have planned for cars and trains? Should they have been frantically looking for alternatives because we might one day run out of room for raising horses? No one can see 100 years in the future and only fools pretend they can.

        As for fuel running out, oil, gas and coal are not faucets that shut off 100% at some time in the future. It’s a slow process and innovation comes as the supplies dwindle. If someone tomorrow created an energy source better, cheaper and more reliable than oil, gas or coal, the transition would start now. Since none exist, the R & D goes on. Oil and gas were not used to “save the future” from horses running out. They were used because they worked.

  43. Emigration to a welcoming Canada is another option. It would greatly improve climate science in the US.

    • Not so fast Ed. There are a growing number of canucks wanting a wall built to keep out the US snowflakes – as soon as we get ride of our own snowflake – trudeau.

  44. “The obvious next step in this rebellion is mass resignation..”
    Please correct me if my failing memory is at fault , but did not the airport controllers of US try to destroy the early Reagan administration by going on strike? I have the impression that Reagan won by sacking them and hiring replacements .
    Perhaps the striking scientists of US should be reminded that the teeming universities of China and India produce , each year , thousands of highly gifted young men and women easily capable of replacing them in virtually any discipline .

  45. I don’t usually look at the US press but today I looked at the NYT online. The front page had a quiz about what choices I would make on climate policy. I supplied typical sceptical answers. I was surprised by the commentary provided by the quiz. It scolded me on each answer and concluded that I was very bad for the planet. It treated me like a badly behaved child.

    Clearly, a comprehensive belief in AGW was a given for the NYT. The quiz treated non-believers like morons. i don’t think I’ll waste more time on this publication any time soon. I was absolutely astonished by the puerile nature of the propaganda piece.

    • On that note check out my link (5.33am) to the Milo Yiannopoulos treatment at UC Berkeley and listen to the reporter dismissing him as an ‘internet troll’ and I’d suggest you got off lightly with the NYT ;)

    • I agree. I laughed at the comment I got after scoring zero on the test:

      “You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

      On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”

  46. Funny thing is, so far only one scientist has been principled enough to resign over ethical considerations . . . and she did it for exactly the opposite reason that Mann is claiming.

  47. I seem to remember reports on here that Climate Scientists claim the Deniers are funded by big oil, while it is actually they themselves in receipt of the money. The standing joke being, “I am still waiting for my check”.

    Will this funding also dry up when DT turns off the EPA money and starts opening pipe lines and encouraging shale extraction?

  48. “The era of climate change denial is over.” I suppose Mr. Mann can say that assuming all he reads and listens to repeat the same lies. But from where I sit there more and more evidence exposing it for the hoax it is. And the “scientists” do not have any reasonable explanations for the failure of their models. In fact most of their reasons are so far afield from a scientific explanation that it is embarrassing.

  49. Hickory dickory dock
    Mann published a crock
    When all was done
    And he thought he had won
    He was left holding his …… clock

  50. “We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot ..”

    I’m sure there many more than one actually reticent and actually scientist that, if they weren’t so reticent, would say, “What do you mean “We”?

  51. It’s like he’s forming the Committee to Re-Elect Donald Trump.

    These people still do not realize how ridiculous they look doing this stuff.

  52. A book from Mann, to expensive and no where near good enough … to be used as toilet paper , which is a shame as that is all its useful for .

  53. You know the scary global warming hoax is over when promoters try to get their books out before
    it disappears . You have to hand it to them though . Pitching fiction that a warming world is bad
    proves suckers continue to be born. And who knew … climate changes . The horror .

    What ever happened to those leaned scientists that promoted the 1970’s global cooling BS ?

  54. Until Mann makes his raw data and all algorithms for manipulating it into the hockey stick available to other researchers, what he is doing isn’t science, and he is not a scientist. Instead, he just makes an assertion, and then attempts by all means necessary (including life-ruining lawsuits) to shut down anyone who dares question those assertions. I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but the Catholic Church did the same thing with the Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of Galileo.

  55. Two things. I am biased on this subject, and my mother told me that if I did not have anything nice to say, to not say anything at all.

  56. After the warming accelerated a bit in the 1980,/90’s, we were told that the “science is serried” and “the debate is over”.
    Then we went into a pause or hiatus in the warming……some might have called it a slowdown but there was widespread agreement for numerous years on the less warming for at least 15 years.

    Then we found out that the temperatures during the hiatus that we tracked for 15+ years, needed to be adjusted and suddenly, just like the Medieval Warm Period was adjusted out of climate history with the hockey stick graph, new, updated temperature graphs showed there never really was a slowdown in warming.

    Good thing the gate keepers of temperature data and records know how to adjust temperatures to correct all those errors we get from using raw data (-:

  57. One of these days he will have all the time in the world to march in the streets, that and stand in the unemployment line.

  58. The picture of this guy can’t be real . No one has a pointed head like that .
    Glad it’s warming though .

  59. We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot …

    Well, to his credit, never let it be said that Mann is not dedicated to “recycling”. He used this very same depiction more than three years ago, when he was defending Stocker’s choice:

    … partially due to the culture of science. Scientists tend to be reticent … we don’t like to make strong conclusions that we have to withdraw at some later time …

    Source: <a href="https://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/reticent-mann-skates-onto-melting-ice-reinforces-stockers-choice/ title="Reticent Mann skates onto melting ice, reinforces Stocker’s 'choice'"

    Perhaps, the corollary to this is: “Once we’ve arrived at a conclusion – regardless of its “strength” – we’re never gonna back down”.

    OTOH, I suppose it is possible that – in true climateering fashion – Mann has … uh ,,, redefined “reticence” and we must now add this word to the ever-growing “language laundry” list – along with “trick”, “decline”, “projection” etc. ;-)

  60. His theory was disproven by readings over the last 13 years.
    Hilarious that he has the gall to open his yapper and talk about “extremists” that got it all wrong..

Comments are closed.