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
BY MICHAEL E. MANN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 01/31/17 12:10 PM EST
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.
…
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.
“…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.
Centre County is beginning to wake up the fact that something is fishy in Mann-Ville.
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,
You mean self-disembodiment?
Actually Non, harakiri or seppuku would be referred to as self disembowelment.
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?
“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:
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:
Don’t we mean …Mann made climate fears ?
“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”
Yes Mikey, so why don’t you stop doing it?
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.
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?
Not when it comes to his “Nobel Prize”.
My impression of Michael Mann is not fit to be repeated in genteel company.
Michael Mann works for Penn State, a public university. He is absolutely a government employee.
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.
Reticent about sharing data, i.e. “A Disgrace To The Profession”.
ACTIVISTS MARCH, NOOOT “reticent” SCIENTISTS. Data clearly shows Activism Prevents Objectivity.
I keep insisting that no one, no one, believes that climate doesn’t change. Where are all of those climate change deniers?
Aren’t they the ones that made the “stick” on the hockey stick? Eons of time with NO changes.
Dëñíers of the Holocene Optimum, neoglaciation, MWP, RWP, and 1940”s peak.
We know who the real climate change dëñíers are.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/29/ipcc-objectives-and-methods-mandated-elimination-reduction-manipulation-of-inadequate-real-data-and-creation-of-false-data/comment-page-1/#comment-2412106
[excerpt]
The global cooling that happened from ~1940 to ~1975 during the time that fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated essentially disproves the CAGW hypothesis.
Imagine IF we had a similar situation starting about now:
Hypothetically, let’s say from 2020 to 2055 there was continued fossil fuel combustion and a significant increase in atmospheric CO2, and yet average global temperature cooled by ~0.5C.
What would this say about ECS and the CAGW hypo? I suggest it would say that ECS ~=zero and that the CAGW hypo is falsified.
But this has already happened, which is why the warmists have falsified the temperature record in order to minimize this ~35-year past cooling
In other words, we already have a good bound on the magnitude of ECS (near-zero = insignificant) and we already have strong evidence that the CAGW hypo is false.
Regards, Allan
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?
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?
Wow I have never seen a picture of that guy, what a total dweeb. Probably got more money than me….life ain’t fair.
Don’t judge a book by its cover.
In this case, the book is far worse than the cover.
He reminds me of an angry puffer fish.
PMK
How he looks is irrelevant to how stupid he can be, an ad hominem, in fact.
+ 1, Mark.
Largely true, with one exception.
Yes, and no. Stupid people are not able to envision how they look to others. Hey, Mike, the 1990’s called, and they want their goatee back.
Why don’t we ask them all to jump off a cliff in protest? Oh, it will cause pollution. But then they all exhale…
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
Exactly. VERY few have bought Mann’s book. Now, if he would change sides and write a book saying that climate change isn’t happening, then he’d have a best seller and be a millionaire instead of in the poorhouse.
As expected, The Madhouse Effect ranks 18,552 on Amazon, having sold 146 books worldwide in January.
(apparently not widely distributed)
Thrift-shop owners?
I was going to say that a lot of liberals would buy it for their conservative friends.
Then I remembered, liberals don’t spend their own money.
Should that be “Only 27% of Americans DO believe”?
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.
“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.
The President of the United States is now a “fringe” politician? Interesting.
“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.
I’m waiting for climate stasis and the seas to stop rising.
Did you mean “climate stasis” or the “Climate Stasi”?
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.
Here’s the main part of the tree ring circus that Mann is leading:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cgkopqRHG68/VRRmwyoxRgI/AAAAAAAABTo/xbRwZfne6iA/s1600/11026295_1015803375097219_5652134536695330357_n.jpg
The word “consensus” should be in there also.
This is an insult to chimpanzees everwhere.
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.
…and Naven Johnson.
http://s27.postimg.org/dqi1kgfab/climate_change_cans.png
and don’t forget Ronald MacDonald (soon to be unemployed) and Alfred E. Neuman.
Toles is hard left. Mann’s partnering whit him is what poker players call a tell.
+ excellent!
And bloggers. And countless activists. And churnolists. And everything that uses (some variety of) enviro- as a prefix.
And don’t forget every (ever so slightly) left leaning politician. They and only they need to fix this mess. And do it now.
It is time for everybody else to just shut up now.
You forgot the “Doomsday” cultists and all of their “tipping point” predictions.
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.
Energy is freedom.
“Climatology now is leftist advocacy that masquerades as “science.””
Yup. Let’s just hope this changes once the “golden goose” of funding gets slaughtered.
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.
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!”
He’s describing AGW, which few deny, and using it as a strawman to defend CAGW.
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:
+1
LOL touche!
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.
Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Progressives can not fathom losing. They believed they would be in power for the remainder of eternity. They had no plan to deal with loss other than tantrums and holding their breath till they pass out. Loss is not a reality to these people. They MUST win and if they don’t, they still did in their minds. Even now, they don’t believe Trump won, they believe only that people don’t yet realize that Trump lost.
You’ve got their attitude knocked, Sheri. Being wrong is not an option. They just *know* that victory would follow if only they could convey their message properly.
March last year I published this about Progressivism.
Following Trump’s victory, I think now that article conveys some of what people are so fed up about and why so many voted for him.
Stick to chemistry Frank, because you are out of your league in politics.
Quite right, Sheri, but even more-so, they can’t understand how to make money, other than it comes from a money tree AKA other people’s pockets.
@ur momisugly Pat Frank February 1, 2017 at 7:12 pm
In contradiction to Martin Clark’s rude comment (above) regarding Dr Frank’s essay on Progressivism, I found it enlightening, beautifully constructed and erudite.
Yep, Sheri – look
Pat Frank on February 1, 2017 at 7:12 pm
You’ve got
Being wrong is not an option.
Good from frankly Bat. No?
March last year I published
Martin,
You should stick to…er, whatever you are good at, because you suck at this!
Your empty dismissal is an exercise in fatuity, Martin Clark.
“Loss is not a reality to these people.”
Reality is not reality to these people.
TA: Well said!
Thanks for your kind words, Luc. And sorry about the messed up link. 🙂
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.
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.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
Smoking gun number one would be the contents of Mann’s “Back to 1400 CENSORED” directory.
Here, after 18 years, he’s still not published the code for how he calculated the MBH98/99 hockey stick.
That entire “science” needs to be put of trial. Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
I’m told that if you put baseball scores into Mann’s “model” it will pump out a “hockey stick”.
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.
I believe that Michael Mann is a fraudster and should be held to account for the lies that he has expounded.
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:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5557340276_e006d1c63d.jpg
Now you’re insulting gerbils. Mean, mean, mean.
…my apologies to gerbils. I will send a token donation to the ASPCA. /s
There are gerbil rescue societies you could donate to. 🙂
(Are you frightened now?!)