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.
IF you define scientist as a person that practices the scientific method this fella mann is NOT a scientist on any level.
NZPETE mentions Mark Steyn above. It appears that Judith Curry has filed an amicus brief in support of Steyn in the defamation suit brought by Mann.
Read 1/31/17: http://www.steynonline.com/7690/a-serial-transgressor-of-scientific-norms
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.
A “Scientist” that argues “Consensus” isn’t a scientist at all.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-the-consensus-is-more-con-and-nonsense-than-science/
“……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.)
Finally real science will return to NASA. I don’t know if it ever existed at the EPA.
If anyone knows about “assault,” it is Michael Mann and the “consensus” scientists. Their antics are well documented.
Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/climate-bullies-gone-wild-caught-on-tape-and-print/
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”.
Per the climate gate e-mails, it’s all about “our cause”.
That is so true, we have activists masquerading as “scientists.” How and why the Universities have condoned this is beyond me, everyone will end up paying the price.
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).
That does it!
If Michael Mann is going to be at the scientist’s march, I’m going to help see to it that Kenji is there too, to see a proper dignity restored!
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.
Emotional Incontinence is all the rage these days.
Well said.
If the climate has a soul, on that day it will rain – heavily!
Even better would be late season sleet.
20 bucks says local universities offer extra credit to students who “participate”. GMU will probably provide shuttles. My tax dollars at work. 😛
“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 ??
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
Let’s stop with the ‘we’ statements get to the fact finding.
I think some Mann handling is in order.
Maybe if he is honest he could refund all of his government grant money.
When Donald Trump gets on to the squandering of tax payers money for foolish grants, I would expect some interesting entertainment.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I’m gonna be a famous Mann someday
http://famousclowns.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/bozo-bob-bell.jpg
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!”
Harrumph!
It’s very hard to watch your own ass…
Steve, that was art. Seriously. 🙂
Perfect! +10!!
Mann seems to be stuck in the second stage of Kübler-Ross model while some others seem to be moving towards the third.
Assault on Science..!!
Mickey Mann has nothing to worry about then , does he. !
“Blinded by Science!”
You can’t even pay for material like this. 🙂
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.
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.
Of course he is publishing another book. He will need every dollar he has when he loses that court case against Steyn!
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.
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?)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6054/347.full?sid=6dd66f17-4fe9-4f36-bda4-0b589ea22723
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.
These guys should remember Trump was famous for “you’re fired” before he became famous for “Make America Great again”.
” 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?
“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!
The Rake’s Progress:
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=264&ei=HbuSWM68LczA6ATEv6qoCw&q=The+Rake%27s+Progress%3A&oq=The+Rake%27s+Progress%3A&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12
1. Climate change denial is not dead
2. BY MICHAEL E. MANN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 01/31/17 12:10 PM EST
3. The era of climate change denial is over.
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!!]
There–clarified!