Hump Day Hilarity: Mann-o-War at the House Climate Science Hearing

Josh writes:

On this historic Brexit day the fun has not been confined to this continent. Over in the US they have had a ‘hearing’ on Climate Science with three of the world’s most eminent climate scientists. Michael Mann was there too.

The Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. On the Panel were Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy. Dr. Michael Mann, and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Worth watching (nearly) the whole thing.


Added: links to written testimony are within each name. – Anthony


Dr. Judith Curry

President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. John Christy

Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama at Huntsville; State Climatologist, Alabama

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. Michael Mann

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University; Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Professor, Environmental Studies Department, University of Colorado

[Truth in Testimony]

UPDATE: From Marc Morano at Climate Depot

AP’s Borenstein calls out Michael Mann for a whopper: ‘Mann said he didn’t call Curry a denier. But in his written testimony he called Curry ‘a climate science denier’


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

10/10 Josh

george e. smith

G’day Chasmod !


CtheM, yup. Brilliant. Means I have to order the 2018 calendar even tho only March 2017. Computer wallpaper not good enough.


Note that it starts 18mins in on the hour.

Paul Penrose

More like 16 minutes.

J Mac

Fair and Balanced…..
With no mannipulation of data or facts needed!

It’s Another Great Day For America and our British allies and friends!


You left out that Dr. Mann is a Nobel Prize laureate, (I think it was the Nobel Prize for fictional literature).

That is because some spiteful sceptics disputed the authenticity of his no bell award, however we can say that concusses is, as the photograph below shows, his award is 97% authentic.

Mayor of Venus

I’ve often thought that should be spelled the “No Belt” award, where the t is silent as in the Cobert report. I envision a brass statue of a doofus desperate to hold up his pants which are falling off for lack of a belt.

I believe John Christy was also part of that Nobel Prize laureate entourage… But, I think he refused to accept his symbolic share of the prize.

Nigel S

The EU got one too so we’ll have to hand ours back after Brexit and no doubt our share of the prize.


Wrong it was “Science Fiction”.

NW sage

It was sports – the ‘hockey stick’ – but the Canadians rejected that notion!

Joel Snider

One thing I picked up about Mann after reading the Climategate e-mails is that he’s a fairly caustic, arrogant personality that rankled the feathers of even his close associates.

I have other words to describe that type of personality but, out of consideration for the sensibilities of other posters, I will decline to use them here.

Leo Smith

I’ll see you next tuesday?

Adam Gallon

Yes, referred to as “Thin-skinned” by Briffa.

J Mac

Re: “..caustic, arrogant personality…”
In reading mann’s testimony, this comes through clearly!


More inhumanity has been done by Mann himself than any other of nature’s causes.



he’s a fairly caustic, arrogant personality that rankled the feathers of even his close associates.

Just compare his introduction (above) of himself compared to those of the other three.

Josh makes a serious point about him.

Ron Williams

Did I hear correctly Dr. Mann in his opening statement, that cattle were recently burned alive as a result of the Attribution of CO2 to Climate Change? On what alter were these cattle burned alive? I had thought that even our savage ancestors who sacrificed the Bull, actually killed the cow first before burning it at the alter.
What a creep…call the SPCA.

Ms Bonamici asked everyone to imagine 96 other Dr Manns in the room. Okay. Drain The Swamp!

Joel Snider

‘Ms.’ Bonamici is local where I live and she’s a party-line hack who is literally dumber than a rock.

Mann drips arrogance. That’s just it in a nutshell. He’s right, you’re wrong, that’s it; end of conversation.

I love how Mr.Mann talks about all the threats and the fear of jailing scientists when its the Skeptics who are under attack and threatened with jail. It’s called “Projecting” and the Left is doing it like crazy.

My reaction exactly. Mann is suing Steyn, and is an advisor to CAI cofounded by Oreskes of Merchants of Doubt infamy that advocates RICO against ‘deniers’. Also Wasn’t too smart to cite a Science op ed calling Committee Chair Smith a denier in his own sworn testimony to Smith.


Projecting is stock-in-trade for the left. If the left accuses someone of a behaviour or activity, then you will almost certainly find it as an important part of the left’s modus operandi.
The left lies, projects, and hates. The left is the place where people who like exercising those personality traits find their best expression. It is created by those kinds of people, and for those kinds of people. Many good people get attracted by the PR, but in the end they tend to leave or get forced out.


And the true nature of the Left is the increase in State Power which can only come by reducing Individual Liberty. Of course, the ‘State’ is an abstract entity, so ‘increase in State Power’ actually means ‘increase in power by the “elites” that control the State’. Leftism is the desire by control freaks to tell others what to do using the guns of the State to accomplish this.

Robbing the earnings of hard-working people using the guns of the State is also what the Left does when it wants to play Santa Claus with the fruits of the labor of others. But really the Left is about increasing State POWER.


Democrats take money from people who work for a living, in order to give it to those who vote for a living.

Great statement!

Joel Snider

I wouldn’t call it ‘projecting’ – it’s redirection, to hide the fact that, in nearly every case, the specific charge is exactly what THEY are doing.

That’s why it is called projection. They are projecting their own motives, beliefs and actions onto others to keep others from looking at them.

Joel Snider

As I understand the difference, ‘projection’ is an unconscious rather than deliberate action. ‘Redirection’ is a deliberate act to cover one’s motives.

Well this does show that Mikey is an expert at one thing. That is, using any argument at any time from both sides of his mouth.
Unfortunately the Rohrabacher chastisement has been meddled with. I’m a broadcast technician, that is only possible to happen through “finger trouble”.

Yes, he is either living in a delusional state or a skillful propagandists, and I find it difficult to use the term “skillful” in his vicinity. He also spoke of being threatened with law suits as a form of intimidation or bullying, however I believe there was only one person on the scientific panel who actually resorted to that tactic and then fell into a perpetual stalling mode when it came to discovery. That person of course was sitting in Dr. Mann’s chair. Very funny was his description of Lysenkoism in Stalinist USSR and the implication that everyone on the panel but himself had fallen into the trap of false belief, when three panelists were speaking very eloquently in favour of recognizing and reinforcing the proper scientific process and removing political and individual biases from the process. Only one person was trying to defend policy driving science and again that person had taken the seat reserved for Dr. Mann.

Owen M

Trump needs to hold a livestream debate on climate change, let the public decide for themselves rather than this “well hes funded by fossil fuel industry” and “science is settled” crap


It would be helpful if he, personally, even if only by tweeting, debunked the “97% of all scientists” Big Lie by the myth-mongering Mainstream Media. Opening that topic for discussion would help to educate those in the public who have uncritically bought that fake news line.

that one kills me. people think I am nuts for not buying it. I gave up trying to offer the debunking info for folks to consider.


Show them the original papers. They will see the flaws.
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes et al
Science 03 Dec 2004:
Vol. 306, Issue 5702, pp. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618;
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Cook et al
15 May 2013, Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

Mayor of Venus

Curry, Christy, and Pilkie should have explained that they themselves are card-carrying members of the 97%. Everyone who understands that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and its increase in the atmosphere causes a little surface warming, is in the 97%, as defined in Lewindowski’s paper. The 97% includes all from alarmists about dangerous warming to Monckton expecting small, gentle and beneficial warming. The 3% (the “deniers”) are those who mis-understand the role of greenhouse gases elevating surface temperature. On my planet the surface temperature of >600 K is attributed to the massive atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide, 200 thousand times more than present in Earth’s atmosphere. But some bloggers, in the 3% category, believe Venus’ surface temperature would be the same (>600 K) if its massive atmosphere were not carbon dioxide but even an optically inert gas such as Argon.


The 97% particularly means dangerous climate change; that’s what it means; and it is a patent lie.

Mayor of Venus writes: “if its massive atmosphere were not carbon dioxide but even an optically inert gas such as Argon.”

But of course Argon isn’t optically inert. You’ve familiar with the Krypton/Argon laser? Argon just needs a bit of help sometimes.



You say: “But of course Argon isn’t optically inert. You’ve familiar with the Krypton/Argon laser? Argon just needs a bit of help sometimes.”

Surely you understand that Argon is not significantly radiative/absorptive at atmospheric temperatures?

You sound like those deluded people who say that a pure nitrogen+oxygen atmosphere (i.e. containing no other gases, water, or particulate matter) would exhibit surface warming properties. Whereas the truth is that such an atmosphere would be entirely transparent to surface LW radiation, resulting in a mean surface temperature similar that that of the Moon (about 200K).


You say: “But of course Argon isn’t optically inert. You’ve familiar with the Krypton/Argon laser? Argon just needs a bit of help sometimes.”

Surely you now that Argon is not radiative/absorptive at atmospheric pressures and temperatures. That’s why it is not classed as a GHG.

I hope your not joining the deluded people who think that an atmosphere consisting only of oxygen and nitrogen would cause any warming at all. Its surface temperature would be about the same as the Moon (~220K).

Bartleby April 1, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Mayor of Venus writes: “if its massive atmosphere were not carbon dioxide but even an optically inert gas such as Argon.”

But of course Argon isn’t optically inert. You’ve familiar with the Krypton/Argon laser? Argon just needs a bit of help sometimes.

Actually a lot of help, it has to be ionized first. They’re Argon-ion lasers where the ions are formed by passing a electric discharge through the argon gas, only takes ~1500 kJ/mol compared with 8 kJ/mol for the vibrational excitation of CO2.


Yes, I agree. We’ve heard from the alarmists for what, 25 years now? With 90% of media coverage all about the pending “catastrophe”.


Makes for good sci-fi scare movies replayed at 1:00am. Also for 30sec b-roll on CNN (climate nonsense news),


Tim Crome

I note that only one of the four is a Distinguished professor, how can that be?

Is this a special title for climate scientists who stand out from the crowd?


Mann has distinguished himself only by bringing home the bacon for Penn State, in the form of grant pork.


If they didn’t put distinguished in his title, the word would never be used together with his name …


He was the only one that went one for ages saying how brilliant he was and kept calling to authority.

george e. smith

He’s distinguished by his caustic demeanour !



‘Distinguish’ is from the Latin ‘stinguo’, meaning ‘prick’.

I were a perfesser for 40 years. I never met a professor who wasn’t “distinguished” or a musician or artist who wasn’t “acclaimed”; especially when I served on the tenure and promotions committee.


Bill McKibben is a “Distinguished Scholar” at Middlebury College in Vt. He has a bachelors degree in English and is not a scientist, but an activist. I guess you’d say Mann is distinguished more by his activism than his science, so perhaps one has to be an activist to become distinguished.

It no doubt helps one become “distinguished” if one is a trustee of a foundation that has given the College $2.7 million and funds one’s position.

McKibben’s extreme radical activism leads to the bullying KKK-type tactics employed by members of his group wearing masks and carrying torches when they stormed the home of a Texas oil executive to terrorize him, actions condoned by McKibben. These same tactics occurred 3 weeks ago at the Middlebury campus when a masked group disrupted and prevented a speech by a conservative speaker, physically assaulting and injuring the female professor moderating the event as they escaped the hall to get to a car. Some of her political science faculty colleagues had incited students in the days leading up to the event. No word yet as to McKibben’s reaction to this manifestation of his legacy.

Having hin title “distinguished” before one’s name may now simply signify that one has brought a lot of money to one’s institution.


My family thinks it’s hilarious that I am glued to my computer screen watching a political hearing on climate change. 🙂 WITH popcorn.


Dr. Mann’s testimony is I am a victim and I appeal to authority to prove my point. He is a sad representative of the science community.


I am a victim and I appeal to authority to prove my point.

There’s a lot of that going around these days, and not just in Climate$cience™.

Rathway, “He is a sad representative of the science community.” That’s the understatement of the day, if in fact you think he represents any science .


The opening statements by the committee spoke loud and clear, the bias or neutrality of those speakers.
It also motivated me to write in response – for the first time, so angered was I by what I heard.
How the three majority witnesses could hold their tongue while their reputation was so impugned, makes them far better people than I.
Long suffering practice at retaining their dignity is my only conclusion.

How the three majority witnesses could hold their tongue while their reputation was so impugned, makes them far better people than I.

Sadly, they’ve had lots of practice.


Oh my… Mann is such a snake.


All the members there have been maligned for their work. But off the four speaking, three fall within the consensus and were attacked simply acknowledge the uncertainties. Peilke Jr had his career nearly destroyed by dogmatic attacks simply because his assessment wasn’t alarming enough. Curry was viciously attacked by the community just for saying it would be productive to actually talk about the science with those that disagree instead of basically shouting at them.

Michael Mann on the other hand was rightfully attacked for his blatant and willful corruption. He was caught and his own exposed emails confirm his lack of integrity and questionable practices.


I will watch later on YouTube. Bet its pretty good.

Get it direct from the Committee website. No need to go to Youtube. Is linked in the main post.


Gosh, Dr Mann really IS arrogant beyond belief.

Horace Jason Oxboggle

Yes, but, no doubt, he feels he has “earned” his arrogance!

Stan Robertson

Twenty five percent representation given to Michael Mann was over representation of pomposity and a waste of time. Surely someone else could represent the warmist view better.

He was the perfect one to represent the warmists. Well, at least since they apparently couldn’t track down Griff to testify.


Reading Mann’s testimony I see he references the “97% consensus” with a reference of the Union of Concerned Scientists web site.

This willful choice alone is all the testament necessary to judge his credibility as a scientist.

I’m hard-pressed to see how it isn’t perjury.


To be clear, that’s the organisation he claimed he had no association with, correct?

This is a lie, irrespective of whether or not Mann is associated with the UCS:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the U.K., and all of the scientific societies [1] of all of the industrial nations—the more than 30 scientific societies [2] in the U.S. that have weighed in on the matter, and at least 97% [3] of scientist publishing in the field have all concluded, based on the evidence, that climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.

A lie, given under oath, is generally called “perjury.”

Mike the Morlock

David Middleton March 29, 2017 at 2:25 pm

A lie, given under oath, is generally called “perjury.”

True, but to point if he believes the 97% then he is “to the best of his knowledge” telling the truth.

You can repeat a lie thinking it is the truth, and be giving “honest” testimony.

You would have prove that he knew the 97% was a falsehood. Difficult threshold to meet.


He probably believes the rest of his lies too… So perjury is right out.


@ Mike the Morlock
No, “honest false belief” doesn’t cut it. To make claims, which you don’t know to be true, is lying.

John Harmsworth

I expect Mann’s defence would be, “I’m not very good with numbers”. Pretty hard not to concede that point!

george e. smith

Kenji is one of the distinguished 3% !


John F. Hultquist

Regarding facts, perjury, and so on being commented on (See Mike at 3:02),
Willis wrote about “alternative facts” here:
“alternative facts” is actually a legal term

But not in this case. The relevant law is 18USC1001. See an updated legal analysis earlier today at Climate Etc.

Is Mann’s written testimony given under oath?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the U.K., and all of the scientific societies [1] of all of the industrial nations—the more than 30 scientific societies [2] in the U.S. that have weighed in on the matter, and at least 97% [3] of scientist publishing in the field have all concluded, based on the evidence, that climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.

“All of the scientific societies of all of the industrial nations” do not agree “that climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.” While all of them agree that climate change is real, there is broad disagreement about the degree to which it is caused by man and very little agreement on its adverse impacts…

Based on the two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al., 2012 and 2016), it appears to me that atmospheric scientists are also open to debate…

[caption id="attachment_162919" align="alignnone" width="693"]bams_2012_8_9 53% of AMS members agreed that there disagreement among the membership on the issue of global warming. 62% thought that the disagreement was productive to some degree. Source Maibach et al., 2012[/caption]

The 2012 survey found that 52% of survey respondents thought that humans were the primary drivers of global warming over the previous 150 years, a bare majority.  The 2016 survey focused on the most recent 50 years and it only found a 67% majority that humans were the primary drivers of climate change over the most recent 50 years.  While a solid majority, it is far short of a “consensus.”  More revealing was the widespread disagreement about whether or not recent climate changes have been beneficial or harmful and the degree to which future climate changes can be averted…

[caption id="attachment_162928" align="alignnone" width="898"]bams_2016_03 Only 38% of respondents thought the impacts they had observed to be more harmful than beneficial. Source Maibach et al., 2016[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_162931" align="alignnone" width="894"]bams_2016_04 “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” —Larry “Yogi” Berra.  Only half of survey respondents predicted that the future impacts in their neighborhoods would have a net harmful effect. Source: Maibach et al., 2016[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_162937" align="alignnone" width="894"]bams_2016_05 Is 18% confidence that at least “a large amount of additional climate change can be averted,” adequate justification for something with a price tag in the neighborhood of $44 trillion? Source: Maibach et al., 2016[/caption]

Based on Maibach et al., 2012 and 2016, it appears to me that a great deal of debate “about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind” remains to be had.

And there is at least one scientific society which does not endorse the so-called consensus position at all.
comment image?w=680

And, 0.54% is a far cry from 97%…
comment image


do you have a model that summarizes this ?- preferably some wiggly lines with an x and y axis.

tom s

And all of Joe Public’s positions are based on his/her/its hazy remembering’s of what the weather did in his nostalgic past along with the rantings of the left. The margin of variability in weather and climate is great over time lengths large and small. The only thing measurable that are actually changing, temp, sea level and co2 have little impact on us other than warmer winters at night are appreciated by most of us north of 35N latitude, but I have little faith in the unproven science that this is because of higher co2 concentrations. Temp change? So what? It’s not abnormal in any way, this is what it is and earth’s checks and balance will keep it from spiraling, until it does naturally….downward from here. And sea-level’s rate of change is pretty constant but is highly dependent on geologic, land use local conditions. But the 1-3mm/yr rate ‘globally’ has been pretty much unchanged for centuries. That we will somehow affect a better future climate through reduction in co2 is absurd. How any reasonable, thinking person can believe that is beyond me.

David S

All the alarmism about climate change is based on climate models. But science is about data. Dr. Christy is the only one who presented data, and his data shows the models are clearly wrong. In my opinion that should be the end of the discussion. The models simply don’t represent reality.

george e. smith

The climate models are like ALL of mathematics; pure fiction.

Nothing in any of the climate models actually exists in the real universe.

Show me a picture of a real live broadband radiometer pointed at the noonday tropical sun in CAVU, that is reading anything less that 500 Wm^-2, or even less than 1,000 Wm^-2.


For extra credit, calculate the black body equilibrium Temperature appropriate for a total spectral irradiance of 1,000 wm-2.

Izzit less than 288 K or even 300 K ??


Roy Spencer

George, the climate models do have a diurnal cycle, and they routinely produce over 1,000 W/m2 of solar insolation in the tropics at top-of-atmosphere, and even at the surface at times under clear skies. Obviously, that’s when the sun is near the zenith…not at night. 😉


So, the “American Association of Petroleum Geologists” is the only example of a scientific society that does not endorse the consensus view? That’s pretty funny, actually.

We aren’t part of the 0.54% consensus.

Roger Knights

There’s also the non-endorsing Australian Geological Society (perhaps that’s not its exact title), a society in Japan, and also perhaps one in Russia.

Neither the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), nor the Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM), nor the Houston Geological Society (HGS) have endorsed it either. Although, none of these societies have taken a public position. However, the HGS is clearly hostile toward the 0.54% consensus…

Climate Change: Facts and Fictions

The past several years have seen several opinion pieces regarding climate change appear in the pages of many publications, both scientific and secular. Although both sides of this now almost religious debate were represented, few if any real facts or data are provided to support the opinions expressed. The public deserves more, and specifically deserves to be properly informed.

The heat content of the atmosphere has remained largely unchanged since 1995. Data prepared and compiled by a number of climate scientists illustrate the wide divergence of climate model projections from what has been occurring: the climate has not been warming any more than would be expected as the world continues to move out of the Little Ice Age. These data have been accepted by the IPCC, whose chair admits that the climate modeling community does not understand what is happening.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Climatologists have understood this for decades and this is a fact clearly expressed in all climatology textbooks. None of the climate models employed today adequately address the influence of water vapor.

Cosmic radiation is the source of the particles which cause water droplet nucleation and cloud formation in the upper atmosphere. Its flux, in turn, is directly influenced by solar activity and the strength of the resulting solar wind. None of the climate models deal with either of these first-order climate influences.

The Earth’s atmosphere has had far higher CO2 content many times and for much of the geologic past, and major glacial events have occurred during those times, most notably during the Carboniferous and Silurian. The inescapable conclusion is that CO2 has no relationship to the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is a conclusion that was reached by many scientists who have looked at ice core data and found that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere occur several hundred years after temperatures have risen – they do not change in lock-step as has been claimed, and an event 800 years in the future cannot impact events today.


comment image


The sad thing is that most of those so called scientific societies are run by politicians who’s only interest is in promoting their personal careers.

Like the AGU…

The American Geophysical Union’s board of directors has approved two new members who will bring expertise in science policy and communication: policy advisor Floyd DesChamps and author Chris Mooney. Their selection reflects AGU’s commitment to applying the results of scientific research to challenges faced by the global community, many of which are based in the geosciences.

Floyd DesChamps served as senior advisor on climate change to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee from 1997 to 2009, and was a co-author of the landmark climate bill, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (also called the McCain-Lieberman Climate Change Bill). He is currently a senior vice-president for the Alliance to Save Energy, where he develops the Alliance’s policy initiatives.

DesChamps has degrees in mechanical engineering and engineering management, and previously worked for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy.

The hypocrisy is manifest.

The AAPG was attacked for giving an award to Michael Crichton for State of Fear. This actually led to the AAPG largely withdrawing from the public debate.

The AGU was praised for putting a journalist with an English degree on their fracking board of directors.


Many of these societies that you mention are trying to not anger too much their members employers. So we really can’t blame them too much for playing the fool.


That’s the main reason that the AAPG softened its position statement and largely disengaged from the debate. A lot of whiny, mostly young members threatened to quit. Over the past 10 years, the AAPG has become obsessed with supporting STEM education and trying to appeal to students and recent graduates. While these are good things to do and essential to the profession, the AAPG’s disengagement on the climate science debate was unwise.

There seems to be a movement for re-engagement growing within the society. Hopefully, the AAPG will take up the battle again,


How would offending the various employers harm the societies members?
Are the employers going to fire all their chemists and hire plumbers instead?

Your desire to support the unsupportable is causing you to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

IIRC the Russian Academy doesn’t buy any of this malarky! They are part of the industrialized world. How about China?

Chuck Wiese

What is Michael Mann a “distinguished professor” of ? I’ve never read a climate paper of his that wasn’t worthy of being put on a toilet paper dispenser.

Some of his pre-Hockey Stick work was very good.

M Courtney

The early stuff may not be exposed as rubbish but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t faked.
It may not be Mann’s Nature Trick but it could well be Mann’s Useful Trick De Jour.
He has lost my trust.


Pre-Hockey Stick Mann was like the American Graffiti George Lucas. Post-Hockey Stick Mann is like the Star Wars The Phantom Menace George Lucas.


Opening remarks:
Mr. Smith – Follow the scientific method.
Ms. Johnson – Never mind the facts, just listen to the alarmist scientists.
The lady even has trouble reading from a script.

Roger Knights

Here’s Judy’s thread on her testimony (with 96 comments already):


Judith may have more real scientific thinking capacity and common sense in her big toe, than the entire alarmist community.

2 observations.

#1 – Congress does not know how to start on time.
#2 – Democrats apparently only know appeals to authority, and not science.

Pierre DM

In the eyes of Dr Tim Ball I concur that we are still blowing the PR debate. In the eyes of a non scientist watching that hearing the dems and Mann clearly won even though it was all fluff and scripted lies. I did not like what Dr. Ball had to say about the last hearing before congress but it did open my eyes.

When are we going to learn how to run a show in congressional hearings. As much as I admire Dr. Curry, Dr. Christe and Rodger Pelkie jr, I can think of a few people that could have been put in the panel with more passionate, compelling and damning testimony against CAGW that the average non scientist could have agreed with.

What happened to Mr Rorahbachers questions and time on the tape?????

Harry Passfield

Aphan: I saw that and had the same concerns. It looks like some editing was taking place. That’s a grave concern if this is a House ‘transcript’.


Serious question:

Why was Mann on that panel?


Maybe on other AGW priest was arrogant enough to think they had a chance. !

Invited by the minority Dems. Committee rules. They obviously thought he was their best shot. Boy, were they wrong.


He was their best shot – but their case is so anti-scientific (against the observed evidence) that they have nothing else.

If that is the case (Mann was their best representative), it just proves they have no clue about the subject. Mann is the worst representative just for the lies he has already been caught out on! But then listening to their opening statement, it is evident that some flunky wrote the statements for them, with no clue the subject, just rehashed talking points.


it only takes one if they are right to stand against a hundred if they are wrong .


Thomas Jefferson wrote “One man with courage is a majority”. So it is with Truth.

Non Nomen

M. Mann isn’t telling the truth. He is listed as a member of the Concil of Advisors of the Climate Accountability Institute.

The Original Mike M

Congressman Weber reminded Mann of that very fact. @ 1:45:20

Isn’t that special. Perjured himself under oath before congress.

Under oath, he denied having called Dr. Curry a denier. He called her a denier in his written testimony.

Yes, that is a second perjury problem for him in this hearing.

John Harmsworth

Makes you wonder if he fudged anything else. Oh yeah! Those hockey stick studies!


Does anyone know if this from Steyn is correct about Mann’s tweets ““ #climatechange denier #JudithCurry…” ??

The reason I ask is that Mann’s oral testimony is that he called her a climate science denier, not a climate change denier. So, if the attribution is correct. He has called here both and his claim of being careful, and reserving is invalidated by his using both climate change and climate science denier to describe Dr. Curry.

In Mann’s written testimony “”as one of its original team members, climate change contrarian Judith Curry.”” and “”Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry (I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century — something Judith Curry18 disputes19).

Both. Delingpole has it archived.


It was painful to listen to the opening alarmist statement which was riddled with debunked pseudo-facts. (sea level rise, acidification etc)


Whats your problem? Sea level is rising. The ice is melting. The ocean is acidifying. Temperatures are going up……

“Whats your problem? Sea level is rising. The ice is melting. The ocean is acidifying. Temperatures are going up……”

Yep. Business as usual on planet Earth after a glacial period.


Wrong… we should be cooling.

The Original Mike M

Yes, something is seriously wrong with the video itself beginning at 1:41:30 to 1:41:48. It jumps around and a lot of testimony was apparently cut out.

The Original Mike M

This version includes Dana Wohrabacher’s statement’s on Lysenkoism

Thank you so much for posting that. It’s quite a dressing down for Dr Mann and I loved it. I also loved the entry into the record of the website images showing Dr Mann is VERY affiliated with a group he suddenly could not remember earlier.

Dr. Mann must be the sceptics’ favourite ‘distinguished climate scientist’, possibly the most often mentioned one, and how couldn’t he be, when he is the one who has been the source of so much fun and laughter on the pages of this blog.
Perhaps an award from the WUWT readers, in form of a rare wood ‘hockey stick’ might be appropriate to be presented to the ‘distinguish climate scientist’ on the day he resins his post at the Pennsylvania State University in the protest against the POTUS’ attitude towards the ‘climate science’.

Distinguished Hockey Schtick Hokum Award:
comment image

John Harmsworth

The blade should be full of holes! As a Canadian I am troubled that our sacred symbol is associated with a clown like this but the hockey gods decree,those who high stick will get stuck! I can’t wait!

fumble finger missed a ‘g’ in there.

Harry Passfield

Oh, the irony of Mann claiming that Christy’s results were full of errors that the results could not be replicated by others! (Approx 1:19 in)


Chairman Smith – I love you!



george e. smith

I’m NOT the Chairperson !



I assume Dr. Mann was called by the Democrats because they are allowed to call witnesses. link If that’s the best they can do …

Calling the (in)famous Dr. Mann was a Democratic own goal.


Yep. I am just at the point where he mentions Lysenko. He’s trying to tar the Republicans with that brush. It shows, IMHO, a lack of critical thinking. It’s easy to paint Mann in the role of Lysenko and Obama in the role of Stalin.


In a reply to Mr. Lahood, Dr. Pielke said he hoped that lots of people would watch the YouTube record of Dr. Mann’s behaviour.

Lahood takes Mann apart. Mann looks really uncomfortable. He won’t talk about his suit against Mark Steyn. Lahood calls Mann a hypocrite. Mann lies about calling Dr. Curry a denier in his written submission and is caught out. Wonderful.


As is typical of the debate, Mann focuses on appeal to authority and personal attacks while the skeptics talk about science.
Also, no Mann, your hockeystick has not been vindicated at all. It has been thoroughly debunked.
Mann is a POS liar.

Fairly predictable.
From Curry, Christy and Pielke — science (whether you agree wirh every word or not).
From Mann — a paranoid whinge.

The Original Mike M

Mann’s personal attack on Pielke was vile and unprofessional. He said that Pielke hasn’t been involved for 3 whole years as though everything changed in such a short time. Mann crowed about some sort of CAGW cabal that can now calculate how much human influence is responsible for every extreme weather event – can you imagine how that would have been used in the future if these charlatans were able to keep their fiefdom?

george e. smith

Takes a whole 30 years to get any credible climate data.

Three years out is a mere coffee break.


Contrast that with Pielke Jr who bent over backwards to be inclusive of Mann in his statements. Claiming “all 4” have been impugned.

That video should be aired. Then everyone can see how vindictive, petty and dishonest their hero (Mann) is.

Watched the whole thing this afternoon. Mann and his questioners used the usual warmunist talking points. Those need strong soundbite refutations. 97% consensus–Cooks paper has been refuted both methodologically and conclusionally. Issue is not whether climate changes (it does), it is whether the recent changes are mainly anthropogenic. World is warming–yes, since end of LIA, about 1814, last Thames ice fair, most of which was natural. Warming is anthropogenic–how can that post 1950 attribution be proven true given the previous observation, given fact world cooled from 1950-1975, and hasn’t warmed much this century despite this century comprising ~35% of all the increase in CO2 since 1958? Recent Extremes have anthropogenic fingerprints–how can that be true when extremes have not increased while GHG has? Pages2K shows unprecedented recent warming (Mann chart)– yes, but Pages2K did not fix upsidedown Tiljander or bogus centered principal components analysis, AND repeated Mikes Nature trick as Mann himself explained (splicing high res thermometer onto low res paleo).

in my opinion the most important written testimony was Christy’s. Rigorously discredits CMIP5, then shows EPA endangerment and SCC used climate models rather than observations. A solid start at redoing both. And the most thoughtful was Curry’s. She has been going deep into the philosphy and epistemology of science and the scientific method. Lets make climate science great again!

Mann calling The Committee Chair, Rep. Lamar Smith, a denier by citing an opinion piece in Science about last weeks Heartland Conference did not go down well. Mann denying any association with UCS or CCI will likely cause him some legal problems. Attorneys never ask questions to sworn witnesses unless they already know the likely answer. That was a very deliberate question, plainly caught Mann by surprise, and his resume response was an obvious non-response that immediately got called out. Mann defending Karl over Smith’s inquiry about Karlization AFTER Smith said he was acting on multiple whistleblowers information means Mann has not been keeping up or is just dumb. Bates was not the only whistleblower inside NOAA.
All in all, not a bad hearing.


Yes, agree with you on Christie. That was very sobering testimony indeed and makes a real impression. Curry too was pretty decent. All in all, this thing looks like its in end of life phase. I thought Pielke was pretty decent too, because it shows how extreme the orthodoxy has become. How when you are basically reporting what the IPCC said, you can still be accused of and target for ‘denialism’.

Taken together, this was a public occasion that may make a difference.

John Loop

When I repeat the IPCC statement [from the last report I think] that “we don’t understand the climate” it usually leaves my AGW friends aghast. The best retort I know of! Second only to showing the models.


But Mann says he AGREES with the IPCC….pretty much more than the IPCC agrees with the IPCC….so wouldn’t that mean he agrees that we don’t understand the climate?

It was painful, but I forced myself to watch it all including the Mann lies/obfuscations and the democrat dimwits. If the demos can’t do better than Eddie Bernice Johnson as ranking minority member they are in deep doodoo.

I thought Judith and Christy were excellent. Pielke Jr. seems to have trouble figuring out what point he wants to make. Maybe his progressive heart trumps his science mind.

Harry Passfield

1:27 – Mann on the Scientific method is classic. And then he has an argument with the Chairman! nd the Chairman allows him to get away with it!! What a wuss!.

M Courtney

The US comedy site Cracked actually suggested Mann as a credible climatology expert on this very day.

If it were satire then they would be hitting above their weight.
Sadly, it wasn’t.


Doesn’t Mann look like George Costanza?!

Nigel S

It’s not a lie if you believe it.

Wrong as a matter of law.

Mann’s written testimony is filled with lies…

In October 2003 just days before a critical U.S. Senate resolution to acknowledge the threat of human-caused climate change, an “article” was published by climate change-denial friendly “journal” that engaged in dubious attacks on the hockey stick. A fossil fuel industry front group published an op-ed trumpeting the specious criticisms in USA Today on the morning of the Senate vote.

McIntyre, Steven and Ross McKitrick, (2003). Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series Environment and Energy 14(6) pp. 751-771.

MM03 thoroughly demolished MBH98. As did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

This one takes the cake:

On the eve of the Copenhagen U.N. climate summit of December 2009—seen as the greatest opportunity yet for an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, a trove of emails, including many of my own—had been stolen, and combed through for words and phrases (like “trick”—a completely appropriate term in science for a clever approach) that might seem embarrassing or even damning. The out-of-context snippets were posted on climate change deniers’ websites and then spread through rightwing blogs and news sites. Soon even mainstream news organizations were credulously parroting the denialist narrative that a few stolen emails somehow called into question the fundamental evidence behind human-caused climate change…

Fraud may very well be a “clever approach”…

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


As usual… the one side looks coached to ask leading questions and a majority of the legislators on the other side comes across as looking like this is the first time they’ve heard of the subject.

Far too few “Dr. Curry or Dr. Christy do you agree with Dr. Mann’s claims.”

J, in my admittedly somewhat limited but nonzero experience, Congressional hearings are like Kabuki theater in Japan. Highly scripted in advance. You want a real adversarial debate, go to court. This is just the Congressional equivalent of court opposition discovery. Why Christy smoked it. And Mann blew it by arguably perjuring himself.

“I didn’t call her a climate change denier.” (Look at your testimony Mr. Mann) “OH…I called her a climate change SCIENCE denier”…which is totally different and so perfectly professional and mature and completely acceptable.

“Oh, and I forget everything I’ve ever said so I cannot accept or deny calling Roger Pilke a carnival barker” but I can remember every single thing someone else as ever said about me.

And “I’m going to share a horrible story about one man who was jailed in history for trying to refute the consensus, and insinuate that it’s an analogy about me….being mistreated thusly….even though I’m piloting the consensus cruise ship and so it applies much more to the “fringe” scientists sitting here with me today, but I’m oblivious to that myself.

And “I’m going to attempt to tie Lamar Smith to something written by a reporter at Science magazine as if he actually said it and “Science” was just quoting or summarizing something Smith said.”

What a tiny, unpleasant, sneaky, slimy, unbelievably illogical little brown nosing weasel.


How dare you compare M Mann to a weasel…
weasels are bright, intelligent, handsome animals; whereas Mann is as you say.


You’re right. Weasels even have cute little faces. I apologize to weasels and the whole Mustelidae family for the derogatory manner in which I applied their name to something so truly beneath them all.

Nigel S

I’ve got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it & call it a weasel.

John Harmsworth

“Piloting the consensus cruise ship”! Lol! I love it! The Climate Catastrophe Concordia! It writes itself!

Ron Williams

Here is the actual reference from Mann’s written submission calling Curry a ‘Climate Science Denier’. It is abundantly obvious that he tried to walk that back in his oral defence of himself and that statement, but perjured himself while doing so. Mann may also have to walk back his assertion that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century. That takes a special kind of intellectual arrogance for such a impossible claim to prove. Which is at the core of why he labelled Curry a climate science denier. Both statements should be on trial.

“Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith
Curry (I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings
of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially
or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century—
something Judith Curry disputes).”


So let’s get this clear:

Mann-“The term “climate science denier” is reserved for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large scale warming we have seen over the past century.”

When did the science community establish that as FACT? The IPCC AR5 states:

“Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. See for more details: Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe and F.W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp."Intergovernmental

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Please note that this statement does NOT include ANY of the words regarding evidence (limited, medium or robust) as well as NONE of the terms regarding agreement among different forms of evidence (low, medium or high), and NONE of the terms related to levels of confidence in the evidence or it's agreement (very low, low, medium, high and very high).

IPCCAR5 states-Thus the ENTIRE statement about it being "extremely likely" is nothing more than an "assessment" based on who knows what, and is not a statement of FACT. Mr. Mann LIES when he states that the scientific community's "findings" demonstrate that it is a FACT "that human activity……century". I have no doubt that had the scientific community actually FOUND it to be FACT, they would STATE that themselves. I propose that there is robust evidence with high agreement to support the claim that Mr. Mann is a "climate science embellisher" or a "climate science exaggerator" of even the most basic statements of the scientific community.

Harry Passfield

At the very end: Mann DENIES that Curry is a ‘Climate Science Denier’. He claims he means she denies climate science, not that she is a denier. His previous questioner had it right: Mann, he said, is a hypocrite. Spot on.


Mr. Tonko has just admitted that he is an engineer. He then turned around and said some really stupid things about uncertainty. In particular, he seems to think uncertainty is based on a popularity contest. IMHO, he should have his license yanked.

I must say that, as far as I have watched so far, Dr. Curry is the one person who comes off as a dispassionate scientist with a credible view of all the uncertainties. Tonko doesn’t look very good by comparison.

cb, that is why Imwas so honored to have Judith do a foreword to my last ebook. She wanted me to put words in her mouth as a thank you for many guest posts. i refused to do so. She wrote a beautiful foreword anyway. She is a climate science saint.


She is indeed a saint. Ms. Esty, on the other hand, is the wicked witch of the east. Just listening to her made me feel dirty.



Tonko starts out by saying “As an engineer ….” Based on New York records he isn’t an engineer and he shouldn’t be representing himself as such. And he shouldn’t be using the title to enhance his public testimony.

I would ask anyone from New York to access the New York Board (NYS Professional Engineering & Land Surveying) and file a complaint regarding his misrepresentation.


He is not currently a practising engineer and hasn’t been one for a long time.

He holds a degree in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering from Clarkson University. … He also worked for a brief time as an engineer for the New York State Department of Public Service. link

As far as I can tell he’s been a professional politician since 1983.


He’s not licensed. He’s shouldn’t claim he’s an engineer to give his statements more credibility.

He should be simply stating that he has an engineering background.

The State Board probably wouldn’t do anything, but a complaint should be filed.


Just a guess, but I would be surprised if he was ever licensed.

If not, the statement: “He also worked for a brief time as an engineer …”, is also a lie.

The Original Mike M

Don M: “He’s not licensed. He’s shouldn’t claim he’s an engineer”

He’s a mechanical engineer so there might not be any hunt in that dog. Mechanical engineers aren’t required to get a license for the innovative side of it like designing an improved gun mechanism or a new transmission or factory machinery. Success is based on coming up with new ideas that work better than the last ones. There are no codes for something that never existed before so safety relies on knowing best practices for general things like strength of materials, qualified testing and knowledge of more general OSHA codes as applicable (though that is why there are industrial and manufacturing engineers.). I’d surmise that the greatest number of ME’s with a license need one for things like, HVAC or power plant boilers, etc.

Mr. Tonko made me very ill, he reminded me of another lying ME, Bill Nye. Neither of them believe what their espousing, they’re just shills for CAGW because that’s where the money is.

Mann’s arrogance was unbelievable. I love when he denies what he said in his written testimony. He also seemed to do a lot of self defense.

The sad part is that this committee hearing will accomplish very little.

clyde edgar

This you-tube of Mann lying was the most interesting part of the hearing. Since he’s not under oath I guess he can lie all he wants without consequence. His word parsing on denying calling Dr. Curry a Climate Denier was great also even though it was entered into the congressional record.

Nope. He is criminally liable under 18USC1001. I posted a detailed legal analysis over at CE earlier today, since originally got it wrong also. Up to 5 years in prison. Felony.


Mann mentions Berkeley Earth as funded by the Koch brothers. Pielke says he was attacked for undisclosed funding from the Koch.


Mann is a weasel. Caught in an outright lie & Dr. Curry’s laugh when he denied calling her a denier was priceless.


Yep sure sounds like the science is settled . I will give Mann credit for showing up because most won’t .
The climate science field is nano second new so why can’t people not admit it is a massive work in process instead of boxing themselves into claimed positions of certainty .
The polarization is unhealthy and it is probably one of the few fields of endeavour where it is respected to
admit they don’t know everything . Certainly not enough to encourage spending $Trillions on a “problem ”
that comes with as many benefits as draw backs .


Bonamici mentions the need for 96 more Dr. Mann’s, can they be found?


Lord have mercy , I hope not (and I am an atheist)

Sadly, some prayers are fated to be unanswered. I don’t think it’s because you’re an atheist, either – I’m sure many church-going people watching that all joined their voices to yours.

All one has to do, really, is take a look at the membership list of the UCS or like organizations (well, the bipedal ones, anyway).

Nigel S

None could be found to file an amicus brief for Mann in his case against Mark Steyn.


Anthony, I know that you’re running what is essentially a media site, and headlines have to grab and appeal. However, I think you got this one a bit wrong. This was, particularly in the context of the new Administration and its latest measures, a very important session. And the testimony was well up to the importance of the occasion.

To headline it as you did was probably mistaken. Mann may be a joke around here. May justifiably be regarded as a joke. But the importance of the occasion was not at all that Mann flopped, if he did. The importance was that in their different ways, the three others nailed climate science extremism for what it is. And they did so before a Senate Committee, that is, one of the most important democratic institutions we have to deal with these kinds of matters.

I think it deserved a rather more serious positioning than you chose to give it. Hump day hilarity it was not. It was more like, now we are getting serious people in front of a serious institution, and, as with the Army – McCarthy hearings, this is a moment at which, later on, we will see that the prevailing mood changed.

I wish Rud would drop the ‘warmunist’ tag, for the same reason. It detracts from the seriousness of the message and the work done.

Curious George

Did you see a serious message “Our children will not know what snow was”? Did it detract you from anything?

I precisely defined warmunist at the end of essay Climatatrosophistry (admitedly an invented but appropriate title, borrowed by analogy from former Czech Republic’s President Vaclav Klaus innhis 2007 book Blue Planet in Green Chains. Very meaningful, as I am half Sudetan Deutsch and hqlf Slovak. No apologizes. War is hell and there is no middle compromise ground.


If you take the middle ground, you’ll get shot by both sides.

Bruce Cobb

Mickey Mann’s dino-sized-yet-strangely fragile ego can’t stand to be mocked and laughed at. Yet no one on this planet is more deserving of it. The more mockery of him, the angrier he gets, and the more deserved he is of ridicule. I don’t know how he doesn’t just blast off into space under his own power.

Roger Knights

“And they did so before a Senate House Committee, . . . “