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’


285 thoughts on “Hump Day Hilarity: Mann-o-War at the House Climate Science Hearing

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

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

  2. Josh,
    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.

      • 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.

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

  3. 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.

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

    • 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.

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

  4. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

  5. 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • Bartleby,

        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).

      • Bartleby,

        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),


  6. 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.

    • 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.

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

  8. 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 .

  9. WHAT??
    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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

      • 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.”

      • 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.


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

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

  13. 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…


    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

    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…


    Only 38% of respondents thought the impacts they had observed to be more harmful than beneficial. Source Maibach et al., 2016


    “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


    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

    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.

    And, 0.54% is a far cry from 97%…

    • 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.

  14. 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.

    • 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 ??


      • 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. ;-)

  15. 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.

    • 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.


    • 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.

      • ReallySkeptical,

        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.

  16. 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.

      • 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.

  17. 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.

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

  18. 2 observations.

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

    • 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.

    • 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’.

      • 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.

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

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

      • 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).

  20. 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……

  21. 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.

      • 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.

  22. 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’.

  23. 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)

  24. 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 …

      • 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.

  25. 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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

  26. 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.

      • 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.

  27. 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!.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. “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.

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

    • 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

    • Bob,

      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.

      • 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.

  34. 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.

    • 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.

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

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

  37. 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 .

      • 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).

  38. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  39. Michael Mannis the only one of the four testifying who thinks science is defined by that which conforms to what he does, and that science is not defined by conformance to comprehensive corroborated multiple independent observations of reality.

    His philosophy of science isn’t a rational philosophy of science, his is based on self centered focused subjectivism.


  40. I just realized something at the very end of the session. The entire session was held to see what kinds of scientific research need FUNDING right now, because everything is on the chopping block. Three scientists today spoke of the “uncertainties” in what we know. And encouraged funding, maybe even MORE funding, towards the physical science-observations-field work, and bringing the known psychical factors together to get a more complete understanding of our planet’s climate system and how it operates.

    ONE scientist insisted over and over and over again that we HAVE that understanding already. That we need to put our resources towards mitigation and stopping the climate from changing. ONE scientist said what I’ve never heard another actual scientist say when speaking about the climate-

    2:25: “We understand to a great level of detail the workings of the atmosphere, the workings of the ocean and the ice sheets and how they interact with each other. Thousands of scientists have been studying these things for decades! We understand the science of climate just about as well as we do any other thing.”

    So basically Mr Mann, you just shot all future climate research in the foot by claiming that we are so familiar with it, that we understand it so well, that we should just move on to the mitigation/stopping/controlling phase of it now. What a MORON!!!!!

    But wait, if thousands of scientists have studied this for decades and we understand the science of climate so well, why the hell can’t you replicate the climate in even ONE model??? Let alone 90 of them??? You cannot even identify EXTREME weather events in them….let alone normal ones. THAT is how well we “understand the climate machine.” Even the IPCC wouldn’t come close to that assertion with a 50 foot pole.

    2:24:30 “My career in large part was built on my studies of natural variability. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation that Judith Curry loves to talk about, that was coined by me.”

    “The term AMO was coined by Kerr (2000) in an editorial article for Science to describe a multidecadal oscillation of alternating warm and cold periods of the North Atlantic over the last 150 years.”

    OMG….he’s such a little weasel of a human.

  41. Bonamici and Johnson are complete idiots. Time to replace them. They could barely read the bullshit prepared statements.

  42. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “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.” (Comment by Pathway)

    Spot-on. Mann’s testimony reads as a desperate defence of all his very sciency “denier” attacks, shonky-stick science and tired defence of the regurgitated “97% consensus” political lie.

    Of “the science” that he did offer, was an aggregated temp graph by Peter Jacobs of George Mason Uni. (p.13) conveniently leaving off the record 2016-2017 post El Niño temp drop that was observed across all data sets.

    Rather outdated and deceptive evidence put to the science committee considering he has had over four months to add the latest data. – Though in his defence, ending his temp chart on the record 2016 super El Niño high certainly leaves his debunked “hockey-stick” legacy/lie in tact.

    Deception and manipulation is what Mann does best. His ‘defence’ testimony bears this out.

    Read it here…

  43. Good God! Nowhere in all of that did any one of those “Scientists” who are supposedly on my side of things mention any of those things that are beneficial about CO2. And (in the last few minutes) Judith Curry signs onto a 50/50 chance that “Climate Change” is a problem! For God’s sake, get someone in front of a congressional committee who understands what this is all about and knows what to say.

  44. @Aphan: ‘Mr Mann, you just shot all future climate research in the foot by claiming that we are so familiar with it, that we understand it so well, that we should just move on to the mitigation/stopping/controlling phase of it now.’

    In Australia we had this, in Feb 2016:

    ‘CSIRO’s chief executive Larry Marshall indicated that, since climate change had been established, further work in the area would be a reduced priority.’

    Which was hilarious! You can imagine the outrage.

    In August 2016 some of the cuts were reversed:

    ‘New Science Minister Greg Hunt has ordered a major U-turn in the direction of the CSIRO, reviving climate research as a bedrock function just months after the national science agency slashed climate staff and programs.’

    But the principle remains, hanging like a sword of Damocles over the head of anyone who says the science is settled!

    For fun commentary, see, for example, JoNova:

  45. No geologist gave testimony. Geology provides a critical view in how the Earth has warmed and cooled over time. Proponents of anthroprogenic warming never address natural climate changes and focus solely on man made effects.

    • Dr. Curry has a PhD in Geophysical Sciences and was the chair of GA Tech’s Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department. She may not be a geologist, but she clearly has a geoscience background and seems to approach climate change from a geological perspective.

      However, it would have been nice if Dr. Rusty Riese or Lee Gerhard had been on the panel.

      Gerhard is the editor of the only climate science textbook anyone would ever need:

      • Dr. Curry also had one of the best point, regardless of your persuasion, when asked about funding for the science. She said it was still needed, but not for bogus studies linking psoriasis or pimples to changing temperature. It seems the perversion of the science was not only in funding a pre-drawn conclusion, but also in assigning all ills to the subject. And that is going to be hard to ferret out.

  46. Listening to Mann, he does not seem to understand that he can publish his science, but he should not be using his public position to push his personal opinion onto the entire population of the world.

  47. My question about Mann is that the one study he is noted for, the infamous Hockey Stick, has been ravaged if not actually debunked so why is this guy consider a expert?

  48. To me the “hearing” was a little tame. There should have been questions about the alterations to historic data that changed the slope of the trend line. On the other hand the hearing did show the viewers that no one denies that the climate is changing. The big question is if, the total of 0.04% of CO2 of which 0.012% is supposedly caused by human activity is the driving factor at all? To me the time frame is still way to short. The study time frame is equivalent to the thickness of a pencil line drawn across the end of a roll of toilet paper. Bottom line is we don’t know much at this point in time and certainly not enough to think that we can control the climate. Much more data will be required to determine if it’s possible to alter the planet’s climate and funding should be reviewed accordingly. I personally believe that changing the climate will be like trying to change the tide.

    • I agree – and only a fraction of that .012% man-made CO2 is under the control of the USA. Maybe there are government grants to study wow to change the tides?

  49. At the end everybody agrees on everything. Only M.M. does not remember what ever he said or wrote. But he is absolutely sure to 10000 % that he is right…..

  50. I see Mann is still sticking to the dual fictions of his hockey stick and the 97% lie.
    I wish I was on that committee. You think the members would be better prepared. Oh well.

  51. Would have been better if Curry, Christy and Pielke questioned Mann, and visa versa. Like most congressional hearings, the Democrats on the panel ‘questioned’ their witnesses and the Republicans ‘questioned’ theirs.

  52. Mann claims that 97% of scientists and science organizations are all in agreement, but then goes on to complain that personal attacks on him and other scientists like Tom Karl are meant to silence climate scientists and that these attacks are from fossil fuel funded scientists and fossil fuel funded organizations. So, in his mind, the 3% are wreaking havoc on the 97%? That’s what I’m getting from his testimony, but it doesn’t make any sense at all. As I said somewhere else, my opinion is that Mann is a thin-skinned, whiny, sniveling, spineless human being with the ethics of an under-developed bridge troll. In my non-professional opinion, Mann seems to suffer from persecutory delusions, which is the most common form of paranoid schizophrenia.

  53. I can’t help but Mann reminded me of a naked mole-rat someone had put itching powder upon. His nervousness and his helpless “I don’t comment…” were especially telling. Most enbarrassing, that Mann.

  54. One cannot dismiss how Dr Mann first accuses Dr Roger Pielke for playing victim and then immediately assumes that position himself at the same time belittling Dr Pielke’s qualifications and therefore his conclusions along with a bit of name calling. What a slippery wally!

  55. Maybe i missed it, but did anybody mention the Sun, solar cycles/sunspots, or cosmic radiation in that discussion of the House Climate Science Hearing?
    Or did anyone ask Mann what would happen to the earth’s climate if the US would immediately cease CO2 production while China, India, and the rest of the third world continues CO2 production at their present increasing rate?
    — I guess I missed it.

  56. I am surprised that the support from the Rockefeller Bros for Climate “Science” is not mentioned here! Everyone should check out their website which is includes an excellent search function for their (Rockefeller’s) activities.
    I have also shown their activities by researching grants given to AGW leaning “foundations “and the like.
    See my blog for details
    Do your own search at



  57. At 1:49.40 the video is conveniently damaged. Just when Mr Rohrabacher is giving Mann what he deserves. This can be no coincidence. :(

    • rogerthesurf: “Seems intact”? Did you verify it at the time? Because it is intact no longer. I was watching it at youtube first, and went back to the link above to see if it was also damaged….So, that is strange, especially if you’re sure it was intact.

      I’ll have to check the transcript to read what Senator Rohrbacher says. Looked like he was going to give Mann the verbal spanking he so badly deserves.

      • Ken Yes I did verify it the time. I even took a copy for myself. I checked just now that the copy from my disk is intact and it played fine. It is a worry that the video has failed at this point again.
        It may be of some interest to find out what the transcript records of Senator Rohrbacher’s words. If you can get hold of the transcript, could you please send me a copy. To tell you the truth I think it is important to check that the transcript is correct also. Post it here or if you wish at
        We should also figure out ways to get my copy of the video to you as well.



  58. For more than fifty years I have sat through various court cases and hearings of all kinds, and I have never before found myself listening to evidence so unpleasant that I have had to give up and start again later. Yet that is what Michael Mann did to me. In one sense calling him was a master stroke in that it showed how noxious are his collection of arguments and this was clearly apparent to some of the Senators on the committee. I was distressed at how many of the Senators lapped up what he had to say and clearly were glad that he had said it. The balance of the argument is clear to most of the readers of WUWT but as an apolitical outsider (New Zealand) it is clear that this is still largely a battle of entrenched positions.

    • Hard to tell if both positions are entrenched. Like Einstein’s “which frame are you in ” (sic)

  59. ““For scientists to call names to beat someone into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic,” Rohrabacher said.

    Yup he hit the nail on the head there!

    • Yes, I thought a lot of it was prepared. Of course he had to ad lib as the hearing progressed.

    • ER: Now you mention it…..I decided to rerun the video, this time from Youtube, and I noticed that when Mann was being asked questions he was furiously flicking through the ring-binder in front of him and then,when he found what he was looking for, virtually reading his answer from the book. This was particularly evident at 1:58:00 when Mr Takano was asking Mann about Karl’s paper, and at 1:50:00 when he was discussing the HS, even to the point that he had a prepared comment about Pielke, which he read out.

  60. I can’t understand how they can sit there listening to M. Mann without wanting to cause him some damage. He is such an A-h***

  61. It’s worth looking at the comments on Facebook, where this video has been posted for a while. Thousands of them, two or three coming in every second, and all of them negative.

    Strangely, they all seem deeply worried about the fact that Congress is listening to the “deniers”. Not one of them seems at all concerned about the coming environmental apocalypse itself – in fact you would almost think they welcomed it!

  62. I haven’t seen Mann in action before. Is he so used to equivocating, dissembling, generalizing, evading the question and simple ad hominem argumentation that he feels no compunction about outright LYING to Congress? Does he get away with this regularly? (1:54:50, but just pick any of his answers, practically).

  63. Notable during the hearing was application by left leaning politicians of the equivocation aka bait and switch fallacy featuring a change in the meaning of the term “science” or a form of this term in the midst of an argument. By the definition of terms, an argument of this kind is an example of an equivocation. While an equivocation looks like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, while it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism it is logically improper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism. To draw such a conclusion is the equivocation fallacy. Through frequent use of this fallacy leftists strive to dress up their pseudoscience to look like a legitimate science.

  64. I am considered nasty, opinionated and a bully by many of my enemies and more than a few of my friends … Mr. Mann gives us nasty, opinionated bullies a true role model to aspire too in our interactions with fellow human beings … I am truly awed by his ability to see every question or critique as a personal attack and respond in kind but with the volume turned up to 11 … I really have to work on my game if I ever hope to rise to his level of nasty, vindictive vitriol …

  65. Curry in particular is very cautions and scientific–“we don’t understand things well enough to rule that out”. Mann has no qualms about spouting unproved and impossible- to- quantify certainty. I wish he would be asked provide the calculations for his odds of recent warming being all anthropogenic.

  66. @TO

    … it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism it is logically improper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism

    Say again?

  67. Listening to Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 81 at the beginning of the session, I had concerns about her understanding of the subject matter, in spite of her background in healthcare, but to offer the Union of Concerned Scientists as a reference clinched it for me. A person has to know their statute of limitations.

    As for that poisonous dwarf Mann, the sooner the jumped up little squirt gets Steynrollered, the better. QED.

  68. Watching Mann now . What a dangerous bozo . Repeated his quote I included in the slide below :

    I continue to find it astounding that the most fundamental non-optional quantitative experimental observable Laws of radiant heat transfer are outside the ken of almost all “climate scientists” involved in all sides of the debates .

    A common core (;-) of universally agreed , experimentally measurable quantitative computable expressions , ie : equations is desperately needed .

    Where is the brilliant YouTube showing how to calculate and verify the equilibrium temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp ?

  69. Extra Extra Read All About It-Michael E. Mann admits on camera during live House hearing yesterday that humans are directly responsible for only 0.2 C of warming!!! (plus or minus whatever the margin of error is…anyone….anyone? Margin of error in HadCRUT4 measurements?)

    Yesterday during a House hearing on Capital Hill, Michael E Mann brought forth a chart that suspiciously stops prior to the year 2000, which supposedly demonstrates the historical temperature of Earth from reconstructions and the HadCRUT4 temperature record added at the end. Had the data up until 2017 been added to the chart, it would have shown a significant stablizing/dropping trend in the data since 1999-

    Mann’s chart’s Y axis is divided into incredibly FRIGHTENING increments of 0.2 tenths of a degree Celcius.

    At the same hearing, Michael E Mann also insisted repeatedly, and vehemently, that he agrees with the IPCC, who have stated with all the certainty that the word “likely” implies, that it is “likely” that at least 50% of the warming experienced globally since 1950 is the direct result of human influence.

    Using Mann’s own chart then, the human race has LIKELY been responsible for HALF of a global temperature increase of 0.4 C. Yes, that’s right. Even after all those hundreds of gigatons of CO2 and other nasty (but naturally occurring gases etc) that humans are responsible for putting into our atmosphere for the past 50 years AND are continuing to put into it, the rate of human induced warming is a mere 0.2C (or 0.36 F).

  70. I was disappointed to fact they did not talk more about carbon dioxide and the very small concentration make up of the atmosphere could cause warming and to what degree?Also nobody mentioned what percentage of the 0.04% is from human activity?

  71. Mr Mann’s chart shows quite a bit of natural variability in earth’s temperature since the year 1000. In fact, it shows MORE warming, and cooling, in short amounts of time-say 50-100 years. For example in the “green” analysis, from 1300-1350 (ish) shows an increase in temps of 0.4 C without any human emissions to cause the problem. And in Mann’s own BLUE chart line, it happens repeatedly!! If he’s “all about the physics” then his own physics prove that Earth’s temperatures fluctuated in the exact same time frame, and to the same degree, in the past that they have since the industrial era.

  72. What a thin skin MM is. Slags everyone! Curry is now a “climate science denier” but not a climate change denier???? Quotes Pielke on his extreme weather events studies and when quoted back wants to see the “context”. I just hope thir Mann/Steyne thing gets an airing pretty soon.

    • Oh Mark Steyn will fillet him like a catfish and fry him cajun style! If Mann gets flustered when elected officials who aren’t quite sure how to ask certain questions approach him, he’s going to end up passing out when Mark Steyn gets ahold of him. And now Steyn can add several more instances when Mann has perjured himself, lied, and evaded direct questions from US Government Officials to his VAST repertoire on Mann!

      • I was about to say thanks until I started reading it. He must be really regretting taking on Steyn!

      • I just want someone to ask him about the precise steps he took in MBH98 where he “hid the decline” so he can spell out in front of congress exactly what he did…because I’m quite certain that 97% of scientists would agree that truncating the divergent data and splicing on the temperature record to do the smooth would be seen for what it is…

      • All of that should come out in the discovery phase of the trial. Steyn gets to ask the court to make Mann cough up his research data and his methods and explain it all to the judge because all of those things are what lead Steyn to call him a fraud. He can use Manns tweets, congressional testimonies, emails, etc anything related to his research or papers that indicate fraudulent behavior.

        Not ONE person from the scientific community to offer their support or agreement with Mann in the form of amicus curiae. Not one. Wonder why…

  73. Ms Esty killed the “deniers”, who agreed that there was a significant chance (maybe not 50%) that in fact humans contribute significantly to global warming. Also, Curry (and by their silence, every one of the scientists) agreed that there was no problem with having every Government department doing climate research. Specifically, NASA, which originally was created to do aeronautical and space research, should be building satellites to research climate issues. As should NOAA, but of course, they will leave the development of boosters to NASA. (Why? Access to space is important! Why shouldn’t they also develop their own boosters?) No one denied that if there was the slightest chance that we’d all see the planet burn up due to AGCW. Conclusion: then we should throw all manner of money at climate science.
    No one discussed Beyer’s point that the error between measured and model predictions was a mere 0.5 degrees. Never mind that the difference between the hottest year on record and the coldest was only slightly more, at 0.6 degrees – also a trifle. (Using the charts presented.) Conclusion: the models are spot on!
    I’ll give Smith credit for calling Mann out (with Mann’s own published statements) for applying the denier epithet to Dr. Curry, at the least. Louderman did an excellent job of cornering Mann as clearly a denier that there was no way the models could be wrong.
    The CAGW crew did an outstanding job of twisting language and logic. There is not a chance in hell that any fascist would be anything but ecstatic over the way this hearing went. Mayor of Venus was very correct that Curry, Christy, and Pielke are among the 97%, but not in the way that 97% is represented by Orestes.
    I personally believe not only in climate change, but that over any 100 year period, we are (or should be) warming – slightly. Only a quirk of nature would keep that from happening, until we begin descending into the next ice age, which will be devastating if we haven’t figured out how to use energy sources (non-wind/solar) to keep us, our livestock, and our crops warm. Nevertheless, if I hadn’t been around when scientists were trying to figure out if CO2 would cool or warm the planet, seen the previous periods where there were calls to Government to step in and save us from hell/ice ball, I would have awarded this debate to CAGW. </b?

    • KK,
      You failed to consider that it is beyond the remit of the witnesses present to opine on which agency should or should not do further work on a particular aspect. Dr Curry in particular noted a few broad areas where some scientists considered further research was needed. The mechanics of how this would be done is not for her to say. She answered the relevant questions as put, immediately and positively.
      Ms Esty’s contribution meant nothing at all. It is pointless to argue how much change is natural and how much is anthropogenic, because to date NOBODY has published a method to attribute these portions. Indeed, at a fundamental level, NOBODY has published a definitive, agreed paper on the parameter of climate sensitivity and its value. The option is still open that CS is zero for the earth system, whereas it is not zero if one considers only the front end of the process, namely the interaction of radiation with gases that absorb radiation. It is simply misleading to state that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the atmosphere will heat when radiation enters it. Radiation also leaves the system. The balance of incoming versus outgoing is of interest.
      You claim that the models are spot on. Even Blind Freddy can look at any of a number of graphical presentations to find that this is not the case. You might take into account that in the CMIP exercises, various labs select one or more computer runs that they then submit for statistical comparison with other labs. Statistics involves sampling a population. When sampling is done subjectively, some to all of the validity of then using statistics is lost. It is just another form of cherry picking. So it does not matter if the models are spot on or way off the mark, because they are fundamentally invalid because of subjective input and later selection. Then the use of averaging to get a view of the combined input of the tens of participating CMIP labs is childish, mathematically invalid and practically without scientific meaning – especially when very expensive policy decisions are based on this invalid procedure.
      It is time for climate work to pull its socks up and stop dragging down the standard of science in general.
      One could go on. One shall not.
      Dr Mann showed the negative value of talking too much.

      • I agree with all you said, as you have been a follower of climate science in general, and clearly anti-CAGW. I’m concerned with how it looks to someone who is relatively new to the argument. Mind you, trying to see something from a neutral POV is truly impossible, and I freely admit that I may be over-empathizing. It disturbs me to see otherwise rational people, with STEM degrees, backing CAGW. As a manager of other aerospace engineers, I was distressed with how many of them – some with advanced degrees – bought the religion wholeheartedly. I felt this hearing would not shake them in the least.

      • KK, I agree.with all you say. I had no dog in this fight until accidentally discovered a deliberately misleading NRDC Congressional breifing in 2011. Nothing good since, but is complicated.
        So this thread absent context is difficult. But not impossible.

    • “Conclusion: then we should throw all manner of money at climate science.”

      Including a portion to a Red Team, per Curry.

      • If Curry’s (and Pielke’s, Christy’s) recommendation was followed – fine. But that part will be omitted. Ms Esty will only parade their agreement to maintaining current expenditures, with the implication that it should continue going to CAGW scientists – like Mann.

  74. I remember reading Bish’s book Hockey Stick Illusion where we learned that M Mann defended his bad statistical analysis by saying he wasn’t an statistics person. Then later when McIntyre asked him to collect new tree data to fix the issues on that front he said he wasn’t a data collection guy or that it was too difficult and expensive to go get the tree data. So McIntyre went and did it himself on some random weekend. And I’m thinking: well if you aren’t any good at collecting data and you can’t handle processes to process that data, what the hell ARE you bringing to the table? Is there any other aspect of this research I’m missing?

  75. I had to re listen to MM. I would love to see the calculation that shows there is a 1:10,000 chance that under half of climate change is caused by man!!! I haven’t heard this claim before.

  76. “…..The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was identified by Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994….”. That is from Wikipedia but they are well known researchers.Maybe Michael Mann got his Nobel Prize for not naming it????


      Schlesinger and Ramankutty discovered the phenomenon in 1994. hen other scientists began studying it. Dick Kerr, a science writer, was interviewing Mann over the phone about a recent paper on this topic, and since giving it a name made it easier to write about it, KERR suggested “AMO”. Of course, Mann decided to take credit for that as well. I loved how he brought up such an insignificant thing-as “coining a name”-for a well known natural phenomenon (which he did not do) today in testimony as if it somehow impacted Judith Curry’s own research somehow.

      • It is a strange thing to “claim” something that can be disproved readily. Goes to the psyche methinks.

  77. So much has been wasted trying to prevent the inevitable rather than preparing for the inevitable.

    Changing weather and climate are inevitable. Man has little or nothing to do with it … but some have found a way to profit from it.

    • Perhaps sad. But it was noted a couple of times that models that work produce forecasts that work and if they do not then the model is faulty. That is a step before falsification that saves going the extra miles.
      Not exactly the same as falsifying, but along the same lines.

  78. I must admit that this is very difficult to watch. Seeing Michael Mann utterly abuse and mis-apply the 97% statistic, when we all know that when this number is articulated properly we are all in the 97%, is utterly grating. At a US government hearing !! And then seeing democratic senators do the same “we need another 96 MM’s here to balance out the view” makes my blood boil. The liberal left ….. OMG they are so in the wrong place,

    • James Delingpole made me laugh outloud! As one commenter pointed out “Good thing he was restraining himself….” Best insulting run on sentence of all time…(even before I looked up cackhanded!)

      “Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.”

      • He’s an hornswoggler too.

        Examples of hornswoggle in a sentence – Merriam Webster
        “I think we’ve been hornswoggled by that carnival barker.”

  79. I listened to the entire hearing yesterday, and while I don’t have any individual experience with any of the people on the panel, I can now understand why Dr. Mann is not liked, and globally not liked at that. For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject, seems to transition smoothly from one topic to the next, almost glib, which is strange for a profession that should be characterized by caution and hesitancy to over-reach. I saw those qualities in the other 3 panelists, but not Dr. Mann.
    He seemed to have no problem veering off into innuendo and personal attacks and weaved them into the threads of his testimony. And of course there was the preening megalomania of him reciting his CV again, even though the chairman had already done that for everyone (no one else saw the need). I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style. And then going off on Pielke and Curry repeatedly, right out in the open in one of the halls of Congress, while still portraying himself as the victim.
    He had absolutely the biggest whoppers I have ever heard from a scientist, including the proposition that “climate change denier” and “climate science denier” were 2 fundamentally different things that should not be confused. Not to mention that it’s perfectly OK to label someone either way in any event. But of course my favorite whopper was that the consensus has the same acceptance rate in the scientific community and the public at large as the theory of gravity. Wow! Just Wow! Does anyone here care to step off a climate science cliff?
    So yeah, now I understand. I hope I never meet him. I do hope to meet Dr. Curry, Dr. Christy , and Dr. Pielke at some point—I think they handled themselves well, refrained from personal attacks like adults should, gave their opinions without advocacy, and generally tried to be good stewards and citizens.

      • The problem is marty that people do take him seriously. This battle is far from over. Here in Australia we had a Cat 4 cyclone hit land a couple of days ago very very quickly becoming a Cat 3. I will await Jennifer Marohasy’s prognostication on this as Australia’s previous Cat 4 (supposedly) Marcia was actually a Cat 3 when it hit land thanks to Jen checking the facts. First up we have a Greens Rep stating that there is blood on the hands of the Government because we still have coal fired power stations – and that is where the problem remains marty – they still get air time and there is a generation of children that have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking. It is, sadly, a battle far from won. Having said that we will prevail. Also a quickie to Bob Carter – a giant lost to the art of clear thinking.

      • I agree! I wait for the moment when the current climate trend is over and the temperatures are falling again. Then comes a new generation of alarmists, who then predict the ice age, and the downfall of mankind.

  80. Such a lost opportunity Judith missed. 100% of the panel Curry, Christy, Mann and Pielke form part of the 97% of scientists who believe anthropogenic CO2 is warming the earth to some extent. That’s what the consensus actually is…and not that most of the warming is man made.

    • I think that rigour was what was needed here Tim, and the only one lacking style was – oh take a guess? Actually I will give you odds of 10,000:1 on Mann style.

      • Yeah, I’ve watched the whole thing now and the 97% argument was brought up but not pressed. Mann showed his true colours. He acts like a child.

Comments are closed.