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.
Josh
Added: links to written testimony are within each name. – Anthony
Witnesses
President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology
Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama at Huntsville; State Climatologist, Alabama
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University; Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University
Professor, Environmental Studies Department, University of Colorado
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’
Associated Press:
At first Mann said he didn’t call Curry a denier. But in his written not oral testimony he called Curry “a climate science denier.” Mann said there’s a difference between denying climate change and “denying established science” on how much humans cause climate change, which he said Curry did.
[Also see: Warmist Michael Mann tells whopper at congressional science hearing?]
AP:
Mann and Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California both compared the other side’s behavior to the former Soviet Union under Josef Stalin. Mann first raised the Stalin analogy, then Rohrabacher used the comparison four times after that to talk about Mann and other mainstream climate scientists. “For scientists to call names to beat someone into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic,” Rohrabacher said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
M. Mann isn’t telling the truth. He is listed as a member of the Concil of Advisors of the Climate Accountability Institute.
Congressman Weber reminded Mann of that very fact. @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I’m NOT the Chairperson !
g
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.
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.
G
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.
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.
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!.
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?!
It’s not a lie if you believe it.
Wrong as a matter of law.
Mann’s written testimony is filled with lies…
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.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
MM03 thoroughly demolished MBH98. As did the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
This one takes the cake:
Fraud may very well be a “clever approach”…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
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.
I’ve got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it & call it a weasel.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3f42t4C7XU
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).
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.
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.
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.
“And they did so before a
SenateHouse Committee, . . . “