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.
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.
John
Oops, correction.
Mannisshould be ‘Mann is’.John
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.”
https://junkscience.com/2012/03/climates-stolen-valor-did-mann-lie-about-coining-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/
OMG….he’s such a little weasel of a human.
Amazing rebuttal. I’m actually envious of the composition and reason expressed in your response. So much so, that it shall be cut and pasted to be used again…but I will give credit.
Credit schmedit. 🙂 Just stating what I saw. But thank you. Gives me another chance to call him a tiny little man with a great big ego who can’t answer a question without some kind of arrogant, snide little aside first.
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.
(See http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-will-be-all-gone-as-csiro-swings-jobs-axe-scientists-say-20160203-gml7jy.html)
.
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.’
(See http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-order-csiro-uturn-towards-climate-science-20160803-gqk2pr.html)
.
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:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-scientist-on-climate-we-dont-know-what-the-heck-is-waiting-for-us/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/11/audit-csiro-they-lack-evidence-says-senator-malcolm-roberts/
Bonamici and Johnson are complete idiots. Time to replace them. They could barely read the bullshit prepared statements.
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…
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-MMann-20170329.pdf
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.
@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.
(See http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-will-be-all-gone-as-csiro-swings-jobs-axe-scientists-say-20160203-gml7jy.html)
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.’
(See http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-order-csiro-uturn-towards-climate-science-20160803-gqk2pr.html)
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:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-scientist-on-climate-we-dont-know-what-the-heck-is-waiting-for-us/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/11/audit-csiro-they-lack-evidence-says-senator-malcolm-roberts/
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.
““For scientists to call names to beat someone into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic,” Rohrabacher said.”
Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/climate-bullies-gone-wild-caught-on-tape-and-print/
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.
What Mann does cannot seriously be called science! He is an activist!
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?
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?
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…..
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.
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.
To have Curry, Christy and Pielke question Mann … that would be a massacre.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Judith Curry mentioned the Milankovich cycle en passant.
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 https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2015/08/15/the-rockefellers-who-they-fund-from-their-web-site/
Do your own search at http://www.rbf.org
Cheers
Roger
At 1:49.40 the video is conveniently damaged. Just when Mr Rohrabacher is giving Mann what he deserves. This can be no coincidence. 🙁
Fortunately the version at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0qWRI7Rpc seems intact at this point.
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 http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
We should also figure out ways to get my copy of the video to you as well.
Cheers
Roger
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)
““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!
Does it seem obvious to anyone else that Mann knew the questions he would be asked.
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.
They couldn’t get that coward Schmidt to appear ??