Bill Stoltzfus leaves this comment on the post Hump Day Hilarity: Mann-o-War at the House Climate Science Hearing
I thought it was worth elevating for the general readership.
Bill Stoltzfus 2017/03/31 at 9:01 am
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.
Anthony comments:
I’ll add to that. When Dr. Mann said in his testimony:
But I’m here today because I’m also passionate about communicating what we know to the public and to policymakers. I have become convinced that no pursuit could be more noble.
The first thing that went through my mind is that Dr. Mann may be an unwitting practitioner of Noble Cause Corruption
John P. Crank and Michael A. Caldero (2000) define noble cause corruption as
“corruption committed in the name of good ends”
While written about police conduct, the paper is germane to the climate debate because people who are convinced that they are “saving the Earth” often have the same issue with noble cause corruption as police officers planting evidence to put away somebody they “know” is a bad guy. The “end justifies the means”, as we saw demonstrated in the Climategate emails.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.”
-Bertrand Russel
I’ve heard a number of times, in the context of this debate, that the theory of gravity is an example of “settled science”. I’d like to remind everyone that gravity was considered “settled science for several hundred years after Newton’s work, until a fellow called Einstein came along.
Furthermore, gravity is still not “settled science”:
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
Again, it depends on whether on is speaking of the existence of gravity or the why of gravity.
I’d say the quantitative relationships of gravity , ie : the equation , or the why .
Physics is the “how”, not the “why”. “Why” is philosophy or religion. We just model how things work. When people start saying they know the why, they’re off the rails, or selling something.
nearly good, michael.
‘why’ requires that a purpose be specified. among scientists, this is known as the crime of anthropomorphism, i.e., attribution of purpose to entities incapable of intention.
this illustrates the failure of thinking brought about by the failure of verbal cognition.
words have definitions. (if no definition, not a word but a grunt)
definition is the set of distinguishing characterstics (not a description)
logic can only be performed by symbols with definitions.
and that’s why words, themselves, are deliberately deformed – to make reasoning difficult.
AP Lets just say that “Post Newtonian Gravity” is a little more “complicated!
Post Newtonian Gravity for the Common Reader
https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/postN.pdf
The current estimate I have for a post doc to prepare the software to code the theoretical equations for the full details at the sub 1 cm level at earth’s surface is about 3 years!
A bit more than F=G*M1*M2/R^2.
Sounds very similar to “climate science” of “more CO2 warms the planet” vs the full models –
except we are not sure on the “more CO2” bit compared to clouds etc.
David how would you compensate for the different densities of the materials that make up the earth without a detailed subsurface geological model?
I have used gravity surveys in the past as a mineral exploration tool, as the densities of certain rocks differ greatly and can lead to gravity anomolies.
3 years could turn out to be quite an underestimate.
I have an estimate from a consultant presently to develop a 3D numerical model about 1km square by 180m deep on a 1m grid and the computing time is around 3 months.
AP Yes, important issues for high resolution vertical and transverse evaluation in the range of vertical sensitivity of ~<1 cm or 1.1 x 10^-18 in time. Similarly secular transients from lunar, and diurnal oceanic, atmospheric tides, precipitation, and groundwater. On Post Newtonian gravity see e.g. Mueller (2017) High Performance Clocks and Gravity Field Determination”; Sergei Kopeikin (2016) Post-Newtonian reference-ellipsoid for relativistic geodesy. etc.
I’m exploring issues on the potential to measure gravity by > order of magnitude better sensitivity. The 3 years was purely on the full post Newtonian equations. Would like to chat at myname at gmail.com.
“Never allow yourself to be caught marching with a sign proclaiming the world is going to end on Thursday; and it’s Friday.”
-Pearce, Matt
“A fool is someone whose pencil wears out before its eraser does.”
-Marilyn vos Savant
I think that’s called “humility” or “meekness”.
The more humble/meek one is, the more willing one is to use it, but not need it.
“Noble cause corruption”
I don’t think so. Mann is simply an extreme self promoter. Nothing noble there…
+1
This fellow is interested in one thing: ‘enforcing’ the particular view of impending climate doom as a function of current and future human CO2 emissions. To that end, he is willing to make a fool of himself, besmirching anyone brave enough to stand up to some of the more outrageous nonsense passing for “Climate Science” today.
Kudos to Curry, Cristy and Pielke, Jr. for showing grace under pressure.
But Mann’s delusions of grandeur, coupled with his arrogant spouting of half-truths and gutter polemics, even outright psychological projection of his own blatant failures upon his adversaries, point to a particular form of pathology. He has long since jumped the shark with his ridiculous non-scientific claims and self-aggrandizement. Pure narcissism.
Somewhere deep inside, he must realize that the entire scam upon which his very career was built is about to come crashing down like a house of cards in a summer breeze.
“The main difference between the wise man and a fool is that a fool’s mistakes never teach him anything.”
😎
Just think.
If Mann wasn’t a fool then he might, now, really be the world’s premier climate scientist!
Irony that Pielke, Curry and Christy are better candidates for that title.
“An intelligent person learns from his mistakes, a wise person learns from the mistakes of others”. — No idea who said that…
Mann’s claim to fame was the hockey stick was so poorly constructed it disintegrated . Does the IPCC use it anymore ? Even science journals now require scientific hypothesis to be replica table .They no longer want to be in the science fiction business .
So what happened to Mann’s hockey shtick data ? Let’s see it replicated and compared to real observation .
Taking shots at some of the three best climate scientists in the world showed Mann’s true character .
This was his chance to act like a open minded scientist, maybe build some bridges, instead of reinforcing the reputation he is known for . He finished any lingering questions about that.
Would anyone want their kid going to Penn State listening to that trash talk deflection ? The credentials of the other three panelists are deep with whole career commitments minus the smug arrogance thinking they have it all figured out . They don’t pretend to have all the answers or absolute certainty and that on it’s own tells people everything they need to know about the overhyped global warming fear mongering industry.
Good old Penn State. Now they’re paying-out about $93 million to their sexual abuse victims http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/03/30/penn-state-trustee-running-out-sympathy/99826214/#, will they soon be paying-out more to the victims of their Intellect-abuse practices?
One thing has struck me recently and that’s the IPCC claim that predicting the climate is impossible.
If so then Climate “Science” has failed the essential principle of Science of TESTABILITY.
If it can’t predict then it can’t be tested.
Astrology has a better standard than that!
Don’t you think Mike’s mien would suit him being dressed in a black cloak and pointy hat with stars over them?
The goatee is perfect.
I doubt the Astrologer’s union would accept him though, it would lower the tone too much.
So, aside from Mike acting like someone in denial, does that make Climate Science a pseudo-science?
jon:
You ask
Science is a method to determine the closest approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information that refutes existing understanding and replacing, amending or rejecting existing understanding in light of discovered information.
Pseudoscience is a method that accepts an understanding as being ‘truth’ then seeking information which supports it.
There is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); n.b. no evidence, none, not any of any kind. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was soon shown to be an artifact of his improper data selection and was rejected. Since then, there has been decades of research to seek some – any – evidence for discernible AGW. This research has been conducted worldwide at a cost of more than $2 billion per year. But no evidence for discernible AGW has been found.
The complete lack of any evidence for discernible AGW induces some Climate Scientists to claim outputs from climate models are evidence of AGW but – in reality – outputs of the models are only evidence of the understandings that Climate Scientists have put in the models.
Summarising, the answer to your question is
By definition, Climate Science pertaining to AGW is pseudoscience.
Richard
Noble Cause Corruption: AKA the paving stones to Hades.
Why don’t Mann and Naomi Oreskes hook-up, produce the anti-Christ, and get this whole apocalypse-thing overwith already?
Scary thought.
I hope I am correct in believing that each has already reproduced with humans. I suppose that doesn’t rule out spawning the Anti-Christ, but Dr. Oreskes first appeared on earth in 1958, so we might have dodged that bullet.
That vision is going to keep me up all night! Him and Her ??? Nightmares for sure! YUCK !! a thousand times.
statistics is not science … all Mann does is take other peoples data, massage it and claim he has found a signal in it … none of it is science … if he is a scientist then every financial business analyst is also a scientist …
statistics is a tool …
A tool Mann does not use properly.
+100
Mike, the Tool Mann Tailor?
I didn’t see Mann get any point of science related to climate correct; just exaggeration and unsupported claims.
John
“the same acceptance rate in the scientific community and the public at large as the theory of gravity.”
I have to laugh when such comparisons are made by the warmists. But I’m surprised nobody jumps at the opportunity to point out that the “consensus” views (97%?) on fundamental aspects of science (gravity, heliocentrism, flat Earth etc.) have been historically debunked by heretical “deniers” of the day. The dogma du jour is relegated to the dustbin of history by those annoying anti-science contrarians … again and again.
Could not agree more. All, despite Mann, were exceptional and humble enough as a scientist should be. Mann is vain, arrogant and pale as a scientist. The new Ptolemy!!
Mann looks like he took conviction training from Gore . What scientific papers has Mann produced that support any claims he makes ? Let’s see an updated hockey stick backed with supporting evidence .
Not going to happen .
I was impressed with his math skills (at about the 1:44 mark in the video posted yesterday)
“Yeah, well, Roger is pointing to outdated reports, outdated data. Um, three years ago, uh, he actually posted the following on his blog, he said” … (quotes Mr. Pielke) … “That’s what he said back in 2015, well, that’s you know, three years ago …”
. . I would hesitate to exaggerate under those circumstances, personally ; )
Amazing anyone could make it through the whole thing. Listening to the self annoited Savior of the Planet and the Libtards feeding in the leading questions was worse than ‘nails on the chalkboard’. Made it about half way and just couldn’t devote any more of my life’s arc to it.
I urge you all to look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in the DSM Psychiatry V, as I believe it is extremely relevant to Michael Mann. This was pointed out by poster Leo Smith in the recent previous thread on Mann. Please see his inclusion.
These narcissists are insidious and extremely dangerous. When they get into positions of authority, they become even worse. Their grandiosity kicks into overdrive, as does the prevarication to prop up their world. It’s not that narcissists cannot be right, or do good work, but they will attack and retaliate against any threat, real or perceived. They take up more time retaliating than doing actual good work, with consequent negative effects on those around them. Beware the narcissists! If a narcissist owns a private company, he or she can run it into the ground, or succeed; but, IMHO, public entities need to be rid of these horror shows.
@4caster, I hope you are being partially sarcastic. As a parent of such a person, please do not be flippant.
They are dangerous.
+10
But public entities are where they thrive without the baggage of responsibilities and day to day work.
It is time to bring out the wrongdoing by Mann when he constructed his hockey stick. I find it necessary because he promotes his hockey stick as a legitimate representation of recent temperature history which nit is not. Originally it was based upon observations of tree rings which is a legitimate technique. But when his tree ring data showed something else than what he expected he had a problem. He believed temperature should go up as it approached current time, so he found a set of current measurements, of unknown origin, and attached it to the end of the original tree ring curve. And then pretended, as he still does, that this combined graph is a real temperature record of the last 1000 years. Of course, it is not and such mixing of data sets to achieve a desired result is plain falsification of data. It is a scientific crime and should have been rejected by peer reviewers. It obviously was not which brings up questions about how it passed peer review. The reviewers had to be either incompetent or worse, “buddy reviewers” of the type we know from the Climategate files. Passing the review meant publication and removed any obstacles that could stop him. He used that fact fully to advance his career. It is plain scientific fraud but it appealed to the IPCC enough to use it on two of their reports. It appealed to the University of Pennsylvania personages who control things there. They gave him a cushy academic job and made him boss of a climate studies section. But a fraud by any other name is still a fraud. The upturned blade of the hockey stick is constructed out of foreign data fraudulently introduced. As a scientist, I feel strongly that under no circumstances can this hybrid temperature curve be used as a representation of global temperature today or in the past. The added data can in no way be correlated to the tree ring data that failed to show the warming he was after, by hook or by crook.
You might benefit from discovering the joys of paragraphs.
effi, does that mean you read the whole thing?
The content is pretty darn good… regardless of paragraphing
Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) March 31, 2017 at 8:28 pm
It is time to bring out the wrongdoing by Mann when he constructed his hockey stick. I find it necessary because he promotes his hockey stick as a legitimate representation of recent temperature history which nit is not. Originally it was based upon observations of tree rings which is a legitimate technique. But when his tree ring data showed something else than what he expected he had a problem. He believed temperature should go up as it approached current time, so he found a set of current measurements, of unknown origin, and attached it to the end of the original tree ring curve.
Perhaps you should read the paper again. It was not only tree rings but included the following, also the temperature source was referenced:
HISTORICAL DATA
Central England Temperature air temperature 52N 0E 1730 Manley 1959
Central Europe Temperature air temperature 45N 10E 1525 Pfister 1992
PROXY DATA
Burdekin River Coral-fluorescence Precip/Runoff 20S 147E 1746 Lough 1991
Galapagos Isabel Island Coral-O-18 SST 1S 91W 1607 Dunbar et al 1994
Gulf of Chiriqui, Panama Coral-O-18 Precip 7.5N 81W 1708 Linsley et al, 1994
” Coral-C-13 ocean circ ” ” 1708 ”
Espiritu Santu Coral-O-18 SST 15S 167E 1806 Quinn et al 1993
New Caledonia Coral-O-18 SST 22S 166E 1658 Quinn et al 1996
Great Barrier Reef Coral-band thickness SST 19S 148E 1615 Lough, personal comm.
Red Sea Coral-O-18 SST/Precip 29.5N 35E 1788 Heiss, 1994
” Coral-c13 ocean circ ” ” 1788 ”
Quelccaya Ice Core summit Ice O-18 (air temp) 14S 71W 470 Thompson 1982
” ” Ice accumulation precip ” ” 488 ”
” Core 2 Ice O-18 (air temp) ” ” 744 ”
” ” Ice accumulation precip ” ” 744 ”
Dunde Ice Core Ice O-18 (air temp) 38N 96E 1606 Thompson 1982
Greenland Ice melt summer air temp 66N 45W 1545 Kameda et al, 1996
Svalbard Ice melt summer air temp 79N 17W 1400 Tarussov 1992
Penny Ice O-18 (temp) 70N 70W 1718 Fisher et al 1998
Central Greenland (Stack) Ice O-18 (temp) 77N 60W 553 Fisher et al 1996
For the record:
Mann is employed at Penn State University, in State College PA.
He does not work at the University of Pennsylvania, which is an Ivy League school in Philadelphia.
Mann oh Mann this guy is a piece of work. Despite his earnest striving he will be in the public stocks at the end. Heaping scorn on scientists sitting right next to you while claiming victimhood. Pathetic.
The thing that struck me while listening to Mann go on about Lysenkoism was that this was perhaps the most striking example of projection that I’ve ever witnessed. [Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. (Wikipedia)]
Another bright light supporting CAGW is the President of the Sierra Club. In the video here Aaron Mair is questioned by Sen. Ted Cruz on Climate Change:
Ouch. That’s not a fair fight.
Michael Mann exposes himself under severe and focussed questioning at the House Committee hearing on Science – but he is oblivious to any questioning or criticism – he just keeps on digging a hole – for himself
https://youtu.be/j1duR2AESBM
Another famous liar: Walter Ulbricht.
same little vain beardy thing too.
He was the First Secretary of the East German socialist party from 1945 until 1970. “All must look as if it were democratic but we (the commies) must keep control.” And he was a stout Stalinist, as Rohrabacher quite rightfully said abot that abominable Mann.
There is something worrying me and perhaps if I air and share it , it will go away .
You remember a few weeks ago President Trump annoyed Sweden with comments about the unfortunate consequences of unrestricted immigration of young men of Middle Eastern extraction . He is also believed to be sceptical about CAGW which the Swedes take as gospel. Some way of upsetting Trump would no doubt appeal to the Swedish establishment..
Well Sweden awards the Nobel Prize for Physics and there have been no new particles or advances in , say , superconductors lately so who better to award this year’s Physics prize to than the triumvirate of Mann, Schmidt and Hansen. I am sure that many, including some who post here, would consider it long overdue and fully justified
Mann would then be totally invulnerable to any attack , whether legal or scientific.
Don’t mistake what the Swedish government says ,and what the people think as the same thing.
The general feeling among my Swedish friends is that a mass round up and deportation is long overdue.
If the Nobel Prize committee wants to completely discredit themselves and render their awards meaningless, they could do what you suggest is possible.
But praising a jackass does not make the jackass praiseworthy, it just means you have low standards and poor judgement…or you love jackasses.
The ideas and contributions of Nobel winners are not valuable because of the prize.
Giving the prize to charlatans would make them invulnerable to legal attack, or scientific discredit?
I think not.
If it came to be it would not be the first time that a phony warmist(s) got a Nobel prize. The fist Nobel for a phony warmist went to Al Gore. How phony was that? He told us to expect a twenty foot sea level rise by the end of this century. I checked out scientific literature and determined that a sea level rise for a century could be no more than 10 inches. That was in 2008. Quickly, I wrote a paper for Science and one for Nature too pointing out what science had to say about sea level rise. What was their response? Both journals threw my paper back into my face, not even a peer review to justify this outrage. I could see that the warmists were in control of both journals, so I did not bother with any more papers. I simply wrote a book about global warming entitled “What Warming?” which is still available by Amazon and other booksellers.