Professor Michael Mann destroys the case for action on climate change

Guest Opinion by Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: The House Science committee heard from three climate scientists. The testimony of the activist, Michael Mann, destroyed the case for strong public policy action to fight climate change. He deserves attention. Sadly, the attention has been on the least important parts of his testimony.

“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
— From the “Summary for Policy-Makers” of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about the timing and magnitude of future warming.

clip_image001

House Committee on Science, Space & Technology.

On March 29 the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing on “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method“. The star witness, in terms of public profile, was Michael Mann — Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at Pennsylvania State. Mann gave a remarkable demonstration of why the 29 year-long climate change campaign has produced such small results. He opens strongly and closes with even more strongly. But his own evidence undercuts his claims.

(1)  A consensus about current adverse impacts of climate change?

Mann opens with this claim, one that has been often said during the past several years.

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

Yes, there is a consensus that climate change is real and largely human-caused. The third claims, about already causing adverse impacts, is quite false — as shown by the three footnotes Mann provides.

1. “Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change” signed by representatives of 11 national science academies in 2005. It says that “Climate change is real.” No mention of current adverse impacts, just “changes in Earth’s climate.” Excerpt:

“However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.”

2. “Scientific Consensus on Global Warming” by the Union of Concerned Scientists, undated. Gives excerpts from the statements by many scientific societies. Few mention current “adverse impacts”. The UCS summary:

“However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it.”

3. “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming” by John Cook et al in Environmental Research Letters, April 2016. .” It says little about current adverse impacts. From the abstract:

“The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper

(2)  Mann describes the Serengeti Strategy.

“I coined the term “Serengeti Strategy” back in 2012 in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Linesclip_image002 to describe how industry special interests who feel threatened by scientific findings — be it tobacco and lung cancer, or fossil fuel burning and climate change — single out individual scientists to attack in much the same way lions of the Serengeti single out an individual zebra from the herd. In numbers there is strength, but individuals are far more vulnerable.

“Science critics will therefore often select a single scientist to ridicule, hector, and intimidate. The presumed purpose is to set an example for other scientists who might consider sticking their neck out by participating in the public discourse over certain matters of policy-relevant science.”

Mann coined the term for this strategy, and activists have used it skillfully and often. It is quite daft to portray himself — lavishly rewarded in fame and income — as a victim. Activists’ victims have not done so well. Roger Pielke Jr. was a professor of environmental science. For accurately describing the conclusions of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research, he is now in the Department of Athletics. For details about this shameful story see The Left stages a two minute hate on Roger Pielke Jr. and Roger Pielke Jr. describes the smear attacks on him.

Mann follows this explanation of the “Serengeti Strategy” with a demonstration of how it works.

“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”

Normal academic practice would be to support such an incendiary accusation with citations of Curry’s statements that “deny the most basic findings of the scientific community.” Instead he cites a peripheral news story (WaPo: “Scott Pruitt’s office deluged with angry callers after he questions the science of global warming“) and an attack on Curry by an activist scientist (“IPCC attribution statements redux: A response to Judith Curry” by Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate).

Oddly in the Q&A Mann has amnesia about his sworn statement and says “A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier.” Steve McIntyre found some relevant tweets by Mann.

clip_image003

When Mann speaks about the strategy to “ridicule, hector, and intimidate” opponents, he speaks from experience.

clip_image004

clip_image005

Julie Kelly at National Review debunks some of Mann’s testimony, such as this.

“Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered ‘no.’” [Judith Curry notes: Mann also lists this affiliation on his CV.]

This resort to insults plus erroneous statements must eroded Mann’s credibility to any informed and fair observer.

clip_image006

By Greg Grieco; Wikimedia Commons.

(3) About climate science: Mann destroys his own case.

Most of the first 11 pages of Mann’s testimony concerns squabbles between activists and skeptics, mostly about the degree of past warming (about which there is a strong consensus among climate scientists). None of which is of much relevance to the public policy questions of interest to Congress.

Then he skips to the question of climate science of most importance to public policy: how accurate and reliable are climate models? Mann gives a confident answer.

“While we’re at it, let me address another favorite talking point of the critics, the claim that climate models we use to project future climate change are unreliable and untested. The reality is that the models have been tested vigorously and rigorously in numerous ways, and have passed a number of impressive tests in the past, such as James Hansen’s famous successful predictions from the 1980s and 1990s.

“Let me take the opportunity to bring your attention to one particular analysis that appears in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change. Back in 1989, legendary climate scientists Ron Stouffer (a graduate of our program at Penn State I’m proud to say) and Suki Manabe made a prediction not just of the average warming of the globe, but of the precise global pattern of that warming. That pattern matches the observed pattern of warming that has ensued remarkably well.”

He gives two citations to support this massive claim. The first is a blog post: “Hansen’s 1988 projections” by Gavin Schmidt, 15 May 2007. It discusses “Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model” by Hansen et el in Journal of Geophysical Research, 20 August 1988. But if the evidence for this prediction was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.

The second citation Mann gives is peer-reviewed: “Assessing temperature pattern projections made in 1989” by Ronald J. Stouffer and Syukuro Manabe in Nature Climate Change, March 2017. Mann materially misrepresents the findings. The paper says that limitations in their model cause …

“problems in comparing models to observations and makes the comparisons shown here qualitative in nature. It is one of the reasons why we focus our attention on the geographical distribution of surface temperature change rather than the magnitude of change in this study.”

These are the two strongest citations Mann finds to support models’ forecasts, on the basis which we are supposed to restructure the world economy. On that high note Mann closes his presentation. Nothing in the testimony of the three skeptics proves the weakness of activists’ reasoning as effectively as Mann’s own advocacy.

Conclusions.

“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc

Eventually the weather will determine who wins the public policy debate over climate change, as we do or don’t get a period of extreme weather (which will or will not be caused largely by anthropogenic factors). The current policy gridlock might prove very expensive in its results.

Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsclip_image002[1] describes how he winners of the climate science debate will be decided. The current paradigm probably will continue to reign unless (or until) a new paradigm arises and replaces it. That usually takes many years, even a generation or more. I do not believe that process of clashing paradigms has even begun.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
— From Max Planck’s Scientific Autobiography: and Other Papersclip_image002[2], translated by F. Gaynor (1949).

For More Information.

For more information see The keys to understanding climate change and My posts about climate change, and especially these …

1. Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.

2. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.

3. A status report on global warming. Much depends on the next few years.

4. Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.

5. Climate activists’ final act, as they move into the last stage of grief.

6. A look at the future of global warming. Our political response depends on its trend.

Advertisements

136 thoughts on “Professor Michael Mann destroys the case for action on climate change

  1. This resort to insults plus erroneous statements must eroded Mann’s credibility to any informed and fair observer.
    The so-called “Main Stream Media” is neither well informed nor fair.

    • Steve,

      News media are a business, gaining an audience to whom advertising can be sold. There is no market for “informed and fair” news sufficiently large to pay for its manufacture.

      When we are willing to pay for it, someone in the free market will produce it. Let’s not complain about a product most of which we get for free.

      • This must explain why most papers are willing to lose money and even go out of business rather than accurately report the news.

      • It is not the “manufacture” of news as much as it is the avoidance of news, and the reliance on innuendo proven false. Business does rely on a profit and loss model to operate, but news (aka the YSM) has consistently demanded welfare (the networks MUST support the news departments regardless of income and expense) or new laws to CREATE welfare (NY TImes, et. al. asking the government to subsidize them).

        The complaint is not about a product that we get for free, but about a product we are not getting.

    • :Correcton: Professor Mann is DISTINGUISHED Professor of Atmospheric Sciences. Bow down you peasants!

      DISTINGUISHED professor is academic royalty. Of course PSU is a small earldom of science–no Nobel Laureates except for Dr. Mann, oops one-time headliner on an IPCC report, resulting in a Nobel Peace prize for IPCC, which has as much to do with science as the Nobel Prize in Literature (both awarding points for the power of fiction).

      But do you all realize that even though M & M proved Mann’s (non-statiscian) PCA statistical method was bogus, later men doing REAL SCIENCE achieved the same findings as Mann. This is the first time in the history of science that era science has come to the same end-findings as unscience. In the entire history of science, real science disproved the claims of unscience, until now. Wow! Oh wow!

      • Hey, four other Penn State professors shared that Peace Prize. But seriously, a Nobel in chemistry for genetic engineering doesn’t count as science?

    • The climate change believers are still at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. Sadly, they have and will cause great damage to the rest of us on their way to their final battle.

  2. I guess the “Serengeti Strategy” is what a narcissist would mentally devise to deflect being wrong and not accepting it. That is in addition to withholding data that the same narcissist touts to being key to world policy decisions and above full examination.

      • That would relate more to shaming. Projection is actually a psychological term, but as a strategy it is useful in ‘Shooting the Messenger’ and ‘Poisoning the Well’ by devaluing their complaints about you by alleging the same about them before they have a chance to get a word in edgewise.

    • Technically he’s not wrong. In fact his comment are spot on.

      “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

      If “human activities” means the adjustments that were performed on the raw data.

      • Exactly, I have 3 sets of temperature anomaly data down loaded, years apart, from GISS going back to 1880 and none of them match. The older records have mysteriously become cooler and the more recent ones warmer.

      • It has been admitted that the 95% here was obtained by polling a group of IPCC contributors. It is not supported by any data or observation and it is not a measure of statistical significance. As I recall it is in the SPM but not the body of the report. It’s worthless.

  3. I note in your discussion of Hansen’s 1988 predictions, you don’t provide your own opinion of how well those predictions have panned out. At best, you leave this an open question.

    But aside from the Schmidt blog post, there is at least one other blog that I am aware of that routinely checks the predictions from that paper against reality. There are probably others too. Though made against a specific data set and with specific predictions for future emissions (and lacking error bars too), the comparison does not look bad.

    • Compared to balloon and satellite data all three scenarios are way off. I’ll see if I can find a copy.

    • cgs,

      (1) “you don’t provide your own opinion of how well those predictions have panned out.”

      I am not a climate scientist. My opinion of it has and should have no effect on the public policy debate.

      (2) “At best, you leave this an open question.”

      It is an open question until resolved by papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

      (2) “there is at least one other blog that I am aware of that routinely checks the predictions from that paper against reality.”

      I hope you are trolling us, and are not seriously saying something so daft. This is an issue of great important, for which massive public policy measures are proposed. Peer-reviewed research, in various forms, is the mechanism for evaluating the evidence. No blogs.

      • My last sentence should be “Not blogs” instead of “No blogs”.

        I am astonished that Mann cited a ten-year old blog post to Congress as evidence that the predictions of climate models are an adequate basis for making public policy. Even odder is that nobody called him on this.

        In college a teaching assistant (grad student) told me that nobody reads footnotes. I guess he was right.

      • Peer reviewed is ASSUMED to be the gold standard by warmists because the editors of these journals understand well what would happen if they dared to publish anything not in line with the politically mandated “truth”.

      • No, I’m not trolling and I agree a published account of the model against reality up to this point would be a very good thing. On the other hand, I don’t ignore what comparisons have been made and by whom they have been made. I may not agree with Mann using this as evidence in a congressional hearing, but there does exist information on how well Hansen’s predictions have fared. And I am not aware of anyone attacking this information as bad or wrong. It may be, but no one that I am aware of has made that claim yet.

        And I am in substantial agreement with this statement:

        “Peer-reviewed research, in various forms, is the mechanism for evaluating the evidence.”

        Published research is indeed the venue in which scientific arguments are settled. I am glad to see you write this.

      • Peer review is presently a cover for publication of B.S. in climate change and the social “sciences”. If they make their data accessible and it is reviewed by competent, arms length reviewers then the field of study has a place to start a proper examination and/or replication. That’s why the climate clowns like Mann avoid this procedure like the plague.

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
        Quoting Planck.
        “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents…”

        Especially not if “its opponents” include most the world’s large, powerful companies with their unsurprisingly sophisticated PR and lobby machines.

        “My opinion of it has and should have no effect on the public policy debate.”

        Thats a bit rich.

      • “My opinion of it has and should have no effect on the public policy debate.”
        Thats a bit rich.

        You’re publishing opinions like: ” …Michael Mann, destroyed the case for strong public policy action…” why?

      • “cgs April 4, 2017 at 12:40 pm
        No, I’m not trolling and I agree a published account of the model against reality up to this point would be a very good thing. On the other hand, I don’t ignore what comparisons have been made and by whom they have been made. I may not agree with Mann using this as evidence in a congressional hearing, but there does exist information on how well Hansen’s predictions have fared. And I am not aware of anyone attacking this information as bad or wrong. It may be, but no one that I am aware of has made that claim yet.

        And I am in substantial agreement with this statement:

        “Peer-reviewed research, in various forms, is the mechanism for evaluating the evidence.”

        Published research is indeed the venue in which scientific arguments are settled. I am glad to see you write this.”

        Indeed?

        You don’t ignore alleged comparisons?
        Yet, you never read the actual predictions made; e.g. Hansen?
        Then actually pull up Google Earth to check and see if New York streets are flooded as Hansen predicted? Nor verify temperatures are where and when they should occur?

        I believe in magic too, only I prefer to believe the “magic in a young girl’s heart”; not activists desperately trying to burnish their religion’s appearances.

        Then cgs, you make a major claim to believing in the “peer-reviewed research”.
        A venue where scientific arguments are, allegedly settled…

        A statement, cgs, that you utterly fail to document or prove.

        Ask yourself, gullible cgs; “Where does the current peer review process and mechanism substitute for scientific methods or scientific verification?”

        The alleged peer review process is a publisher’s method(s) for floating up research to be published.
        No science is involved.
        No verification of scientific method(s) is involved.
        No validation of actual science progress occurs.
        No independent replication of scientific experiment(s) ever occurs.

        Bluntly stated, the alleged “peer review process” is not a functional nor necessary part of any scientific process.

        Afterwards, gullible cgs; ask yourself what Einstein’s peers would have thought of Einstein’s thesis/proof and how would they have treated Einstein’s submission?

        After all, what self respecting member of established science would actively refuse some young patent clerk’s upstart theory destroy their life’s work?

        “J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method”

      • “cgs April 4, 2017 at 12:40 pm
        No, I’m not trolling and I agree a published account of the model against reality up to this point would be a very good thing. On the other hand, I don’t ignore what comparisons have been made and by whom they have been made. I may not agree with Mann using this as evidence in a congressional hearing, but there does exist information on how well Hansen’s predictions have fared. And I am not aware of anyone attacking this information as bad or wrong. It may be, but no one that I am aware of has made that claim yet.

        And I am in substantial agreement with this statement:

        “Peer-reviewed research, in various forms, is the mechanism for evaluating the evidence.”

        Published research is indeed the venue in which scientific arguments are settled. I am glad to see you write this.”

        Indeed?

        You don’t ignore alleged comparisons?
        Yet, you never read the actual predictions made; e.g. Hansen?
        Then actually pull up Google Earth to check and see if New York streets are flooded as Hansen predicted? Nor verify temperatures are where and when they should occur?

        I believe in magic too, only I prefer to believe the “magic in a young girl’s heart”; not activists desperately trying to burnish their religion’s appearances.

        Then cgs, you make a major claim to believing in the “peer-reviewed research”.
        A venue where scientific arguments are, allegedly settled…

        A statement, cgs, that you utterly fail to document or prove.

        Ask yourself, gullible cgs; “Where does the current peer review process and mechanism substitute for scientific methods or scientific verification?”

        The alleged peer review process is a publisher’s method(s) for floating up research to be published.
        No science is involved.
        No verification of scientific method(s) is involved.
        No validation of actual science progress occurs.
        No independent replication of scientific experiment(s) ever occurs.

        Bluntly stated, the alleged “peer review process” is not a functional nor necessary part of any scientific process.

        Afterwards, gullible cgs; ask yourself what Einstein’s peers would have thought of Einstein’s thesis/proof and how would they have treated Einstein’s submission?

        After all, what self respecting member of established science would actively refuse some young patent clerk’s upstart theory destroy their life’s work?

        “J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method”

      • (Oh look, it’s Mr. Gridlock . . Hi Larry ; )

        “The current policy gridlock might prove very expensive in its results.”

        You forgot to mention it might save us a vast fortune, O casual but persistent spreader of the ridiculous notion that it’s always a good idea to go along with whatever anyone happens to propose, in order to avoid GRIDLOCK !! . .

        (otherwise known as non-totalitarian/deliberative governance ; )

      • Pity. Peer reviewed research only includes research which gets funded – and that is only that which is run in circles under the assumption that climate change is substantially affected by man. Certainly a climate in which disputing conventional wisdom is heresy is dominated by racetrack controls to maintain the appearance of unanimity without any consideration allowing substantial review.

      • Editor …,

        “Peer review” is at best a very poor tool for judging the quality of a scientific paper. At worst, it s the “scientific” equivalent of the guardians of orthodoxy in religions (and I mean from the Spanish Inquisition through Muslim imams, to Hindu Cattle vigilantes). It is a catastrophically poor tool in all sciences.

        Donna la Framboise has a very acute discussion of this here:

        http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

        It is well worth reading and her points are critical to science in general, not just climate science.

      • Thanks to the natural gas fracking revolution, CO2 growth has actually been less than that predicted by the “business as usual” scenario.

    • From Appendix B of Hansen’s 1998 paper…

      “Specifically, in scenario A CO2 increases as observed by Keeling for the interval 1958-1981 [keeling et al, 1982] and subsequently with a 1.5%/yr growth of the annual increment.”

      “In scenario B the growth of the annual increment of CO2 is is reduced from 1.5%/yr today to 1%/yr in 1990, 0.5%/yr in 2000 and 0 in 2010; thus after 2010 is constant, 1.9 ppmv/yr.”

      “In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”

      If I take the average annual increment from 1958-1981 and increase it by 1.5% per year until 2008, I get 385.35 ppmv. The Mauna Loa Observatory’s value for 2008 is 385.57 ppmv.

      When I constructed CO2 curves using Hansen’s scenario assumptions and I compare his scenarios to the actual CO2 data recorded since 1988, I get an almost exact match to Scenario “A”…

      The actual warming has been comparable Hansen’s Scenario C.

      “In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”

      I overlaid Hansen’s GISTEMP data on the plots of his model:

      Apart from the 2015-2026 El Niño, GISTEMP has tracked Scenario “C.” The 1998 El Niño yielded a comparable spike.

      Hansen’s scenarios “A” and “B” predicted a temperature anomaly about 1.0°C by 2010. Scenario “C” predicted an anomaly of about 0.6°C by 2010. Since Hansen’s publication, atmospheric CO2 levels have tracked Scenario “A” and CH4 levels have tracked Scenario “C”. Even though CH4 is a more potent greenhouse gas, it accounts for only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect:

      The failure of Hansen’s model is particularly noticeable on the graph of 5-yr running mean temperatures:

      The 5-yr graph is far more relevant to climate change than the annual graph.

      And the models aren’t getting better. Even when they start the model run in 2008, the observed temperatures consistently track at or below the lower 5-95% confidence band (p05-p95).

      SOURCE

      P50 would be the model mean. Half the model runs would predict more warming and half less. This would be a mean from the worst case scenario RCP 8.5, often referred to as “business as usual” to varying grades of mitigation scenarios (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6.0).  The observations continuously track below RCP 4.5.

      If the model ensemble had predictive skill, the observations should track around P50. During the predictive run of the model, HadCRUT4.5 has not *tracked* anywhere near P50…

      CMIP5_2.png

      Prediction Run Approximate Distribution
      2006 P60 (60% of the models predicted a warmer temperature)
      2007 P75
      2008 P95
      2009 P80
      2010 P70
      2011-2013 >P95
      2014 P90
      2015-2016 P55

      Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño, the observations spiked above P05 (less than 5% of the models predicted this). During the 2015-16 El Niño, HadCRUT only spiked to P55.  El Niño events are not P50 conditions. Strong El Niño and La Niña events should spike toward the P05 and P95 boundaries.

      The temperature observations are clearly tracking much closer to strong mitigation scenarios rather than RCP 8.5, the bogus “business as usual” scenario.

      If I drilled 11 wells with 9 of them resulting in P70-P95 reserve additions and only 2 coming close to the P50 numbers, it would be a miserable failure.

      The red hachured trapezoid indicates that HadCRUT4.5 will continue to track between less than P100 and P50. This is also indicative of a miserable failure of the models and a pretty good clue that the models need be adjusted downward.

      In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis.

      • If current models accurately reflected reality, then over time as the models improved, you would expect to see the model outputs coalescing around a single result.
        Instead you see the same, all over the board results from the various models. If anything, the spread has been getting bigger, not smaller.

      • Actually, the models have generally been fairly precise. The observations have consistently tracked about 2 standard deviations below the model-mean.

      • David,

        This would make a great article! For EOS, perhaps? Or get a co-author (Christie?) to help polish.

        Debating these things informally makes a valuable contribution, but doesn’t carry the weight of published work and IMO it should not influence the public policy debate.

      • Thanks Larry… But I don’t think Eos would be willing to publish anything like this… And I’m not an AGU member. I belong to the SEG, AAPG and Houston Geological Society (HGS). SEG takes no position on climate change and appears to have no interest in the subject. AAPG maintains a dissenting postion; but is thoroughly disengaged on the subject. I have thought about submitting something to the HGS because they do seem to have at least some interest in it…

        https://www.hgs.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=1354

      • Thank you David, you don’t need “peer-reviewed research” to tell you how well the models perform, all you need is functioning eyesight and an ability to read time-series graphs.

      • David – the graph which shows the 2015-2016 el nino spike (Apart from the 2015-2026 El Niño, GISTEMP has tracked Scenario “C.” The 1998 El Niño yielded a comparable spike.)

        The 2015-2016 el Nino spike seems to be quite pronounced. I have seen this spike on other data and warmist sites. However, the amount of the spike as depicted seems to be much greater that the real spike.

        Does anyone have a sense for the validity of this number?

      • The red curve on Hansen’s models is the NASA GISS GISTEMP. It shows the most warming the four major data sets.

        The 2015-2016 El Niño was a big one. The excursion was similar on all four data sets:

      • “The IPCC inadvertently provided information that supports this conclusion by (a) showing
        that the tropical trends of climate models with extra greenhouse gases failed to match
        actual trends and (b) showing that climate models without extra greenhouse gases agreed
        with actual trends. A report of which I was a co-author demonstrates that a statistical
        model that uses only natural influences on the climate also explains the variations and
        trends since 1979 without the need of extra greenhouse gases.” John Christy, March 2017 written Congressional testimony
        Although almost overlooked in the questioning I think this short factual statement speaks volumns about the utility of the models. As mentioned above Hansen did pretty good matching the future warming with his “no new CO2 after 2000”.

      • “Since Hansen’s publication, atmospheric CO2 levels have tracked Scenario “A” and CH4 levels have tracked Scenario “C”. “
        No, CO2 levels came in below Scenario B. More details here. Here are 2008 plots from Climate Audit, with data superimposed:

        CFCs were actually quite significant, too, in 1988, and they came in below his Scen C, because of the success of Montreal.

        What counts with scenarios, of course, is what happened. But FWIW, Hansen described Scenario B in his 1988 paper as “perhaps the most plausible of the three cases”.

      • Considering the state of the science in 1988, Hansen did get a lot of things right.

        He just used too high of a climate sensitivity. If I remember correctly, he used 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 equivalent.

      • I put the CO2 plot together back in 2010…

        One idiosyncrasy that you have to watch in Hansen’s descriptions is that he typically talks about growth rates for the increment, rather than growth rates expressed in terms of the quantity. Thus a 1.5% growth rate in the CO2 increment yields a much lower growth rate than a 1.5% growth rate (as an unwary reader might interpret). For CO2, he uses Keeling values to 1981, then:

        A: 1.5% growth of annual increment after 1981. Figure B2 shows 15.6 ppmv in 1980s and opening increment set at 1.56 ppmv accordingly.
        B: 1.5% increment growth rate to 1990;1% to 2000, 0.5% to 2010 and 0 after 2010. Thus constant 1.9 ppmv increase after 2010.
        C: equals A, B through 1985, then 1.5 ppmv increase through 2000; then fixed at 368

        I think I used a 1.5% growth rate rather than a “1.5% growth rate in the CO2 increment.”

      • “he used 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 equivalent”
        The sensitivity is a result, not an input. But yes, the model did show high sensitivity. As your plot shows, it’s currently very close. It may be that it will slide back with the passing of El Nino, but so far, 2017 is running near or higher than 2016. It should be noted too that Hansen was not predicting the land/SST indices that are available now. He was predicting, and plotted in his graph, the Met Stations only index from H and Lebedeff, 1987, which lives on as GISS Ts. It’s higher.

      • Nick,

        Why don’t they construct models that result in a lower climate sensitivity?

        A transient climate response of 1.5 C per doubling would probably nail the observations.

      • David,
        “Why don’t they construct models that result in a lower climate sensitivity?”
        It’s just the wrong way to do it. You have to build a model with inputs based on what you think are right, and see what happens. They generally give quite high sensitivity – OK, that’s what they say. If you start altering them to achieve a prescibed target, you haven’t learnt anything. You’ve just shown that it can be done (if it can).

      • ” If you start altering them to achieve a prescibed target, you haven’t learnt anything.”

        Yikes, Nick you just described the whole problem with the models!

      • I suppose that’s probably correct. They never have altered the models from the prescribed target

      • @Nick Stokes

        You have to build a model with inputs based on what you think are right, and see what happens.

        So, once you find out it doesn’t work, what then? Simply initializing the models to a later date and moving the “zero point” doesn’t teach you much either.

      • Nick,

        I appreciate the fact that it is a serious problem if a model is designed to yield a specific result; however they have 30 years of failed models and more than 40 years of observations which indicate that the general circulation models are yielding climate sensitivities that are 2-3 times larger than the observation-derived sensitivities.

        This is a pretty good indication that the basic structure of their models is wrong.

      • “Apart from the 2015-2026 El Niño, GISTEMP has tracked Scenario “C.””

        You are comparing a bogus surface temperature chart to the CO2 increase? Why?

        How do you get any truth out of using bogus surface temperature charts in your calculations?

      • GISTEMP is the closest data set to the instrumental data Hansen used in his 1988 model.

        GISTEMP indicates the most warming of the four major data sets (HadCRUT, UAH and RSS being the others. Yet it mostly matches Hansen’s Scenario “C” in which atmospheric CO2 stopped rising in 2000 and held flat at 368 ppm.

      • The black line in the chart is described as “observations”. That’s a Big Lie. The black line doesn’t represent the “observed” data from the UAH temperature chart. The black line was fabricated by dishonest human beings in furtherance of their CAGW cause. And here we have it passed off as the truth.

        Does the UAH chart below look like the black line above? The key to look for is whether 1998 is on the same level as 2016. If it is not, then you are looking at a bogus, bastardized surface temperature chart.

      • The black line is predecessor of GISTEMP. When Hansen wrote this paper, there were only 8-9 years of satellite data.

        UAH and RSS use a completely different reference period than GISTEMP.

        Source Baseline period
        GISTEMP Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)
        HADCRUT4 Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years)
        RSS Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)
        UAH Jan 1981 – Dec 2010 (30 years)

        So, it’s not possible to compare UAH to the model without correcting it to a 30-yr baseline period that covers only the first 2 years of satellite data.

      • David Middleton — excellent analysis. Remember, too, what really matters is 1) the trend and 2) whether the model predicts the trend better than the naive forecast.

      • “GISTEMP is the closest data set to the instrumental data Hansen used in his 1988 model.”

        Thanks for the explanation, David. Thanks for being nice about it. :)

  4. A wonderful example of why the climate policy debate is mostly noise.

    @RogerAPielkeSr @FabiusMaximus01 @MichaelEMann @ClimateOfGavin Policy is made all the time under uncertainty. I am not sure why 'uncertainty' is used as a weapon in climate science and policy.— BlackPhysicists (@BlackPhysicists) April 2, 2017

    .

    This tweet was liked and retweeted by several prominent climate activists. his statement is quite daft.

    The degree of certainty for the scientific foundation of proposed public policy measure is a major factor in its debate. Certainty is never total, and it is neither a binary factor nor a religious test. The lower the certainty, the less justified is the policy.

    This blindness to even the most obvious truths is one reason the climate policy debate has become a cacophony. This is one reason that activists’ 29 year-long campaign (arbitrarily starting with Hansen’s famous Senate testimony) has produced so little policy action.

    • “so little policy action” . here in the uk by around 2030 we will have wasted around 100 billion on green energy vanity projects alone,not to mention regulatory costs and many other climate mitigation nonsense including the push across europe to switch to diesel vehicles due to lower co2 emissions (that worked out well, not ). if that lot is considered “little” we can thank our lucky stars it wasn’t a lot of policy action.

    • Public policy is generally made according to polls. Regard for what is in the public interest is secondary.

    • “The lower the certainty, the less justified is the policy.”
      Simply untrue. We do all sorts of things in the face of uncertainty. We build levees and dams for floods that may nver happen. We spend trillions on military defense against threats that may never eventuate. You have probably insured your house against all kinds of uncertain events. People estimate the probability of an event as best they can and the cost, and make policy accordingly.

      • “We build levees and dams for floods that may nver (sic) happen.”
        Can you please refer me to those projects that never were necessary? Where I live the dams and (especially) levees were built in response to periodic floods for the purpose of maximizing the land use. I am unaware of proactive “just in case” projects that have gone on and would be interested in knowing.

      • “We do all sorts of things in the face of uncertainty. We build levees and dams for floods that may never happen”.
        ==========================
        Precisely, and so-called ‘Climate Change™’ should be treated in exactly the same way, by taking genuine precautionary measures in the same way that the Japanese deal with the threat of earthquakes — they don’t try to stop them — the built environment is designed to cope with them.

      • Yes, Nick, but they have, you know, empirical evidence to justify the costs. “This flood so many years ago caused X dollars damage. We can spend Y dollars (where Y is less than or equal to X) to avoid the same damage, maybe on multiple occasions.” Warmunists want us to spend 50X the damages as insurance. Stern basically admitted that.

      • Actually, we insure our property against credible damages when possible, but don’t insure against fantastic scenarios which are not even described. “Catastrophic global warming” is postulated simply on the grounds that humanity has “never” experienced 2 degrees C above the “baseline” average. Even if that were true (and we have no way of knowing), so what? What, specifically, are the “catastrophes” that will ensue? We see vague assertions of drought and floods, and extreme weather destroying humanity, all without any backing. Hurricanes and tornadoes are at historic lows, the California drought (which the alarmists proclaimed to be permanent) is over, and sea level has risen a whole 1 cm this decade. Even the “actual” warming data (about which I have my doubts) has the poles warming more than the equator. This automatically, empirically dismisses the idea of more extreme weather (which depends on temperature difference).

        So you’re asking us to insure against…what? What is it exactly that we are seeking to avoid. Because frankly, I have seen nothing that would suggest a warmer world is worst than what we have now.

      • “We spend trillions on military defense against threats that may never eventuate.”

        We spend $$$ on military defense so those threats DON’T eventuate because history tells us if we do not they will.

      • Well meteorite strikes definitely happen, but have really low certainty, so by that argument should the government start providing subsidies for building steel roofs on houses? The risk has to be weighed against the cost. Crying the sky is falling like chicken little is not a very good assessment of risk. However the cost is well defined and it is extreme.

        You might not have noticed but humanity has been at war just about the whole time it has existed. World war 2, Korea, Vietnam was not that long ago and of course the middle east remains a meat grinder of war. I wouldn’t call war low certainty. Just saying.

      • “We build levees and dams for floods that may nver happen.”

        Wrong, we build levees based on what has happened in the past.
        We don’t build levees in places that have never flooded.

        “We spend trillions on military defense against threats that may never eventuate.”

        We spend on defense based on the past. We know that we have been attacked in the past, usually during times when defense spending has been low. Military threats do exist and can be identified.

        “People estimate the probability of an event as best they can and the cost, and make policy accordingly.”

        This is true, however nobody can estimate what the chances of CAGW are because it has never happened before, even during times when CO2 levels were 10 to 20 times greater than they are today.

        If somebody had a model that said that my house was going to burn down, even though no house had ever burned down before, I would be skeptical. Especially if it was coming from a group that made it’s money selling fire insurance.

      • Nick — sure, and if your home insurer falsely claims there’s a 99% chance you’re going to be flooded they are committing fraud and can be taken to court and sued for that claim.

      • The problem isn’t uncertainty, it’s the various claims of certainty being made. As Armstrong and coastal planning engineers have pointed out in the peer-reviewed journals, when the models are as unreliable as they are the naive forecast is the appropriate one for policy planning.

      • No, Nick. Your comparisons are inappropriate and mistaken. Among other things the “costs” are not fully enumerated. The AGW “costs” are a biased list made on some very questionable assumptions. Even if those assumptions are in part correct there are other costs that are clearly not factored in. What is the potential cost of attempting to geoengineer a planet based on incomplete – at best – science, with assumptions that solely address one class of “risk?” Consider the increases in primary productivity that increased CO2 appears to have had. That productivity translates into increased global agricultural productivity, not simply “natural” productivity. I realize Monsanto and Cargill want the credit, but that SUV may very well be under appreciated. The distribution of increases in observed “natural” primary production indicate, based on satellite imagery, increased water efficiency along arid land margins. Both of these changes are evidence on INCREASED environmental health. Any consideration of reduction in CO2 should be addressing issues like these, as well as the far less warranted (by your own models) scenarios. Because, among other things reduced agricultural production means increased starvation, population movement, and warfare. If you think the Middle East looks bad now, imagine that population attempting escape not just religious persecution but starvation as well. You also might want to talk to a Californian, or a native of the Mississippi valley about floods that “never happen.” On one hand you have mass population movements, warfare, starvation, on the other “maybe” 1.5 degree average warming. Can that warming really translate into any deleterious effects? Is there ANY empirical support for thinking so?

    • The answer is 1) prominent CAGWers keep making false statements about certainty and 2) when uncertainty is high the naive forecast is the correct policy driver.

  5. One method of defending a scientific thesis is to divulge the science.

    Does Michael Mann know this? I want to know what specific science it is that I’m denying. I don’t deny that there may be a consensus that believes something that’s entirely wrong. I want them to produce the science that they claim is so accurate, and then I’ll defend my denial.

  6. Mann disparaged the other three scientists sitting next to him over and over while claiming victimhood. An amazing display but one he should and will not get away with.

    There is a debate. After the past decade that alone is news to many.

    • Mann is political hack wanna be; the Paul Krugman of climate science. He will get away with it with only the Democrat base. I have seen more substance in the comment section of virulent political sites than his testimony. His testimony was primarily adhominem showing Mann as a man of very little stature, scientific or otherwise.

      LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: “You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that [defamation] and yet … There’s a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you’re engaged in in this public forum.”

      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude

  7. (Mann) “While we’re at it, let me address another favorite talking point of the critics, the claim that climate models we use to project future climate change are unreliable and untested. The reality is that the models have been tested vigorously and rigorously in numerous ways, and have passed a number of impressive tests in the past, such as James Hansen’s famous successful predictions from the 1980s and 1990s.”

    Seriously? Does Mann also think the West Side Highway will be underwater any time soon?

    As Armstrong has repeatedly pointed out, model predictions have generally been less accurate than the naive forecast. And Storch found most climate scientists don’t believe we understand atmospheric dynamics well enough to predict long-term temperatures.

    As Feynman found when he investigated Challenger, there is a significant disconnect between policy statements by administrators and what rank and file scientists believe the data says.

    • From Mann’s perspective, any warming over the predictive run of a model confirms its validity.

      It would be analogous to declaring a dry hole to be a successful well on the basis of the older rocks being beneath the younger rocks.

  8. ‘I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier.’

    Boy, this guy could lie to his mother with a clear and smiling face. I guess when you discard all sense of shame, you’re pretty much capable of anything.

    Personally, I find it difficult to discuss Michael Mann without using at least mild profanity.

    • Lying is the bread and butter of the left.

      “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” – Barrack Obama
      “it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.” – Susan Rice
      “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” – Bill Clinton
      “I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system.” – Hillary Clinton
      “I know nothing about this” – Susan Rice
      “I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team” – Barrack Obama
      “I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier.” – Michael Mann
      “Not with this Russian ambassador, no,” – Nancy Pelosi
      “Trump wants you to think all immigrants are murderers” – Chuck Schumer
      “We have not had a major scandal in my administration.” – Barrack Obama
      “[putting] a champion of white supremacists a step away from the Oval Office.” – Harry Reid
      “Ten million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act.” – Richard Durbin
      “We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” – Lyndon Johnson
      “90 percent of the budget deficit is due to George W. Bush’s policies” – Barrack Obama
      “I leaked nothing to nobody” – Susan Rice
      “I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran.” – Hillary Clinton

      • ““I know nothing about this” – Susan Rice”

        When I heard Susan Rice say this I was reminded of Sargeant Shultz of “Hogan’s Heroes” tv fame, where Shultz exclaims loudly, “I know nothing!”

      • I think of Rice as the Ray Liotta character from ”Goodfellas’ when he got busted as a teenager, and when he got out, all his gangster friends were waiting for him. He was scared he was going to be in trouble for getting arrested, but they were actually there to pat him on the back for keeping his mouth shut and not ratting them out. Susan Rice’s on-the-job test was the Benghazi video – Obama knew she could be counted on to lie through her teeth, and take one for the team. Gangster’s honor.

        That’s how she got promoted. An honest woman would have been thrown under the bus.

      • I just learned yesterday that Susan Rice was instrumental in stopping the nation of Sudan from handing over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. back during the Clinton administration in the middle 1990’s. Apparently, Rice was an advisor of some sort to Bill Clinton, too, and was said to be the one to nix the bin Laden handover. My sense is Bill Clinton didn’t want anything to do with bin Laden, so it may have been Clinton himself who nixed the deal.

      • Don’t forget her praise of Bergdahl who at the time was know to have deserted his post. Her judgement is suspect, she’s a pathological liar, unethical and puts politics ahead of reason. There can be little doubt that she was instrumental in turning intelligence agencies into political spies. The ongoing cover-up will make Watergate look benign by comparison. The question I have is will she roll over on Obama to save her own skin.

    • He must have something that draws a congregation, as the pastor of the Model Assembly of Mann, affiliated with the Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse In Carbon.

      • Exactly. And Ms Johnson mentioned the fact that they were outmanned in the opening statement that she read, but coud not quite pronounce, much less imply credence to having written.

  9. I’m really getting tired of this blatant falsehood being trotted out repeatedly:
    ” at least 97% of scientist publishing in the field have all concluded, based on the evidence, that climate change is real.”
    Cook’s original study of both scientists and their papers proved that fully 2/3 of either group made no attempt to ascribe a cause for recent global average warming, and then they were simply removed from the studies. The true consensus about climate change is “we don’t know yet”. A truthful statement would be that 97% of scientists who have the temerity to claim they know the cause of climate change disagree with the majority of scientists who say we don’t really know yet.

  10. I’ll go with the one tracking global temps from satellites as actual data over model-cheating narcissists.

  11. Dr. Pielke Jr. showed clearly that there are fewer hurricanes and tornadoes. Dr. Mann ignored that and said that the hurricanes and tornadoes that did occur could be attributed to climate change. I would expect more rigorous logic from an elementary school student.

    This is the same Dr. Mann who used statistics to prove that the Atlantic Conveyor is slowing down in spite of instrument data showing that it wasn’t slowing down. link Apparently he thinks statistics are better than reality.

  12. Mr Mann may well be all those derogatory things said about him, and he may well deserve most/all, or even more such terms.
    The BUT is, he gets his spiel listened to. Why?
    The collective WE, need OUR spiel listened to in equal and greater amounts.
    The public has heard Mr Mann’s argument, and has swallowed it.
    WE need to be able to clearly show WHY and WHERE he is wrong, to the public.

    Ooh…hang on…we already have….its not the public that need informing, its those (inset expletive here) members of the committee that need force feeding and their minds changed.

    Houston, we have a problem.

    • “The public has heard Mr Mann’s argument, and has swallowed it.”

      It’s not Mann’s arguments that win the day, it’s his Hockey Stick chart that scares people to death. Why wouldn’t you be scared if the chart you think represents reality makes things look like they are getting hotter and hotter year after year and we are now at the hottest level in human history? The Hockey Stick chart is a fabrication, but most people don’t know that, they think it is real, and it is scary looking.

      You can argue until you are blue in the face about there being no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change, and the Believers will just turn and point at the Hockey Stick chart and say “there’s our evidence”.

      If you want to calm people’s fears about CAGW, you have to debunk the credibility of the Hockey Stick chart in the minds of the public.

  13. What was his role in manipulating the peer review process with enforcer tactics again?

  14. 3 against 1, hardly a balanced ‘scientific’ panel is it ?, Mann represents the vast majority of the world’s scientists but has to go solo against 3 skeptics and a hostile chairman.

    • Maybe the Dems couldn’t find anyone else to testify. I know Gavin Schmidt refuses to be in the same room with anyone who might ask him a difficult question.

      And no, Mann does not represent the vast majority of the world’s scientist. The vast majority of scientists believe in and practice the Scientific Method, and do not spend their days dodging FOIA requests and bullying people with lawsuits.

      • In the real world the scientific method is alive and well, only here in alternative fact world do you believe you are in the right.

    • Of the 4 scientists on the panel Mann was the only one who showed any hostility. He showed absolutely no humility, had the balls to call his co-panelists derogatory terms and then had the audacity to claim that he was the victim of the situation. He is a despicable human being and a disgrace as a scientist. Whoever called him as their witness did a disservice to their cause.

      I have to ask, did you even watch the video of the hearing? its worth the time if you think that Dr. Mann is the one who deserves your sympathy here.

    • The Dems had the right to invite two witnesses, but chose not to, possibly at Mann’s behest. Maybe Mann wanted more of the focus to be on him; and maybe he thought that appearing alone for his side would create sympathy for him.

    • WTF,

      you missed the part where Dr. Mann in his thin skinned lawsuit against Mr. Steyn,where he fails to garner ANY support from scientists of the world.

      He represent only himself.

    • Your name must describe your existence quite well. And your method of inquiry into complex matters as well.

    • Mann beleives humans are the primary cause of warming. The only substantial study of scientist’s beliefs that examined whether they feel humans are the primary cause was Cook et al 2013. It examined nearly 14,000 papers on climate, finding 3,994 that mentioned a cause for changes in their abstracts. He put them in seven categories by attribution, and only Category 1 papers said humans were the primary cause. Those amounted to 64 out of the 3,994 with an opinion, meaning less two percent of climate scientists agree with Mann’s position. The other three panelists all believe humans have some influence, but it has not been quantified, which agreed with the positions in 95% of the papers that expressed an opinion.
      As a side note, Cook’s study actually found more papers that said humans were definitely not the primary cause of warming than those that support Mann’s position, but those scientists had no representation on the panel.

  15. Sorry WTF, but the BALANCE of proof was the central issue, not the numbers of people for or against.
    And your persistence in supporting the unsupportable – ie the 97%, simply adds insult to injury.
    Please, I will change MY mind, when the 97% is proven.

    I’m on safe ground on that point.

  16. “Yes, there is a consensus that climate change is real and largely human-caused.”

    The claim of a consensus that change is ‘largely human caused’ is flatly incorrect. The studies showing a 97% (or higher) agreement with consensus defines that consensus merely as humans adding at least something to natural warming, not that humans are one of the primary causes.

    This is true for Cook, Oreskes, Doran & Zimmerman, and Powell.

    • Ted,

      “. The studies showing a 97% (or higher) agreement with consensus defines that consensus merely as humans adding at least something to natural warming …”

      That is not factually correct. There have been many surveys asking climate scientists this question — bizarrely many since its not the most important question to ask (we want to know about future warming). They all find large majorities agreeing with some from of the IPCC AR5 WGI SPM’s statement that post-1950 warming is over half caused by anthropogenic factors.  See details on them here (excerpts and links).

      Some of these are poorly designed, such as Cook 2013. Some are extremely well designed, such as Verheggen (2014). But they all roughly show the same picture.

      • I haven’t read Verheggen, but your own link makes that unnecessary. Six of the eight papers you discuss there support my statement, only two show agreement that warming is over half caused by humans.

        1 – Doran & Zimmermann completely supports my statement
        2 – Cook Completely agrees with my statement and shows a lack of consensus that humans are mostly responsible for warming.
        3- Unfamiliar, but agrees with your premise.
        4 – Agrees with my statement
        5 – Anderegg, it’s data supports my statement. The paper uses an assumption for 619 of the 1300 plus total scientists, the actual data shows 472 scientists opposed to the IPCC conclusion and fewer that 280 in support.
        6 – AMS-  showed a higher percent of scientists that think the isdue isnt settled thsn say it is mostly human.
        7 Verheggen, supports your view
        8- Agrees with my statement, is structured much the same as Doran and Zimmermann.

    • The word was “significant”. In most papers anything that isn’t trivial is significant.

  17. Eventually the weather will determine who wins
    ==============
    the market will determine the winner, as has been shown time and time against throughout history.

    a good solution will beat the perfect solution every time. a poor solution well executed will beat any solution you cannot afford to implement.

  18. Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science
    =====================
    yes, because climate science uses positive examples for verification, and you can always find positive examples to justify any scientific conclusion, all you have to do is look hard enough.

  19. >single out individual scientists to attack in much the same way lions of the Serengeti single out an individual zebra from the herd. In numbers there is strength, but individuals are far more vulnerable.

    Mann is acknowledging that he is the weakest in the herd.

  20. “(1) A consensus about current adverse impacts of climate change?

    Mann opens with this claim, one that has been often said during the past several years.

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

    So we have a sufficiently large suspect list.

  21. “was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.”

    err no it wouldn’t.

    Nothing new or Novel there. Climate “models” have been correct since the first simple one put together in the 1930s.

    They predicted warming. we got warming.

    Perfecting them might be news but essentially unimportant.

    Dirty little secret is the models were not built with the goal of operational forecasting in mind, but rather to provide insight and do “experiments” in silicon that you cant do in the real world. Its like modelling war.

    We model wars. The models suck. But They get used to understand things better, not to make precise forecasts of wars. And we try to avoid testing them in the real world.

    • Nick: “Nothing new or Novel there. Climate “models” have been correct since the first simple one put together in the 1930s.

      They predicted warming. we got warming.”

      It’s a little more complicated than that.

      If they predicted warming from the 1930’s they were wrong, we got cooling from the 1940’s into the late 1970’s. We got warming from the 1970’s to present.

      I recall many climate scientists in the 1970’s claiming we were cooling and it was going to get cooler, and Global Cooling was all humans fault. Global warming was not generally accepted at that time, as you imply, although if I recall correctly, the first global warming paper was written in the 1950’s, the 1950’s being another hot decade similar to the 1930’s, but after that, the temperatures started falling all through the 1970’s and most climate scientists started focusing on Global Cooling.

      So some people predicted warming and some people predicted cooling since the 1930’s, and the reason for that is because during certain periods of time, we warmed, and other times we cooled. So when we are in a warming trend climate scientists apparently think it will go on forever, and when we are in a cooling trend, climate scientists will also think it will go on forever, and in both cases, humans will be blamed for the direction the temperatures are taking.

      We have a long way to go to understand our climate and how it works.

    • The cosmic ray theory predicted warming with increased solar activity. In general it warmed with solar activity. This century solar activity has lesessened, and so has warming, even with an increase in CO2.

      The correlation is so weak that it’s almost as weak as the correlation beteeen CO2 levels and warming, but as long as general agreement with the theory is enough, it is safe to declare cosmic rays and aerosols the primary culprit for temperature changes in the last century.

  22. Perfesser Mann is increasingly irrelevant. Only True Believers (TM) take him seriously now.

  23. Janice, that’s greek too – Sappho:

    ‘The Moon is down’

    The Moon is down,
    The Pleiades. Midnight,
    The hours flow on,
    I lie, alone.

  24. And a thousand years before Sappho –

    In my spear, my barley-bread,
    in my spear, my rich wine.
    I drink
    leaning on my spear.

    Translated by Jill A. Coyle

Comments are closed.