Michael Mann Adjusts the Climate “Turning Point” Out to 2020

Screenshot of the unknown professor. From Hide the Decline II.

Portrait of the Unknown Professor. From Hide the Decline II.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Professor Michael Mann, inventor of the climate Hockey Stick, has just shamelessly shifted the dreaded climate tipping point to 2020.

The Single Shining Hope to Stop Climate Change

Michael E. Mann Apr 09, 2017

Mann is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and co-author of The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.

Science is under attack at the very moment when we need it most. President Donald Trump’s March 28 executive order went much further than simply throwing a lifeline to fossil fuels, as industry-funded congressional climate change–deniers have done in the past. It intentionally blinded the federal government to the impacts of climate change by abolishing an interagency group that measured the cost of carbon to public health and the environment. Now, the government won’t have a coordinated way to account for damages from climate change when assessing the costs and benefits of a particular policy.

With that in mind, Trump should read the landmark “2020” report now published by Mission 2020, a group of experts convened by the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The report establishes a timeline for how we can ensure a safe and stable climate. We don’t have much time — 2020 is a clear turning point.

Read more: http://time.com/4731632/climate-change-2020-trump/

Until recently Mann claimed 2016/17 was a climate tipping point.

Welcome to the Madhouse: Scientist says Trump could destroy the world

FEBRUARY 10, 20175:01PM

A WORLD-leading scientist has warned Donald Trump may signal the end of the world — and Australia could be first to face the catastrophic consequences.

Michael Mann claims Mr Trump’s relationship to “post-truth” politics and “alternative facts” is much more than just embarrassing for the US and has the potential to destroy civilisation.

Sitting in an office at the University of Sydney Business School ahead of his sold-out talk this week, the Penn State professor says one only has to look at the city’s record January temperatures for proof of how dangerous the President’s attitude is.

“He’s building a wall between himself and the evidence of climate change,” Professor Mann told news.com.au. “He waffles, it’s hard to pin down, he says one thing to one audience then another thing to another audience.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/welcome-to-the-madhouse-scientist-says-trump-could-destroy-the-world/news-story/0e31691ab55a520800cef7dbd289fdad

All these years scientists and the climate community have been trying to identify key climate cycles – sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, ocean cycles, we all missed the obvious.

Climate is clearly driven by US Presidential Election cycles.

260 thoughts on “Michael Mann Adjusts the Climate “Turning Point” Out to 2020

      • “It intentionally blinded the federal government to the impacts of climate change”

        So without policies in place, governments are blind to the impacts of climate change. The impacts become much more clear when you attribute everything to climate change, much like the benefits of rain dancing becomes obvious when you attribute all rain to supernatural beings who like to be appeased through song and dance.

      • Up to now, the NOAA has been a member of the “Model Fellowship of Mann” (Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse In Carbon). It would be good if they would distance themselves some from it’s Shaman.

      • RWTurner: indeed not only the new government is blinded to what Mann calls climate change but so is everyone else who has their eyes open. By 2020, Mann may be approaching retirement and in the tradition of one trick ponies like Ehrlich, Holdem and other Malthusian ideologues, they never revise their shticks. His whole career has been motivated to keep the HS alive, when, ironically MBH98 came out on the eve of a pause that lasted 18yrs and put a large number of scientists on the psychiatrist’s couch because they had wasted most of their careers on a fantasy. Without the adjustments (not only in US) the 1930s are still the winner in the heat Olympics. Paul Homewood a year or so ago showed that Ecuador and Paraguay had similar 1930s high points and a month or so ago, a South African commenter here linked the raw record for S. Afr. which also had it’s peak in the 30s.We all know this is true for Greenland, Iceland’s an Siberia as well. I think these records would be great to publish in every major newspaper- you’d have to do it as an advert to get it published. It would be a powerful body of evidence and the similarity of these records is powerful statistical support for the fit for purpose of these un adjusted

      • Pop Piasa April 10, 2017 at 12:09 pm
        It’s Its …I hate that error, but it haunts me occasionally..
        Think of “his” and hers”. Possessive case. Neither have an apostrophe. To contract “he is” to “he’s” does require an apostrophe.
        Thats what works for me! 😎

    • Maybe he does not Al Gore and friends that predicted a date too closed and lost face a few years later. May be he is planning to retire sooner…

    • Maybe he does not Al Gore and friends that predicted a date too closed and lost face a few years later. May be he is planning to retire sooner…

    • Ha! I was about to post something similar. Repent, ye, True UnBeliever, before it’s too late!

      When is the public going to tire of having their intelligence insulted?

      • A significant number have nothing to be insulted. Proof – Justin Trudeau is prime minister of Canada.


      • The content and the claims of truth and factuality being touted by present day TV advertisements are proof-positive that a majority of the viewing audience lacks the intelligence to be insulted.

      • I wrote a research paper in an Anthropology class about the end of the world phenomenon. I was intrigued to find out that almost all cultures around the world throughout history share the “end is nigh” phenomenon. Anthropologists attribute this to a narcissistic desire for people to attribute importance and special meaning to their time and place in history. Dr. Tree Ring shares the same mentality and falls into the same trap as people from unadvanced cultures from thousands of years ago, he’s basically a simpleton.

      • “Anthropologists attribute this to a narcissistic desire for people to attribute importance and special meaning to their time and place in history.”

        I see what to me seem like incredible gullible people all the time, even on this site . . who believe what to me are silly things, like anthropologists being able to see into the hearts and minds of multitudes, in the distant past no less . .

    • The tradition slogan is “the end is nigh” not “near.” Don’t Americans understand English words like nigh?

      An updated version of the saying, one suitable for Michael Mann, would be:


    • It should tone down sometime after the massive funding dwindles and the enforcers have to move on to more rewarding pursuits.

      • I was sort of hoping Judith Curry had stood up at one point in the congressional hearing, grabbed him by the ear, mom-style, and slapped him silly about the head and shoulders…forcing him into retirement.
        Alas, we can still but hope…

      • I don’t know Michael Mann’s age, but he isn’t as old as he looks. The hockey stick was developed during his PhD thesis so I suspect he only got his PhD sometime around 1998 (that being the year it was published). He could easily have another 20 years of professional life ahead of him.

        I am actually of the opinion that that is why he has been so aggressive in defence of that particular part of his work: It made his career and he can never accept that it was wrong, otherwise his entire reputation would be destroyed. I can understand this, from a personal point of view, but it has turned him into a very defensive person who looks for any opportunity to denigrate people who argue against this work. Some of the more illuminating Climate-gate emails contained comments from scientists (often colleagues) who pointed out that he was very aggressive when there was any criticism of the hockey stick work.

    • Indeed it doesn’t, Joe! These guys are EXACTLY like the fundamentalist end-of-the-world fanatics, or do I mean fantasists. They pick a date, swear the world will end, get all their followers somewhere appropriate where they will be saved and when it doesn’t happen they segue neatly into new date. No apology; no excuses; no shame!

      This ‘Beyond the Fringe’ sketch captures it perfectly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3nRjlK3jfY

      Right down to the punch line: “Never mind, lads. Same time tomorrow. We must get a winner one day.”

      • I remember an end-of-the-world preacher in ’76 or ’77. Predicted the end of the world on my buddy’s wedding day. He was hoping the Good Lord would wait until after consummation. 🙂
        The day after, he apologized to his radio audience, and said that clearly he did not have the insight he had told them he had, and that he was leaving the ministry (or at least going off air). And that was the last we heard of him.
        Honesty can pop up anywhere – even from the mouths of radio evangelists.

    • It will end when people get so sick of dishonesty they start to enforce some sort of “truth-in-advertising” laws. After all, “the buyer beware” (caveat emptor) is not a given, but rather an agreement wherein there is no warranty.

      Even ancient Common Law required that the item being sold must be “fit for the particular purpose” and of “merchantable quality”. Without such decency and honor, civil procedure breaks down.

      When you come right down to it, Mann’s behavior sadly doesn’t fit the definition of “civilized”.

      • Just like Heavens Gate and the Comet… It will end sometime for everyone, some people just choose to go together before others. And some naturally go before others.

      • My prediction is that in 120 years, everyone alive today will be dead, and population will be above 8.5b

      • Brian, I think you’re right! Even I don’t expect to see my 183th birthday, and I come from a long line of people who are long-lived.

  1. Liberals like Mann embrace the Gruber Principles to further the socialist agenda.
    1. The bulk of the US population is scientifically illiterate and disinterested in economics.
    2. Into this intellectual void, the lies of Liberals on climate become easier to make than to refute.
    3. American’s attention span on news is less than 7 days in most cases, and usually less than 3 days unless it affects them directly and personally.

    • Joel, US citizens are not scientifically illiterate, devoid of intellect, or in possession of short attention spans. Gruber must have been an arrogant academic, out of touch with the population at large. So many academics seem to think they are more intelligent because they have more formal education than most people, and they tend to think people can be duped and behave like sheep. Not so.

      • hollybirtwistle

        You sure about that?

        Gruber was indeed an arrogant academic, but his mistake was speaking in public about what, why and how he did what he did. He was proud of it. He wasn’t wrong about general lack of science literacy, resistance to get-something-for-free liberalism, or people acting like sheep.

        A better statement (tenuously attributed to Lincoln) might be “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” The climate scam has definitely fooled a lot of people for a significant period time.

      • I started reading your comment but then a Kardashian came on the tv to sell me something.

      • Actually, if you will take Joel’s Gruber Principles and substitute the word “Congressmen” for “Population” and “Americans”, they will make perfect sense and be very difficult to argue against.

      • “Joel, US citizens are not scientifically illiterate”

        I´m afraid that is plain wrong.

        “For almost twenty-five years the National Science Board has surveyed the American public as part of its Science and Engineering Indicators study to determine the state of interest in and awareness of fundamental issues in the sciences and technology.

        Those at the highest level (Level I) understand that science is concerned with the development and testing of theory. Those responding who lack this degree of sophistication, but still have an awareness that experiments require a control group would be classified as Level II. Individuals at Level III do not have the comprehension of those in the higher two groups but still see scientific findings based on a foundation of careful and rigorous comparison with precise measurements. Those lacking any understanding of the nature of science were classified as Level IV.

        These findings are sobering. Two percent of the two thousand adult respondents were at Level I, 21 percent were at Level II, 13 percent were at Level III and 64 percent were at Level IV. This finding is sobering. Even as measured by the basic nature of science elements contained in this study, more than 60 percent of the American public effectively had no knowledge of how science works.
        The Nature of Science in Science Education (Page 3)

      • US citizens can be duped and behave like sheep, there is solid evidence of this, just look at who they elected prez.

        Yeah, the herd mentality we witnessed 8 years ago was a more than a bit sickening to watch.

      • Since almost half of Americans surveyed by Google, believe God placed humans on this world less than 10,000 years ago, I’d say he’s pretty well spot on!

      • David – US citizens can be duped and behave like sheep, there is solid evidence of this, just look at who they elected prez.

        We are okay – Obama is no longer president

      • Hillary did not win, but it was close…even after Gruber’s incredible backhand to the country became public.
        If that is not proof of what he said, I do not know what could be.
        -A proud member of the 2%.

      • “…more than 60 percent of the American public effectively had no knowledge of how science works.”

        Based on his own words, Michael Mann is obviously in that 60%!

      • James beat me to it, but I’d add that I believe that 97% of AGW and CAGW advocating “climate scientists” (and their followers who post here) fall into categories 3 and 4.

        So are they uneducated in “how science works” or are they just blatantly ignoring it?

      • David Dirkse
        Sorry you preferred candidate, HRC (unelectable) was chosen over Uncle Berney to run against The Donald?
        President Trump won because the Democrats didn’t have someone capable of opposing him!
        President Trump won because even the Democrats couldn’t support Hillary!
        President Trump won because he was the most electable of ALL the candidates running!

        My next prediction, If President Trump wins a second term, Mighty Mann will bump the goal posts out to 2025

        Here I come to save the day…
        Says that Mighty Mann is on his way…

        Likely rebumping them until a Democrat wins the office or the next ice age begins and the point becomes Moot

    • Thought you may have been talking of the Hans Gruber principles momentarily. But could apply.

      “When they touch down, we’ll blow up the roof, they’ll spend a month sifting through rubble, and by the time they work out what went wrong, we’ll be sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent.”

      • @ Adam Gallon on April 10, 2017 at 4:32 am
        Since almost half of Americans surveyed by Google, believe God placed humans on this world less than 10,000 years ago, I’d say he’s pretty well spot on!

        Comparing believers in God, the Creator, to folks who are ignorant of science, so called, reveals you are not wheat, but tare.

        This world and all its wonders are valed. What benefit, is it, if all is understood? Pride? Christ was God manifest in the flesh. Men saw his wonders, yet didn’t believe. But we here struggle with how to explain the chaotic system God created. Why must we know? The knowing of all things will not save us. Instead, we should be in awe of the unexplained.

        What are the odds all these things take place, by chance, just perfect for humans to exist, without a Creators hand, here on Earth? (crickets…)

    • @joelobryan

      Scientists have proven themselves very good at a single subject.

      In my experience, that’s as far as it goes. Most can’t hammer a nail into a plank of wood, hit a barn door with any type of ball, cook or change a car wheel etc. There are, of course, exceptions.

      However many individuals, without two high school qualifications to rub together, are the most capable and analytical I have met. Sir Richard Branson is dyslexic and left school at 16, Lord Alan Sugar started his business life selling car aerials in street markets after leaving school at 16, and no, I have met neither. But I am friends with one of the wealthiest men in the UK, Stephen Fear, The Phone Box Millionaire, so called because he started his first business at 14 years old from a phone box, his formal education only lasted for a total of approximately three years. He was the Entrepreneur in Residence and an Ambassador of the British Library, and he now holds a Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) he gained in 2013 when he was around 60 years old.

      • I am not so sure about this.
        I doubt Mann can do any of those things you mention, but many others are like me.
        I completed my college science education with grades at the level of highest honors, while at the same time I was spending my weekends building my family’s plant nursery, including designing and building a geothermal heating system, drip and overhead irrigation for the entire 80,000 square foot structure, did all the electrical work and plumbing myself and perfecting methods of rooting cuttings which consisted of entire limbs of trees, which cut over a year off of the amount of time needed to produce such.
        I was the fastest swimmer in the league where I grew up in Philadelphia, and trained for a time with the U of P Vespers team (I gave it up because at that age I did not understand how huge an opportunity I had, swimming on an Ivy League varsity team at the age of 14…I did not like waking up at 5:00 AM to swim for hours before school every morning), and played every sport from baseball and football to tennis in school, including such things as water skiing (but my time on the Sunflight Ultimate Frisbee team stands out as my favorite sports experience ever), can cook anything I have the ingredients for and some things I do not, can not only change a tire but routinely do my own brake jobs and just about anything else you do not need specialized equipment for, and have been doing so since becoming a motor-head back in college when I bought a 1967 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham for $700. These days I design, install, troubleshoot and repair electrical machinery.
        And in between High School and College, I spent time being an apprentice to an old world craftsman, who taught me everything from cabinet making to roofing and drinking, although I already was pretty handy and by then was an expert at floor refinishing and plaster work due to growing up in a very old house full of roughneck kids that had really torn the place up in our youth.
        I do not know where you are from, but in my experience, lots of people can do lots of things, although some people can only talk.

      • “These days I design, install, troubleshoot and repair electrical machinery.”

        Got any hints for repairing an electric space heater? Like, don’t mess with it, and go buy a new one? 🙂

      • @Menicholas

        “I doubt Mann can do any of those things you mention”

        I don’t, because I have no evidence otherwise.

        Clearly, you are one of the exceptions I mentioned, but instead of accepting the compliment gracefully, you decided to make an example of yourself.

        Bragging is not an endearing quality.

  2. It’s not only in the so-called ‘climate sciences’ that people are writing nonsense, making frauds and trying to sell their foolish papers to avid journal publishers everyday. This plague has spread to every field in science since researchers and professors careers are based on publishing. On the other side media is also avid for news that may help them selling their products and (they think) news pointing to some iminent disgrace must always be interesting. Somehow it’s the same thing religion sells to the poor people: advice and salvation (exclusively for those who follow them). This kind of ‘science’ is the religion of people whom considers themselves intellectuals and highly-educated. There are many other ‘Mann-saviours’ in their own fields of ‘science’ and there will always be… The pseudoscience-skepticals may be compared to hereticals…

    • Right you are, Gabriel, ……. whenever it involves “truths, lies and money”, ….. money always wins out regardless.

  3. If Trump is so bad, then shouldn’t the timeline accelerate, rather than be pushed out? Some scientist.

  4. Michael Manns assertion that Australia could be first to face the catastrophic consequences of climate change are no doubt a result of his intense research that allowed him to develop a deep understanding of the significance of Australia’s location in relation to the IDL.

    • No, it’s because he was touring Australia at the time. Next week he’ll be touring somewhere else and then it will be that country’s turn to be first in the firing line.

      • I though tit was the Maldives, that little spit of atolls in the Indian Ocean, that was supposed to be first

    • What with avoidable floods, bushfires made worse by failure to manage the land, and widespread blackouts resulting from a grid made fragile by reliance on renewables, you could say Australia has been first to face the catastrophic consequences of policies based on a belief in climate change.

  5. Holding hearings on misconduct by NASA GISS, the NOAA, the EPA, and the rest of the climate change advocates formerly or still in the government seems like a better idea than I once thought. Drive a stake through their hearts and bury climate change in a crossroads. Make sure it is dead.

    • hearings on misconduct

      But let’s differentiate between well-intended but ill-informed people and ill-intended but well-informed activists.

      Catastrofarianism must be stopped!

      • Could be utilized either way but I tried to read that as Catastriforniaism
        Being from Catastrofornia and all

  6. Not one/nada/zilch prediction made by the alarmists has been realized. The man in the street knows it. Why doesn’t the media know it? Stupidity or by design? One has to wonder.

    • Not one/nada/zilch prediction made by the alarmists has been realized.

      You’re simply wrong. Alarmists have done a wide range of predictions which cover “more snow”, “less snow”, “more ice accumulation”, “glacier melt”, “increased calving”, “decreased calving”, “cold winters”, “warm winters”, “warm summers”, “cold summers”, “more insects”, “less insects”, “more drought”, “more flood”, “more wind”, “less wind”, etc, (so called total cover) so that surely SOME of them MUST have been realized (somewhere to some extent). If not due to CO2, then by accident.

      Sceptics / lukewarmers haven’t done many predictions, other than that changes and variation will continue, so they probably are right. Of course, many aggressive dragon slayers have been predicting cooling and have been wrong. Which is good. Predicting is difficult.

      • The one thing the warmistas never predicted is what has in fact occurred…nothing much has changed over the past twenty years, except less hurricanes in some places, less tornadoes in the US in recent years, some melting of Arctic sea ice followed by a growth of multiyear ice and what appears to be a bottoming process prior to expanding ice extent year over year, sea level trends steady, increasing numbers of polar bears, more CO2 in the ocean is GOOD for sea life, especially shelled creatures, who need it to build shells, and none, not one, single climate refugee.
        In fact, the only bad news has been directly related to policies put in place to address the non problem of CACA.
        They bludgeon us with stupid every day, but have the worst aim possible and have yet to crack a single skull.

      • Ah, but these predictions they make are all about something that just happened.

        For example, sudden snow blizzard somewhere: More snow blizzards due to global warming.

      • Hugs,
        After reading your comment again, I am still irritated despite having already commented on how wrong you are.
        You start by flatly calling someone lese wrong, but then go on to reason in a very general and nebulous way that it should be assumed that some of the warmista predictions ought to be right, even though you mentioned not one single specific one. In fact, your logic seems to be that they have made so many predictions, even though you cannot think of any or know of any that came true, it should be inferred that at least one should be partially right.
        SOME of them MUST not be right.
        Only by being right, is one right.
        People who throw everything and the kitchen sink against the wall and see if anything sticks may get lucky every now and then, but not warmistas…they have literally been wrong about everything.
        that they have ever predicted.
        Being sort of right about some of what you predict is what is known as being wrong in science.
        Being completely wrong about everything, over many years and by many people and a huge landscape of separate areas of study, is nothing short of astounding.
        A blind squirrel will occasionally stumble across a nut.
        A monkey on an unmarked keyboard will eventually type Shakespeare.
        Making random guesses can be expected to sometimes to produce a successful one.
        But none of these is true as regards warmistas and the predictions they make.
        They have never been right.
        Not even once, not even a little.

      • Well, they seem to make predictions predicting both possible outcomes and still end up being wrong 80% of the time. How do they manage that?

    • SocietalNorm,

      They’re wrong so often because they rarely predict for only a small change, where Menicholas is right about them not predicting hiatus, unless retrodicting counts.

  7. Really funny to watch Prince Charles (Britain’s clown prince) and Mann (one of the USA’s) have to bump out their “the world is ending!” dates.

    I lived in the bay area when Oakland preacher (and UC Berkeley grad) Harold Camping predicted the “rapture” would happen in Jun, 1994; that didn’t pan out, so he recalculated it for May 2011, and that failed, too. It was quickly revised to Oct 2011, which didn’t work either.

    At least Mann bumped it out 3 years; I think this qualifies as progress.

  8. I watched Mann, the prominent Natural Climate Change Denier testify before congress against 3 Anthropogenic Climate Change scientists deniers. I got the impression that Mann is an A-hole and Bully just like D. Rump who doesn’t know any science but instinctively knows a hoax when he sees one, because he, himself is a natural born scammer. Sorry, Dr. Mann, but CAGW can’t get past basic physics to Warm the Earth.

    • You should have the courtesy to show some respect to the President of the United States.
      Not only is he right, he is the first person in National Politics in memory to call out this hoax for what it is.
      You say he knows no science, but I call BS on that assertion. Our President has a first class education which includes studying at a highly rated military academy and an ivy league university.
      No one gets through those sort of places while knowing nothing about an entire quadrant of human knowledge.
      And if you know of any scams President Trump has been involved in, I am sure you can detail them for us all and include your evidence. This is a man who has had nearly unprecedented public scrutiny and media attention for many decades, has built one of the most recognized brands in the history of the world, wrote a nonfiction book which was and remains on the bestseller list decades after it was first published, has become one of the most viewed and recognized television personalities of all time…and by the way built a multi-billion dollar portfolio of high end real estate from scratch, including high rise office towers in the largest cities in the world, golf courses in prestigious locations, and a chain of successful hotels. All from nothing. All on his own force of personality and will.
      And all while remaining what just may be unprecedentedly free of any charges of malfeasance, or even of any misdemeanors…right up until he ran for President that is.
      Then he was suddenly literally Hitler, a racist POS, a hateful xenophobe, a bigoted anti-Semite, and guilty of all manner of other vile and execrable awfulness’s.
      Even though he was never accused of any of these things prior to announcing for office.
      Even though he has been held up by various minority groups for awards of excellence and merit.
      Even though he has married two women who were born in other countries.
      Even though many of his oldest and best friends are Jewish, as are several family member, and even some of his own progeny.
      Even though every such charge is meritless and hateful slander.
      Brash and opinionated…sure.
      Stupid, hateful or crooked?
      Well sir…he is President of the United States…what have you done lately?

      • Menicholas
        I’m a deplorable but this statement of yours: “Our President has a first class education which includes studying at a highly rated military academy and an ivy league university.
        No one gets through those sort of places while knowing nothing about an entire quadrant of human knowledge.’

        Is quite simply not correct, at least when it comes to Ivy league schools.

        Imagine that. Harvard grads that can’t explain the reason for the seasons. This means they have not a clue that it is winter in Australia when it’s summer in the US. Have not a clue about what an equinox or solstice is. And haven’t even the curiosity to find out why the path of sun changes across the sky over time if they even happen to have noticed it. Nothing more dangerous than kids like that think they know such basic things but don’t because it is they, the supposed future leaders of this nation, that will made to believe in AGW/climate change or any other climate scam that comes into vogue.

        That being said IMO president doesn’t have to know much about science. He or she does have to know how to select his advisors and administrators that deal with scientific fields though. And has to honest enough to select them based on merit and not for confirmation of his own social/political desires or bias.

      • D. Rump is a draft dodger, tax evader, compulsive liar, scumbag, and world class scoundrel. At least I enlisted when Duty Called.

    • mickeldoo,

      “…but instinctively knows a hoax when he sees one…”

      Hey, on another article thread, you claimed it’s “religion” to blame . . and I thought; Wow, how can relatively intelligent people not even consider it might be a hoax (a sophisticated con), rather than zealous “believers” behind this relentless CAGW pushing?

      I suspect this is a big clue as to what is going on in your thinking;

      “.. like D. Rump who doesn’t know any science…”

      What does it mean, not knowing any science? . . What does the term “science” mean in that phrase? Is it a distinct set of “truths” handed down by scientists, that one learns or not, like one learns how to spell words, or speak another language, or do math, etc. ?

      Do you understand that if CAGW is a hoax, it depends greatly on that sort of “list of facts” kind of view being widely accepted and treated as the essence of “knowing science”? Basically believing things BECAUSE an ostensible authority declares them?

  9. Did I read somewhere that the knowledge of the US public on science is so bad that a majority are unable to identify the most widespread gas in the atmosphere? And let’s not blame the American public. It is probably true of any country that one would survey.
    As for the main stream media they are usually disinterested in any headline that doesn’t contain the words, “disaster” or “catastrophe”or “end of the world”.

    • More importantly, in the UK, our 650 representative Members of Parliament in the House of Commons who got us into the Green CAGW commitment to grossly inefficient and unnecessarily over-expensive renewable power generation systems have virtually no one with any scientific, technological or project management qualifications or experience. The only exceptions are a very few medical doctors/scientists. They are personally incapable of assessing this subject. Add, also, their inability to assess the technological and costing basis of any project and you can understand why we have ever increasing very serious problems with lack of capacity, lack of performance, significant delays and massive cost over-runs in virtually all our public infrastructure and defence works.

    • Main Street Americans have an excuse: They have bills and taxes to pay. Learning a subject takes time and attention, and they often have little time and attention to spare between putting in their 40 hour week and recuperating for the next one. Even those who worked their way through college, because you don’t have the energy budget of a 21-year old forever.

      • Furthermore it will not be settled for an indefinite period, until sufficient experience has been amassed by Humanity.

      • Until some super genius/complete wacko does something like break the unified field theory and we’re suddenly back to the drawing board. 😉

  10. “Michael Mann Adjusts the Climate “Turning Point” Out to 2020”

    Whew! This is such a relief… I was really starting to get worried.

    Sort of like getting a Papal Dispensation

    • But this is progress compared to the Club of Rome, which usually gives us just a few minutes. You know, Obama got a Nobel Peace for doing nothing, and Trump got a slap from Club of Rome (again before doing anything).

      At some point I valued Greenpeace, Club of Rome, the Nobel Peace award etc. As I have grown older, I’ve learned how wicked sausage making politics is. As they say about having heart and brain, it seems I have both.

      • The Nobel Peace Award has long since become a joke, a bad one at that.

        One only has to look at the recent recipients of that Award who have blo0d on their hands either directly, or indirectly. They are not even the repentant sinner as the Ob@mer Award makes clear. How many lives has he taken directly, and how many people have been killed indirectly as a consequence of his actions and inactions? Many may have deserved to die, the world may be a better place without many of these people, but who can see all ends, and make the right decisions, and there can be no doubt that there must have been many innocent lives lost as a result of the policy and military decisions taken. Why is the Peace Award being metered out to his ilk?

        I would say the works of the IPCC and the likes of M@nn and G@re have blo0d on their hands. Many thousands of people (and probably several orders of magnitude higher) have lost their lives or been forced to endure a wretched life, simply because of good money being wasted on warped Climate Science, rather than being used for good tackling real and solvable problems.

        cAGW is undoubtedly the most wretched thing to have beset the progress of science and sensible public policy for more than 100 years. The advancement of mankind and civilisation has been severely hampered by it, we having given up the age of enlightenment and returned to the dark ages. Unfortunately, we have yet to see the full implications of this, with the destruction of our industries, unnecessary unemployment and unnecessary locked in high energy prices, which mount year by year, and will takes decades to unwind. To unwind could easily cause another financial crash so heavily are banks and others invested in this sc@m.

        Our children and grandchildren will not thank us for the stewardship of the last 30 or so years, they have a terrible bill to pick up. Truly a lost couple of generations.

  11. Gee what a Mann and what an incredible lack of logic and reason. This quote is complete nonsense.
    “Sitting in an office at the University of Sydney Business School ahead of his sold-out talk this week, the Penn State professor says one only has to look at the city’s record January temperatures for proof of how dangerous the President’s attitude is”.
    Yes parts of NSW and Sth QLD did have a hot summer, BUT nearly the whole of WA and the NT had a COLDER than average summer. SAME COUNTRY same summer time and SAME 400 ppm co2 levels. So is co2 MAGIC or what? Seems it’s playing games and it can produce both hotter and colder summers depending on where you live. AND if you BELIEVE that you’ll also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
    OH and you’ll probably use proxy data “UPSIDE DOWN” to change earlier climate results as well.
    He’s no scientist but he’s a great BS artist. Here’s the link to our OZ summer DEC to FEB 2017 from the BOM.


    • It reminds me of the great wonder of climate Dr Tim Flim Flannery who back in 2007, while being paid by the Commonwealth under Labor $186k pa for 3 days “work” per week, said it would never rain in Sydney again. All it seems to do is rain in Sydney.

    • For a person with a PhD to state that hot Summers are an indication of anything other than the Sun shining on the earth is ludicrous.
      His hockey stick showed him to be a poor researcher, at best.
      His defense of it showed him to be a lying partisan hack, at best.
      His various lawsuits showed him to be a thinned-skinned jackass, at best.
      HIs congressional testimony the other day showed him to be not only a big fat liar and a complete
      d!(&h#@d, but a contemptible charlatan, a despicable cretin, and pompous dolt.

      And I’d bet he has really bad breathe too.

      • Menicholas
        April 10, 2017 at 7:14 am

        He already, due to his testimony before the congressional committee, has lost any immunity he may have had or contemplating that he may had have before.
        The testimony was specific in the scientific method, not the science and the scientific field or the hypothetical aspect or other generalities that may never be assessed to a 100% certainty …

        Regardless of the science and the actual field and its importance and contrary to the hypothetical or theoretical aspect, the scientific method, actual one(s) applied and relied upon, can be thoroughly analyzed, thoroughly in detail (to even a “forensic” depth), investigated and concluded upon with no much fuss about.

        Mann has just become an open shooting season target due to his stubborn and arrogant testimony, where not even a “maybe” and a slight doubt towards the scientific method applied, including his one too (especially his famous hockey stick), was out of question and not accepted by Mann.

        He has in principle just become the one and only distinguished professor and scientist that is open to lawsuits towards him in the prospect of his actual scientific methods applied…..

        When the testimonies of the other three distinguished scientist in the end give them full immunity in this particular aspect and also to a point boost the immunity to other scientist in the field, that was not the case for Mann..
        He just went the other way and lost even that little he may have had……that’s how “clever” and a “distinguished authority” he is…… a dumb and dumber….and his arrogance still continues.

        He is very open to lawsuits from any one USA citizen in most of the courts of the land, and it will take a verdict of guilty of malfeasance and perversion of the scientific method in his scientific work, like the hockey stick one, even in civil case, for him to appear again in request before the Congress and asked to explain his intentional lies and the perjury on his given testimony……

        It will not be difficult at all at this point to consider that a court is bound to allow a case of alleged malfeasance in the actual scientific method of his famous hockey stick…..due to the very much contest against it and the prospect of the weight and seriousness of his latest testimony….

        There is many many upon many qualified experts and distinguished persons that can do a proper and fair analyzes of scientific method applied in any field regardless of the scientific controversies…..

        Mann has become a case in it’s own, where and when he already was told by the other three witnesses in his testimony that he could be and most probably was wrong, to even a point of intentional wrong about the scientific method.

        He was so “clever” that he lost the last and most significant chance given to have a full immunity from lawsuits about his science and specifically his applied scientific method.

        The committees dilemma at the point that Mann was so many times warned about the specifics of the testimony possibly run on the line : “That this one Mann, with its testimony here, either is the bravest and the most genius among the distinguished ones in science, or he is the most stupid idiot, which then begs the question “how could one like that be so successful and further up in the ladder of authority and position in science”!!!!!!


    • Leo, i was going to say … odd how mickey makes his turning point 2020. The solar min is expected at about that time and, barring another el nino, we should see cooler than average temperatures. (also odd is how “2020” is synonymous for “hindsight”)…

      • Just wondering out loud about the timing – will he be retired and collecting his tenure-driven pension by then?

  12. And children will not know what snow is; there will be open water at the North Pole etc.

    Climatologists have achieved 97% concensus that the sky is falling. They have only failed to determine its rate of descent.

    • Open water at the north pole is a common occurrence. Ever since we have had submarines capable of getting there, they have been surfacing at the north pole. The first was USS Skate in 1958. link

      … the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick.

      The arctic ice is not what most people imagine it to be.

      • Happy to see you point this out.
        The New York Times is famous for perpetuating such malarkey as that if open water should appear there, it would be the first time in millions of years…even while that same publication printed photos showing just that very thing on their own pages in the not so dim and distant past.
        Besides for everything else, the media is happy to just make stuff up, as long as it sounds scary and fits in with their preferred narrative.
        The paper of record, just making stuff up, and calling it science and calling it news, even with not only no proof but readily available contradiction of their assertions on their own pages.
        Many many periods in both recent history and not so distant geologic past were known to be warmer than the present day.
        The 1930s and 1940s were, in many locations. Before that the MWP, the RWP, the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer, as was almost the entire Eemian and Holstein interglacials a few hundred k ago, and likely many more before that.
        Making stuff up, and reporting it as fact.
        Simple as that.

  13. “My funding is under attack just when Ineed it most” There,fixed it for Mikey!

  14. Wasn’t the climate destroyed 10 year’s ago when all the Arctic ice melted and they started growing grapes in Greenland?.

    • Or at least when the permanent drought of California started? When children stopped seeing snow, Santa’s reindeer was eaten by the last polar bear, and Himalayan glaciers were lost? Or was it when the seas boiled and the Earth changed into a Venus with a 90 atm surface pressure?

      Or was it already when the coral reefs were permanently bleached and Maldives sank into the rising Indian Ocean?

      I’m confused. The trees out are void of leaves, it must be because they died 20 years ago because of global warming?

      Global greening at least is happening, the national radio (our Beeb) just happily told us the audience how Greens had a small advancement somewhere in municipal elections. Stupid bovine. They lost the battle at seventies, but they come again, generation by generation.

      • And the BBC is also guilty of announcing that an aerial survey of the Great Barrier Reef demonstrates coral bleaching from warming oceans, despite sea temperatures in the affected area not having reached a temperature considered critical for bleaching.

        They utterly failed to mention that falling sea levels are considered responsible by those who do the hard work of observing the reef at close quarters and not from a drone. They also fail to mention that those same people don’t believe the bleaching is harmful to the reef at all, its just a normal cycle of events.

        The good old BBC who promote CAGW in order to keep people watching the geriatric David Attenborough present shows that keep the corporation afloat.

        And yet they have the cheek to report on, and condemn, fake news.

        Caveat emptor.

      • Obama said he was going to halt the rising seas. I guess he worked too hard, and now the sea levels are falling.

    • I have an acquaintance who is a “premium” landscaper and believes he can get away with putting in perennials from the next zone south because the world is warming so fast. When I mentioned his plan might backfire he responded with “I guess you don’t read National Geographic!”.

      • ““I guess you don’t read National Geographic!”.”

        That’s funny!

        I quit reading National Geographic about the same time I quit reading Scientific American and Science News, and I quit them all for the same reason: The overhyping of human-caused climate change which I found offensive in a supposed scientific publication. Speculation is not a substitute for facts. And all they did was speculate. That’s all they do now.

        I read an article this morning in Astronomy about Venus and the article attributed Venus’ high heat to all the carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, although the title suggested we still don’t know what caused the heat. The author sounds a little confused.

        I still have my subscription to Astronomy. They don’t mention human-caused global warming very often, thank Goodness. Which is why I still have the subscription.

  15. Mann Made Climate Terrorism?

    At issue here is whether Dr. Mann has engaged in activity that meets the technical definition of terrorism.

    Definition of Terrorism… From the Dictionary

    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

    3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

    With the exception of violence, I think the technical definition is most definitely met on all 3 counts, in that Dr. Mann is constantly using threats and intimidation by his preaching of Climate Doom, trying to influence and intimidate government policy through intimidation of other people in politics, science and media by playing very lose with facts not to mention common sense. His constant preaching of fear and submission to his ‘model’ of the world, designed to instil fear into the media, academia, government and society at large makes this also the vilest form of academic fascism we have seen in recent memory. Sue me Dr. Mann!

    After watching the House Science Committee Hearing on the scientific method a few weeks back when Dr. Mann give testimony to the House Committee, I had to do a double take when I was listening to his verbal opening statement. I literally fell off my chair when reaching for the remote to rewind the TV, when he said in his opening verbal statement, and I quote: “Other recent studies have shown the fingerprints of human caused climate change on extreme events like the fires that devastated America’s heartland earlier this month – BURNING CATTLE ALIVE. ” Whoa! Are you kidding Dr. Mann? On what religious alter were these cattle burned alive? That statement is not only a bold faced lie, it is the essence of ‘verbal terrorism’ in how you try and tie that statement to human caused climate change.

    At a minimum, Dr. Mann should be held accountable and tried before Congress for lying and deceiving Congress not only on statements like these, but for blatantly lying to Congress as everyone knows about the other matters as well. He should also have his academic credentials revoked, if he refuses to apologize for the lies he has told.

    Dr. Mann, you are a charlatan, a fraud, and a snake oil salesman masquerading as a scientist, deceiving the entire planet with your lies and propaganda.

    • Regarding definition #2, it’s no coincidence that Michael Crichton’s 2004 book about CAGW pseudo-science is titled “State of Fear”.

  16. more goalposts on wheels…

    Now, the government won’t have a coordinated way to account for damages from climate change when assessing the costs and benefits of a particular policy.

    Good. Now at least we’re even. The government never had a coordinated way to account for the BENEFITS from climate change. There are huge benefits that are never acknowledged by alarmists and plenty of damages that have never materialized as we blow through tipping-point after tipping-point.

    I learned early on in life that the opposite of progress (pro-gress) is Congress (con-gress). With only a few exceptions, the less policy they enact, the better off we all are.

    • The doomsday matrix is getting a wee bit more complex than that. Now we have all the past predicted tipping points to consider and this new turning point to add to CAGW, climate change and extreme weather, along with sundry others like sea level rise, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, etc and clearly all these parameters will need more grants to feed into the computers as it’s all getting a bit much for the singular human brain. The problem is at the same time as this is occurring the grants are declining and it’s a travesty that they are but The Matrix must go on.

    • It’s kinda a tippy-turny-topsy-turvy, keeps the cold side cold and the hot side hot sorta thing. Very adaptable is our Magic Molecule. Been steadily keeping us in suspense for 20 years now while it does it’s dirty work unseen and unfelt!

  17. ” . . . an interagency group that measured the cost of carbon.”

    I don’t think the word “measured” means what Michael Mann thinks it does.

    • Chris : where does this graph come from and is there an update beyond 2010 please? Thanks

    • And are not manmade CO2 emissions closer to scenario A, than any other scenario?


      • nonono, it was a good projection that just happened to use wrong numbers. Hansen was RIGHT, at least if you ask SS. The dog just ate the warming.

  18. “Professor Michael Mann, inventor of the climate Hockey Stick, has just shamelessly shifted the dreaded climate tipping point to 2020.”

    This is a bizarre article, where the author didn’t seem to read what Mann actually said. Here is one quote from it:

    “The good news is, we’re already moving in the right direction. Global carbon emissions have plateaued, and are projected to remain flat over the coming years, thanks to China’s widespread economic transformation and the global boom in renewable energy production. The 2020 climate turning point is within reach.”

    Doesn’t sound like a dreaded tipping point.

    • ….Global carbon emissions have plateaued, and are projected to remain flat over the coming years, thanks to China’s widespread economic transformation and the global boom in renewable energy production….

      If manmade CO2 emissions have plateaued, it is due to an economic slow down in China, India and perhaps Latin America. It is not due to the boom in renewable energy.

      Going forward, China and India will greatly increase their CO2 emissions. There will be little reduction in CO2 emissions by America (given this Administrations policy on jobs and industry and infrastructure building) or by Germany (with mass migration into Germany, it is likely that German emissions will increase over the next 10 years as all these migrants are given housing, consume electricity, provision of more public transport, cars and infrastructure building required to accommodate them and their needs). Russia is also not interested in reducing emissions but has many economic issues besetting its growth.

      It is clear from this that going forward, there will be no long lasting plateau in CO2 emissions. Anyone who thinks there will be is deluded. The Paris Agreement is a busted flush. No matter what Australia and Europe may do, manmade CO2 emissions, on a global basis, are set to rise as soon as the present and long lasting financial crash and ensuing economic downturn recedes.

    • I think Nick is correct here. What Dr. Mann is attempting to do is create a “soft landing” for himself around 2020. He wants to be able to say that, thanks in part to his tireless activism, the climate crisis has been averted and the dreaded temperature rise has been kept down to a manageable level. He will point to the leveling off (or perhaps even slightly declining) of the “global temperature” metric as proof. Smiling triumphantly, he will then attempt to leverage his new “hero” status to get funding for the next catastrophe he is researching. Mann, are we lucky he’s on the job again, his followers will cheer.

    • From the article:

      We don’t have much time — 2020 is a clear turning point.
      If emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, the world stands very little chance of limiting global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius,

    • @Nick Stokes;

      …the global boom in renewable energy production.

      “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    • Nick, you are of course right about the „tipping point“.
      In secret, of course, you wonder why one would use this term, if everything is promising to become better. You probably also wonder, how Mr. Mann could call a run-of-the-mill exhortational paper of an unimportant lobby-outfit a „landmark“ report http://www.mission2020.global/2020%20The%20Climate%20Turning%20Point.pdf
      It was written by Chloe Revill and Victoria Harris, who seem be diligent workers for a perceived greater good – but not much more (no offense intended).
      Why don’t you dissect the foreword by Rahmstorf for us, Nick – or Mann’s musing?
      If you don’t feel any impulse to do that, I’ll understand: All these contradictions and self-promotion …

    • Nick, thanks for drawing attention to what Mann actually said.

      If emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, …

      what if the rise stops at 2025? At 2030? Is a steep rise that suddenly stops at 2020 worse than a shallow rise till 2025?

      … the world stands very little chance of limiting global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius

      this implies some very specific number on climate sensitivity. The IPCC has professed itself unable to produce such a number. So, where does it come from?

      The study shows that by 2020, renewable energy must beat out coal in all major energy markets.

      We could achieve that by replacing all coal with oil and maintaining just one windmill worldwide. Will this do?

      It takes no expert knowledge at all to destroy Mann’s “scientific reasoning.” I’m sure he is aware of that; he is intentionally and cynically abusing his professional authority for scaring people who are afraid to think for themselves. As others have said, he truly is a disgrace to the profession.

      • “The IPCC has professed itself unable to produce such a number. So, where does it come from?”

        From where the sun don’t shine.

      • ‘My expectation was that a reasonable core of climate scientists would agree that Dr. Mann had overstepped the science. This was not the case. Instead, what I got was overwhelming support for Dr. Mann with not a single non-skeptic initially commenting negatively. It was as if Dr. Mann was the pope and the climate community his congregation. Nothing he said could be considered to be anything less than the truth, even if it took huge convolutions of logic to make it true.’


        In my opinion, scientists know critical commenting on what Mann says is not useful or even necessary, but it might cause serious trouble. Believers will attack, and none can help. Those who openly oppose are in trouble already.

    • How old are you Nick? According to the ‘experts’ in 1970, we have already past the so-called ‘tipping point’ …… nearly five decades ago!

      “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
      • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

      “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
      • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

      “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
      • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

      “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
      • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

      “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
      • Life Magazine, January 1970

      “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      ALL of the above ‘predictions’ were made on the first ‘Earth Day’ in 1970!

      Go build yourself a ‘safe room’ stocked with heaps of crayons and colouring books.

  19. So, here’s a question for Mr World Leader Mann.. (and anyone else who believes the GHG hypothesis)
    Why are there rainforests and hot sandy deserts, at similar tropical & equatorial latitudes?
    Which came first, the rain or the forest? What causes what? (chicken & egg is a similar nut to crack)

    Its a pig of a question because, in human minds, something always has to cause something else.
    Take yer time, keep a clear head, explore consequences, research awkwardness and ponder………….

    • The GHG hypothesis violates basic laws of physics because 1 molecule of Anthropogenic H2O cannot significantly affect the Temperature of 62,500 molecules of atmosphere. The Sun Controls the Climate by evaporating and condensing H2O in the atmosphere and creating the temperature differential between the equatorial regions and polar regions and between the surfaces of the Earth and the atmosphere, thereby driving prevailing winds and convective currents that are also affected by the rotation of the Earth and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The prevailing winds may or may not carry water vapor depending on their origins. Blowing and convecting wet air creates clouds and Jungles and Blowing and convecting dry air creates Deserts. The Kiss* Principle applies. *Keep it simple, Stupid.

  20. Has ANY long-term social or climate prediction ever been accurately predicted, let alone for the right reasons? From Erlich’s Population Bomb, acid rain, nuclear winter and Peak Oil all the way through to global crop failures, famine, Y2K, 50 million refugees, New York under water and all manner of climate tipping points, I can’t think of a SINGLE ONE that has been called correctly. Literally not one. The ‘experts’ are never required to recant or be held to professional account, they just get replaced by the latest cash and fame-hungry doomsayer – often revealed to be working as a political or economic activist. All have been false flags, every last one. ‘Climate Change’ is no different.

    • The only prediction that has some legs is the Arctic Sea Ice, although prediction of its demise has been proved to be premature on several occasions.

      If Oceanic cycles and/or a quiet sun are more important than presently given creed, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next 15 or so years.

      It will be an embarrassment of riches, if the predictions with respect to the decline in Arctic Sea Ice also bites the dust.

      • I think the Arctic is the only global climate indicator that’s falling even remotely ‘in favour’ of AGW theory and even then it depends on how far back in time you go. The truth is there’s been a production line of ‘Ice free Arctic’ predictions going back decades and as of yet all have been wrong. That fact alone means ‘experts’ haven’t got their theory right, because if they had their predictions would be accurate.

      • “I think the Arctic is the only global climate indicator that’s falling even remotely ‘in favour’ of AGW theory and even then it depends on how far back in time you go.”

        The arctic had less ice in 1972 that it does today.

    • Whether this is “long term” is debatable, but Hansen’s prediction of global temperature drop in the five years following Pinatubo was on target. Could have been a lucky one-off, has no bearing on climate sensitivity to CO2, and was actually amenable to a statistical analysis of prior discrete historical events, but it was an accurate climate prediction.

      That’s all I can think of.

  21. “He waffles, it’s hard to pin down, he says one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience.”
    Well, he knows all about how to do that.
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

  22. When considering Climate Tipping points, here is a great presentation that puts climate, and claims of climate change, climate disruption, in perspective.

    Well worth 5 minutes of anyone’s time viewing it.

  23. Mann has no credibility with me. In Sydney recently, he could not even answer this simple yes/ no question-“Is it acceptable for a scientist to misrepresent science or alter data according to their beliefs or for a greater social cause?”He made no attempt to answer yes or no.
    I will bet his 2020 “deadline” will come and go. The planet will carry on as usual. The only difference will be
    a few more soiled diapers from the warmists.

  24. The scientific method has been under attack by the Fabian socialists who commandeered public education and turned it into a quagmire of bureaucratic regulations. Sure, there are a few good teachers out in the schools but when the United States spends more per student than any other developed country with the atrocious outcome of being number 10..

    If students knew the scientific method, they could determine socialism doesn’t work. So in self preservation, Fabian socialists must never teach the scientific method. Nevermind Austrian School of Economics..

  25. Here are few ways to counter Michael Mann and his ilk.

    Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”

    Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

    Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

    I Am Woman Hear Me Roar; Michael Mann’s Bullying Backfires

  26. “Mission 2020,” eh? I hope this doesn’t mean that they’ll be releasing a video showing exploding kids like that stupid 10:10 group.

  27. Now Mann looks to the thermometers of his city for one month to measure global climate.
    Yeah, Mann is doing really good science here. Mann also neglects to point out that Trump
    is in favor of the most effective means of reducing emissions – nuclear power. Or that a GOP cpntrolled Congress and Presidency passed supporting legislation for revolutionary new nuclear technology, especially molten salt Thorium/uranium,nuclear waste fueled reactors that couldn’t cause any damage even if operated by terrorists. Mann is out of touch. About everything.
    Someone advise Mann there are no such things as climate “tippping points.”

  28. Mann might as well throw in the towel now. President Trump’s term of office does not end until — 2020 (assuming he is not re-elected), so, it looks like we’re going to hit the ‘turning point’ (at least the latest in the goal-post moving world of Mann).

    • Although, looking at that ‘turning point’ it appears to me that Dr Mann is trying to hand the Democrats an election issue.

    • Gamblers think The Donald will be impeached. link link

      If people think Trump’s presidency is a mess, they have to consider the alternatives.

      • Are these the same “gamblers” that bet that Hillary had a 95% chance of becoming president ?? D’OH !

      • Impeached does not mean convicted and thrown out of office.
        Most unlikely either will happen.
        These are probably mostly people who are not US citizens and/or do not have accurate knowledge of the process and what it means.
        Maxine Waters claims her side is working towards impeaching him, as if it is up to them.
        It is not.
        The Dems cannot bring any bill to the floor since they are a minority, not unless Ryan agrees to do it.
        To be impeached, a majority of congress has to vote for the articles of impeachment. The President has at that point been impeached, but all that means is he goes on trial in the senate with the chief justice of the SCOTUS presiding over the trial.
        After this trial, in order for the POTUS to be removed from office, over two thirds of Senators must vote for removal.
        The thing is, people are talking like just not liking him is grounds for impeachment and removal, but this is ludicrous.
        He has committed no high crimes or misdemeanors while in office, and has shown zero evidence of misusing his office or authority.
        He may well go down in history as being the best President ever, if congressional Republicans can stop being their own worst enemies.
        Best and strongest political position in the country since at least 1928 and maybe EVER, and many of them are more interested in a my way or the highway approach to legislating, than to moving forward on what they have said they wanted to do for the past forever many years.
        Impeach the man who routed the Clintons out of politics once and for all?
        Who vanquished all comers no matter how many ads and how much money spent?
        Who the people just elected?
        These people can be stubborn and muleheaded, but they are not suicidal.

      • A high crime and misdemeanor means whatever congress says it means.
        If congress wanted to impeach and convict a president for having bad hair, they could do so.
        That said, I don’t think anyone outside the fevered swamps of the DNC believes that the public would support impeachment and conviction based solely on the Democrats hatred of the man.

      • “Maxine Waters claims her side is working towards impeaching him, as if it is up to them.
        It is not.
        The Dems cannot bring any bill to the floor since they are a minority, not unless Ryan agrees to do it.”

        That’s the heart of it. The Democrats, by themselves, cannot impeach Trump. If Republicans are not onboard, then it won’t happen. The likelihood of that happening today is very remote.

      • TA April 10, 2017 at 2:35 pm

        … The likelihood of that happening today is very remote.

        There are lots of Republicans who hate President Trump’s guts. They will bide their time and come out only if they think they can win. link Otherwise, they will keep their mouths shut.

      • If the Republicans vote to impeach Trump, or worse convict him. There won’t be more than about a dozen Republicans left in DC after the next election.

      • MarkW April 11, 2017 at 11:03 am

        If the Republicans vote to impeach Trump …

        It is possible that Donald Trump will betray the people the same way they were betrayed by the Democrats and Republicans. I have hope that he won’t. I think he is our last best hope. Lincoln Losing him would extinguish that hope and lead us onto a ruinous path.

  29. Yep. It’s a shame that >60% of Americans may be ignorant of the scientific method. However, it is downright criminal for climate “scientists” to willfully abuse and or disregard the scientific method for political purposes.

    • Experience with climate modelers has told me, David, that they neither understand nor recognize the scientific method.

      • I don’t think that’s true for most climate modelers. I think it is definitely true for people like Mann and Trenberth.

    • I’ve encountered more than a dozen now, in detail, David. Perhaps one recognized the distinction between precision and accuracy.

  30. Most Life has always done better when global tempertures were this warm to warmer than this by several degrees and worse when global temperatures were as cool as they were 100 years ago to colder than that.
    Life has always done best with atmospheric CO2 levels at double where they currently are.

    With the exception of excessive rain events increasing because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and warmer oceans put more precipital water into it, the last 4 decades have featured the best weather and climate for life in at lest 1,000 years. The additional, beneficial CO2 during that period makes it the best for most life in many, many thousands of years.

    The planet has been massively greening up during that entire period. The evidence is overwhelming and this one measure makes it “abundantly” clear.

    • “Life has always done best with atmospheric CO2 levels at double where they currently are.”

      And as for the increase of CO2 concentration thus far … plant life appears to be “lovin it”!

      Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4 ± 0.8 to 5.0 ± 0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010.


      • “For 97% of the planet’s history, CO2 levels were higher than they are currently.”

        As was temperature for about as much of it as well. But of course the alarmist counter argument is always that geologists have not yet found the buried digital data logger with evidence precise enough to prove either has ever risen as quickly as now so obviously … it couldn’t have!

  31. Why not? 2020 is the year of the next presidential election, save all your threats for then. That is the political way to approach climate science

  32. I was going to say: What an outrage, identifying herr Dr as a mere professor instead of the correct “Distinguished Professor” … (creative data contortionism, the one true tree),
    but then I see that the source article is credit to the Mann himself, with the modest title “The Single Shining Hope …”

  33. Adjusting the Malthusian Climate Dial just a little bit keeps it as an emergency to make headlines but avoids criticism of Mayan hoax science with longer prediction horizons. As with the Mayan descendants, climate hoaxers will move on to other causes and dismiss it all as a misunderstanding when it fails to materialize.

    Meanwhile cyclical cooling will usher in Mann’s retirement in a few years.


  34. Mann oh Mann. Mikey is assuming the mantle of chief climate priest from that other Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. From humble young scientist to millenarian cult leader supreme. What a journey. His bulbous head requires a bigger crown by the day. I remind or inform the community that the infamous Jim Jones once held an influential position with the city of San Francisco. He was considered an ally of Mayor Moscone and the hard Left. Investigative reporting by the Chronical newspaper eventually led local politicians to distance themselves from him and his flight from the city. Will we find a Chronicle to expose Mann and his friends. Will they flee the country. Stay tuned.

  35. Although I have never agreed with Nick Stokes, he says Mann used the term “Turning Point” for 2020, not Tipping Point. I would think that means Mann is saying that by 2020 there will be no need for additional action. Mann is saying that we have done worldwide (just about nothing), is sufficient so that by 2020 there will be no global warming crisis. Its over!

  36. We’re all gonna die off before the con men get their comeuppance.
    Pushing off doomsday is a convenient way of perpetually postponing any consequences for lousy work, lying and pulling a scam.
    It really doesn’t matter what kind of weather or climate passes.
    Mann will simply claim whatever happens is expected in a warming world including any temporary cooling trends that can go on for many years.
    The line will be, “warming will come back with a deadly surge”.

  37. Paul Penrose has it right I think. This is all about positioning a claim by the Green Mann and his cohorts that the non-arrival of climatastrophe is down to all those noble activists taking sufficient action to avert the terrible temperature rises that would otherwise have happened. Sceptics all know this is smoke and mirrors but unfortunately the politicians and media won’t let on to the public as they have too much invested in the imminent disaster narrative. Meanwhile new destructive green agendas await for the elect to lead on with the usual stupendous waste and suffering by the powerless poor.

  38. Most of the comments below this article from Down Under are from people who know a lot more about the subject than the author. Very little support for Mike Mann.

    • You know, it took me years to repress that TV show from my memory, and now with one cavalier choice of a user-name you’ve brought all that cringeworthiness back down on me.

      Thanks. 🙂

  39. Hey Mann, you’re an idiot. An alarmist of the worst kind. A smug elitist. I hope your daily life is filled with stress, anger and disappointment on a high level. You deserve it all. I detest you and your lying, manipulating leftists’ ilk!

  40. “Now, the government won’t have a coordinated way to account for damages from climate change when assessing the costs and benefits of a particular policy.

    With that in mind, Trump should read the landmark “2020” report.”

    Sayeth Michael Mann.

    And Michael Mann. Is a honorable man.


  41. John Holdren, star pupil of Paul Erlich, thinks it’s still possible that climate change will kill a million people by 2020. Interesting coincidence.

    Michael Mann share a lot with Paul Erlich.

    – How Ehrlich appeals to his own expertise (“Many concerned people, lacking the expertise to see through the Green Revolution drivel…”);
    – His evident disdain for those who dare disagree with him;
    – The tight coupling between his scientific understanding and his policy prescriptions; and,
    – The apocalyptic descriptions of the supposed threat (he calls population growth the “greatest cataclysm in the history of man.”)

    Of course the thing Erlich is most famous for is his failed predictions. link

  42. Come on. Professional predictors of the future do this all the time, irregardless of what title they have. Being a “scientific prognosticator” has no greater chance of being right that your garden variety thereof. When things fail to materialize, just move the goal posts or claim you’ve gotten “new information” and thus the change. That way, you never miss a prediction.

      • Irregardless is now in WEBSTER’S.


        Illiteracy is a powerful force that requires making up words when the correct word is not known… And in less than 100 years, POOF! A new word in Webster’s….

  43. The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.

    Mann admits getting crazy? Publicly? Alright, if his openly hostile conspiracy theory symptoms worsen, madhouse is indeed appropriate.

  44. Mann is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and co-author of The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.

    Mann is admitting getting crazy? That’s progress taking into consideration the depth of his doomsday & conspiracy theories.

  45. I love his use of “alternative facts” so self assured that it his foes use them when in reality he is the generator of “alternative facts”

    Any bets that the goal posts will eventually be moved out beyond 2020? Odds say yes

  46. The poor Ozzies don’t need any more brainwashing on climate change. They have the highest number of sold out ‘scientists’ per capita in the world it seems. Maybe with the next elections when they are asked to bring their flashlights to the polling booth to be able to see the ballot, they will start to question the fools they are voting in. Jo Nova should run for office nationally once the electorate has had enough and put a coffin nail into this destruction of a wonderful country.

  47. Global warming will stop before 2020 providing governments stop paying
    for it . Availability of government grants , loan guarantees , subsidies , carbon taxes ,
    and crooked politicians undermining real science are the main sources of one of the largest frauds in history . UN globalists seeking a cause , global warming con men and a morally bankrupt media all play a part but it goes no where without government fleecing tax payers to fund the scam .
    Britain will bail , Japan already has and the USA is the straw that finished off what remains of unscientific hocus pocus fraud .
    The ring leaders are going to be in jail or just dying off .

  48. The ‘Hockey Monkey’ ad at the bottom was just the icing on the cake. Poor Mann, so wrong and so angry.

  49. The reality is that the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting yet no tipping point ever happened. In the past, CO2 levels have been more than 10 times what they are today yet no tipping points ever happened.

    I believe that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s fossil fuel resources just as quickly as possible is not such a good idea and I would like to use AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to defend. Central to the AGW conjecture is the idea that the surface of the earth is kept warm because of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands but there are a number of problems with this concept.

    1. The primary means of heat energy transport up and out of the troposphere is by conduction, convection, and phase change and not by LWIR absorption band absorption and radiation. A good absorber is also a good radiator so the so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy because of their LWIR absorption bands. Actually the non-greenhouse gases are better at trapping heat energy then the greenhouse gases because the non-greenhouse gases are such poor radiatiors to space and thy do absorb heat energy via conduction and convection. So contrary to the AGW conjecture. the so called greenhouse gasses do not trap heat.

    2. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping trace gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. The process constitutes a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s surface is on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise because gravity reduces cooling by convection. 33 degrees C is what has been calculated and 33 degrees C is what has been observed There is no additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect which is a function of gravity, the heat capacity of the atmopshere and the depth of the atmosphere has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction, hence the AGW conjecture which is based on the radiant greenhouse effect is also fiction.

    3, For those who still believe that a radiant greenhouse effect may still exist despite the lack of evidence, the original calculations of the radiametric effets of CO2 came up with a Planck climate sensivity of CO2, that is without feedbacks, 0f 1.2 degrees C. To make the global warming effects of CO2 seem substantial, the AGW conjecture factors in a positive feedback caused by H2O that provides an amplification by a factor of 3, yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of roughly 3.6 degrees C. The IPCC is not really sure about the feedbacks so instead of publishing a single value for the climate sensivity of CO2, they have published a wide variety of possible values for the climate sensivity of CO2 as well as entertain a plethora of different climate models. After more than two decades of effort, the IPCC has been unable to narrow the range of their guesses one iota. They have not been able to measure it and they really do not know what the climate sensivity of CO2 really is.

    A researcher has found that the original calculations are too great by more than a factor of 20 because the calculations neglected to include the effect that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the dry lapse rate in the troposphere to decrease which is a cooling effect. So the Planck climate sensitivity of CO2 should be less than .06 degrees C.

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere but it is also a major net collant as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. So rather than provide a positive feedback, H2O provides a negative feedback and amplifies the warming effect of CO2 by lets say .3 yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of .02 degrees C which is very insignificant. For the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to evolve the H2O feedback has had to be negative. If the feedback were actually positive then the global warming effect of H2O would feedback upon itself causing more and more warming until the oceans boiled away and the Earth’s atmosphere became more massive than the atmosphere of Venus.

    4. The IPCC models that include CO2 caused global warming have all been wrong in their predictions. They have predicted warming that has not happened. Yet others have produced models that do not include any CO2 based warming, that have been able to reasonably predict today’s global temperatures. From the results of these modeling efforts one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and has nothing to do with CO2.


    My lack of belief in the AGW conjecture is a matter of science.

    • In the Cambrian, CO2 was about 18 times higher than now, with the sun only less than 5% weaker. No tipping point.

      In the Ordovician, CO2 was over 11 times higher than now, with the sun only less than 4% weaker than now. There was an ice age.

      Jabber of tipping points, runaway heating and the “Venus Express” are beyond ridiculous.

      • There is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. In the last million years there is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere. It is well known that warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water. But there is no evidence that CO2 adds to the warming.

  50. Even if I had the time to do it, I don’t have the skills.
    Since they keep “moving the goal post’, maybe somebody out there can come up with a graphic.
    An American football field, 100 yards long with goal posts. At the right goal would a line to a link below it to the earliest CAGW “doom and gloom” prediction. Add a yard for each year, with a line to a link, that “moved the goalpost”.
    I suspect that the unfortunate team on offence would have to cover a mile or more before they could even score a field goal!

  51. @Forrest Gardener

    Damn, that good ole’ Scientific method quoted once again.

    Meanwhile, the alarmists have Trumped it for decades, with politics. And now Trump can reverse his political position on climate change as quickly as he did on Syria.

    So where the ferk is science left in all this?

    I can’t put this any other way other than brutally, as distasteful as it is, but we sceptics have to get our heads out our arses and begin to understand that the climate debate is not predicated on science, it exists on a political level.

    We are losing, and will continue to lose the debate, unless we operate on the same level as the alarmists.

    Frankly, f^ck the science, lets get stuck into the debate.

    • +1 Many on this site…. some rarely participate because of it…. believe there is no room for debate in science. They’re right but unfortunately they don’t realize it’s not science in the CAGW that’s being debated. It’s the non science.

      • What is wrong with PA?

        Their past president went the green-way that no one should envy.
        Let alone follow.

  52. Yes Mr Mann …. have heard it all before …….. during the 1970’s!

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

    • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

    “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

    • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

  53. “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”

    • Kenneth Watt, ecologist (1970)

  54. Many years back I was talking to well drillers. One of them believed that they could benefit from “witching” the well … he was sure it would help.

    A second said that witching was probably a waste of time. I pressed him because I wanted to be a “witching” believer; his response was, “Well, if you just look at all of the places the other driller witches water, you will see that it is always right next to a place where they can park the rig … it is never somewhere he can’t get to.

    Those that vehemently want to see social changes, as associated with their predictions (and maybe profit from them), will never push the “tipping point” out past their assumed life span. Micheal Mann (born 1965), encumbered with poor genetic material & poor eating habits will not push his tipping point out past 2030. So, we can expect a future revision to 2027, but after that Mann’s own mortality will begin to be the dominant parameter in his work/predictions and he will fade away into his own fantasies.

    • As long as he has hordes of tiny minded disciples following him around like some far eastern mystic then we will have to endure his fiction. His writing belongs in The Onion.

Comments are closed.