Climate Scientist Michael Mann Borrows the Words of a Holocaust Survivor to Express His Personal Angst

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Judith Curry – Climate scientist Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress at having his theories and scientific conduct criticised is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller, who endured eight years of internment in NAZI concentration camps because of his outspoken opposition to Adolf Hitler.

Michael Mann: If You Believe in Science You Must Now Make Your Voice Heard

That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.

And so here we are, at a crossroads.

Let me be blunt.

Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.

Nor have we witnessed an assault on the environment like the one we are witnessing in the current political atmosphere.

I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:

First they came for the immigrants and I did not speak out—

Because I was not an immigrant.

Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a scientist.

Then they came for the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not an environmentalist.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Friends, let this not be our legacy.

Read more (transcript of a speech to students and parents at Green Mountain College): https://www.ecowatch.com/michael-mann-green-mountain-college-2414347465.html

Why do people still listen to this clown?

Advertisements

313 thoughts on “Climate Scientist Michael Mann Borrows the Words of a Holocaust Survivor to Express His Personal Angst

  1. Well, Mann does seem assured about historical parallels. I just think he has the sides reversed.

    • Well his choice in quotes certainly could be reversed

      That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will easily be able to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic Climate Regulations that will threaten the future of life as we know it, taking money from the poor of this country to place it in the hands of other corrupt governments around the world.

      And so here we are, at a crossroads.

      Let me be blunt.

      Never before have we witnessed the underprivileged under the kind of assault it will be subject to right now in this country.

      Nor have we witnessed an assault on personal freedoms like the ones we played witness to in the prior political atmosphere.

      I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:

      First they came for the immigrants and I did not speak out—

      Because I was not an immigrant.

      Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

      Because I was not a scientist.

      Then they came for the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—

      Because I was not an environmentalist.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      Friends, let this not be our legacy

      There, that’s better.

    • Mann says: “Let me be blunt.

      Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.”

      In truth, IMO, it is not science under assault it is his FINDINGS that are under assault. (never mind how good his science/study is!!! His statement “under assault” is not very accurate either.Questioned, yeah.

      • “In truth, IMO, it is not science under assault it is his FINDINGS that are under assault.”

        That was my thought, too. Mann is equating his Hockey Stick to the whole of Science. Mann implies Science and his Hockey Stick are unassailable. He wants them to be unassailable. When they start whining they are losing the argument.

      • Actually, it IS science which is being assaulted, but the assault is by flaky climate liars coming out with more and more ridiculous, unsupported press releases posing as scholarly articles.

      • Mann distortions the truth, especially science, every chance he gets.

        Mann’s only blunt quality is his ability to lie and go after others who call him out.

        He’s not a scientist–he’s a political activist, with an ego to match the universe.

  2. [snip – you’ve changed handles from Jonathan Wundersamer, and in the last day produced several posts that violate site policy – banned – Anthony]

    • I am carefully not going to say anything about Mikey Mann because if I spoke my mind, a wonderfully good man, Anthony Watts, would justifiably ban me. Good on you for how you run this site Anthony. I say this as someone who has suffered your wrath. I still know how to spell cretin. I have differences with you, mainly because you don’t call the fools out in strong language, but boy oh boy do I have respect for you.

    • We need to stop calling Michael Mann a scientist because he is anything but. His ‘research’ is based on voo doo statistics, he refuses to share his data for replication, and his papers are so dense and obfuscating they could have been written by a bot. Anyone who questions his work is “too stupid to comprehend his ‘science'”, and when criticized, he sues first, and then plays the victim.

      Please, from now on, everyone refer to him using an appropriate title: Charlatan, Con Artist, Fraud, Quack, Witch Doctor, Grifter, Sham, etc.

      • While I perfectly agree to the first paragraph of your post, I veto your suggested solution in the second! It is very tempting but, this way we would put ourselves down to the same level – it will not be helpful when you try to debate with somebody who is not totally brainwashed yet.

      • I understand the sentiment, but as someone who lives and works in the world of science I think we need to make it clear that this type of behavior is quite normal among those who carry the label scientist. It is, unforatunately, not an exception but a very common phenomenon. Individuals must be judged by their own actions and words, not by their labels. Fortunately, with someone like MM it is all too easy to see the lack of quality in both.

      • Louis Hooffstetter,

        his papers are so dense and obfuscating they could have been written by a bot.

        Slight correction. based on a recently published paper in Sociology, it’s obvious that his papers were written by a Social Constructed Conceptual Penis.

      • @TheDoctor
        and it would defame all self respecting Charlatans, Con Artists, Frauds, Quacks, Witch Doctors, Grifters, Shams, etc.to be assocaited with Mann.

      • Louis H.
        Surely, under a Republican administration, everyone, including multiple Nobble Laureate, repeat Oscar winner & multiple Olympic gold-medallist, Doc ‘Doctor’ Mann, should seek employment to pay their way.
        Indeed, Doc M has done so:
        “Several years ago Michael Mann found a gig that would potentially pay him big bucks and notoriety. He left the realm of science and now peddles a far-left climate change agenda in the spirit of the western snake-oil salesmen during the 1800s.” – many thanks to
        pyeatte May 25, 2017 at 6:59 am – who is spot on!

        Indeed, so ahead of his time is Doc M, that he obviously sought gainful employment under a Democratic administration, when such activity was optional . . . .

        Auto

      • I try to be as polite and charitable as possible (I’m not always successful),
        so I submit that his title should be Scientist Manqué.

    • Several years ago Michael Mann found a gig that would potentially pay him big bucks and notoriety. He left the realm of science and now peddles a far-left climate change agenda in the spirit of the western snake-oil salesmen during the 1800s.

      • …and so is Western Civilization. Heed Mann’s nefarious pronouncements and we’d have to curtail productivity to the gruesome edge of survival.

        And I think in his devious mind, it would be worth it. What a schmuck!

    • Mann STARTED the assault on science, with his hockey stick charts.

      Josh could make a great satire on Mann attacking science with a hockey stick !!

  3. The problem is, as with most well-crafted propaganda, there is a kernel of truth in what he says. Science is under siege, but he talks about his junk science as if it’s the real science.

    We really need to get him together with a real scientist/skeptic to actually debate science. He cannot, as he nothing at all that can stand the light of day. All of his arguments are ad hominem and false.

    • Exactly – and it seems he’s also forgotten that it was the alarmists that were looking to have skeptics locked up.

      • ‘it seems he’s also forgotten that it was the alarmists that were looking to have skeptics locked up.’
        Exactly. It is the climate extremists who keep on promising to put into prison those who question their data and findings. Some have even promised death to those who dare question their findings. Weird.

    • High 5 higley7

      Real science is under attack by the likes of the ‘clevah’ who think that they can fiddle and hide the evidence and no one is as clevah so no one will ever to be able to prove the BS.

      Yesterday and the day before I read the concatenation of papers by M&M in which they politely and excruciatingly dismantle the claims of Dr Mann that the 14th century was cooler than the world at present.

      http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

      The lengths Dr Mann went to to ‘cleverly’ change the centre of his data sets so that the MWP would appear to be cooler than now is amazing – creating, disfiguring, misleading, staunchly defending, ultimately made of the same cloth that propagandists used in pre-War II Germany to disguise the truth – the cleverly constructed lie.

      It is therefore not completely surprising that we see a news item like today’s where perps portray themselves as victims. I am wondering if something went badly wrong in the DC courtroom with the eternal case against Mark Steyn. As was asked about the little king in Shrek, “Compensating for something?”

      • I came across stuff like this in my studies years ago. Naturally what Mann is trying to do is sickening,

        Below are some examples of “experts” in their field and how Martin Niemöller’s proverb apply’s to them.

        And yeah those who don’t learn from the past are destine to repeat it. You can spot Mann and his cronies a mile away.

        http://ldn-knigi.lib.ru/JUDAICA/Flieger/Jued_Flieg1.htm

        michael

    • I think that title is better applied to Cook, who like to dress up like an SS officer.

    • Well, I guess since John Cook The Books likes to photoshop himself into Nazi uniforms there is a tenuous connection here.

      I have been trying for some time to write a poem about John Cook The Books but have been having immense difficulties. Its like trying to write a poem about pond scum — as the name says it all.

      Sort of playing off a really bad previous poem i wrote, I thought I might work through the use of “fairy” tales. After well over a year this is all I have been able to come up with.

      (I)
      Like Tweedledee and Tweedledum
      Art and Science create a sum
      Each with the other constitute
      Each for the other substitute

      (II)
      Solid science is oversold
      Appearance is as good as gold
      I am the goose of the golden shell
      With Art the inner gooey jell

      Maybe with another year of work I might be able to add to this — or maybe throw it out and start over again.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • (III) ??????????????
        Art and Science a warning carry
        A principled precautionary
        The earth might burn and all might die
        So “wolf” is always what i cry

        ?????????????

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Final

        (III)
        Art and Science a warning carry
        A principled precautionary
        The earth might burn and all will die
        So “Wolf” is always what I cry

        Eugene WR Gallun

  4. Michael Mann seems to think the job of a scientist is to convince the public. No, Mikey, the job of a scientist is to convince other scientists, not folks unequipped to even have an opinion. Of course, this would be most difficult for the scientifically lacking. Like Mikey,for example.

    • “Michael Mann seems to think the job of a scientist is to convince the public.”

      He is of course correct.

      If you are funded by the NSF, that is crucial part of each grant, under the banner “out reach”

      • What’s really sad is the number of trolls who have no problem replacing science with government funded propaganda.

    • The job of other scientists is to reproduce the work of their fellows to demonstrate the validity of their assertions. What is so wonderful about McIntyre and McKitrick is they were able to replicate Mann’s work exactly, something emphasized in their follow-up paper, by reproducing the defects and errors in the works of Dr Mann. Thus they demonstrated the claim that the MWP was ‘not there’ or was ‘cooler’ than now was in error. The world was warmer than now 800 years ago.

      Mann next went on a jag to try and prove that the MWP was real but local or regional at best. This too has failed in the subsequent years, disproven by the numerous records from around the world, NH and SH.

      The problem for Dr Mann is that he started with a conclusion and set about to ‘support it’ with clever fiddles of the data processing. He clearly is of the opinion that he is so clever no one else will be able to see his fiddles if he hides them well. I have met others with this same attitude. Turn inward and you lose perspective. It turns out that Constable Plod is still able to track down and arrest Mr Sharp.

      The claims about his personal suffering are at least partly true, because he is definitely feeling the sharp end of the stick these past years. The comparison of his self-induced comeuppance with the horrors experienced by the good Reverend is a demonstration of an incapacity for genuine empathy.

      • “He clearly is of the opinion that he is so clever no one else will be able to see his fiddles”

        I don’t think he’s even clever enough to see his own fiddles. Delusion can be a funny thing …

    • “…the job of a scientist is to convince other scientists…”

      uh, no. The job of a scientist is to follow scientific method. The most honorable scientists will be the ones who most fervently try to disprove their own theories. What other scientists think be damned.

  5. “Then they came for the fakers…the liars who claimed to have won Nobel prizes when they didnt…
    and no one was there to speak for me”
    TFTFY, Mikey.

  6. I thought nothing Michael Mann did could be worse than what he has done, but his adaptation of Niemöller’s words has proven my thought was wrong.

    Richard

  7. He did it again:
    When you thought it cannot get any morally lower …
    The sad thing is, there are too many rationally challenged out there who take him serious and cannot see that he himself is one of the people who try to silence real science. It’s not just a text book example of Dunning-Kruger at work – he is a perp posing as victim!

      • It’s a shame that his field is fraudulent science…. as the Mann Hockey stick proves…

      • If Mikey is an expert in his field, that’s just a testament as to what a sad shape his field is in

      • You misquoted me:
        “It’s not(!) just a text book example of Dunning-Kruger at work…”

        BTW what field is he an expert in?
        – Misrepresenting science?
        – Hiding declines?
        – Megalomania? (Hey, I am a citizen of the EU – Does he accept me as a fellow Noble-Prize laureate?)

      • tony mcleod:

        Don’t be silly

        Mann is a bumptious ch@rlatan whose ‘work’ has been repeatedly rejected as being incompetent or fr@udulent, and I am still waiting for him to ‘put up’ on his threat to me; see this.

        Richard

      • tony mcleod May 25, 2017 at 4:42 am

        Wrong. Whether you like it or not Mann is an expert in his field,

        You contradict yourself.

        Dunning-Kruger is not in his field of study or practice.
        Nor yours or mine.

        But as to ethics and honesty that is open to debate for all.

        As for an expert in ones field that is wild open. It is how one uses that expertise that is the issue.

        The fact that Mr. Mann attempted to label opponents as having a medical condition so as to discredit them speaks volumes.

        No one is questioning science tony, merely you and Mr Mann.
        Credibility is a difficult attribute to gain, very easy to lose.

        michael

      • Embrace the hockey stick Richard, you and I are part of the root cause. There are hundreds that correlate.

      • Tony, if you think you are a Part of the problem, why aren’t you solving your part of the problem instead of trolling here? If everyone who claims population is a “problem” would self-solve, there would be no population “problem”. ;)

      • … the amateurs here are the ones filled with misplaced confidence and certainty …

        Dr. Mann’s recent testimony before the recent house science hearing was absolutely gobsmacking. No scientist should express that much confidence and certainty. Any scientist who expresses that much confidence is not credible.

        I can’t remember exactly but he compared the certainty about global warming theory to the theory about gravity. That is literally not credible … literally … I know what the word means.

        In defence of the people who post here, there are many with advanced credentials. Pay attention and you will see who is who.

        Science has a problem. It is deeply corrupt and unreliable. The latest salvo across its bow is a book called Rigor Mortis. It points out that the majority (perhaps the vast majority, depending how you count it) of medical research is worthless. It can’t be replicated, sometimes even by the original researchers.

        The rules of the game guarantee that researchers are better off publishing junk than working hard to produce first rate science. That applies in all branches of science.

        Even in science, the prognostications of experts are no better than the predictions generated by a dart-throwing chimp. link

        Yes, Dr. Mann is an expert. No, that does not make him credible.

      • To the left, an expert is anyone who agrees with them.
        Little Mikey’s seminal work has been shredded by many, many people. The only thing he’s an expert in is making a fool of himself.

      • What’s the saddest of all is that McClod actually believes his post is relevant to anything.
        BTW, I notice that like most environmentalists, McClod actually believes that humans are the root cause of all problems.

      • tony mcleod:

        I don’t “embrace” the joyous news of the human race flourishing: I applaud it.

        If you think population is a problem then reduce the problem by one in the only way that you are entitled to do. That would have the benefit of preventing you from disrupting WUWT threads with off-topic irrelevancies such as graphs of population growth.

        Richard

      • Amatuers like Newton or Galileo? How about DaVinci or Coppernicus? A scientists job is to find the truth not to convince the public of it. Once your job turn’s to advocacy you leave the science your a lawyer.

      • Mann is an expert in his field
        ===============
        study after study shows that expert opinion is more likely wrong than the opinion of the layman.

        the problem is that experts over-estimate how much they know on a subject. The assume that anything they don’t know must not be important. Scientists 50 years ago were equally certain that there was nothing important that they did not know.

        if true, if scientists are correct, then why has the public been paying scientists for the past 50 years? why are we paying scientists to study “settled science”? one might as well pay scientist to determine if water is wet.

      • tony mcleod

        I challenge your assertion that I am an amateur, that I have misplaced confidence and certainty.

        Put up or shut up..

      • RE: tony mcleod’s world population growth chart @ May 25, 2017 at 5:33 am.

        I seem to recall my World History instructor telling us back in my college days that WWII resulted in the deaths of some 50 million people worldwide. WWII was so devastating that the world’s population was still lower in 1950 than it was in 1940. So I was told.

        If that is indeed true, then another great world war certainly would produce the desired reduction in population that Mr. Mcleod appears to be looking for. One can only guess if he is actually rooting for one.

      • He’s an “expert” in his field because he has the media on his side and had the government on his side. You can get far with powerful allies like that; lots of guaranteed funding and continuous, unrelenting favorable news coverage.

      • tony mcleod

        The scientific community is occupied by academics who are more often wrong, than right.

        Otherwise, what would be the point of experiments?

        Apparently Michael Mann doesn’t have the scientific integrity to admit his hockey stick experiment was wrong, in the face of considerable criticism.

        Furthermore, science itself is rarely 100% correct, it is only correct by degrees, judged at a particular moment in time.

        Science is secure in one thing only, its faith in uncertainty, without that there would be no science.

      • ferdberple May 25, 2017 at 6:33 am

        … the problem is that experts over-estimate how much they know on a subject.

        Actually, most experts do know much more about their subjects than do other people. The trouble is that this gives them the illusion that they can predict things. “You should do ‘this’ because I am an expert”, is the prediction that ‘this’ will be a successful strategy. That prediction is probably wrong.

        Experts are frustrated by idiots who argue with them when those idiots can’t get even the basic facts right. That’s fair. On the other hand, experts generally do not recognize their limits. Their mantra should be: “A dart-throwing monkey predicts better than I do.” Hubris, thy name is expert.

      • tony McLeod, in addition to questioning the smoothness of the world population, the title refers to a “growth rate”…which is not plotted.

        Your chart has errors of commission and omission. Double-whammy.

      • “tony mcleod May 25, 2017 at 4:42 am

        ” text book example of Dunning-Kruger”

        Wrong. Whether you like it or not Mann is an expert in his field, the amateurs here are the ones filled with misplaced confidence and certainty. This is DK central.”

        Once again, the clod demonstrates his absolute lack of skills on multiple levels.

        1) mr. clod assumes to know more about a “soft” pseudo science, based on unstated reasons.
        2) t clod fails to read the entire article in unbiased terms, instead he assumes a pro mannian bias from the start.

        A) If manniacal was any sort of true expert in a field, he would not vehemently react to all criticisms.
        – a) i.e. being a true expert in a field assumes manniacal is comfortable with the surety of his knowledge.

        Instead manniacal reacts rabidly to the smallest criticisms, even from friends.
        Nor does mannian mind bringing his reactionary verbal assaults into public places
        Lastly, manniacal does not restrict his disagreement to specific scientific or mathematic concerns, but rapidly brings personal mann emotes and general character assaults against mann’s detractors.

        Based on mann’s demeanor and vehement rabid responses, it is clear that mann is neither confident in his alleged research or in mann’s personal knowledge.

        t. clod;
        If you had bothered to read your wiki reference, you would have noticed a list of “related” topics:
        “Cognitive dissonance
        Grandiose delusions
        Hanlon’s razor
        Hubris
        Impostor syndrome
        Lake Wobegon effect
        Narcissism
        Not even wrong
        Overconfidence effect
        Self-deception
        Self-efficacy
        Self-serving bias
        Superiority complex
        Ultracrepidarianism”

        When compared to many of the criticisms addressed towards mann, mann’s work, mann’s adherence to scientific process, etc. Most if not all of these related psychological problems are identified as clear mannian personal issues.

        Evidence of weak psychological factors are directly related to an individual’s ability to remain mature and civil during in depth reviews.
        Another factor where maturity should be demonstrated is an individual’s willingness to admit and then correct errors.

        manniacal admits no errors, manniacal refuses to correct errors, manniacal refuses to acknowledge corrections proposed by experts more experienced or more knowledgeable in any field.

      • Funny how on a poisoned and dying planet, an ever expanding population is somehow living longer, fatter, happier and more cimfortsble and prosperous lives.
        Nothing funny about the hateful um…folks…who cannot stand that reality, and stop at nothing to reverse it,
        while in the meantime denying it.

    • Tony alludes to potential issues of a growing human population.

      How can we be assured that such a large population will have enough food? We should encourage and applaud efforts that increase the base of the food chain.

      Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all carbon based life forms.

      • You could take everyone alive today and place them ALL on the islands of Hawaii with room to spare leaving the remainder of the world unpopulated

      • “How can we be assured that such a large population will have enough food?”
        We could start by restoring all those fertile acres in Iowa that are currently being sucked up by wind turbines. I’ve heard they take 3-5 acres each, but even one acre each adds up to an incredible amount of land being taken out of production. I’ve done searches on how many there are and can’t find a number, but one energy company is going to add 1,000 more…there goes at least another 1,000 acres of land for at least 20 years.

    • The “Dunning-Kruger effect” is just a pompous and superfluous name for the trivial observation that people tend to feel more certain about some things than they should. Do your opponent a favour – just call them “moron” and save them a trip to wikipedia.

    • “It’s not just a text book example of Dunning-Kruger at work”

      Nearly everyone suffers from D-K when invoking it on others while not knowing what it is. It would be easier to just use plain words when insulting someone: “I insult you!” would suffice. Then we might engage a conversation in which we explore why you feel the need to publicly insult anyone.

      D-K simply refers to a normalization phenomenon by which persons consider themselves to be normal when in fact they may be above or below normal.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  8. Looks like someone is worried about his paycheck. Perhaps Dr Mann should seek a private gig, I am sure there are many believers who would happily pay him and fund his propaganda.

    • Well, he’d likely not survive in the private sector. Then again, there are PR, marketing and sales jobs out there.

      • PiperPaul,

        As an ex marketing bod, take it from me, Mann wouldn’t last a day in the job. Marketing is about understanding, research and analysis.

        Need I say more?

  9. Holocaust exploitation for climate alarmism is quite common, Mosher did it here too.

      • Mann’s descent into unbelievable and undefendable hubris means that Godwin’s law is now meaningless.

        In the words of Jules in Pulp Fiction: “ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same sport.”

  10. So having to endure a bit of valid scientific criticism can be equated to spending years in a concentration camp can it? Yeah right. Mikey the Martyr.

  11. It is written, Mann shall not live by dread alone, but by every word that procceedth out of the mouth of….clods….

  12. “Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress…is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor”

    Must be getting desparate Eric to concoct this sort of drivel.

    The overwhelming, the vast majority agree with Mann.

    • tony mcleod:

      No, you are NOT “the vast majority”. Even his colleagues regard him with contempt.

      Richard

      • Tony, you can find plenty of examples in the book: “A Disgrace To The Profession: The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science” . But then you already know that, as most trolls do know that which they won’t admit publicly.

      • “tony mcleod:
        No, you are NOT “the vast majority”. ”

        Perhaps tony is part of the “half-vast” majority?

    • Excellent Point to demonstrate your understanding of rational reasoning:
      The majority of Nazi-Pscientists disagreed with Einstein.

    • Tony, where were the “overwhelming, the vast majority” when it came time to file third party amicus briefs in his defense in the case against steyn? not a single one of them showed up, yet numerous third party amicus briefs were filed on steyn’s side.

    • Mann used the bloody quote, Eric just pointed in out. If most agree with him, why is he complaining of persecution, you make no sense at all.

    • I just received my copy of Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession – The World’s Scientists in their Own Words on Michael E. Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science.” If you want to support Mark in his legal defense against Mann’s pernicious SLAPP lawsuit, you can buy a copy from the SteinOnline website.

      • I should also mention that Mann is also suing Dr. Tim Ball a Canadian court in a similar SLAPP type lawsuit (though SLAPP is not a law in Canada). Dr. Ball, do you have a legal support donation mechanism? I’d kick in a few bucks to help your defense against Mann.

        Needless to say, if anyone is suppressing others, trying to deny people their own opinions on the shoddiness of Mann’s work, it’s Mann himself.

    • “The overwhelming, the vast majority agree with Mann.”

      And what’s your point? The vast majority like their mortgage paid and prestige.

    • tony mcleod

      Are you referring to the 97%?

      I’m no academic, but it only took me an hour of Googling to understand the fakiery of that claim.

      I would post several credible links, but I doubt you would bother reading them, so I won’t bother posting them.

    • “tony mcleod May 25, 2017 at 4:30 am
      “Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress…is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor”

      Must be getting desparate{sic} Eric to concoct this sort of drivel.

      The overwhelming, the vast majority agree with Mann.”

      What exactly does Eric concoct?
      • Mann’s public whining?
      • Mann’s public blaming of others?
      • Mann’s “everyone hates me” personal view of himself?
      • Mann’s repeated insistence on using actual Holocaust horrors as basis for mann’s serial persecution complex?

      Sure looks like manniacal concocted and is wallowing in his own problems.
      Open scientific discussion would clear the air regarding cherry picked data,
      bad mathematical formulae,
      bad coding,
      inappropriate statistics,
      confirmation bias,
      bias selected data inputs and bias assigned weightings, etc. etc.

      Which is what open scientific discussion is supposed to accomplish; as opposed to the pal-review secret behind the scenes agreements ha allowed preferential treatment and overlooking bad scientific approaches.

      Instead, insular refusals to openly discuss research, refusal to share all research in aid of independent experiment replication; To this date, there are zero independent replications of mann’s work. Every claimed replication required explicit mann assistance and selective use of program runs.

      Which is to be expected when someone can even get the data groups aligned and oriented correctly.

      pilt-down mann will be representative of the wrong way to conduct science for another hundred years.

      • It’s Eric’s opinion is that “Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress…is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor” – evidenced by the ”seem to think” bit. Yes, that right, he made it up.

        No biggie, Eric is entitled to his opinion.

      • Not Eric’s opinion.

        mann’s opinion, words, actions and deeds.

        Note mann’s emotional attacks coming from undefined nefarious “fossil fuel” interests. mann’s opinion is that of insecure paranoid afraid of his future.

        Typical t. clod handwaving while stuck in la brea tar pits…

  13. Quote: Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.

    Mann is quite right as far as he goes. What he omits is that he and his fellow travellers are the ones perpetrating the assault. Then again he is no scientist and would not understand these things.

  14. If such pronouncements were made by some uneducated bigot, one could assume that Dr. Mann is simply a nutter, but coming from someone who is an ‘educator’ at a well known University, it is simply unforgivable.
    For his own sake Dr. Mann could do himself a lot of good by visiting one of the concentration camps and in the light of the experience think again.

  15. “…..Express His Personal Angst.” I could apply the same line of thinking to Mark Steyn

  16. Mann is trying to claim victim status, an old trick, but it is not working this time.

    • He’s done so many times before, claiming he is a “reluctant public figure.”

  17. Ok, I know I’m treading water (with my little fingers) at this site when I claim Michael Mann is correct. But I must do so. He is absolutely right. Don’t think so? Let me repeat the words for you:

    “I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:
    ….
    ….
    Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a scientist.”

  18. Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.
    ==============
    true. there is an epidemic of false positives in science. across the disciplines, peer reviewed papers are found to be irreducible or just plain wrong when someone tries to recreate the results.

    the public is the loser in this, because we pay for the science, we trust peer review to ensure we get our money’s worth, but the system is failing to deliver value.

    but of course the scientists argue that everything is OK, we should just keep on throwing good money after bad. why would scientists want to correct a broken system, when their paycheck depends on not correcting the system.

    • why would scientists want to correct a broken system, when their paycheck depends on not correcting the system.

      Right you are, ferdberple, …… especially when one considers the fact that somewhere between 80% to 90+% of all currently employed scientists are entirely dependent upon government funding, in one way or the other, for their paychecks.

      And if they even attempt to change the system there is a good possibility they will be “terminated”, ….. and there will be no non-government financed “science based” job opportunities for them to even apply for.

    • peer-review is about “ok for publication”.

      Do they want a paper put up for public scientific discussion. !

      Trouble is when the publishers DON’T WANT certain truths discussed, or want to push a certain agenda.

  19. Apparently Mann’s understanding of climate change is limited to the discovery that CO2 is a ghg. The fact that CO2 is a ghg just scratches the surface.

    Delve deeper into the science and discover that thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. See why at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

      • @MarkW “Trying to refute bad science with worse science doesn’t get us anywhere.”

        I am not sure of his definition of “GHG” since I have seen so many versions crop up. We really can’t do science without careful definitions. (for example, most of us are sloppy about the term “heat”)

        Even so, I will say that there are the Warmers, the Luke-Warmers, and the Skeptics. The Skeptics include those who are not free to go into any detail here at this site since that would be too close to the “Sl@yer Nonsense”. One is not even supposed to link to one of those people. That is outlined in the site policy. All in all Mark, all that is too bad because both sides make some good arguments and I learn from people having reasoned debates. I missed the past “Sl@yer Wars” here but have read some reviews of battles.

        All I can really say is that it appears by observation that the “climate sensitivity” of CO2 is either zero or so close to zero that you can not detect it. Notice that temperature rises before we see that CO2 goes up on all time scales. That one fact says a lot to me.

    • “Apparently Mann’s understanding of climate change is limited to the discovery that CO2 is a ghg.”

      And that water vapour is not. :)

      • The claim is that the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is controlled by the amount of CO2.
        More CO2 leads to more H2O, which results in even more warming.

      • MarkW – The claim that CO2 has a significant influence on climate is false. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no influence on the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. The ‘notch’ in the TOA (top-of-atmosphere) at the CO2 absorption band wavelength demonstrates that thermalization and Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy have occurred and (below about 10 km) essentially transferred the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules over to the lower energy bands of water vapor molecules. See my analysis (link above) for more.

        Water vapor is increasing about 3 times as fast as it should for just feedback (water temperature increase).

      • Water vapor represents cooling of the surface via latent heat of vaporization. Condensation happens at altitude, bypassing some of the carbon dioxide enhanced insulation.

      • enhanced insulation???

        CO2 is not and never has been an insulator.

        It radiative properties mean it is a transmission conduit for radiant energy.

      • AndyG – True, CO2 is a “transmission conduit for radiant energy” but only when there is practically no WV around, like near the poles. Elsewhere, the short time between molecule contact (about 0.0002 micro seconds) compared to the ‘relaxation time’ of CO2 molecules (about 6 micro seconds) results in the energy absorbed by the CO2 being thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules). Part of the thermalized energy appears in the lower energy radiation bands of WV molecules. The rest of the thermalized radiation energy drives convection.

  20. This appalling misappropriation of the words of someone who suffered the unspeakable horrors of the Shoah is a disgrace showing no regard for any sense of propriety or willingness to moderate language when Mann’s own, narrow, interests are challenged by fact and science. We can clearly see who the truth denier is here and how close he is in his wild use of words to the mentality of those who burn books and contrary evidence.

    • Moderately

      In the case of the Hockey Stick paper, Mann definitely did not burn the contrary evidence, he archived it in the file CENSORED. and McIntyre thanked him for ‘providing it’ in his 2003 landmark paper deconstructing MBH98.

      Dr Mann got a lot better at hiding the contrary evidence following that episode, and even sent an email to others reminding them to do the same. We all live and learn…

      • Not that we can blame Moderately Cross of East Anglia.

        Michael Mann, a privileged, middle class leftist, safe in the bosom of mother America is free to voice his opinions, using the plight of unfortunate communities (Jewish or otherwise) to promote his singular view. Disgusting, despotic little oik.

        Of the 20th Century’s seven most despotic regimes, China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Cuba, N. Korea and Spain, all but one (Spain) were socialist derived.

        Given the choice which, fortunately, I have, the last people I would vote into power would be a socialist organisation.

      • HorScot:

        That was a good try at waving a ‘red herring’; but it fails.

        This thread is about the behaviour of Michael Mann and not the deluded opinions of you or anybody else concerning any political ‘isms’.

        Importantly, your attempted ‘red herring’ is especially offensive because this thread is specifically discussing Mann’s parody of the words of Martin Niemöller, and Martin Niemöller’s words were

        First they came for the Socialists , and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

        emphasis added: RSC

        Richard

      • Richard,

        That’s the version from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, which is incorrect. Different variants and paraphrasings circulated, not written by Niemöller himself. In its original version, he referred to trade unions in general, but to specific political parties targeted by the N@zis, starting with Communists, then the Social Democrats, who were of course socialists.

        http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

        In 1976, Niemöller replied to an interview question from New Left theorist Herbert Marcuse, asking about the origins of the statement. The Martin-Niemöller-Foundation (Stiftung) considers this the “classical” version:

        “There were no minutes or copy of what I said, and it may be that I formulated it differently. But the idea was anyhow: The Communists, we still let that happen calmly; and the trade unions, we also let that happen; and we even let the Social Democrats happen. All of that was not our affair. The Church did not concern itself with politics at all at that time, and it shouldn’t have anything do with them either. In the Confessing Church we didn’t want to represent any political resistance per se, but we wanted to determine for the Church that that was not right, and that it should not become right in the Church, that’s why already in ’33, when we created the pastors’ emergency federation (Pfarrernotbund), we put as the 4th point in the founding charter: If an offensive is made against ministers and they are simply ousted as ministers, because they are of Jewish lineage (Judenstämmlinge) or something like that, then we can only say as a Church: No. And that was then the 4th point in the obligation, and that was probably the first contra-anti-Semitic pronouncement coming from the Protestant Church.”

        German text:

        http://martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/martin-niemoeller/originaltexte

      • chimp:

        Thanks for that.

        As you say, the Social Democrats were socialists so you are clarifying but not disputing the point of my post.

        The additional information you provide is both useful and helpful.
        Again, thankyou.

        Richard

      • You’re welcome.

        The National Socialists came for their political opponents, ie Communists, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, conservative Catholic parties and Lutheran resisters like Niemoeller, as well as trade unions and innocents like the disabled, Jews, Gypsies and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

        The Holocaust Memorial Museum staff should shame Mann.

  21. So… Mann is Pastor Niemöller. And Trump is Hitler.

    I wonder who Himmler, Goebbels and Rohm are?

  22. Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a scientist.

    At last, some honesty from Mann!

    • I noticed that as well. It made me laugh, luckily I wasn’t drinking at the time

    • I was just about to post that as well.

      I wonder if that quote will be used by Mark Steyn?

    • Oh…you guys! He is a scientist. His assertions are incorrect, that’s all. Being a scientist doesn’t mean one is a good or truthful scientist. Drunk drivers are still ‘drivers’.

      • Being a scientist does mean one is a good and truthful scientist.

        Its a bit like saying that Doctor Harold Shipman was still a doctor.

      • Despite common believe – a scientist is not(!) defined to be someone wearing a white lab coat or owning a „Certificate of Attendance“ from some official indoctrination center.
        A scientist is somebody who sticks strictly to the Scientific Method to avoid known fallacies, no matter whether or not he “owns” a degree or holding a Prize or having a job in academia. Having the privilege of high quality education and training helps a lot, but is not necessary. On the other hand most so called scientist are nothing more than cargo cultists.
        MM does not apply even basic scientific standards to his work. So he is NOT a scientist.

      • “Drunk drivers are still ‘drivers’.”

        But they shouldn’t be allowed to be !!

      • TheDoctor

        Surely a scientist is simply one who asks questions?

        Training merely shortens the time between which we ask the questions, then learn how to answer them, thereafter, a qualification is awarded.

        A qualification doesn’t make one a scientist, it merely acknowledges one has accelerated one’s learning process.

        I would go as far as to speculate that the scientific process is contrary to science, in that it prescribes a method by which a conclusion is reached.

        By that measure, there can be no intuitive inventions, indeed, there can be no hypothesis to examine in science as, I suspect, most experiments are driven by an initial intuitive question, and the desire is to prove, or disprove it.

      • @ HotScot

        “I would go as far as to speculate that the scientific process is contrary to science, in that it prescribes a method by which a conclusion is reached.”

        This is actually what I wanted to get across and why I consider most people labeled as scientists cargo cultist. They simply follow procedures they never comprehended and never questioned. While this can be a quite successful strategy in “normal” life, it’s a fast lane track to disaster in the field of science.

        “The Scientific Method” is not and must not be a strict protocol automatically generating academically correct results. If this were the case, it would result exactly to what you described:
        “I would go as far as to speculate that the scientific process is contrary to science, in that it prescribes a method by which a conclusion is reached. By that measure, there can be no intuitive inventions, indeed, there can be no hypothesis to examine in science as, I suspect, most experiments are driven by an initial intuitive question, and the desire is to prove, or disprove it.”

        From my point of view it is basically a set of strict rules that keep honest researchers from fooling themselves and others by avoiding common fallacies:
        – Don’t rely on authority.
        – All observational data have errors, which must be taken into account.
        – Don’t adjust observational data. If you have reason to believe there is an above average error adjust the error bar!
        – Scientific reasoning is based on falsification of wrong claims. It’s logically impossible to prove anything right.
        – Your claims and results must be reproducible by other researchers.
        – Volunteer all(!) your data and exact method of analysis, so other researcher can double (triple …) check your work for honest mistakes

        Regards HB

  23. It is apparent Mann thirsts for significance. He sees his life’s work in heroic, cosmic terms. In fact, it is quite unlikely that either the earth’s environment or human population has any particular need of Michael Mann.

  24. Michael Mann has no scientific arguments to offer, otherwise he would simply present his facts and data. But he hasn’t any…. So he resorts to hyperbole. He is indeed a clown… A climate clown.

  25. Does Mann ever have an original thought of his own?

    A class act like Mann deserves a name: hirundinidae

  26. “Why do people still listen to this clown?”

    There is a serious answer to this question, which the community here, after generally rolling their eyes at Dr. Mann’s, is probably generally aware of.

    “Climate Change” has, a serious side. We live, even with all of our modern conveniences and protections, in natural world that provides us with serious challenges from time to time. We progress by understanding these challenges and coordinating or compensating as necessary.

    There is a large and valid science of climate change.

    There is a tangentially related cult of CLIMATE CHANGE. The elements of cults are quite well understood; as is the psychology of those who become true believers. The willingness of cult followers to turn belief into action with unquestioning loyalty does much to explain the affinity between cults and politics. The politics of an almost evenly divided electorate where a small dedicated swing group can become difference in close races explains the outsized influence of secular, voting, cults in western style democracies. The messianic tendencies of cult leaders are part of the reinforcing feedback loop between the leaders and the followers.

    Although cults often arise in a religious context, they are noit intrinsically religious, thus is is probably somewhat inaccurate to inveigh the oft-used comparison of Green Gaia worship to a region. It is lilely more illuminating to focus on the followers, who turn out to be quite fungible in moving from cult to cult, or adopting more than one if they are not exclusionary. Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” needs to be deprogrammed by the same tools used in inculcation, in an environment where immunity to reason & logic and a distrustful (and correct) view of opponents as potential deprogrammers reinforces group cohesion around even unattractive leaders.

    How strong are cult beliefs? When the Millerites, gathered on the mountain to await the second coming, only to awake the next morning to find themselves in the same old world, they did not wholesale abandon their beliefs. Their “great disappointment” did not eliminate the sect.

    One successful strategy is to engage with the fellow travelers, offering rewards for participation in society larger than those for being drawn into the black hole of the cult. If Dr. Mann must appear, report about him, but eliminate the first person. Shun the cult, engage the still persuadable.

    He isn’t a clown to the true believer.

    • The Klimate Kult would not have gotten so far were it not for their unquestioning enablers and relentless cheerleaders: (most of) the mainstream media in search of importance, sensationalism and compelling stories.

  27. I cannot quite reconcile Tony Macleod’s view that M Mann is a great scientist with the fact that he has not written a textbook to educate such as myself in his pioneering statistical methods. Yes he has written books, but they seem to be mainly polemical or biographical essays .
    At university I remember most of our chemistry lecturers taught with their own textbooks as the course notes – a captive audience of course, but also a sign to the outer scientific world of their status as scholars and researchers
    On my bookshelf are books by Goody , Houghton , Salby , Henderson -Sellars which not only take you through the basics but also have problems where you pit your intelligence and hopefully increased knowledge against that of the author. Several of the most respected commenters here have also written eboks or hard copy texts that address the basic issues.
    Why has Mann not done the same ?
    Are his course notes for the students that he teaches available on the internet?. It is not uncommon amongst US academics I have noticed.

    • I don’t believe he actually teaches. He’s a grant grubber. Keener senses than any truffle-hunting pig.

      • “Scientists are rarely keen to reveal data and methods…”
        Simply not true. All there, just look.

      • Climategate Email 1231257056.txt

        PS Please do not copy or forward this email. … 1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to FOIA requests. … The intellectual investment in such calculations is substantial. … Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed full scientific analysis of these datasets? … As many of you may know, I have decided to publicly release the synthetic MSU temperatures that were the subject of Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA request

        All there, you just have to look.

      • Eric
        You said “Climate scientists are rarely…”
        So you found a scientist. In your world Eric, that means all doesn’t it. How sad…
        Back to my point. All of the main data sets are freely available as are the adjustments and the reasons for them. Yawn…. move on.

  28. Something else that no-one seems to have picked up on. Mann (I assume it is Mann’s quote) says:,blockquote>That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.

    And so here we are, at a crossroads.Now, I can’t remember having heard such procrastination from the old egotist before. Is he now accepting that AGW (to him – Climate Change to anyone else) may not be such a bad thing after all? Is he now trying to ‘sell’ the option? And is this a crack in the dam?

    • No, he’s saying “enact the Paris Accords and get mild Climate Change or follow Trump and we’ll all die”.

  29. Cocked up the blockquote.

    Something else that no-one seems to have picked up on. Mann (I assume it is Mann’s quote) says:

    That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.

    And so here we are, at a crossroads.

    Now, I can’t remember having heard such procrastination from the old egotist before. Is he now accepting that AGW (to him – Climate Change to anyone else) may not be such a bad thing after all? Is he now trying to ‘sell’ the option? And is this a crack in the dam?

    • Sound familiar?

      With an American colleague, later to be a famous child psychiatrist, I once attended a Marxist colloquium in the history of science at Oxford. I mentioned Lysenko, and was promptly banned forever and cast into outer darkness. But the facts remain.

      Following Stalin’s death in 1953, Lysenko retained his position, with the support of the new leader Nikita Khrushchev. However, mainstream scientists re-emerged, and found new willingness within Soviet government leadership to tolerate criticism of Lysenko, the first opportunity since the late 1920s.

      In 1962, three of the most prominent Soviet physicists, Yakov Borisovich Zel’dovich, Vitaly Ginzburg, and Pyotr Kapitsa, presented a case against Lysenko, proclaiming his work as pseudoscience. They also denounced Lysenko’s application of political power to silence opposition and eliminate his opponents within the scientific community. These denunciations occurred during a period of structural upheaval in Soviet government, during which the major institutions were purged of the strictly ideological and political machinations which had controlled the work of the Soviet Union’s scientific community for several decades under Stalin.

      In 1964, physicist Andrei Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

      “He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.”

      The Soviet press was soon filled with anti-Lysenkoite articles and appeals for the restoration of scientific methods to all fields of biology and agricultural science. In 1965, Lysenko was removed from his post as director of the Institute of Genetics at the Academy of Sciences and restricted to an experimental farm in Moscow’s Lenin Hills (the Institute itself was soon dissolved). After Khrushchev’s dismissal in 1964, the president of the Academy of Sciences declared that Lysenko’s immunity to criticism had officially ended. An expert commission was sent to investigate records kept at Lysenko’s experimental farm. His secretive methods and ideas were revealed. A few months later, a devastating critique of Lysenko was made public. Consequently, Lysenko was immediately disgraced in the Soviet Union.

      After Lysenko’s monopoly on biology and agronomy had ended, it took many years for these sciences to recover in Russia. Lysenko died in Moscow in 1976, and was ultimately interred in the Kuntsevo Cemetery, although the Soviet government refused to announce Lysenko’s death for two days after the event and gave his passing only a small note in Izvestia.

  30. Michael Mann: “If You Believe in Science You Must Now Make Your Voice Heard”

    Dr Mann and I agree completely on this. But he doesn’t want my voice to be heard.

    When laymen talk to me about this issue, I tell them that legislative progress has been slow, not because of “Big Oil and their paid liars”, but because of thousands of educated skeptics like me who are steadily undermining the catastrophic hype.

    Our voices are being heard.

    • Except when our “voices” are removed. A couple days ago I commented on an op-ed, correcting misstatements about Plate Tectonics, presumably attributed to Oreskes. When I checked back yesterday to see if there were any responses, the article was still there but there were NO comments. It was the only one in a string of articles on the page that was lacking comments or even the opportunity to make them. Actually, it may be good news if publishers are so afraid of ‘fact checking.’

  31. Michael Mann started the skeptic movement.

    There wasn’t really a skeptical movement until people saw what was done in the Hockey Stick. That is when people said to themselves “wait a minute, what is really going on here?”.

    He also taught climate science that propaganda was the way to get ahead in the field with what happened through the Hockey Stick.

    Then he became the leader of the movement to suppress contrary research.

    I mean, if he didn’t exist, lots of the problems we see now might never have existed either.

    • Michael Mann started the skeptic movement.

      I believed the CAGW propaganda until Mann came along.

    • Others have had a big hand in creating skeptics.

      The guys involved in climategate woke people up to the FACT that data, has been adjusted.

      Cook et. al showed people that data could be massively WARPED to support an agenda.

      Every one of the clowns making outlandish “predictions” about things that just haven’t happened, have also had their bit to play. Wadhams, Shepherd, etc etc

      And then the PAID climate trolls. they also deserve a vote of thanks, Mosh, etc etc.

      • I’m sure others could name names who have unintentionally helped the skeptic cause with their outward projection of idiocy.

  32. Martin Niemöller’s words apply to all of us, not just the victims of the holocaust. They are a warning that we must nip evil in the bud. We must not stand idly by while others are victimized. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” link

    Mann’s use of those words just sounds sanctimonious. Pathetic.

  33. I read his speech up until this: “Now, let me regale you with a story about my own college experience.”
    Oh. My. God. What a bloviating, egotistical blowhard. How does he even stand himself?

  34. A tiny Michael Mann floats above you with ethereal wings of silk. He sprinkles fairy dust on you while you think happy thoughts and say, “I believe in science. I believe in science. I believe in science.”

    Then you can fly.

    • “Then you can fly”… right off the economic cliff with all the other Climate Change True Believer lemmings.

      • Of course. It’s science. They will fly right past the second star to the right and straight on to morning.

        “All the world is made of faith and trust and pixie dust.” Michael Mann quoting JM Barrie

  35. Well, he nailed that one:

    Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a scientist.

  36. “Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.”

    The guy is absolutely right! It’s just that he hasn’t quite yet worked out where the assault is coming from or that he is a major part of it.

    As for the paraphrasing of Pastor Niemöller … millions of people died to get rid of those who persecuted him. Millions may still die before we get rid of Mann and his anti-humanity, anti-science cult.

  37. Really? Michael Mann being *criticized* is equivalent to physical torture and starvation? He and his supporters like Tony McClod should be ashamed of themselves. The fact that they aren’t tells you a great deal about them, and their supposed science.

  38. I hope there is no one left for Michael Mann.

    The signs are his colleagues are deserting him in droves.

  39. A scientist welcomes questioning of their theories. That is how the state of knowledge is advanced. The best scientific experiments are those which are designed in an attempt to break a hypothesis. Every time we break something we learn something. Unfortunately, Mann is not a scientist.

  40. The annals of history will surely record Mike Mann as having done more damage to the reputation of science than any other human being, organization or political movement. Ever.

    Surely he must know that science does not support his claim of “catastrophic climate change”.

  41. For the Anthropocene so loved the world it gave its one and only begotten Mann that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal carbon life.

  42. Dear Dr. Michael Mann,
    You are no different than a busted criminal whining after being busted.
    In fact you are an unindicted criminal who has perpetrated numerous, well documented, offenses which you have shown to be indefensible.
    So excuse me for finding pleasure in your squealing like the guilty pig you are.
    You are not a victim and history will accurately convict you for the perpetrator you are.
    You should be pondering the noble benefits in confession,and contrition but alas you are are scoundrel of epic proportion.

  43. I am not a climate scientist, or any kind of scientist as far as that goes…. but don’t your respective organizations have some type of review panel such that when people do poor work, or have ethics problems, their degrees and/or credentials are pulled? Lawyers can be disbarred, medical doctors can have their licenses pulled… isn’t there something for people like Mann?

    • None. And, in today’s political environment, those who do NOT toe the line establishment’s line, and those who DO expose incompetence and errors and prejudices that affect their political masters’ agendas get FIRED. Their programs are defunded, their labs are shut down, and their papers are rejected in endless “reviews” by prejudiced anonymous “peer” reviews.

      But, in today’s political environment, those who DO toe the line establishment’s line, and those who DO use incompetence and errors and prejudices that promote their political masters’ agendas get FUNDED in ever higher levels. Their programs are promoted, their labs are funded, their testimony is requested in Washington and New York and Sacramento, and their papers are published immediately after days of “pal reviews” .

      • Yes, it is cleary an intolerant phase in our society at present and reminiscent of radical extremes in the 1930s Germany eliminating all the moderate voices.

      • if you think made committed fraud
        (it’s not illegal to make a scientific mistake,
        not that he and his coauthors made one),
        then _state_what_that_was
        instead of endlessly ranting with
        no substance at all to your
        comments.

        dump or get off the pot,
        as they say.

    • Stu: what “poor work?”
      Mann et al’s work has been verified time
      and time again.
      study the literature.
      there’s a reason Mann gets
      awards

      • No. Mann’s work is ONLY “verified” by a small closed group of the same people who co-signed the papers that they mutually and originally co-signed. That group of some 20 use the same “data” to verify each others’ papers that peer-reviewed the first paper. No one has been able to verify it.
        But the statistics that prove it wrong ARE independently verified.

  44. Things I have learned on my journey to “science denial” :

    The scientific process
    % of various gases in the atmosphere
    Geography of Arctic and Antarctic
    Null hypothesis
    What a statistical anomaly is
    difference between average and mean
    basic geologic history
    How atmospheric data is gathered
    Fun things like ENSO AMOC HADCRU TOBS UHI IPCC GISS BEST USHCN CET ARGO LIA MWP SLR
    I never new that data could be smoothed, infilled, and kriged
    Falsification in science
    more than I want to know about the 2nd law of thermodynamics
    (still not clear on positive and negative forcing)

    I could go on.
    I’ve learned more about science than I previously knew on my way to becoming a “denier”.
    They invite me to learn about the subject and then call me names when I disagree.
    Nice.

  45. A more appropiate quote would have been Oliver Perry’s ‘we have met the enemy and he is us’.

  46. Is this the product of freelance advice or does he have professional help with PR and debate strategies?

  47. I wonder if the dictionary will want a new headshot of Mann for the revised entry for “hubris”.

  48. …….with un-original, brain-dead magical thinkers like this around….
    ……when they have the ears of Government….
    ……when all they can suggest is the collecting and spending of *ever* more tax money…
    THEN, Climate Change and all its dangers is a Teddy Bear’s Picnic and we’re all in real danger.

    Is this why there aren’t too many Romans around these days?
    Everyone wanted to be a Patrician, a Father of the City, a tax collector/ spender or recipient of said tax spending (crony)
    The pyramid of power became too big, top-heavy and it simply fell over under its own bloated weight.
    And thus began 1,000+ years of Dark Age.

    And of course, unless our lawyer ‘friends’ can find a scapegoat – it will be blamed on Climate Change, as the demise of dozens if not hundreds of civilisations over the millennia has always been.
    Humans will *never* be to blame for their own demise because they are so clever, so perfect and so well meaning, exactly as M Mann is claiming to be here.

  49. Mostly I think if people make claims like this, thought should indeed be subjected to EXACTLY what they compare their suffering to. If Michael Mann thinks he has it as tough as a Holocaust survival, let him spend 8 years in hard labor, little food in a hole for a cell. Have him get back to us after that.

    Holocaust survivors should be horrified this man so trivialized their suffering. He is flat out EVIL.

  50. This famous exchange from ‘A Man For All Seasons” is more appropriate; Mann having cut down every law to get after the devil as he sees it.

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    • Nigel: Thanks for that. One of my favourite quotes. Along with: “But for Wales, Richard?” Classic movie, classic script.

      • Yes, dangerously celtophobic that one!

        The lines should be delivered by Paul Scofield for their full weight of course but even just on the page they are a powerful expression of a real dilemma.

    • More was no saint, although now both the Roman Catholic and some Anglican communion churches so regard him. During More’s chancellorship, six suspected Protestants were burned at the stake for heresy. So much for the great Humanist, who also burned and banned books. He also began the long pursuit on the Continent of refugee English Bible translator Tyndale, who wasn’t finally betrayed and captured until a year after More’s own death. Imperial authorities strangled him before burning his body.

      More is famous for educating his daughters. Less well known is the story, the veracity of which I don’t know, that he offered his future son-in-law Roper the choice of either of his two oldest daughters, by pulling back the bed covers so that he could see them naked or at least with just a nightgown, before deciding. He wed Margaret, the eldest and best classical scholar of the four kids.

  51. Mann claims “… we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.”

    He has backed away from “warming”, we see. Now it is “Change” generally.

    He has backed away from avoiding, entirely, whatever the problems may be. Now, we will have to adapt and cope — regardless.

    He has backed away from the moral imperative that all the souls under his dominion must submit to his will. Now, we face, and are entitled to make, a choice.

    In short, Mann is backing down.

    I consider this progress.

  52. Moderator —

    A harmless post i made containing some of my struggling poetic work seems to be in limbo. I clicked on submit and the post did not appear but remained encased in the “leave a reply” square but with the option to submit gone. Is that normal when entering moderation?

    I said my post did have a tenuous connection to the topic because John Cook The Books likes to photoshop himself into Nazi uniforms. So I did use the word Na–zi. Should i have said “SS uniforms” instead? John Cook The Books runs the blog “Skeptical Science” — which has the initials SS. (I am sure you have heard that one before.)

    I am more curious here about my poem appearing in the “leave a reply” square with the submit option gone than I really care about the non-appearance of my post itself. Is that the new normal — with no message about “moderation”?

    Thankyou for your hard payless work

    Eugene WR Gallun

  53. “Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.”

    Assault wouldn’t be my choice of words but Okay let us go with it. If science doesn’t subject itself to assault then it is not science. Period. End of sentence as BOb use to love to say. .

  54. Martin Niemöller was a protestant clergy man. He was not a jew but openly opposed to racist laws. He survived Nazi repression but not the holocoust.

  55. Martin Niemöller’s original:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    And Mann chooses to exclude himself specifically from immigrants, scientists and environmentalists instead. Looks like Mann is single-handedly slaying the political man-made climate apocalypse monster.

  56. I just try to see this in a light of positivity even when considering the “heavy” language used…
    I try to see and take this as a cry for help and support against the “Nazis” that may just end up to not just only “throw M.M under the bus” but even “shish kebab” him with no any much regard or mercy…..

    Is no much doubt about who are and who wear with pride the Nazis uniforms these days…..and for what reasons……

    Let at least not be like the “Nazis” that the guy is complaining and seems to be very worried about……..he deserves a chance and some support…….by assuring him that if he chooses to save himself, he will not end up as “shish kebab”….

    I am sure that most here dislike and will not agree with the “throwing under the bus” of any one….as it is really unfair and disturbing…..even when Mann considered….

    The guy is really on the ropes…lets try not to make it even harder for him….he knows by now very well that there is no any chance for his congressional testimony as it stands, to somehow redeem his reputation in the future…….he sees that very clearly I think……even when at some time earlier he may have wanted to believe it, even feverishly, as a possibility……

    My advice to him will be, please do take the chance now and save your self and your reputation, when there still time……
    The Nazis may very well have decided to let you off but only if you chose too,….. before you turn up in to “shish kebab”……get off of Lew’s treatment and his recipes…..before too late…..

    cheers

    • phaedo
      May 25, 2017 at 12:19 pm

      More Mannure.
      ———-
      It is far much better than more ashes and dust…

  57. I smell burning cattle. More like frying Bull Sh*t. Dr. Mann is now probably the best ally that the skeptics have since now he is not only destroying his own credibility but that of the entire CAGW meme. Now he is just getting stupid and silly, and the whole world sees that he is such an activist in pure climate alarmism. And they are starting to see that this hysteric messaging is going flat. Like the boy who cried wolf one too many times.

    Now, if only we could get rid of the few ignorant Deni@rs that make Skeptics look so bad, we would have a chance of reasoning with law makers about spending trillions of dollars for a cause that doesn’t need addressing. You know the deni@r types, the ones who preach that there is none, nada, zilch, zero evidence of human kind causing any climate change. Humans have changed the climate slightly for the better, in that we now have a bit of a buffer on any catastrophic global cooling with the tiny bit of warming we have managed to create after 150 years. And the climate record is full of bygone civilizations that succumbed to sudden catastrophic cooling inducing severe climate change swings. Just look in the dustbin of history, and you will see that it is global cooling that is the thing to be terrified about.

    • Actually, there isn’t any real-world evidence of manmade climate change. None, nada, zilch, zero. Sure, we have changed things on a localized level, with UHI and such, but that isn’t what is meant by climate change, which is manmade warming, plus (when that didn’t pan out), laughably stupid “manmade weather change”.
      But don’t let that stop you from getting on your soap box and blathering about it.

  58. Ron Williams:

    I see you are still earning your pay as a concern troll.

    You write

    You know the deni@r types, the ones who preach that there is none, nada, zilch, zero evidence of human kind causing any climate change.

    They don’t exist.

    As I wrote the last time you told that lie, humans change local climates in many ways (e.g. cities are warmer than their surrounding countryside).

    There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

    Sunsettommy, TA and me (repeatedly) have each asked you to provide some of the evidence you assert for discernible man-made global climate change but you have yet to do it. And that is strange because you would obtain at least two Nobel Prizes (Peace and Physics) and possibly a third (Chemistry) for your discovery.

    In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was almost immediately revealed to be an artifact of his improper data selection. Since then research to find some – any – evidence for the existence of discernible human-caused global climate change has been conducted worldwide at an annual cost of more than $2.5 billion p.a..

    That is ‘big business’ and it is pure pseudoscience which has been a total failure: nothing to substantiate discernible human-caused global climate change has been found.

    And the politicians who provide the research funds agree there has been NO scientific advance in the field.
    Theoretical climate sensitivity was estimated to be between ~2°C to ~4.5°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent at the start, and the IPCC now says it is estimated to 2.1°C to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C).

    Richard

    Footnote

    Science is a method which seeks the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which refutes existing understanding(s) then amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in light of found information.

    Pseudocience is a method that decides existing understanding(s) to be ‘truth’ then seeks information to substantiate the understanding(s).

    • richardscourtney
      May 25, 2017 at 1:53 pm

      Please do not mind much Von Villiams……….He already knows we all in the same “Boat”, and he also knows that the only thing he and any one else would not want or wish for is that the “Boat” goes “ape crazy Olympic”… :)

      cheers

      • Good one Whiten…Von Villiams. If you haven’t trademarked that, I would like to borrow that. Maybe I can change my name to that to escape the persecution I am getting in real life for commenting on the side of the skeptics. Or in a few cases as is obvious, why we all get branded deni@rs.

      • Ron Williams
        May 25, 2017 at 3:02 pm

        Thank you for the reply…..

        You have a point…..true there is no any trademarks I have….so feel free to borrow and use it, to your heart content….your choice.

        But still must consider, that I could very much be tempted to bother you , upset, and further more attempt to ridicule at the best of me… it is .just how it could easily be from my perspective..:)
        But on the other hand considering my take and consideration as per the first line on the first comment in this blog post, something about positivity, and also adding up some thing like optimism to it too , I got to commit my self to a promise to you….
        As per subject of this blog post, I do promise not to bother, upset or attempt a ridicule, according to your choice, if somehow it happens that Mr. Mann does the right thing………
        That’s the most I can promise in this aspect..:)

        Still even on the spirit of the respect, as you seem very keen to respect the range, I got to say…….if it feels easier and natural to you, please do feel free to address me as “vhiten”, I will not mind it at all..:)\
        Honestly no offense or pun intended.

        Thanks again……..

    • “There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.”

      Richard, what is the sort of research you would count as evidence? Can you give me a hypthetical example of something you would find persausive?

      • The way Richard phrases his comment is deceptive. “There is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.” In another thread on the same subject, as Richard stated, he advises TA to not use the word ‘proof’ but to use ‘evidence’ since proof can someday be introduced making the statement false. The point is one cannot claim any absolute certain proof, just as the alarmists cannot provide any absolute certain proof what the feedbacks are for the 1.2 C temp increase by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. But we know we have changed the equation with human input the last 150 years. And change is the result and there is plenty of evidence, like the entire planet that humanity has changed significantly. Probably most for the better. But it is still change and time will tell.

        The problem that is now, we started this experiment in 1850 and have changed the sample. We didn’t start with and don’t have a double blind study with a duplicate earth that would have unfolded naturally as compared to the earth today that humans have developed. So it is now impossible to say what changes we have introduced how exactly things would have unfolded and changed. The closest we can come now is a computer model, and that is only as good as the inputs. We can’t go back in time and see what would have been now, had humans changed nothing.

        And then there is the weasel word ‘discernible’. Who gets to choose what level of discernibility qualifies or how much climate change would be different, or even what constitutes the change in climate. And whether it is good or bad. Richard knows this, so he makes that statement, thinking he can demolish any rebuttals to his statement. It is an old debating trick, and it fails when the majority know they have been had by a ch@rlatan.
        The skeptics have an uphill battle convincing anyone that they offer a credible alternative, especially the alarmists that engage in the same propaganda. So what is at stake, is whether the skeptical side of this debate is going to be led by certified deni@rs, or reasonable, educated knowledgeable skeptics who influence societal opinion, and ultimately political action on AWG, one way or the other. I would say the stakes are exceedingly high.

      • Tony, I see that you couldn’t answer a simple statement either. You instead requested evidence he already thinks doesn’t exist.

        “There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.”

        That was YOUR opportunity to provide evidence that he is wrong….. but you didn’t. You fell right on your face,boom!

        Try to be smarter next time.

      • richardscourtney
        There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

        Richard, what evidence do you suppose has persauded Roy Spencer? He was onto it years ago.

        “As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.”
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

      • “sunsettommy May 25, 2017 at 10:09 pm

        Try to be smarter next time.”

        He’s a Queenslander, smart don’t work well there. Cane toad!

      • “tony mcleod May 26, 2017 at 1:11 am

        richardscourtney
        There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

        Richard, what evidence do you suppose has persauded Roy Spencer? He was onto it years ago.

        “As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”

        Trapped? You accept that? If you do, you fail basic understanding of thermodynamics.

      • tony mcleod:

        Opinions are not evidence that something exists. Measurements of the something are.

        Citing that there are believers in man-made global climate change is NOT evidence that man-made global climate change exists . More people believe in Father Christmas than believe in man-made global climate change.

        Evidence of man-made global climate change would be measurements of an alteration that human activity has induced to changes in global climate which have always happened naturally. To date no such alterations have been observed because no recent climate changes have been observed to differ from previous climate changes in the holocene. The importance of Mann’s fr@udulent ‘hockeystick’ was that it purported to indicate that recent changes were unusual.

        Richard

      • tony mcleod:

        I refuted your daft assertion that somebody believing man-made global warming exists is evidence that the something does exist.

        I write now to ensure that you cannot pretend I ignored your irrelevant statement that increased GHGs tend to add a warming effect. I give you the same answer that I gave to the concern troll when he raised the same irrelevance on another thread. I copy the answer I gave him to here

        Real scientists deal with reality. I again repeat,
        To fully understand the “basic science of climate change” one only needs to know there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Every other fact is mere detail.

        You mention radiative physics in the atmosphere which is one of the details. It is one of the lesser details. For example, cloud effects are a more important detail (they affect temperature, precipitation, etc.). Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
        (ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
        Over that recent period of less than two decades, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 W/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).

        And that is only one of the reasons why there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change. Simply, if there is any human-caused global climate change then it is too trivial for it to be discernible.

        This agrees with all empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
        Idso from surface measurements
        http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
        and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
        and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

        Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the putative man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

        Richard

    • richardscourtney May 25, 2017 at 1:53 pm

      Sheesh, I don’t even mention any names, and Courtney shows up blubbering his blather, barking so loudly. Although it was just one of his tamer copy and pastes from the other thread without the reference to me and ‘little trolls’. You must know that you are are one of the main deni@rs in the world that give the entire skeptical community a black eye, since you show up on command like a good trained dog. Sit…Listen. Good boy Courtney!

      And the problem is, is that you get more attention than you deserve, because you kick sand in the face of the average intelligent citizen of the world, and everyone thinks all skeptics are deni@rs. What chance do reasonable moderate skeptics have in even making a case when you destroy our position from the get go with your stupid arrogant pronouncements.

      IMO, you are half as dangerous as Dr. M@ann and maybe the two of you are ‘in bed together’ since your statements such as your speech to the Heartland Institute about (no evidence of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere…or maybe there is, but there is no evidence). I just can’t think of anything more stupid that could be said that would just make people quit listening to anything anyone on the skeptic side says. And if we lose the battle on the science because of ignorance like that, then it is a dirty rotten shame more people didn’t stand up and say something against the deni@rs that are our main limiting factor in getting through to the politicians and intelligent people of the good earth.

      Wikipedia says this is a Deni@r site, and I say this is a Skeptic site because more than half the comments are very intelligent and interesting. Let’s act like skeptics so as we don’t get tarred and feathered with the likes of said nut bars.

      • Ronny boy, you are the perfect illustration of a concern troll. But yeah, when in a hole keep digging. That’s the ticket!

      • The collectivist talk-talk seems out of place around here, Ron;

        “And the problem is, is that you get more attention than you deserve, because you kick sand in the face of the average intelligent citizen of the world, and everyone thinks all skeptics are deni@rs. What chance do reasonable moderate skeptics have in even making a case when you destroy our position from the get go with your stupid arrogant pronouncements.”

        No one is stopping you from making whatever case you wish . . though at this point, I personally suspect you’re a “fifth-columnist”, here to dirty the joint up.

      • Ron Williams, you STILL fail to provide evidence that Richard is wrong,

        “There is no evidence for discernible discernible human-caused global climate change”.

        He is not talking about a small warming trend since the 1800’s or the hypothetical warming trend based on climate models, he is asking for evidence that Humans have changed the GLOBAL climate enough, for it to be measured with certainty.

        Why is that so hard for you?

      • Ha ha ha,……

        Ron, you are splendidly making his case, that you are a Concern Troll. He posted the definition,which matched YOU to a tee.

        Suggest that you drop it and go on,since it is obvious you can’t counter his statement that bothers you so much anyway.

      • sunsettommy:

        You say to the concern troll
        May 25, 2017 at 10:15 pm

        Ha ha ha,……

        Ron, you are splendidly making his case, that you are a Concern Troll. He posted the definition,which matched YOU to a tee.

        Suggest that you drop it and go on,since it is obvious you can’t counter his statement that bothers you so much anyway.

      • Please ignore my last post which went by mistake: my arm did its own thing again. Sorry,

        I am trying to prepare what I intended to write.

        Richard

      • sunsettommy:

        You say to the concern troll

        Suggest that you drop it and go on,since it is obvious you can’t counter his statement that bothers you so much anyway.

        With respect, that fails to recognise the two things the concern troll says he is trying to achieve.

        Above, he wrote

        Now, if only we could get rid of the few ignorant Deni@rs that make Skeptics look so bad, we would have a chance of reasoning with law makers about spending trillions of dollars for a cause that doesn’t need addressing. You know the deni@r types, the ones who preach that there is none, nada, zilch, zero evidence of human kind causing any climate change.

        That specifically demands two things, viz.

        1. We should “get rid” of people who state the scientific truth that there is no evidence for discernible man-made global climate change.
        And
        2. We should agree the falsehood that there is evidence for discernible man-made global climate change.

        By his own words, Ron Williams has no interest in countering my statement because his purposes are to cause strife and disruption among skeptics of man-made global warming. Simply, he is merely an obnoxious and egregious little troll whose mean and spiteful comments are intended to cause problems.

        Richard

      • Yes Richard C Courtney. I would like this site to ‘get rid’ of all Deni@rs. Ban them. Drive them out! Drive the Deni@rs out of this climate blog. And then make a case against Wikipedia for calling WUWT a Deni@r web blog on global warming/climate change. That solves your point 1.

        The problem with a small handful of Deni@rs on a skeptic climate blog intimidating others not to challenge their dogmatic opinions, is that we all get tarred and feathered with the same vile speech that “there is none, zilch, nada, no evidence of discernible global climate change.” With so much at stake in the next few months with the Trump administration figuring out what to do with a very bad Paris Agreement, that is all we honest skeptics need is a few Deni@rs spoiling the whole message about actual skeptical climate issues. I am certainly not a “fifth column“ wanting to destroy this movement from within, as John Knight writes above. I am for a sensible enquiring open minded skeptical view seeking the honest science in these matters. As for your comments by you calling me “a nasty little troll,” and “go slither back under your bridge” you have nothing much to say, other than attacking the messenger. It is something Dr. M@nn and his crowd does all the time and we have seen this constantly by Richard C. Courtney, even in this post below, calling other people childish, or stupid fools if they do not agree with his opinions as per their comments.

        You point 2 is just straight up false, since there is ample evidence for discernible global climate change. You even say so yourself. You point out that it appears that the planet was less cloudy from the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s and therefore 5 to10 watts/m2 more sunshine radiation reached earth. Well, since we have basically terraformed the planet with agriculture, forestry, cities, asphalt highways and parking lots by the millions of square miles creating vast heat sinks on a global scale, then how much extra heat was absorbed and re-radiated warming the night time to LWR outbound through more available CO2 that is no not the historical average? You forgot to include that significant fact. Humans have introduced massive amounts of passive heat from land use change globally that has changed the weather, via the jet stream from a polar warming that is twice the rate of the rest of the planet. That would be expected, since the way the planets circulatory weather systems works is transporting heat from the equator and mid latitudes to the polar regions to space. When the differential heat between these regions is less, the jet stream is less stable and tends to meander a lot, causing significant weather changes. Good and bad. But we have most definitely added thermal heat through land use change, and CO2 to the atmosphere which causes some small warming. IMO, land use change is the big one.

        But I will give you some further evidence, and it come from no less than the host of this blog. Listen to this video and ask yourself if Anthony comes across as a Denia@r?
        No. He states implicitly that he is “Pragmatic Skeptic” I have watched this video 5 times now looking to see if there is anything I would disagree with, and I have to honestly say no. This reflects my reasoning as a pragmatic skeptic as well. I quote just a few sentence from Anthony but I believe it says it all in a polite civil tone that recognizes there is some global warming, which would be evidence for global climate change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIJCGQzCiU and share this with as many people as you know. I think Anthony Watts is the bona fide leader in the climate debate representing the pragmatic skeptics since he has done more to challenge the alarmists on several fronts, including the land based temperature recordings. That was what helped change my mind one day back in the early 1990’s.

        “We have some global warming, no doubt about it, but it might not be as bad as we originally thought, because there are other contributing factors.”

        Exactly, and IMO, just maybe the sun TSI has something to do with it, since we really don’t have a full understanding of how the Sun behaves over long term time spans, or for that matter, even shorter term time spans. Or significant land use change and Heat Sink Effect, which is directly a causal link how just ’normal’ sunshine interacts with all human development, as well as CO2 on planetary scales causing even more warming from the positive feedback that the sun has shining on heat sinks.

        Or…

        “The ability to attribute the percentage of global warming to CO2 vs. other manmade influences is still an open question.”

        This is probably the key point about human caused global warming/climate change because everyone just talks about CO2 as being the only problem and taxing it will fix everything, while ignoring the entire ‘land use footprint’ of the entire human race. And this is where I will inject my two cents worth…IMO, CO2 is the steady base line background heating everywhere on the planet due to AGW GHG’s, and probably only a 1/3 of the human caused global warming. The main climate change swings is more due to massive land use changes, with very significant Heat Sink Effect being possibly the 2/3 increased heat attributed to humans, and in combination with the small amount of CO2 warming, is what causes the ‘loopy’ jet stream to cause different and perhaps chaotic weather at times to be. And out of the total warming since 1880 that we have measured which is .85 C, half of that may be natural variation coming out of the LIA. Meaning that land use change causing heat sink effect is the largest contributor to human caused global warming/climate change.

        Whether is is good or bad is not the question. Actually, it should be you Richard who has to prove there isn’t any evidence. You wouldn’t do that because you can’t. I can’t either, such as my statement that 1/3 is CO2 and 2/3 is Land Use Change. That is my opinion, and it is your opinion that there is nada, zilch, zero evidence for discernible human caused climate change. Only your opinion Richard. We don’t have a Planet B Earth circa 1880 to act as a double blind study to see what the effects would have been had humans not interacted the way it did the last 150 years.

        Do you really believe that the majority of human kind and all our activity combined, the majority of which is located in the Norther Hemisphere has no permanent effect on weather, which after a longer period of time, is climate? You even say yourself that there is UHI warming around cities. Well we have transformed millions of square miles globally for agriculture and forestry, we have thousands and thousands of cities globally, 10,000 cubic Km3 of man made reservoirs covering an area of 260,000 km2 with the majority of which are in the northern hemisphere and it is the NH that is warming the most. More than the Southern Hemisphere. We have no significant imaging observations from the Arctic previous to 1979, or much firm weather/climate data from the warm period in the 1930’s, the MWP or any of the previous natural warm periods since the Holocene began. Only proxies, which don’t really create a full picture like a satellite picture of the northern ice cap.

        No one is reading this post and comments anymore so what point is there taking the time providing you with additional evidence , when all you are doing is playing a game of intimidation of anyone who dares disagree with your opinion. And then you call them “nasty egregious little trolls” and “go slither back under your bridge” or “you nasty little fool”, ad nauseous. With such a caustic, acidic personality you have Richard, regarding climate issues, you really invite someone to stand up to your bullying tactics when you write what your write or treat innocent people with the utmost of disrespect, then I call you out for what you are, which is a true climate Deni@r bully of the absolute worst kind. You and your ilk are why we are facing such an uphill battle with alarmists because of your deception and acidic asinine speeches and writing you provide humanity. You are a paid hack and when your type is long gone and buried, we will certainly not suffer so many fr@udulent Deni@rs. I only write this final comment in posterity for history, because these pages will be preserved for hundreds of years, and someday soon, a student is going to do their thesis on this blog, and I want to make sure that whoever that is, that they realize not all of us were in agreement with Richard S. Courtney on his nonsensical writings, videos and ideas.

        P.S. There would be one way to determine what the total consensus of people here at this climate blog and whether they identify as a Skeptic, or a Deni@r. Someone should write an essay here called “Do Climate Deni@rs ruin the Skeptics Argument about Global Warming/Climate Change, And What Should Be Done About It?”.

      • Ron Williams:

        You have still failed to provide any evidence for discernible man-made global climate change and you offer this lame excuse for your failure.

        No one is reading this post and comments anymore so what point is there taking the time providing you with additional eviddence , when all you are doing is playing a game of intimidation of anyone who dares disagree with your opinion.

        Asking you to justify your stupid and offensive attack on science is NOT “intimidation”.

        You are the one claiming that people who tell the truth should be got “rid of”, not me.

        There is NO evidence for man-made global climate change; none, zilch. nada. Nobody is asking you to provide “additional eviddence” (sic) because you have not provided any such evidence: you cannot because none exists..

        You are the most contemptible internet troll it has been my misfortune to experience. Slither back under your bridge until you can find some evidence for man-made global warming or apologise for your blatant concern trolling.

        Richard

      • Mods: This is a repeat attempt to post a reply to the concern troll: The previous post vanished and can be discarded if it reappears.

        Ron Williams:

        You have still failed to provide any evidence for discernible man-made global climate change and you offer this lame excuse for your failure.

        No one is reading this post and comments anymore so what point is there taking the time providing you with additional eviddence , when all you are doing is playing a game of intimidation of anyone who dares disagree with your opinion.

        Asking you to justify your stupid and offensive attack on science is NOT “intimidation”.

        You are the one claiming that people who tell the truth should be got “rid of”, not me.

        There is NO evidence for man-made global climate change; none, zilch. nada. Nobody is asking you to provide “additional eviddence” (sic) because you have not provided any such evidence: you cannot because none exists.

        I add that you are the most contemptible internet troll it has been my misfortune to experience. Slither back under your bridge until you can find some evidence for man-made global warming or apologise for your blatant concern trolling.

        Richard

      • Richard C. Courtney says to me:

        Ron Williams:

        You have still failed to provide any evidence for discernible man-made global climate change and you offer this lame excuse for your failure.

        “No one is reading this post and comments anymore so what point is there taking the time providing you with additional evidence , when all you are doing is playing a game of intimidation of anyone who dares disagree with your opinion.”

        I provided you with plenty of evidence above Courtney, if you actually read my comment, but I didn’t write it for you but for future generations who will look back in this time of history and realize that in the early 21st century, there was a small group of paid hacks who attempted to convince civilization that humans had not directly impacted climate. IMO, it is mainly with massive land use change all over the planet, and some increase in atmospheric CO2. This is what led activist scientists like Dr. M@nn to convince the world through the MSM and politicians that we needed to impose ‘carbon’ taxation to fix a problem that doesn’t need fixing because of an increased trace atmospheric gas that is probably mainly good and positive for the planet for the next 1000 years. Instead, IMO, land use change and heat sink effect are what are mainly responsible for wacky weather that everyone points to as cause of negative climate change, and which is later called climate. The difference is, is that everyone thinks just CO2 is the problem, when in fact, land use change and heat sink effect are the elephant in the room that no one talks about. It is our human foot print, not our carbon foot print. We are basically on the same side about CO2 not being a significant problem, but even you barely speak of land use change that should be proved with 100% certainty that is causing the bulk of the perceived problems with the weather/climate systems. But no, it has to be your way or the highway that there is no evidence for anything.

        And all you can do is to reply that I should go slither back under my bridge. That is admission of losing an argument when you just appeal to ad hominem attacks on people, like you always do to everyone that disagrees with your opinion. You are living proof of why all skeptics get labeled as crackpot deni@rs, and we are not taken seriously because of the misrepresentation of science that you so hardily spew every time you say ‘there no evidence, nada, zilch, none”. That is your trademark Courtney, and what you will be remembered for. I hold you part responsible for why the whole climate issue went off the rails 20 years ago, because of your gibberish and claptrap and how you treat people.

      • crackers345:

        Nobody disputes that the Earth has been intermittently warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries.

        There is no evidence that human activities are affecting that warming in any way, and your links provide no such evidence. Indeed, one of them is plain silly, it claims that because its authors don’t know what has caused the warming then people must have caused it. In the past people used the same argument to justify burning witches when crops failed.

        Richard

      • Ron Williams:

        You have still not provided any evidence for man-made global warming.

        Stop posting reams of offensive BS and post one piece of evidence. As I explained above, it will get you at least two Nobel Prizes.

        Richard

      • Courtney…I supplied you with multiple paragraphs of evidence, and you do not reply to it. I assume you concede defeat by your lame repeat copy and paste requesting to see evidence. It is above or if you are too lazy to scroll up then this is it. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/25/climate-scientist-michael-mann-borrows-the-words-of-a-holocaust-survivor-to-express-his-personal-angst/comment-page-1/#comment-2512121 I am not claiming even close that human kind is now driving the climate. I am stating there is plenty of evidence to suggest that human kind has made small discernible changes to climate change over the last 50-100 years. Reply to the evidence I posted, or you should quit and admit defeat. And apologize to everyone here why you are such a jerk.

        I see on the link you provided below about Dr. M@nn from 2014, that you have a history of not being able to communicate with others on this blog. So much so, that you warned to tame it down by the mod, and then you stomped your feet and quit the thread, then you rejoined the thread and kept talking, and then the mod kicked you off the thread. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/#comment-1635392 And many of the people on that thread just demolished you, to the point you quit, came back, and then were finally kicked off the thread. What a shame you are to science Courtney!

        You do realize that you have a Personality Disorder Courtney? You probably don’t so I will tell you that you do. You just insult and argue with people all the time. I see it every day between you and others. Get help! The first step is to recognize that you do.

      • Ron Williams:

        I again request that you provide some – any evidence for discernible man-made global climate change.

        Saying that something has changed is NOT evidence that humans caused the change.

        If anybody is demonstrating a “personality disorder” it is you by writing reams of nonsense and claiming you have provided evidence when you have not.

        Richard

      • I repost my earlier reply, without the slurs, and a new paragraph at the bottom.

        Courtney…I supplied you with multiple paragraphs of evidence, and you do not reply to it. I assume you concede defeat by your lame repeat copy and paste requesting to see evidence. It is above or if you are too lazy to scroll up then this is it. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/25/climate-scientist-michael-mann-borrows-the-words-of-a-holocaust-survivor-to-express-his-personal-angst/comment-page-1/#comment-2512121 I am not claiming even close that human kind is now driving the climate. I am stating there is plenty of evidence to suggest that human kind has made small discernible changes to climate change over the last 50-100 years. Reply to the evidence I posted, or you should quit and admit defeat.

        I see on the link you provided below about Dr. M@nn from 2014, that you have a history of not being able to communicate with others on this blog. So much so, that you warned to tame it down by the mod, and then you stomped your feet and quit the thread, then you rejoined the thread and kept talking, and then the mod kicked you off the thread. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/#comment-1635392 And many of the people on that thread just demolished you, to the point you quit, came back, and then were finally kicked off the thread. And that is a link you provide us all with. I actually read the entire post and comments, hence why I can state my comments above that you can’t communicate effectively with others here on this blog.

        While you have the capacity if you wished to actually educate people, you choose to be mainly offensive to a lot of people here, especially those who do not share your opinion. You don’t want a reasoned debate with anyone here, since you only want to push your talking points and not even listen. If you had even read any of my points that you asked me to provide, you would have replied to them and addressed my points falsifying them. You obviously can’t do that, or won’t, so I will conclude that you don’t even want to try because it will just make your hypothesis that much weaker. A lot of people here just ignore you now, since they don’t need the hassle of fighting with someone just for the sake of fighting. I regret ever responding to you, since you are not worth the time to communicate with. Why don’t you put your Methodist preacher hat on here, and enlighten us with real leadership and wisdom, and done with class and grace?

      • Ron Williams:

        Please provide some – any – evidence for man-made global climate change.

        Saying you have provided some when you have not provided any is not providing it. If you really think you have provided some evidence then copy and past from your reams of offensive BS whatever it is that you think is the evidence.

        Richard

      • Ron Williams:

        Despite having given up posting on here long ago due to its double standards – I have decided to post this reflection of Mr Courtney and the general state of WUWT that he exemplifies after following your “conversation” with him.
        Whether it gets through moderation is another matter.
        You are of course correct in saying that he has no interest in debate with anyone on here. He is the classic “contrarian” that should have been booted out by Antony ages ago, for giving a bad name to genuine doubters. And what’s more he has an aggressive and downright nasty manner. Arrogant beyond belief in his certainty that he knows best (tho that is a routine on here). A Sky-dragon slayer in many aspects of the reality of what CO2 does in Earth’s atmosphere. He seems a relic, Antony having dumped the other clone of him … a certain D B Stealey.
        I can think of no better way for this blog to further the hand of believers of the science than for him to strut on here banging his chest like a Silverback.
        So sad that some people think hey can win a debate by shouting.
        By the way, I have personal experience of engagement – his denial of science and resort to goal-post shifting and ad hom when challenged, doubled up by the hypocrisy of turning the ad hom back as an accusation of myself. Then squealing appeals of unfairness to Mods.
        His idea of defending his “science” in my case being to refer to self publication of a paper in some phoney journal.
        His type should not be touched with a barge-pole – leave them alone, for they are their own worst enemy an any case and that of, in this instance, what WUWT purports to be about.

      • Richard, if you don’t think there is any evidence for human caused climate change, then you don’t understand how thermodynamic heat works. If you say it is not discernible, it is only your opinion. Our own host here at WUWT says he believes there has been some global warming due to human activities, and he says we should also be looking at other activities like human made major heat sinks of multiple kinds (not just urban) that soak up sunshine heat and warm the night time air. That alone would qualify as discernible human caused global climate change, since it is now 24/7 every day of the year for decades now all over the planet on every continent but Antartica. That is measurable in the record all over the planet and not just urban, but agriculture/land use change, reservoirs and everything else manmade. Waste heat generated by energy usage is a secondary contributor. We burn 95 million barrels of oil a year, burn almost the same equivalent of NG, and half again by coal. Between that thermal waste heat, CO2 accumulation, total land use change, in which all this is measurable now, I think qualifies as 100% evidence of human induced climate change to a discernible level. We aren’t arguing whether this is good or bad.

        I don’t understand why it is so hard for a few people to admit that of course humans have managed to slightly warm the planet and cause some climate change. Nobody here is saying that humans are now the main drivers of climate systems since that (IMO) is a bridge way to far. Most of us skeptics believe there has been some global warming and climate change, but that it has been hyped as a scare tactic for politicians to enable other nefarious regulations or taxes. My point is that when we say to the world that there is no evidence for such, none, nada, zilch…then we discredit ourselves and the powers that be will say that they have to defer to the ‘experts’ to enact whatever regulations that they can. I don’t think the climate debate would be as ugly as it is been, that if instead of arguing there is no evidence for global warming/climate change, we would have argued for the last 20 years that it is not catastrophically harmful for life, and indeed it may even be beneficial in the long run. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is always lurking just around the corner, and that is significant global cooling, which would be horrific for the human race.

        Some of my points are in the link below. Click on it and it will take you to points I make above. Make a serious attempt to falsify anything I have written above or in the link. Or tell Anth@ny he is wrong too.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/25/climate-scientist-michael-mann-borrows-the-words-of-a-holocaust-survivor-to-express-his-personal-angst/comment-page-1/#comment-2512121

      • ron,

        This to me (like much of your arguing here) looks like bullshit propaganda, sir.

        “I don’t think the climate debate would be as ugly as it is been, that if instead of arguing there is no evidence for global warming/climate change, we would have argued for the last 20 years that it is not catastrophically harmful for life, and indeed it may even be beneficial in the long run.”

        An extreme minority of people I’ve seen comment around here argued “there is no evidence for global warming” (tacking on the “/climate change” appears to me to be meaningless rhetorical gibberish), and most people “have argued … that it is not catastrophically harmful for life, and indeed it may even be beneficial in the long run.”

        And blaming the CAGW skeptics for the “ugliness” is just more ugliness directed toward the skeptics, to my mind. I continue to suspect “fifth columnist”.

      • Toneb May 29, 2017 at 11:29 am

        In all fairness to WUWT, they certainly do uphold the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech. Pretty much everything is allowed here if you watch your language, stay reasonably on topic, and follow site rules. Although that digresses into things like religion sometimes, which is impossible to debate on a science blog. I think, from what I see, everyone is allowed to have an opinion, on either side of the fence. I commend WUWT for that, although I think it must be a very difficult job to moderate all this in real time. Reminds me of the old saying ‘like herding cats’ and must be what this thankless job must be like. I am fairly recent here, having arrived by accident last Christmas. I had heard of and seen the site on google searches, but never even checked the site out the last 10 years, mainly because all the reviews I ever read said it was a Deni@r site that had nothing to offer. Being a Skeptic and probably from what I gather, a ‘Lukewarmer’ probably puts me more in the camp of Dr. Curry.

        But allowing a few such as Mr. Courtney to run rampant here I think in the end invites in so many uneducated commenters that they think wholesale deni@lism is the message, and that shuts out intelligent honest skeptics who really make this site shine. I find half the comments are very informative and interesting, but it appears the other half leave a lot of wanting for intelligent discourse. I guess that comes with freedom of speech and having a open site policy. That is not my case to make, so if I don’t like it, then I guess I can go back to something else. But it was an interesting journey while it lasted.

        Thanks for sharing your experience with Mr. Courtney. I doubt he will reply with any substance, because he really has none other than pushing an agenda. He is a paid hack after all. I have known of him for some years in other writings/videos/speeches elsewhere, so this is not surprising how he works. I knew that, but thought I would have a first rate experience with a true Deni@r. Now I know why Skeptics get such a bad name, and why the world over reacts to climate issues in kind. He is part of the problem.

      • Ron Williams:

        If all your lies, insults and smears about me were true then that would NOT be evidence of man-made global climate change. And insults from supporters of your concern trolling don’t alter that.

        You say there is so much evidence for man-made global warming that WUWT should “get rid” of those who point out there is no such evidence.

        I am asking you for some – any – of the evidence you say you have, and toneb’s assertion that my request is “contrarian” is plain daft.

        I yet again ask you to state some – any – evidence for discernible man-made global climate change.

        Richard

  59. All I can say is that with mentors like Mann there is little doubt why many university students need “safe spaces” and coloring books. What a no class sniveling little puke that guy is.

  60. I’d heard that poem before but never learned more about it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_

    “First they came for the” — there is no doubt who “they” is; there is no doubt what happened to those “they came for”. The list of groups they came for varies. There are many versions, even by the original author.
    It may not be clear who “I” is in the poem; it is not the author exactly. He was with “them” originally.
    Nevertheless, they did come for those groups, we do know what happened to them.

    In MM’s version, who is ‘they’? who have they actually come for? Name some names.
    MM’s version is strictly hypothetical, some future scenario, imaginary.

    MM is one of “them” himself. Ask Tim Ball or Mark Steyn.

  61. Let me be blunt.

    Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.

    Nor have we witnessed an assault on the environment like the one we are witnessing in the current political atmosphere.

    I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:

    First they came for the immigrants and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not an immigrant.

    Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a scientist.

    Then they came for the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not an environmentalist.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Friends, let this not be our legacy.

    He claims to be defending actual scientific freedom yet twist and perverts the words of a man who did what he could to stand and suffered (and more than just his ego being bruised) against those who suppressed freedom?!?!?!
    And in the name “science”!!!!!

    “First they came for the immigrants and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not an immigrant.”

    Legal or illegal, what does immigration policy have to do with science? That’s politics.

    “Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a scientist.”

    Not quite sure what he’s referring to here. A certain someone dared to counter-sue him in one of his multiple lawsuits against those who questioned his conclusions? (and, perhaps, implied his motives were less than “scientific”?)

    “Then they came for the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not an environmentalist.”

    Again, not sure what he means here. The “environment” is natural. Conservationist aim to keep man from just “dumping stuff in the creek”. We did too much of that. We don’t much anymore. (at least here in the US for, what? 40 years or more? ) Who’s coming after them?
    But the “Environment” has been used to give a pass to any restrictions proposed to preserve it, regardless of any science to support the restriction. “It just felt good”.
    Yet again, for the vote, politics.

    “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    Friends, let this not be our legacy

    WOW!!
    What an ego!
    To compare yourself to this Real Man, Martin Niemöller, just because your “tea ring seance” is full of holes!!!
    And those holes have been identified.
    Real scientist would welcome correction (after they got over the personal sting) if they really wanted to “know”.
    At best, Mann is a “political scientist” masquerading as a real one.

  62. Nice of Mann to take a break from suing people and smearing scientists who disagree with him in order to try and silence them.

  63. “It’s said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That’s false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

    Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.”

    ― Jacob Bronowski

    • PaulH:

      Thanks for the reminder of my first boss (Jacob Bronowski was Director of the Coal Research Establishment when I started working there).

      Many of Bronowski’s words were good, and those you quote are especially good.

      Richard

  64. First they came for the nuclear power plants and I did not speak out because I did not use nuclear power.
    Then they came for the coal burners and I did not speak out because I was not a coal burner.
    Then they came for the frackers and I did not speak out because I was not a fracker.
    Then they came for the heavy industrialists and I did not speak out because I was not a factory worker.
    Then my welfare, er, grant check didn’t come and there was no one left to pay for me.

    Friends, let this not be our legacy!

  65. I have heard Mann when speaking to scientists say
    “I have a reputation out there as being some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback.”

    This was in response to the question, “Doesn’t this(his presentation) mean that warming in climate models is vastly overstated?” and he said, “I agree with that.”

  66. i suspect that Mann has been through
    things none of understand

    and he and his work came out of it
    all the stronger and he’s now at the
    top of his profession, with many looking to
    him

    maybe thats what irks.

    • crackers345:

      NO! Your suspicion is wrong.

      Michael Mann is a ch@rlatan and a fr@aud whose ‘works’ have repeatedly been demonstrated to be either grossly incompetent or deliberately deceptive, and who is widely reviled by his peers in his profession, but there remain deluded fools who think of him as you say you do.

      That is what irks.

      Richard

      • courtney, where is your
        science?

        your opinion is
        meaningless.

        you are not an expert in the leagues of
        mann and colleagues.

        are you an expert in anything?

      • crackers345:

        In response to my pointing out that you are deluded about the ch@arlatan, Michael Mann, you rant

        courtney, where is your
        science?

        your opinion is
        meaningless.

        you are not an expert in the leagues of
        mann and colleagues.

        are you an expert in anything?

        An answer to all the points and questions in your childish rant is provided by thisthis.

        Please note that after all these years the execrable Mann has not yet made good on his threat against me and I relish the hope that he would try.

        Richard

      • crackers345:

        All the ranting is from you (here) and from Mann (at the link I provided)..

        Had you used the link you would have read that Mann’s ranting was because he had no answer to my science that pointed out his ‘hockeystick’ graph is either scientific incompetence or fraud.

        Richard

  67. I think this what the psychologists call “projection” i.e. accusing others of the sins you are guilty of yourself. Seen before, recently, from the same guy, talking about “Lysenkoism” – which IMO is the closest parallel to the state of climate “science” today. And who plays the part of Lysenko …?

  68. Dr Mann is not alone. We are living in a post-rationalist era where the job is not to test theories by attempting to disprove them, but to invent a world where your theories can exist and sell that world to the politicians. Having bought that world, politicians will not want to admit the product they bought is faulty, so throw money at the ‘scientists’ to come up with evidence that says they were right. Add a liberal dash of guilt (at the consequences of our prosperity, for example) and you’re onto a winner.

    Just listen to the avalanche of spurious campaign-based ‘research’ we are subjected to each day. The academics behind this research build their reputations on (a) publication and (b) attracting grant funding.

    I am hugely disappointed by the virtual total silence – in public – of philosophers. We rely on the discipline of Philosophy of Sciece to differentiate between scientific and non-scientific propositions, and to promote public understanding of this differentiation. They also need to engage in qualifying the validity of non-scientific (in the strict sense) propositions, clarifying the extent to which these can be taken as evidence upon which to build policy. Pretty much top of the evidence heap in social science is the survey; interesting how the climate ‘scientists’ have exploited the survey, rather than the science, in defending their beliefs – as though it carried any great scientific significance.

  69. “Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country”

    What an utterly ridiculous statement. When will he learn that it is not science that is under attack, (how can it be possible to attack science) but the spurious and endless false statements put out by so called scientists in the promotion of the global warming confidence trick, which they all know is the seed corn of their research grants and their complete livelihoods.

  70. The metamorphism of Environmentalism from a science into a religious belief system may constitute the most grievous act of harm that Science has received in the past few hundred years. Consider the hysterical pronunciations about Himalayan glaciers published by Pauchari, the head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, once the premier scientific inquiry agency on the subject of climate. When he had to retract his statements, Pauchari’s embarrassment seriously damaged the credibility of the IPCC. Similar departures from scientific accuracy, such as Mann has committed, have damaged other institutions, the University of East Anglia, for example. The entire field of Science has been degraded in the eyes of the public.

    We have not even begun to see the repercussions of these distortions. Mann is not just a bad scientist: He is a criminal..

  71. Mikey wants us to believe: “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    Not to worry, Mikey. Even if no one is left to speak for you, your “in-your-face” attitude and sue-happy behavior doesn’t need a supporting chorus.

Comments are closed.