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?
Martin Niemöller’s original:
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.
That’s not the original version. Niemöller started with Communists, then trade unions, then Social Democrats, etc.
German text:
http://martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/martin-niemoeller/originaltexte
Thanks Chimp. Even better.
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
More Mannure.
phaedo
May 25, 2017 at 12:19 pm
More Mannure.
———-
It is far much better than more ashes and dust…
The Mann knows no shame.
Considering who’s called for Nuremberg trials, who’s coming for who?
By their own words.
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.
Ron Williams:
I see you are still earning your pay as a concern troll.
You write
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.
Well said.
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
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
With respect, that fails to recognise the two things the concern troll says he is trying to achieve.
Above, he wrote
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.
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
richardscourtney commented
“There is NO evidence for man-made global
climate change; none, zilch. nada.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
+
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nice of Mann to take a break from suing people and smearing scientists who disagree with him in order to try and silence them.
“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
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!
+97
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.”
source?
again:
source?
My space, my pictures, my documents…my science. No questions can be tolerated.
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
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
My link did not work. It is this
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/
Richard
richardscourtney at May 26, 2017 at 12:45 am:
just more ranting
let’s see your science
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
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 …?
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.
so just publish disproof,
the world will beat a path
to your new mousetrap.
“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.
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..
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.