History can be a pesky thing, facts are stubborn things. There’s lot’s of caterwauling in the left about hurricane Irma on the heels of Harvey, being a sure sign of ‘climate change’ or global warming, or ‘climate disruption’ or something. A couple of days ago, king of the alarmists, Dr. Michael Mann, and his ex NCDC/NCEI toadie Dr. Thomas Peterson (architect of the Karlization of the global temperature record), penned a ridiculous op-ed in the Washinton Post:
Only in the mind of Mann can such drivel be produced. Mann is not a hurricane expert, he’s also apparently not a scholar of history.
Dr. Philip Klotzbach is both:
Harvey & #Irma made US landfall as major hurricanes ~15 days apart. Record between US major hurricane landfalls is 23 hours set in 1933. pic.twitter.com/OzM2mfbLMd
— Philip Klotzbach (@philklotzbach) September 10, 2017
So the question for Mann et al. is: what drove those major hurricanes to be so close together in 1933? Surely if that happened today, it would be used to “kill any doubt” Right?
And what about the fact that Irma and Harvey have come in 7th and 18th compared to storms of that era, hmmm?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe both “parties” in this debate just should shut up an await what the science tells us in five or ten years.
To claim that these events is a proof of anything, or i disproof of anything, or is unrelated, is just a proof of tribalism.
Straw man much?
So You have an opinion, good for You, but totally irrelevant.
Forty years of failed predictions, no need to wait another five or ten years. The hypothesis has been falsified. It lives on because of political reasons, not scientific ones.
Reg,
I would say it differently. Words matter in science and its communication.
The Catastrophic part of AGW/CC hypothesis demands to be rejected based on observation. Falsifying a hypothesis is difficult to impossible. Rejecting the null hypothesis or rejecting the hypothesis is a matter of strength of evidence, and that is the proper language of science. It allows for self-correction and advancement.
The only “evidence” for the alarmist position of Climate Change is in the models. And subjectively tuned model outputs are not evidence in any way shape or form in science, except in the strange pseudoscience world of today’s climatology.
And in fact, the observation that these 2-week apart storms are first major hurricanes (Harvey and Irma) to strike the US mainland in 12 years is strong evidence to reject the Catastrophic CC hypothesis. These 3 clowns (Mann, Hassol, Peterson) seem to be unaware that their stated evidence actually favors their coveted hypothesis to be rejected.
The alleged “evidence” for a human fingerprint in “climate change” since 1950, or whenever, is the same as Al Gore’s question about Arctic sea ice, ie “What else could it be?”
This attitude assumes that science knows all the natural factors in climate change. But now even consensus “climate scientists” have been forced to resort to unknown natural variability factors to try to explain away the “Pause”. That’s an admission that there “reason” for human causal attribution is totally bogus.
Amen!
No one I know of on the skeptical side is saying these events “prove” anything. But they damn sure don’t prove any connection to CO2 or human activity.
“Democracy dies in darkness,” with the last Democrat out turning out the light. We’re on to you, Bezos–sorry!
We had the proof in 2005 with Katrina –
1) when the climate scientists told us the hurricanes would become stronger and more frequent.
2) We have the proof now with Harvey and Irma – when the climate scientists tell the hurricanes will be less frequent but more intense
sarc
I believe your response is arguably a restatement of the point being made by Mr. Watts.
That’s a deal I’ll take!
And of course, because we’re going to wait for the science, there won’t be any demand to “take action today”, right? We don’t need to change our society and our standard of living on a chance that, in 10 years, the science may say we should?
Emeritus in case you haven’t heard, there’s an international physics and regulatory law called the International Standard Atmosphere and it’s based on the characteristics of the global atmosphere, according to real, actual, physical relationships.
Those values are set in stone, Emeritus, if the climate were actually changing, the values of that International physical and regulatory standard would be flexible: they would move.
In the most technically true way it can be said, international physical and regulatory standards law, etched into the stone of being just that, formally and specifically forbid climate changing, or those values, must change with it.
The Standard has been in place, unchanged, since it’s inception. So your fears of the climate changing are now relieved.
If they do
international regulatory physics overseeing things like life support and spacecraft and aerospace technologies will be the first to let you know.
Till they start talking about how fundamentals of atmospheric absolutes are changing, it’s ok to go outside.
emeritus
In pointing out the 1933 data and Harvey’s and Irma’s respective positions on the hurricane totem pole [rankings which unless there is an “adjustment” of the hurricane records can only go down, not up] Klotzback is providing grade A proof that the alarmists and their MSM megaphones are outdoing themselves in their hyperbolic propagandistic fervor, consistent with their “OMG this-is-the-new-normal” track record.
You don’t need to be a skeptic to understand that’s a verifiable fact, not an opinion.
There was never any doubt that climate change is real, but there remains considerable doubt as to wether people like Mann et al understand what natural climate change is, what drives it, or if they even care about the truth. The fact that they will lean heavily on individual weather events as anecdotal evidence to support their unfounded claims means that they clearly do know they have no useful evidence in support.
Mann understands that the sky is falling–if it KEEPS falling, he’ll keep getting paid. Capiche?
A very salient point. Thank you.
For educated people certainly.
For alarmists and their ill-educated followers, this is devastating information. IF they even acknowledge it.
I hate when I word things the wrong way. eh.
Maybe we’ll meet face to face someday and we can swap “YTPO!” stories, 😎
If you want to prove global warming, then the scientific (and patently obvious) method would be to examine the Earth’s temperatures. If global warming is occurring, those temperatures are, you know, supposed to rise.
If you are claiming the presence of hurricanes over the past month are sure signs of global warming, then why doesn’t the absence of significant hurricanes over the past 12 year period prove there is no warming? 12 years beats one month, you know.
Arthur,
Exactly. If Harvey and Irma are proof of climate change, then, the 12-year hiatus of strong Atlantic-basin hurricanes striking the American mainland is also proof of climate change.
That’s why they stopped calling it global warming. EVERYTHING is proof of climate change, so they are never wrong!
and to think that was the newspaper that did ‘watergate’
They were going after a Republican administration target.
There were much worse allegations during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. They were ignored.
Yes, and we’ll probably never know the half of what really was behind his assassination.
And because both Ben Bradlee and Kate Graham were Kennedy clan buddies. It’s now nothing but a Bezos megaphone, even worse than in ’72.
I notice that the Russians bragged about helping get Kennedy elected. I don’t remember a big hue and cry about that, not that I was around at the time. Was there a big hue and cry? Or is it okay if they help Democrats but a major scandal (according to the leftists) if they help Republicans?
I once went to the WaPo we site and looked up their comments on Watergate. Compared to the Clinton and especially Obama’s misdeeds, Watergate was trivial. Their pursuit of Nixon was Alynskite politics of personal destruction. There were plenty of reasons to get rid of Nixon. E.g. wage and price controls and starting the EPA and appointing Ruckelshaus to head it up.
“We can’t afford to keep pretending”. Yes. Climate pseudoscientists like Mann et al should stop pretending to be doing science.
Mann frequently chastises non-climate scientists who comment or critique on climate science, as if only a true “anointed” climate scientist can critique the data analysis methods or claims employed by trained, credentialed climate scientists.
But then Mann frequently himself ventures off into economics and meteorology, areas clearly outside his trained field of expertise, to critique and give “expert” sounding opinions.
This blatant hypocrisy has been dubbed “Mann-splaining” by others. Mann is indeed a disgrace to science and an affront to attempts to maintain science’s integrity in the eyes of the public.
“Fake news” (trite but accurate phrase) doesn’t have to be accurate. The intent is to support a narrative in the minds of the readers….. “but that’s what the newspaper/newscast said”. Don’t hold your breath on corrections either. Once the propaganda has been released their job is done. The real question is who’s paying for this disinformation to be disseminated? Surely news outlets must know without truth eventually their readers/listeners will go elsewhere for their “news”.
The people paying are those that are still hoping to make a fortune from ‘carbon trading’; who want to ‘deindustrialize’ the USA; and those who want to industrialize the competitor countries to the capitalist ‘first world’.
I would count Leo DiCaprio in that first category. His buddy act with Al Gore undoubtedly has a financial angle to it.
Actually, Mark, they are adept at creating an alternate reality that their readers lap up like a starving cat at a milk bowl. I recently sent a copy of Steyn’s “A Disgrace To The Profession” to a relative who is a hard core CAGW believer. She trashed it and told me she didn’t read “propaganda.” They are so caught up in the web of deception that any truth is dismissed as a lie. Pitiful but true.
Keep hammering her. Like “the force that through the green fuse drives the flower” (Dylan Thomas), truth is unstoppable.
The WashPost ist buyed by Al Gore and his co-operates. That`s the real fight Pres. Trump has to fight against the fake news media. But Trump is a scotch fighter with german blood, he will stand this media storm. Scotchs have been fighting over hundreds of years against the normans, saxons and vikings on the british islands and Scotland is still standing until today. It is, in line with Ireland ( which is an island) and Wales the last bastion af the once great celtic nation.
Scottish and Scots, please mein Herr.
I’ll pass him a claymore! 😉
Alba et.al as the old saying goes: “Scotch is what a Scotsman uses to wet his whistle”
Aye.
“Scots is wa’ ye are, Scotch is wa’ ye drinks.”
Hmmm…
Example of Michael Mann using the Washington Post as his preferred medium to broadcast good news to his NSF Program managers, NSF President and friends on the National Science Board (NSB). The good news is not the alarmism but the new cash that will be coming to the NSF Program managers and President who signed off on his latest alarm-grant-exercise and the NSB too who are on the receiving end of the cash. Michael typically starts farming cash, in bank-wire checks, during December before the AGU Fall meeting.
Ha ha
So just four days ago the hurricane model’s best predicted path was up the East coast of Florida, then on to hit Jacksonville, Savannah and Charleston, residents of which were all planning to evacuate west.
Turns out to be completely wrong. And I’m supposed to think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of far less reliable “climate” models being correct about ONE HUNDRED YEARS from now?
From the german wikipedia: “Am 5. August 2013 wurde der Verkauf der Zeitung an den Amazon-Gründer Jeff Bezos bekanntgegeben.” “On August 5, 13, the sale of the newspaper to the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was announced.” Anyone has any open questions about the political direction?
I wondered why Bezos (or anyone) would buy a money losing business in a dying industry. The New York Daily News recently sold of one dollar. That’s how worthless these old media news outlets have become.
Shortly after Bezos bought WaPo, he eliminated pay-walled articles and made everything free to read. Which seems to me indicates he doesn’t care about revenue or earnings for this company, and that he bought it solely to promote political views.
Wasn’t that always the case with newspapers and media, Hearst, Rothermere, Beaverbrooke, Berlusconi, Turner, Pulitzer, Murdoch are names which immediately spring to mind.
And the next Anti-Trump and global warmier sheet: the NYT-Times: “At the beginning of 2015, Carlos Slim made use of his option right from the 2009 credit, earning around 11 percent of the New York Times for 101.1 million dollars, which was about half the market value. Slim thus holds 16.8 percent of the company and is the largest external shareholder. With the proceeds from the business, the company wants to repurchase own shares.”
“It was good with the different political parties (in Mexico), financed the election campaign of President Vicente Fox (in the office from 2000 to 2006) and was supposed to have helped Hillary Clinton in the USA.”
Al Gore calls his companions and they follow. Buy the media and you have the public opinion. Fortunately, there is internet, if it is not as in China any “beautiful” day circumcised. Google already makes the first approaches to this in its search engine.
@Sandy In Limousin
Yes, media has always been biased. The difference is those were for-profit companies, some of which earned enormous fortunes for their owners.
In my eyes, WaPo is strictly a pay-for-propaganda play.
But I could be wrong, Lampert bought Sears and KMart, both of which won’t be around in a few years.
Which is also precisely why Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods has the rest of the grocery market very worried. A WSJ op-ed discussed that fact that an Amazon-run Whole Foods can absorb losses for years by price undercutting their competitors. Such a position allows Amazon quick access to an established grocery netork to run a same-day grocery delivery business without having to start from scratch.
Shrewd purchases both Whole Foods and WaPo by the Billionaire who can afford any losses they might generate
Joel,
The only thing that can sink Bezos is if shareholders start dumping stock in a runaway cascade. He needs the preposterously overvalued stock to be able to keep running losses indefinitely.
Most “investors” know that AMZN is a Ponzi scheme, but also don’t expect any rush to the exits, since so many institutions are so heavily invested in the pyramid.
62,
I would call it a pyramid scheme as it is apparently legal. Ponzi schemes are by definition an illegal pyramid scheme where fraud is employed to deceive investors who might employ due diligence.
It is a dominant compute environment and growing rapidly within the government agencies. This creates a mutually beneficial relationship where the bigger government gets, the bigger Amazon gets.
Of course, none of the participants will acknowledge the conflict of interest for the public.
I’d say that’s a fair conclusion.
Joel,
Yes, but it’s a crime that it’s legal.
When have facts ever slowed down a climate fanatic?
When have facts ever slowed down a climate “sceptic?”
Feel free to provide some. It’s an open forum.
When have facts ever slowed down clueless climate trolls?
Beyond the subjectively tuned GCMs, please cite some facts that strongly support the catastrophic part of CC. And please cite whole-truths, not half-truths.
For example: A half-truth is that 2016 was the warmest year ever in satellite global temperature anomaly data sets. The full truth was that it was a strong El Nino year also. And GHE AGW theory doesn’t explain strong El Ninos, or ENSO in general. This is because there are ENSO-AGW hypotheses predictions that cut both ways.
“In short, if you are someone who wants more or stronger ENSO events in the future, I have great news for you–research supports that. If you are someone who wants fewer or weaker ENSO events in the future, don’t worry–research supports that too.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-climate-change-headache
All the facts support skeptical positions. No facts support alarmist positions. All the Warmunistas have are epically failed GIGO models. No facts need apply.
Some how this has slipped through and has not been edited or the data modified.
The 30’s had been the hottest until it was modified out but according to the article (see the paragraph in the season summary)the 1933 year was reinstated as the year with the highest ACE on record.
Just a silly little fact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Emeritus says ”When have facts ever slowed down a climate ”skeptic?”
When your church told the world that magical insulation
mixed into the cold atmospheric bath conduction-chilling the sunlight-warmed planet,
refracting 20% of total otherwise-available warming firelight to space,
was making sensors on earth detect and depict more and more sunlight warming it, and them
with every percent less warming sunlight,
the insulating gases made reach them.
That’s your church’s teaching, Eeritus. Magical gases in the sky, are making sensors depict more and more light reaching them as the insulating gases make less reach them.
Facts like that – your church being a temperature inversion scam – slowed down skeptics’ perception of your church’s teachings as being true;
since it’s obvious, outright, violation of Conservation of Energy.
You tell me one time in physics
when insulation refracting light from fires away from sensors,
made them detect and depict more light reaching and warming them,
with every percent less light the insulation made reach and warm them.
I’ll wait here,
you go find the indicators, that’s not direct and crass violation of Conservation of Energy.
We don’t need our own facts. Scepticism requires those making claims to prove their claims, not provide alternative theories or proof.
If you want to try and be smart, better try and understand the argument first.
Just one more episode in the saga of “A Disgrace to the Profession.”
The woman’s name is a joke, right?
“Mann faked the data” at least according to the movie Interstellar
I know, acknowledge and believe that CO2 has some effect on the Earth’s temperature. However, the climate change “facts” pushed by the money grubbing AGW crowd is much more than hype or propaganda. It is only worthy of being placed in a manure spreader, driven through the fields for use as fertilizer or mulch.
Maybe they use that manure to grow the “magic” mushrooms they seem to have eaten!
Does Mickey Mann actually KNOW people who don’t believe the climate changes?? The climates been changing for billions of years, he just looks silly pretending it’s a recent phenomenon.
“Does Mickey Mann actually KNOW people who don’t believe the climate changes?”
Yes. The Hockey-Stickers, who believe temperature was flat until we invented SUVs.
the mann fella needs a serious mental evaluation…..he is out of touch with reality IF he believes any of the idiocy he writes.
I quite agree with you. I firmly believe Mann knows how weak his position is, but he’s got too much time and psychological capital invested to abandon it. Despite being thoroughly debunked by top statisticians and dropped by the IPCC, he still maintains a cadre of shills who push the hockey stick meme. He is the Don Quixote of climate science-tilting at windmills, hallucinating that he’s slaying climate dragons.
“There’s lot’s of caterwauling in the left about hurricane Irma on the heels of Harvey,”
Of you were not so obsessed with political beliefs, you would probably notice there are such opinions across the political divide. You don’t have to be left wing to be a believer in the established science, or right wing to see the flaws.
Fox is the only major media outlet in the US that isn’t Left leaning. Just had a look, no mention of Climate Change as a cause of this. Can you provide some examples of Conservative media outlets that are claiming this?
Thanks.
“established science”….”establishment science”….there fixed…..
What established science is that?
The hypothesis of man-made “climate change” has been repeatedly shown false, let alone catastrophic.
There is no evidence in support of that falsified (in both senses of the term) hypothesis, and all the evidence in the world against it.
There are local and regional human effects on temperature and humidity, but none detectable on a global scale. And if they were measurable, the effect would have to be negligible. Human activities both cool and warm the air, dry and moisten it.
Gareth your church taught you the green house gases which stop 20% of all sunlight from reaching earth, are making sensors detect and depict more light warming earth, for every percent less the gases make reach it.
That’s called ”Violation of Conservation of Energy.”
Tell us all an instance in history when insulation making less light reach a thermometer made it detect and depict more light leave it.
We’ll wait.
Gareth, if you took the time to objectively examine what you call “established science”, you would realize it’s not science all. It’s the drivel of witch doctors.
This is just politics by proxy, now widespread in the MSM, fueled by the horrors of Trump and by Brexit in the UK. The alarm has to be controlled though, just imagine if the US govt conceded defeat and spent all its money on sea walls, rather than on climate science.
Dang climanrcon that’s gotta be the best wise crack in the faces of those effing thieves I’ve ever heard.
They’d sure figure out it wasn’t all that bad once working people started getting the money for it, wouldn’t they?
They’re government employees determined to make everyone – everyone – income stream, with every dime they can forcefully extort at the point of law enforcement guns.
If everyone has liked 80 years of ”pot is just like heroin and we have the critical scientific peer review to prove it” from government employees,
they’re gonna love the next 100, with ”you used fire and that is immoral, give me your money.”
???
I’m guessing he’s saying that the progressives in most countries would like to change legislation based on the continually disproved invalid AGW and all their failed climate models Gerry. He’s also saying how much property damage could be prevented and tax dollars used intelligently if we actually used them for things that actually work rather then go off fighting windmills with the climate “scientists”. I also want to add how many 100’s of millions of $$$ we could save in the U.S. if we stopped fighting brush fires that naturally create ash to fertilize forests. Maybe brush lines could be increased in California and other states affected and or literal fire walls. I may not have a researched answer yet but fighting nature is a game we seem to be loosing at our expense.
Oh Yes! Irma is 100% caused by man-made global-warming/climate-change. If it wasn’t for human use of fossil fuels it would be a quiet sunny day in Florida today.
Harvey on the other hand was only 50% caused by man-made global-warming/climate-change. (The other 50% was caused by bad drainage, land speculation and ‘capitalism’ generally.)
Odd, half the eyewall seems to be missing. Should they change its name to Bill the cat?
Let Mann and his ilk keep embarrassing themselves publicly so that their future grows exceedingly dim,
Since most believers of man made climate change are genetically incapable of critical thought and original thinking, only parrots, in terms of relevance a simple process is to confront these blinded with a starting point, by asking where in the time line of history they would like to start. Eventually, their brain swelling irritation at being asked to think will end the conversation, resulting in them spewing aspersions. It’s a wonderful excuse to drink ….heavily, laugh heartily and move on, thanking them for the entertainment. lol