Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Willie Soon – Michael Mann has complained about Climate “Deniers” being given a platform, when speaking at an event held to honour academics targeted by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1954.
Academic freedom lecturer takes on claims of climate change deniers
By Safiya Merchant
The University Record
Renowned climate scientist Michael E. Mann took on those who deny climate change and highlighted the importance of acting to combat this environmental threat during Tuesday’s University Senate Davis, Markert, Nickerson Lecture on Academic and Intellectual Freedom.
Speaking to a full crowd at the Law School’s Honigman Auditorium, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University and director of its Earth System Science Center, said those on the front lines of the climate change debate “were dealing with fake news and alternative facts before they were in fashion.”
Throughout his lecture, Mann dissected the ways in which climate change is often portrayed as a debatable phenomenon.
For instance, when climate change is a news show topic, producers will host a scientist alongside a “climate change contrarian,” even though a vast majority of scientists agree climate change “is real, it’s human-caused, it’s already a problem,” he said.
…
He was speaking at the 27th annual lecture that honors three former U-M faculty members — Chandler Davis, Clement Markert and Mark Nickerson — who invoked their constitutional rights when called to testify before a panel of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1954. All three were suspended from U-M. Markert subsequently was reinstated, and Davis and Nickerson were dismissed.
In introducing Mann, President Mark Schlissel said he hopes U-M will always be “an unalienable forum for discovery, debate and discussion — a place where respect and disagreement are complementary, where each makes the other stronger and where we all advocate for and learn from their confluence.”
…
Read more: http://record.umich.edu/articles/academic-freedom-lecturer-takes-claims-climate-change-deniers
A few questions Dr. Mann.
If the evidence for the threat of anthropogenic climate change is so overwhelming, why are you so adamant that “contrarians” should not be allowed a public platform for rebuttal? Surely greater publicity for the positions of contrarians and their “fake news and alternative facts” as you put it is the best way to expose any falsehoods?
Even if you believe climate skepticism is the fossil fuel conspiracy which Mann claims, think about previous high profile public debates, such as the debate about the link between smoking and lung cancer. Ask yourself; did the anti-tobacco campaigners win by preventing well funded tobacco advocates from speaking? Or did anti-tobacco campaigners challenge tobacco advocates, provide evidence to back their claims that tobacco is a health risk, and force tobacco advocates to reveal the weakness of their position in public?
Perhaps Dr. Mann is worried that allowing his opponents to refute climate advocate arguments in public debate reveals the weakness of his position.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann’s attitude is “Don’t you give me no lip”
Time he was given a fat lip … how’s Dr Ball’s case going ?
Mann is still ducking and diving for all he is worth. Odd that!
Michael Mann’s behavior in the Mark Steyn case amounts to abuse of process. First he files a libel suit, then drags the discovery process out for what has been years, acting as if he is getting legal support at no cost to himself, and trying to impose such costs on his target, Steyn.
If given the chance, Mr. Mann would gladly take the role of absolute “Dictator”. What makes the climate issue debatable is the absence of evidence to support his conclusions, or predictions.
“Perhaps Dr. Mann is worried that allowing his opponents to refute climate advocate arguments in public debate reveals the weakness of his position.”
or not.
He manage to publish books,have a lot of places to post his thoughts and……………………………………..
Who tried to take away his free speech?
Meanwhile the Mann is dragging out TWO lawsuits,……………………………………………….
Snicker.
Not for much longer sunsettommy. Manniacal is up for “contempt of court” charges in his lawsuit against Tim Ball; and likely has torpedoed manniacal’s lawsuit against Tim Ball to boot.
http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-michael-mann-tim-ball-hockey-stick-lawsuit/
Then starts the trial on countersuits against manniacal.
To leftists anyone expressing views contrary to their own, or attempting to prove the falsehoods they utter, is a violation of their “free speech”.
“when climate change is a news show topic, producers will host a scientist alongside a “climate change contrarian,” even though a vast majority of scientists agree climate change “is real, it’s human-caused, it’s already a problem,” he said.”
For a scientist, he’s sure doesn’t understand what FACTS are:
FACT- The entire population of scientists has never been ASKED, specifically, personally, to state for the record what they “believe”, much less but more scientifically KNOW about climate change.
FACT-Pretending to “know” what another person thinks, without ever asking that person is either “magical thinking”, deluded, or insane. Pretending to know what MANY other people think is even more delusional, or insane. Pretending to know what “the vast majority” of a group thinks is also ARROGANT, as well as massively delusional and insane.
FACT- NONE….and I mean ZERO of the “consensus” studies contacted even a significant percentage of the “scientists” in the world, let alone the “vast majority” of them!
FACT- Michael Mann has made obvious and observable mistakes in his “research” in the past. He also refuses to release his data/methods which is the only way that “scientific conclusions” can be validated by other peers.
FACT-not ONE person, group, or scientific organization filed an amicus brief on Michael Mann’s behalf with the court in his case against Steyn. NOT ONE. Zilch. Zip. Nada. The big fat zero. Who stands with him and his “strong position on climate science”?? Apparently, no one. So much for his standing among his imaginary “vast majority”.
This suit/countersuit against Mark Steyn will give us a chance to see a debate play itself out in full public view. So far Prof. Mann has stalled and looked for any route to dismissal, but Mark is going for a trial. The suit is against Mark for saying, basically, that the Mann “hockey stick” is a fabrication. Marks countersuit says Prof. Mann made up the “hockey Stick”, utilizing “Mike’s Nature Trick”, as revealed in ClimateGate. As per my previous comments us Geologists believe Prof. Mann was forced to invent an anthropogenic climate change signal detectable against the nosiy background of natural variation. I would like to have the beer/popcorn concession for this one.
Re referring to vast majority of scientists is ‘borrowing authority’ which one only does when one believes one’s self to not have that authority.
I find that interesting, usually scientists cite the strong evidence rather than the agreement of others.
It’s a little window into his personality, in that he A. Believes himself that AGW is not an imminent danger and B. He doesn’ believe he has the knowledge to know otherwise.
Mann has shown a strong urge to speak on matters of science he has no knowledge in,, this is a strong desire to seem knowledgeable important, it’s insecurity 101, so much so that he foregoes the actual knowledge, and so tools, to speak on it. The latest being the hurricane gaffe that was promptly corrected by Joe Bastardi, Mann had not even bothered to check with an actual meteorologist beforehand, as they would have told him his thinking was bollocks and thus saved himself from embarrassing himself. His followers are almost all completely bereft of a shred of of scientific understanding, eco loons, and paleo-climate wasters (yes its a field full of loiterers, get real jobs ffs)
A thorough and sophisticated survey of climatologists (either American or worldwide) should be Step 1 for the Trump Administration. It would reveal an 80% or so consensus, as did von Storch’s. A 20% minority is not dismissible as inveterate cranks, the way a 3% minority is. Here’s what I posted three years ago on another honest survey:
Or, one could say, as Wikipedia does, that 85% think its dangerous (to some degree).
Roger, stuff for thought.
A pertinent question: In the 10 intervening years from the study, what impact might increasing evidence of CO2’s lack of influence on climate metrics (pause, no increasing weather extremes, etc.) have on perceptions?
Alarmists had an essentially free field to run until contrary facts began to accumulate. While the general public is badly misinformed, fair minded people in positions to know of and understand the very real controversies might have changed their positions, especially about the chances of CAGW. No unbiased observer can state climate models are reliable out to a hundred years, especially using tripe such as IPCC AR5 RCP 8.5. The models’ failures are manifest, especially at the regional and ocean basin levels, where “the rubber meets the road.”
But the problem Rog, is that a lot of climate scientists have been asked whether they believe in CAGW, and their response is a pretty universal yes. Im not sure asking meteorologists or geologists for their opinion really counts- it’s kind of like asking the Crocodile Hunter for his opinion on the latest Ebola strain.
Anyhow the Cook 97% figure that everyone likes to disparage on WUWT showed pretty conclusively CAGW is universally accepted among the experts in the field. Not only did the authors comprehensively search the literature to get their figure, they followed up by asking the scientists themselves- the result, 97%.
If you don’t agree you’re very welcome to publish something of your own that disputes the fact in a peer reviewed journal. With all that disagreement out there it should be easy shouldn’t it?
The problem, Bruce, is that what you assert about Cook’s 97 percent simply is not true. And Tol did publish the truth about it.
Bruce- does this mean you would have the IPCC kick geologists off of their roster of scientists?
Ron Long: Are you also the ticket seller? I’ll buy a season’s ticket in the front row!
No Bruce, the scientists weren’t asked about CAGW.
They were merely asked if the planet had warmed and if man played a part in that increase.
They were never asked to put a percentage to that influence.
Indeed. And 97% of them said yes.
“The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”
You can read more about it here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Seems to me if there really was significant disagreement that figure would be a LOT lower.
Sorry Bruce. You could not be more wrong. If you simply read the abstract of Cook’s original paper you will see it’s not 97%.
“examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Right off the bat 66.4% of the papers express no position, so he ignores those.
32.6% Endorse AGW.
0.7% Reject AGW
0.3% Uncertain.
So right there we see he is claiming it’s 97.1% of 32.6% of the total 11,944 papers examined. If you go to the SKS website and check the data yourself, only 3,675 papers remain after removing the “No Position” papers. Out of that there are only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+” or a level 1 endorsement. Just from that you can see he pulls the 97% out of thin air, because the amount of level 1 endorsement that specifically points to humans as the main cause is actually 0.544206296048225% of the sample size of 11,944. It’s a lie from start to finish.
https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=1991&yt=2011
On top of that he picks the word consensus when there isn’t one. It’s his opinion, not the opinion of the authors of the papers. Some of the papers counted as endorsement had nothing to do with AGW, some of the scientists included in the “consensus” were not accurately represented. it goes on, and on, and on.
Your link to the George Mason survey doesn’t work.
chino78 says,
“Right off the bat 66.4% of the papers express no position, so he ignores those.
32.6% Endorse AGW.
0.7% Reject AGW
0.3% Uncertain. ”
Absolutely he ignores them. As he should, because taking them into account would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Or perhaps you think that he should have included them in his figures along with abstracts containing my mother’s cooking recipes?
“Out of that there are only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”
I can’t be arsed counting up the numbers in category one to check your assertion, but assuming it’s accurate, so what? There are a stack of abstracts in category two and three that all either explicitly endorse AGW without quantification or implicitly endorse it. There are vanishingly few abstracts in categories 5 to 7 though. How many abstracts in the lowest category 7- explicitly stating humans responsible for less than 50% of the warming. Sweet f… *all. Not exactly a lot of contrarian voices are there?
If you have issues with the paper and truly think that the consensus is low then falsifying it is going to be *really* easy. List the articles from ’91 to 2011 and show everyone how wrong the authors are. Better still publish it in a peer reviewed journal and show the world what a bunch of muppets they are! Fame and fortune awaits.
Or maybe just join the other saps on this site bloviating about how bad it is without providing any evidence to the contrary?
“Absolutely he ignores them. As he should, because taking them into account would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Or perhaps you think that he should have included them in his figures along with abstracts containing my mother’s cooking recipes?”
Why is eliminating 2/3 of your sample a “monumentally stupid thing to do”? How is his paper honest and accurate when he is getting rid of that many papers, and still claiming 97%? Are you serious?
“I can’t be arsed counting up the numbers in category one to check your assertion, but assuming it’s accurate, so what? There are a stack of abstracts in category two and three that all either explicitly endorse AGW without quantification or implicitly endorse it. There are vanishingly few abstracts in categories 5 to 7 though. How many abstracts in the lowest category 7- explicitly stating humans responsible for less than 50% of the warming. Sweet f… *all. Not exactly a lot of contrarian voices are there?”
Don’t be lazy Bruce. I provided a link to SKS website, you can look for yourself. Don’t change the subject to categories 5 and 7. We are talking about Category 1 which “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”. That’s how this paper was sold, and that’s how it’s propagated. Don’t muddy the waters and deflect to the papers rejecting AGW.
“If you have issues with the paper and truly think that the consensus is low then falsifying it is going to be *really* easy. List the articles from ’91 to 2011 and show everyone how wrong the authors are. Better still publish it in a peer reviewed journal and show the world what a bunch of muppets they are! Fame and fortune awaits.”
I’m not having any issues, I think that might be you. I just easily showed how there is no consensus and it’s definitely not 97%. I’m not the one blindly peddling something I clearly don’t understand. Read the abstract, do the math, go to the SKS website and see for yourself. It’s not, and never has been even close to 97%.
Jose Duarte has a thorough evisceration of Cook’s paper in the link below, though I doubt you will bother to read it.
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
@Bruce October 5, 2017 at 6:54 am
Actually, the infamous Cook “study” never asked a single person, of any stripe or education, their opinion on climate change. Read the methodology as reported in the paper. The “researchers” selected a pile of abstracts from studies available on-line, and assigned THEIR OWN score as to whether or not the PAPER, not the researcher(s) even, just the paper, supported CAGW. With a methodology like that, the result was obviously determined before the “research” ever began (and his own e-mails confirm same), I don’t see why they had to stoop so low as to eliminate 64% of the papers before he even started counting. How can you cite such drivel as “proving” anything?
reallyskeptical
“or not”
In which case, why the compulsion to silence dissent?
If Mann’s case is so strong, why does he run from any debate?
For that matter, why do you?
Probably a debate would look a lot better on your CV than his.
No likes trying to argue with a nutter.
(Another example of your poor ability to debate,use name calling as your answer does not work here) MOD
Truth fears no question. What is our friend Bruce so afraid of?
MANN – The GREAT and POWERFUL OZ. Just don’t look behind the curtain
Yeah. The alternative would be paranoid delusional.
Never thought about that! Let’s write a paper on that, I’ll make sure it goes past the debate even if I had to redefine what pal-review is!
Snarking aside, I’ve never seen Mann much worth debating. He will go to the history of science as a prime example of Messiah syndrome.
Of course he doesn’t want to debate. He knows how badly he would be crushed.
I’m unsure of this. Mann is prepared to flat-out lie about pretty much everything, claim knowledge which he doesn’t possess and bloviate on about his imaginary consensus. When in debate with honest scientists who will freely admit the paucity of knowledge on these matters an arrogant mountebank like Mann can seem to do superficially well in front of a non-expert audience.
I think the Goracle may be the epitomy of the arrogant mountebank but he’s a career politican, so what would you expect. Even though I think there’s at least some chance that Mann may be “lost in space”, (or lost in his own mind,) if I’m correct, I think he is just sincerely lost and is a “true believer” in what he appears to see as his cause.
I think for those who are willing to spend time to prowl through it, the article at this link may provide some (non-climatological) insightful thoughts about the entire argument:
http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/papers/epist1/epist_curric.htm
And, by the way, I am unable to understand how adding an additional .01% CO2 to an atmosphere that may already contain 2% or more aggregate greenhouse gases is cause for all of us to indulge ourselves in a mass panic.
What matters is not the level of any particular greenhouse gas, what matters is how long it takes a IR photon to escape the atmosphere. The longer it takes, the warmer the atmosphere will be.
But evaporation, convection and clouds don’t really give a shit, MarkW.
Markw,
“What matters is not the level of any particular greenhouse gas, what matters is how long it takes a IR photon to escape the atmosphere. The longer it takes, the warmer the atmosphere will be.”
The surface temperature is not causal to the temperature of the atmosphere, it’s the other way around. Consider a body with a surface temperature at 0K. What effect would adding GHG’s to the atmosphere have (presuming GHG’s are gases at 0K) on that surface temperature? This is definitive the test for determining what is and what is not forcing. If something has an effect on the output (in this case, the surface temperature), absent of all other stimulus, then it’s forcing, otherwise, it’s not.
Nonetheless, whatever effect it does have can be said to be EQUIVALENT to a change in forcing keeping all else constant. For example, RCP8.5 doesn’t means that the Earth is receiving 8.5 W/m^2 forcing, but it means that the system has changed (for example by increasing CO2 concentrations) and the effect of that change to the system is EQUIVALENT to 8.5 W/m^2 more post albedo solar forcing while keeping the system constant. Note that the IPCC definition of forcing subsumes the negative feedback like effects of albedo, so the true forcing is not post albedo solar input, but post albedo albedo solar input plus solar energy reflected by clouds and ice whose reflected energy is part of the response of the system.
The GHG effect is strictly radiative and as such has no significant impact on the kinetic temperature (speed of molecules in motion) of the other gas molecules in the atmosphere. The only effect is indirect as liquid or solid water in clouds absorbs GHG emitted photons and other gas molecules collide with that water taking some of that energy with them. Any measured atmospheric temperatures are the combination of molecules in motion hitting the sensor and photons hitting the sensor, whose energies are indistinguishable from each other, at least relative to temperature sensors.
The more GHG’s (and clouds) there are in the atmosphere, the more LWIR photons emitted by the surface are absorbed by the atmosphere where some of this absorbed energy (about half) is ultimately returned to the surface as a different photon requiring the surface temperature to increase in order to achieve a surface energy balance with the total arriving energy flux. The remaining half is emitted into space in order to achieve a global energy balance with the incoming solar forcing.
The atmosphere is not an infinite sink of energy, At any time, the Earth’s atmosphere already contains most of the energy is can and when in LTE, whatever outgoing surface flux is absorbed by the atmosphere is exactly equal to the sum of the flux returned to the surface from the atmosphere and the flux emitted into space from the atmosphere.
In every debate that I know of, the warmist side has been crushed.
Which is *obviously* why every major scientific organization on the planet endorses the IPCC consensus position.
I’m guessing you don’t get out much.
And what, pray tell Bruce, is the “IPCC consensus position?” AR5 showed the models are running hot. No?
Without the models, CAGW is a nonstarter. Fool.
Bruce~ why do that list of organizations include groups which do not have even ONE climate scientist among them?
The fact remains that these “endorsements” were made by the politicians who run said organizations.
The membership has never been asked if they support such endorsements.
Many of these organizations have lost membership because of it.
MarkW
October 5, 2017 at 6:40 am
“What matters is not the level of any particular greenhouse gas, what matters is how long it takes a IR photon to escape the atmosphere. The longer it takes, the warmer the atmosphere will be.”
Why do you say that?
It goes exactly like this: Not a single photon absorbed by Earth exists after emission.They only exist between absorptions, Then it is a new photon emitted and a new photon destroyed. More heat absorbers means less energy per molecule and time, because the heat source power is constant. The more heat absorbers, the shorter time a photon survives. So, your statement is exactly opposite to reality.
Adding the fraction of heat absorbers to a constant heat flow does not increase the average kinetic energy, it reduces it. That is one of the reasons co2 is good for putting out fires, it absorbs lot of heat.
All the ones with climate scientists do.
CO2isnotevil,
Mann was forced to “debate” at a Senate committee hearing several months back. He came across as very petty and self-contradictory in contrast to the strong testimony of Judith Curry and John Christy.
Mann?
Scroll down to off topic comment… https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/02/guccifer-2-from-january-to-may-2016/#comment-775469.
Dr. Mann will now undoubtedly release his emails.
“A few questions Dr. Mann.”
I’m sure one of his lurking minions will tell him of your questions, but answers are about as likely as the warming he claims will result from CO2 emissions.
Mr. Mann is right. CAGW at his point isn’t debateable – it has zero positive evidence, rather just claims, fudged data and busted models.
Now siddown and STFU Mr Mann.
I’m sorry but he’s correct — but only in that his simulated version of a planet with it’s modeled climate is completely flawless.
He just needs to move on to what is happening on this planet.
Rule one of climate ‘science ‘ , when models and reality differ in value, it is always reality which is need of ‘adjustment ‘ , takes care of that .
How do you explain the assertion of massive AGW?
Mann needed a way to pay for that kitchen in the background of the picture.
Yeah, and he’s increasing his carbon foot size by leaving all of those lights on.
Beat me to it!! lol
Me too. I was thinking for someone who ostensibly believes our energy consumption is taking us over the brink of catastrophe, Mann appears a bit slovenly in his personal habits.
When Gore’s first film was being shown at the Cann film festival, he drove in an air conditioned limo 1/4 mile from the hotel to the festival hall. Left the limo running while he spoke, then drove back.
The minor warming since the Little Ice Age is not climate change. No metric of climate has changed in the past more than 150 years.
Climate models have run hot from the beginning, most glaringly James Hansen’s. Only religious (political) fervor allows one to ignore facts on the ground. There is no evidence for CAGW alarm. The use of non-validated model speculation as truth is mendacious.
Global warming underpins a multi trillion dollar, Enron created, carbon trading scam.
http://www.scrapthetrade.com
Untold billions of free carbon credits were handed out to business. Without liars like Mann, they would be worthless.
The world’s leading climate scientist James Hansen in the Guardian.
Governments today, instead, talk of “cap-and-trade with offsets”, a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.
Cap and trade has its roots in fugitive hydrocarbon emissions which were a problem 40 years ago. The cap was placed and trade was fix the issue or buy hydrocarbon leaking cars. It worked. In the same time, petrochem plants were faced with asbestos abatement and flange gasket issues using this mineral arose. Nevermind gaskets using asbestos were never an issue, their replacement caused some teething pains.
To think the same method would work on plant fertilizer is absurd. C&T works on substances which are harmful AND have monetary value.
If Hansen were around and viable in an anoxic environs, he would have bemoaned the rise of stromatalites in the Pre-Cambrian which led to the oxygen catastrophe.
The earth survived far more carbonic anhydride in the atmosphere without catastrophic temperature excursions. Forests grew to the extent they laid down coal beds. Oceans laid down primordial ooze which became petroleum. Life was grand.
Yes, I remember the conversion from compressed asbestos as a typical flange gasket material.
UK Sunday Times
“Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming.
Why is the State so keen on transferring money from the poor to the Mega rich?
Oh, stupid question!!
Dr Mann, please show us one piece of documented evidence that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration controls global average temperature.
Bye-bye!
You want documented evidence? Here’s the Gold Standard: (CRU webpage):
“Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
Real scientists always store the raw data. If they have storage limitation issues, they then store the methods they used to calculate the “value added” series.
PS, back in the 80’s, they had tape decks that could hold 10’s to 100’s of millions of bytes.
They are claiming that they were too cheap to buy a second cassette.
Define ‘control’.
I take the lukewarmer position. Increasing CO2 does have a net positive effect on the global average temperature, more so at night and at very northern latitudes. It also increases vegetation and so affects also air humidity and wind speed in a highly localized manner.
What ever would control mean, I don’t think CO2 controls temperature. It is one factor that has effects, beneficial so far. I’m not so scared on the geoengineering humanity does, even this one was unpurported.
Hypothesis testing is not required.
Renowned???
In the alarmist world.
My thought exactly – more like infamous
He is just upholding the good name of a psu education, like that other guy, the one mentioned by mark steyn in an article a few years back.
The most fitting forum for Mann would a “Lysenko: Not Really So Bad” symposium.
Academia is throwing up some really weird characters these days and, when it comes to debating whether climate change is caused by human activity, only one point of view is allowed. Freedom of speech? You are free to agree with us that climate change is Mann-made, peasants!
Climate, huh. Is that short for something man-made?
Oh, never mind. Baby, potato, tomato. It’s for a good cause: progress.
‘climate change
‘
Would seem to imply that Mann believes that human activity is the sole contributor to climate change.
this is indeed the untold basic assumption of all the models.
We all know that climate was SO stable in the last millennia, until Man(n) began to mess thing up, it cannot be otherwise, can it? /sarc
Mann’s “… it’s already a problem …” is a lie. There is no worsening in any climate metric.
Bad weather brings out the professional liars.
[A humble scientist is a wise scientist. Anyone making predictions should heed the words of the great philosopher Casey Stengel: “Don’t make prediction especially about the future.” This might be a great time to have a thorough discussion on climate change, without rancor or name-calling.
Let’s admit that there are many, many people in the world who haven’t accepted the fact that the planet will always face an uncertain future, with imperfect measurements, and with imperfect knowledge, humans, and politics.
Science is never settled. Steve]
Someone who claims to have won a Nobel Prize, when they didn’t isn’t humble.
Someone who posts the printed certificate made by the IPCC and distributed to dozens of others, and claims it’s a Nobel Prize document, isn’t wise.
Someone who does both, and has to be told BY the Nobel Prize Committee to knock it off and remove the claims from your website and your CV is an ego maniacal fraud. And let’s not even talk about his “research”.
🙂
I don’t deny that about 24,000 years ago, the glacier that covered northern Illinois might have been as much as one km thick. I don’t deny that about 12,000 years ago large mammals in Siberia experienced such rapid change in climate that they were flash frozen with freshly grazed plant leaves still in their mouths. I don’t don’t deny that about 900 years ag that temperatures got warmer. I don’t deny that from 1408 to 1814 that it got so cold that a fair could be held on the ice of the Thames River.
We have a word for ice fair. It is a ‘local event’. It could also be a ‘singular case’. Or commonly, just some anomalous weather. We also know that it is not climate. We know it by doing a shoddy statistical analysis on a bunch of afterwards-selected paleoproxies and by grafting a hand-tuned instrumental series of higher resolution on top of it. We call this stuff a neat trick, and we get published in Nature with Nobels and kudos from the WMO.
“If the evidence for the threat of anthropogenic climate change is so overwhelming, why are you so adamant that “contrarians” should not be allowed a public platform for rebuttal? ”
Because it silly. Should we watch flat earthers argue the moon landings didn’t happen? Watch people argue that bacteria don’t cause disease? Argue that we think in the heart not the brain?
Same thing.
That you think those are the same thing only exposes your ignorance and closed-mindedness.
What’s silly is claiming there is evidence, when there is no evidence.
Alarmists should feel free to prove their case. Don’t hold back. Let us have those facts. Then we will no longer be skeptics. But until you do, why shouldn’t we be skeptical?
There is no evidence of CO2 adding net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere, and no evidence that the Earth’s climate is being driven by anything human beings are doing.
That ought to be simple to refute, if you have the evidence.
“if you have the evidence.”
reallyGullible has zero empirical evidence of CO2 warming our convective atmosphere.
….. just brain-washed, GULLIBLE, pseudo-religious belief. !!
Should we watch flat earthers argue the moon landings didn’t happen? Watch people argue that bacteria don’t cause disease? Argue that we think in the heart not the brain?
Well of course we should, and I have. They all get crushed by facts and logic, which is instructive. Refusing to debate because it is “silly” is also instructive. You’d think that people like you would be eager to debate because you’d make fools of skeptics with your facts and logic. But you don’t jump at the opportunity, you dismiss it our of hand as “silly”. Very instructive.
Excellent, David!
That’s a false analogy, a well-known fallacy. You fail.
Your lack of grammar skills, along with your complete lack of familiarity with logic, indicate that your brain doesn’t do a lot of “thinking”. (SNIPPED) MOD
Same thing.
Aphan, could indiscriminate use of mind altering substances affect reallyskeptical’s [not] thinking and writing skills?
And reallyGULLIBLE follows the AGW meme again.. avoid debate, produce zero evidence.!!
talk about a misnomer of a name.. nary a skeptical though in his itsy mind..
Anyone would think it was the 97% twerp, John Cook… I wonder if his ip is from Queensland somewhere.
The problem with your argument is you are treating belief in CAGW on the same footing as flat earth etc. What you are dealing with in reality is a newer science belief and one not fully accepted by public. Science is not about authority and anything and everything can be challenged. Where things like flat earth fall down is because even the public accepts it, a status CAGW has not reached. We wouldn’t be talking about it and you wouldn’t be posting here if that were the case. If it’s so silly why are you even on the forum?
So lets move to a similar newer discovery that Anti-relativity types still haven’t accepted. We now have had the 4th Gravity wave detected and now with the 3rd detector (Italian Virgo site). Two more gravity wave detectors are due for completion by July next year and we know this stuff will become common place. Still there will be people out there that will not accept relativity. The public will take a long time to accept it because they don’t understand it and your idea we should silence them all immediately because science becomes some sort of authority.
QM is the most tested and successful theory in science and some scientists struggle with it and most of the public don’t accept it. What would you have us do arrest them all for not believing? Do you believe in QM?
What you are doing is trying to turn science into an authority to silence critics and sorry it doesn’t work like that, you have to convince the public which sometimes takes ages. QM has been accepted as fact in science since 1920’s and still people and scientists doubt it and that is just the way it is.
It would be silly except that “scientists” have changed temperature data and run models hot to try to advance a cause rather than pursuing science. It would be politics being debated not science.
Those comparisons are ridicules. How much money is being spent by the scientific community on proving the earth is not flat? ZERO…. Now check out climate science- …..I wonder why ? It still is not “settled”
Really well said. Mann doesn’t want deniers wasting oxygen when none of their evidence can get past basic peer review, may as well give young earth creationists equal time too.
Heinrich Kramer would be proud.
I notice you whistling past the hundreds of papers that have made it past “basic peer review”.
Of course, when your entire argument is based on made up data, it’s easy to make up even more.
So you imply death to deniers with your “wasting oxygen” claim, WTF?
That’s typical of uber Lefties who only want their brand of “rights” while giving none to their opponents.
And you wonder why Mann is the epitome of cowardice, avarice, and anti-scientific inquiry.
WTF writes this howler,
“Really well said. Mann doesn’t want deniers wasting oxygen when none of their evidence can get past basic peer review, may as well give young earth creationists equal time too.”
you mean these 1350 papers?
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
plus,
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate
http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.wTv8xtBO.dpbs
plus,
65 Papers: Low Sensitivity
http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.GgM4VWdo.dpbs
plus,
Global Warming Disputed: 350 Graphs
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/#sthash.rE1CZdTx.dpbs
Other than that nothing……….,
Snicker.
Sunsetscience,
Sorry, I meant to say ‘from reputable scientific institutions’, eg NASA
WTF make this absurd reply to my long list of published “peer reviewed” science papers. It his way to avoid the existence of alternative views.
“Sunsetscience,
Sorry, I meant to say ‘from reputable scientific institutions’, eg NASA”
You said previously,that I replied to:
“Really well said. Mann doesn’t want deniers wasting oxygen when none of their evidence can get past basic peer review, may as well give young earth creationists equal time too.”
NASA is not “peer review”,it is an Organization doing many kinds of science research.
Do you have a habit of moving the goal post?
Do have anything much better than what you have posted so far?
WTF, WTF! As knowledge progresses, they are being published in peer review journals. Not pal review.
WTF, please provide a paper showing empirically that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.
The very basis of your wonky, farcical religion. !!
WAITING.
Sunset,
The goal posts aren’t being moved, your’e the ones unable to score with the static ones.
NASA’s research does get reviewed and your cherry picked list from denier sites is very amateurish.
If your evidence had any validity then the scientific community would engage with you and alter it’s view accordingly, that’s the scientific method, try it sometime. This is proven by the existence of pseudo-science bubbles like this one.
I see that WTF,has no answer for nearly 2,000 published science papers that doesn’t toe the line for alarmism/AGW position.
He writes this empty babble in reply:
“Sunset,
The goal posts aren’t being moved, your’e the ones unable to score with the static ones.
NASA’s research does get reviewed and your cherry picked list from denier sites is very amateurish.”
No your reply is completely devoid of rational thinking since you EARLIER wrote differently,
“Really well said. Mann doesn’t want deniers wasting oxygen when none of their evidence can get past basic peer review, may as well give young earth creationists equal time too.”
I then replied showing nearly 2,000 papers doesn’t agree with the AGW conjecture. You dismiss it with nothing. If you bother took in the links you would see they really are that many published science papers and presentations,your cherry pick claims are plainly stupid.
You then tried to get around all those papers, by saying you meant a single institution:
“Sunsetscience,
Sorry, I meant to say ‘from reputable scientific institutions’, eg NASA”
That is not a published paper at all,as YOU said it is an Institution. I specifically said this about NASA
“NASA is not “peer review”,it is an Organization doing many kinds of science research”
Yes you did try to move the goalpost,while failing to answer my question:
“Do have anything much better than what you have posted so far?”
You are terrible at this debate,you should consider stopping here.
Sunset,
Still no response as to why the denier ‘evidence’ has failed to make any headway in the real world.
Here it is worthless.
ReallyStupid: Deniers of the heliocentric solar system, the germ theory of disease, or the Apollo moon landings are treated with amused condescension by everyone, not hysterical abuse and denunciation.
If the proponents of CAGW genuinely had evidence for their hypothesis, they would do the same.
Interestingly, all of those once claimed the “Science was INDISPUTABLE and that contrary positions were unnecessary or forbidden. Seems Mann likes to live in Historical rather than Present Times!
Oddly in Lew’s paper those who consider the moon landings had been faked , were AWG proponents.
You have this actress (don’t remember her name), who got some Oscar and was appointed some sort of UN ambassador for climate change, that stated that the 9/11 was some US conspiracy.
Another famous Conspiracy theorist that believe in CAGW …
I found her.: Marion Cotillard
really”skeptical”,
Thank you for demonstrating that you have noting to contribute.
Those are positions held by 3% or less minorities—i.e., cranks. That is what the supposed 97% consensus claim is insinuating about climate contrarians. But, as I just posted upthread:
A truly Valid Test would be to FIRST ask the individual IF they depend on Grant Money to Prove CAGW before including them in an “Opinion” Survey as they would automatically side with the proposition that they depend on for Money! Under those circumstances, I would rule any such opinion Biased and Unacceptable in a Real Survey of Opinion.
I think the real reason The Team don’t want to debate probably has a lot to do with the massive swing of opinion amongst audience members towards the sceptical position after my namesake Dr Schmidt and his cohorts took part in two IQ2 debates. Certainly the ‘debate is over’ meme emerged shortly afterwards.
Interesting! thanks for a hint.
The first word in the phrase you chose to quote is “if”. And after decades of efforts there still is no reproducible and/or verifiable evidence substantiating the scares of the misanthropic faith. Not any more than there is evidence for your examples to follow:
I agree with davidmhoffer October 4, 2017 at 8:31 pm and continue exploring any claims with an open mind. However, in the effort to be considerate to your preferences, I suggest to apply them specifically to your messages from now on. Same thing.
I’ve seen debates with flat earthers and moon landing deniers.
Scientists aren’t afraid to do so because they know the evidence is on their side and they always win such debates.
On the other hand, warmists have lost every debate they have entered, so it’s understandable why you are so desperate to find any excuse not to debate any more.
How old is this kid?
I have often argued their age is under 25 if not 15, and then they come up with a Griffish comment that they are actually grandpas and grandmas.
They just don’t have perspective.
So you think flat-earthers are moon-landing hoaxers? Why aren’t you using your brain to think? Is it diseased?
The whole problem with leftists is they think with their heart only. It is so full of ideas they can’t think they could be stupid ones.
reallyskeptical [not] just hates information that contradicts his religion.
-Really skeptical
So its your default position that any argument you disagree with should not be tolerated? I think the world is a sphere and a discussion would be pretty brief ( we have pictures from space and no logical framework by which we could understand it as other than spherical). I think the moon landings happened ( We have pictures from space and the surface of the moon and no logical framework for why such a thing would be faked). I think bacteria cause disease ( but not exclusively! So it should never be ASSUMED in specific cases that bacteria is a sole cause).
I think you probably have a brain and a heart but you don’t appear to think regardless so I’m not sure about that one.
Apparently, you believe in Global warming because some other people do. I haven’t seen that you know thing one about it so your opinion has no value for me.
The centrifugal force of Earth’s rotation causes a slight bulge around the equator, so it’s not perfectly spherical. :]
You pick the winner before the fight is scheduled, then claim the fight has already happened, so it’s silly to schedule a fight.
Prejudicial and intellectually cowardly. People must hear all sides and make up their own minds, no matter how “silly” you think that is. Truth fears no question.
It’s him again. Puppy dog eyes complaining to being haunded.