Mann Claims Climate is Not Debatable – at an Academic Freedom Event

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.

Advertisements

262 thoughts on “Mann Claims Climate is Not Debatable – at an Academic Freedom Event

      • 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.

  1. “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.

    • “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)

      • 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.

        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:

        This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:

        Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:

        “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
        “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
        “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
        “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

        “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”

        IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW.

        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?

      • Bruce- does this mean you would have the IPCC kick geologists off of their roster of scientists?

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  2. “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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 .

  5. How do you explain the assertion of massive AGW?

    Mann needed a way to pay for that kitchen in the background of the picture.

      • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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!

  12. Climate, huh. Is that short for something man-made?

    Oh, never mind. Baby, potato, tomato. It’s for a good cause: progress.

  13. ‘climate change

    is real, it’s human-caused, it’s already a problem,

    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.

  14. [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”.

      :)

  15. 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.

  16. “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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • 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

    • Should we watch flat earthers argue the moon landings didn’t happen? Watch people argue that bacteria don’t cause disease? … Same thing.

      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 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.

      • 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.

    • “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? ”

      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:

      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.

      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.

      • 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.

    • -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.

  17. I wonder what the warmists will argue when the climate starts to cool .Will they still keep reducing past temperatures and fudging warm ones .I see that the claim that 2016 was a record hot year has been withdrawn .

    • “I wonder what the warmists will argue when the climate starts to cool?”

      Well, the last time that happened, the “coldists” were claiming humans were causing the Earth to cool. Then when it started warming up a couple of decades later, they swithched over to claiming humans were causing the atmosphere to heat up.

      If the temperatures continue to cool, I suppose the alarmists will come up with an argument to blame human beings. It will definitely require a lot of study and money, so the alarmists are good to go, either way it goes.

      Yes, the alarmist were SO certain humans were causing the Earth to cool. Just as certain as the alarmists today who claim humans are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm.

      Certainty is not enough. Evidence is what is required.

  18. Freedom of speech MUST be sacrificed because Mann does not want the painful truth (that he has no case) to be revealed. Habitual liars use exactly the same tactics- scream blue murder, chuck tantrums, threaten legal action, emotional blackmail, outright refusal to debate and eventually violence to avoid debate and the truth coming out.
    Mann knows that if ever has to actually prove his case empirically, his case is weak if not actually non-existent and it will be revealed that all the stalling, law suits and other antics were to hide the truth. Mann knows that he will then be finished or perhaps chucked in jail. Better still, when his trail of lies is uncovered, he should be chucked to angry real scientists who have been tarnished by HIS gross indiscretions. Could be messy. Perhaps he can repay his debt to science by becoming a lab guinea pig.

    • “Mann knows that he will then be finished or perhaps chucked in jail.”

      I think chucking him in jail is appropriate, considering the damage he has done to humanity and to science, with his Hockey Stick creation. He has misled millions of people.

  19. Ugh!
    Michael Mann did not ‘take on’ anyone. He played to a petting zoo of sycophants, as this is the only format he will willingly participate in. He renowned for his aversions to honesty, open debate, and ethical science.

    • He is at least consistent, in all his behaviours and easy to understand from money grabbing and ego. He doesn’t appear posting here because the argument is over in his mind. What is harder to understand is true believers like Griff and RealSkeptical as it’s settled to them and not worth commenting on and yet here they are posting away. They are either stupid or not quite sincere in there belief because they keep telling us the argument is over.

  20. You could not make this up. A ‘scientist’ complaining that other scientists who have developed theories that are different to his being allowed to discuss them – and making this complaint at an event to celebrate academic freedom. You really could not make it up. And all reported with po-faced nodding-dog journalism by Safiya Merchant. I don’t know, of course, but my guess is that she is from Generation Snowflake. Wouldn’t you just love to sit her down and gently take her through the contradictions of her piece? In the immortal words of WUWT – the stupid, it burns.

    • You could not make this up.

      I disagree.

      In a world where science papers are kept out by changing the definition of peer review (Jones), where knowingly false information was kept in major reports because it was scary (Pachauri), where scientists declare that the lack of evidence for something terrible happening is a tragedy (Trenberth) and heads of ethics committees get caught impersonating someone to obtain confidential documentation and then spiking it with forged documents (Gleick), Mann’s position seems rather mundane. As a senior scientist of the cataclysmic kind, I think he needs to up his game.

  21. “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.” ”

    Obviously doesn’t want Mann on staff.

  22. How’s Mann’s law suit against Mark Steyn going?
    Remember?
    Steyn apparently described Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Science” after Mann was exonerated by his university in a letter which was eerily similar to the same institution’s endorsement of the infamous coach.
    What’s the latest on that?

  23. “Renowned climate scientist Michael E. Mann took on those who deny climate change ”

    Is this the same guy who wrote the seminal paper denying actual climate change ….. ?? Ooooh errr.

    • Mann probably makes more money from selling books about climate change ‘wars’ than he does from academia. Who put him in a position to do that?

  24. ‘Tuesday’s University Senate Davis, Markert, Nickerson Lecture on Academic and Intellectual Freedom.’ One has to wonder why Mann was chosen to speak at this event. A group of attorneys and law students?

  25. I think Professor Mann meant, nobody credible disagrees with AGW…

    The theory is as solid as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, based on multiple strands of evidence which are all consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet.

    Meanwhile the WUWT crowd tie themselves in ever more complicated knots trying to dream up excuses for the continued warming of the planet, retreating glaciers, melting ice caps, cooling stratosphere, historical link between CO2 and temperature, sea level rise and many more indicators of a warming planet all perfectly consistent with AGW. Those who’ve actually trained in science apply Occam’s Razor and realize the simplest explanation is anthropogenic CO2 not a complicated web of more and more intricate BS explanations not founded in reality.

    The Germans knew about the dangers of smoking since at least the 1920s. The Brits knew about it in the 1950s. Yet it took decades for rates of smoking to come down in the Western world, mainly because of continued obfuscation by corporate interests- just like in the climate “debate” today. Giving a platform to the tobacco lobby has resulted in millions of deaths in the west and will result in millions more in the developing world. Even today, those like climate contrarian and all round evil dude Fred Singer deny the existence of a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. God only knows how many millions will suffer because of AGW.

    • “The theory is as solid as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer,”

      WALOR !!!

      The baseless conjecture of CO2 warming is wafer thin, after the crows have been at it. !!

    • “Credible”, as you use the term, is merely weaponized grammar of identity politics.

      The comparison to cigarette smoking is a false equivalence fallacy. Still waiting for the multiple lines of irrefutable evidence to be made clear. Occam’s razor suggests “follow the money” because the dire prognostications made by climastrologists for decades have not happened. It would be like anti-smokers predicting for decades that smoker’s would get lung cancer, and then no one did. See the difference?

      • I think you’re confusing sensationalist US media with the predictions from the IPCC and other scientists. As has been explained multiple times on this website, especially for those who dont understand the difference between surface temperatures and satellite estimates (like the Potty Peer for example), the model projections line up extremely well with the surface measurements. As do the retreating glaciers, as does the increase in sea levels (actually this running ahead of the models), night time temperatures, the cooling stratosphere and about a dozen other finger prints of AGW. As the number of indicators consistent with AGW increases, so does the likelihood that AGW is happening increases, and the likelihood of other independent explanations decreases. Oh, and then of course there’s physics which explains why it’s so.

      • But AGW (which is disputable due to the paucity of data, infilling, data alteration, assumptions, etc, etc) is essentially irrelevant to the current discussion – ie, that warming is (to be) catastrophic, or even harmful.. No evidence for that, only guessing. And, btw, all of those failed predictions came from climastrologists; the media merely reports what is written and said by them.

      • And btw, glaciers have been retreating worldwide since the end of the little ice age, circa mid-latter 1800s. Calling that an AGW fingerprint makes you look like a fool.

      • Models line up with the surface measurements because the surface measurements are a total crock.
        There are multiple lines of very solid evidence pointing out that fact.

      • Multiple lines of evidence Mark? What lines of evidence in particular?

        So you’re basically saying that every single meteorological organization in the world is in on the deception? That doesn’t sound very credible nor very sane to be honest.

      • Bruce, you speak extensively about lung cancer and smoking, that is, totally unrelated stuff. Too bad you just cannot speak as extensively about CO2 and CAGW. That would be logical, and allow you to complain about someone else “not the best at arguing logically”.
        The fact is, YOU are not the best at arguing logically. You fell to the usual “the Mote and the Beam” fallacy

    • “The theory is as solid as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, based on multiple strands of evidence which are all consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet.”

      Yes, we all know how CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”. What we don’t know is whether CO2 adds any net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere after all feedbacks are included. Do you have any “multiple strands of evidence” to show otherwise?

    • I think Professor Mann meant, nobody credible disagrees with AGW…

      The theory is as solid as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, based on multiple strands of evidence which are all consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet.

      Yes but the debate isn’t about AGW but CAGW. Mann is implying that 97% of climate scientists are on board with CAGW alarmism, which they aren’t. (See my comment upthread on the minority consensus on CAGW, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/04/mann-claims-climate-is-not-debatable-at-an-academic-freedom-event/comment-page-1/#comment-2628123.)

      Meanwhile the WUWT crowd tie themselves in ever more complicated knots trying to dream up excuses for the continued warming of the planet, retreating glaciers, melting ice caps, cooling stratosphere, historical link between CO2 and temperature, sea level rise and many more indicators of a warming planet all perfectly consistent with AGW.

      They’re also consistent with natural variation. Anyway, they aren’t relevant to the debate about CAGW, which is about alarmists’ hypothesized positive feedbacks, which is disproved by the missing tropical hotspot and by the failure of the global temperature to rise at nearly the rate officially predicted. See David Evans 13-minute video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

    • If Margaret Thatcher hadn’t launched cAGW in 1989 UN General Assembly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg, I doubt we would discussing this here now. Observing the situation now, she has been a clever fox indeed. Therefore, some minor editions make your assertions true:

      Meanwhile the WUWT leftist crowd tie themselves in ever more complicated knots trying to dream up excuses for the continued warming of the planet, retreating glaciers, melting ice caps, cooling stratosphere, historical link between CO2 and temperature, sea level rise and many more indicators of a warming planet all perfectly consistent with AGW. Those who’ve actually trained in science apply Occam’s Razor and realize the simplest explanation is is anthropogenic CO2 1989 UN General Assembly not a complicated web of more and more intricate BS explanations not founded in reality.

      • Margaret Thatcher came to her senses however.

        ‘In ‘Statecraft’ (2003), in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views. She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us.’

        Christopher Booker, ‘The Telegraph’ June 12th 2010

    • It seems that you adhere to the strategy of ‘when things are going wrong, simply invert everything and accuse your opponents of all of the things which are going so horribly wrong for you’. Here we see that classic inversion tactic centred on Occam’s razor. CAGW halfwits like to think that because their hypothesis is the most simple – in that effectively carbon dioxide directly controls the entire climate of this planet – then it is almost certainly correct using the razor principle. What they always fail to understand is that when the climate resolutely fails to follow the edicts of their hypothesis they are then obliged to propose all manner of convoluted epicycles of bizarre and unevidenced hypotheses in order to force the real climate to comply with their one-size-fits-all fantasy hypothesis. This is of course the inverse of using Occam’s razor – but they never see that.

      They also invariably fail to understand what a null hypothesis is and how you might go about refuting one. So once again what they do is a simple inversion maneuver. Trenberth infamously attempted to do this with the null hypothesis – that what we observe in the climate system is natural variation. He knew he had no evidence of any kind with which to refute the null hypothesis so what he did instead was to simply assert that there was heaps of evidence – without ever presenting any of it of course – and naturally enough that 97% of climate scientists agreed and therefore the CAGW hypothesis was now the new null.

      Truly hilarious shenanigans – but no one is falling for it I’m afraid.

    • Bruce October 5, 2017 at 2:28 am:

      I think Professor Mann meant, nobody credible disagrees with AGW…

      Really? I thought he meant that “news show hosts” shouldn’t interview “climate change contrarians” alongside “scientists”. After all, isn’t that what he is reported to have said?

      And doesn’t what he said imply that “climate change contrarians” like Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Judith Curry, Prof. Richard Lindzen, genuine Nobel Prize-winner Freeman Dyson and a large number of other distinguished scientists cannot also be “climate change contrarians”, in spite of the fact that they are? How credible can Prof. Mann be when his utterances consist of such blatant denial of truth?

      The theory (of AGW) is…. based on multiple strands of evidence which are all consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet.

      No it isn’t; it is based on wishful thinking and make-believe, that is all. The so-called “evidence” for AGW may be “consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet” as you say, but the trouble with it from a scientific point of view is that it is also consistent with natural causes warming the planet and we have no objective means of discriminating between the two. So as far as I can see, the true scientific status of the theory of AGW at present is that it is completely untested and, therefore, completely unproven too.

      • Doh! Last paragraph above supposed to read:

        No it isn’t; it is based on wishful thinking and make-believe, that is all. The so-called “evidence” for AGW may be “consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet” as you say, but the trouble with it from a scientific point of view is that it is also consistent with natural causes warming the planet and we have no objective means of discriminating between the two. So as far as I can see, the true scientific status of the theory of AGW at present is that it is completely untested and, therefore, completely unproven too.

      • Yes but Richard Lindzen is an intelligent design nutter who has been shown to be consistently wrong on pretty much everything climate related, Judith Curry is not particularly well respected nor has she published much recently and Freeman Dyson is really not qualified. Anyone else?

        (I have grown tired of your poor debating ability, while continue to post many ugly personal attacks on people,stop it or you will be shown the door) MOD

      • Wow! No-one could accuse you of being open-minded, unprejudiced and free from dogmatism, could they, Bruce?

      • In any case, Bruce, your dismissive reply to me missed the point of my argument, which was that “climate contrarians” (to use Mann’s inappropriate label) can also be scientists, whereas Mann’s suggestion that “climate contrarians” should not be interviewed alongside “scientists” implies that they are two mutually exclusive groups. The examples of actual contrarian scientists which I cited demonstrate emphatically that they are not.

        Hence, Mann’s distinction between scientists and “climate contrarians” is false and irrational. But believe it if you want to, of course: it’s only your mind that you will be confusing and disordering.

      • Bruce,

        Your dismissal of Richard Lindzen as “an intelligent design nutter” really makes you look bad, (and makes me angry.)

        I don’t think anyone can really look at the glory of the sky or a sunset and not be at times awestruck by the beauty. Even if many scientists have a low opinion of “religion”, they do not renounce an awe of “Truth”, which in an absolute sense is what some call “God”. Einstein was in many ways turned-off by “religion”, but retained an awe of “Truth”. But I suppose you would dismiss him as a “nutter.”

        You should be ashamed of your scorn of great minds who likely have IQ’s double yours, yet who stand abashed and flabbergasted by the sheer intricacy and magnitude of what is involved in what we call “everyday”.

        This brings me to the second part of your insult, where you state Lindzon “has been shown to be consistently wrong on pretty much everything climate related”. This is untrue. How dare you utter such a lie?

        Lindzen made an effort to help us understand we were dealing with what some call “chaos”, but includes some amazingly orderly formations we do not yet understand. The concept called “Strange Attractors”, springing from the work of Edward Lorenz, is an example of seeing order in what initially seems chaotic.

        An offensive pea-brain like yourself likely cannot comprehend the sort of mind necessary to contemplate such wondrous concepts. Otherwise you couldn’t cling to your disproved idea that one lone gas controls the planet, and all else can be ignored. However, just because you are willing to publicly display you are pea-brained, gives you no right to disparage great minds who are capable of considering more than one lone gas.

        Minds like Lidzen’s do consider CO2. But they also consider many, many other variables. Your head would explode, if you even attempted to consider a tenth of what they ponder over a morning coffee. You can have no idea what an absolute idiot you appear to be when you belittle such minds.

      • Bruce October 6, 2017 at 2:34 pm:

        So no one else then?

        Yes, there are many others, as I’ve already said. However, I won’t cite anyone else because the names I’ve already cited for you are more than sufficient to prove my point (which you are still ignoring, by the way).

    • That CO2 is capable of causing some warming is not in doubt and for the most part, isn’t debated here.
      What’s debated and has never been proven, is the claim that the warming is large and dangerous.
      I love it when warmists have to lie about what is being debated in order to make themselves seem relevant.

      • MarkW, No.
        There is no evidence the Earth warms with CO2 increase.
        Negative feedbacks, that’s what there is evidence of.
        Any warmed-up CO2 molecules are undone. Something cools it. More clouds perhaps, more convection, higher wind..Who knows? But this is what observable evidence indicates.
        Our atmosphere is a stable system.
        Stable systems require negative feedback to counter any perturbations.
        Willis E. wrote a fine piece here on our atmosphere’s ability to bounce back to a stable state after the perturbation of volcanic eruptions.
        There’s a lot to infer from the realization that the earth’s atmosphere is a “Stable System”.

      • The projected warming is far enough below the poorly understood natural variability that we will need several hundred more years of observation to see it.
        Beyond that, a negative feedback can lessen the impact of a forcing, but it can’t eliminate it entirely.

      • MarkW – you are wrong. There are thousands of us who claim/think/know that CO2 causes NO warming, in fact quite a lot claim/think/know it causes COOLING. Whether such matters are debated here or not is irrelevant because this is not a 100% open free forum where you can debate everything (see rules).

        There are many other climate blogs and in some you will see open debate regarding “NO WARMING”. I am not getting at WUWT or Anthony who can make their own rules but I am getting at you , MarkW, because you are seriously misrepresenting the debate, you are failing to acknowledge the NO WARMING AT ALL section. Please be honest and stop making these “not in doubt” statements which we have seen from you before.

    • Retreating glaciers are great for our understanding of past changes in climate – revealing ancient tree stumps and the like. Beyond your comprehension Bruce ?

    • One at a time!
      The planet has not warmed for 18 years
      No substantial retreat of glaciers at this time and loads of evidence that they were at maximal extents due to the LIA
      The Arctic ice is growing,not shrinking
      The stratosphere is cooling due to warming? Really? You’re gonna go with that?
      Historical link with CO2 is correlation, not causation, and it is reversed!
      Sea level rise has not accelerated since approximately 1800. Explain that please.
      Not a single thing that you have said regarding your religion can stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
      You should be embarrassed!

    • Bruce, what theory are you referring to?

      Going to respond to this part only,here he makes a sweeping statement with ZERO evidence to support it.

      “Meanwhile the WUWT crowd tie themselves in ever more complicated knots trying to dream up excuses for the continued warming of the planet, retreating glaciers, melting ice caps, cooling stratosphere, historical link between CO2 and temperature, sea level rise and many more indicators of a warming planet all perfectly consistent with AGW.”

      Most skeptics have long accepted that it has been warming for a long time,Have noted receding glaciers for years,even pointed out that many of them were melting long before that magic1950 year came.

      You prate about melting ice caps being caused by a miracle trace gas,when actually Antarctica SEA Ice has grown a lot the last decade,while Summer Arctic ice cap has stopped dwindling the last 10 years. Stratosphere cooling seems to happen DESPITE the failure of the “hot spot” which was supposed to support the Stratospheric cooling trend.

      The failing “hot spot” problem.

      here is a chart that shows that BOTH sections are well below the modeled rate as predicted,based on the AGW conjecture,

      Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

      The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above).

      Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis.

      http://www.climate4you.com/

      ===========================================================
      Bruce goes on with this,

      “Those who’ve actually trained in science apply Occam’s Razor and realize the simplest explanation is anthropogenic CO2 not a complicated web of more and more intricate BS explanations not founded in reality.”

      Those who pursue rational thinking doesn’t need a science degree to know that AGW is a failed conjecture,due to predictive failures,here is one most warmists completely ignore,since it is fatal to their beliefs in a magic trace gas,with a trace IR absorption range.

      The IPCC in 1990,2001 posted their usual .30C PER DECADE warming prediction,while the RSS Satellite data shows a little LESS than 1/2 that rate since 1990 and even less since 2001:

      From 1990, about .14C per decade. rate.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1990/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1990/trend

      From 2001, about .10C per decade rate.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

      Warming rate is slowing down………

    • Oh troll the question is not AGW, but CAGW. And of course, if you define credible as someone who goes full CACC, then that’s your problem.

    • No, Bruce: Mann is a liar. There is no evidence that CO2 has affected any climate metric. In fact, there has been no increase in any extreme weather related events since CO2 has been on the rise.

      Words like “is consistent with,” “makes the (bad) event more likely,” etc. are liars tricks that misuse the vague results of speculative, non-validated models that have no predictive value at all. In fact, the models don’t agree among themselves, much less reflect the various actual climate metric measurements.

      Go troll elsewhere.

    • The projection is strong with this one.

      Smoking rates have been slow to come down because governments don’t want to lose the money they get from the onerously high tobacco taxes. So they push half-solutions that will keep most users puffing away. If they were truly interested in helping people quit, they would be endorsing e-cigs, the best quitting aid invented thus far, and not treating vaping the same as regular smoking (which it’s not). And the danger of “secondhand smoke” is minimal. It’s been hyped for decades by government-funded advocacy research to justify raising tobacco taxes even more.

      God only knows how many millions have suffered already from the sheer waste of blood and treasure spent tilting at the AGW windmill.

    • “Bruce October 5, 2017 at 2:28 am

      I think Professor Mann meant, nobody credible disagrees with AGW…

      The theory is as solid as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, based on multiple strands of evidence which are all consistent with anthropogenic gases warming the planet.”

      Smoking manufactured tobacco products are known to contain many chemicals, up to some 4000 compounds, maybe more. Almost all are toxic. There is PLENTY of evidence for this. Compare that to CO2, and ONLY CO2 from human activities CAUSING warming. There is none! Those that compare smoking to aCO2 driven warming lose the argument right there. Your argument is baseless. On the CO2 driven warming side, void of any fact whatsoever.

  26. Dr. Mann is not stupid, he well knows that what he is publicising is far from the reality, but despite it he is relentlessly racing towards ideological cliff-top edge, ‘valiantly’ pursuing the scientific folly of catastrophe that is to befall the humanity.
    Only foolish will admire Mann’s stubborn persistence in face of the obvious, while for the rest Mann’s pronouncements are a trusted source of the indispensable entertainment.

    • Yes, and…

      Paul Ehrlich was wrong in every prediction he made in his book “The Population Bomb”.

      From Wikipedia:
      ” Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American biologist, best known for his warnings about the consequences of population growth and limited resources.[2] He is the Bing Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology.”

      Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn were terrorist bombers who murdered Americans, yet.

      From Wikipedia:
      “William Charles “Bill” Ayers………conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the US Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s …….He is a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, formerly holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.[3] During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his contacts with candidate Barack Obama. He is married to Bernardine Dohrn, who was also a leader in the Weather Underground.”

      I would like to believe in Justice, that when the truth is known and the liars are known, they will get what they deserve.

      Sorry, but experience shows that it is not happening. At least Mrs. Bubba (wife of the first trailer trash president) lost the election. (Reference her speech re. the vast right wing conspiracy.)

      PS Thank you for bringing your expertise to this blog.

  27. Why act like we’re still battleing these people? They were smoked by the recent admission of being wrong. You guys get that, right?

  28. Mann Claims Climate is Not Debatable – at an Academic Freedom Event

    There is plenty of evidence for asserting Earth has a climate. Because Mann and alike seem unable to settle the name for their ambiguous scares, perhaps it should be baptised for what it truly is and then stick to it. Any suggestions?

    • Mann’s reprise of Lysenko is a tough thing to characterize.
      The remarketing of the apocalyptic claptrap the CO2 obsessed push is fascinating to watch.
      Sort of like how the UFO obsessed went from flying saucers to men in black.
      The sad trolls trying hijack this thread are a mere shadow of the sort of trolls that guard UFO sites. It’s like the climate true believers are merely going through the motions.

    • The judge, a D.C. enviro activist, hasn’t seen fit to deal with it, instead spending her time making speeches.

    • Bollocks. The Norwegian Nobel Institute made a statement? Where? The link you sent round is some ass claiming they phoned up some dude who *used* to work at the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

      From wikipedia:
      Geir Lundestad (born January 17, 1945) is a Norwegian historian, who until 2014 served as the director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute when Olav Njølstad took over. In this capacity, he also served as the secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. However, he is not a member of the committee itself.

      • Well the IPCC received the Nobel Prize and Mann was part of the IPCC so I’d say the statement was pretty reasonable. Next thing you’ll be saying I wasn’t Time Person of the Year.

      • Bruce writes,

        “Well the IPCC received the Nobel Prize and Mann was part of the IPCC so I’d say the statement was pretty reasonable. Next thing you’ll be saying I wasn’t Time Person of the Year.”

        No he didn’t.

        Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

        “Nobel Committee corrects Mann: ‘The text underneath diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to IPCC as such. No individuals on IPCC side received anything in 2007’—Nobel Committee: ‘Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.’”

        Dr. Mann responds,and gets refuted:

        “Michael Mann Responds! Mann: ‘IPCC certificate acknowledging me ‘contributing to award of the Nobel Peace Prize’. Do they want my birth certif too?’

        Reality Check: But Mann claimed he ‘was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’! —Not a UN ‘certificate’—‘Mann was one of a ‘select group’ of a mere 2,000 people to receive a ‘commemorative certificate of involvement’ — not from the Nobel committee, but from the UN’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC’”

        http://canadafreepress.com/article/nobel-committee-rebukes-michael-mann-for-falsely-claiming-he-was-awarded-th

      • “Well the IPCC received the Nobel Prize and Mann was part of the IPCC so I’d say the statement was pretty reasonable.”

        The European Union received a Nobel Prize too.
        https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/2010-today/2012/eu-nobel_en
        As I am a citizen of the European Union, by your logic it is entirely reasonable that I too can claim myself to be a Nobel Prize recipient, print up a Nobel Prize certificate to hang on my wall and put it on my business cards and company letterheads.
        As are around 740 million other EU citizens too, of course…

      • You know Marc Morano is a paid shill for the oil industry right and not a journalist? Not exactly a particularly credible source…

        Sure you can claim it being part of the EU. People might look at you a bit strangely though. The IPCC is a lot smaller than the EU. Not as big a stretch.

      • It is clear now that Bruce is a troll,since was given clear answers with evidence that Dr. Mann is NOT a Nobel Peace prize winner.

        Meanwhile a Law student post a nice analysis of Dr. Mann’s attempt to silence people over non libelous statements,especially since to this day he has no evidence that he actually suffered from it. He also posted the Amend link to the court made by Dr. Mann erase his false statement that he is a Nobel Peace prize recipient.

        One Mann’s Assault on the First Amendment Continues

        By Robert Lufrano (Rutgers Law Student)

        It has been over four years since Dr. Michael E. Mann, climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, filed an anti-defamation lawsuit against conservative magazine National Review and its columnist Mark Steyn, and public policy think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and its former adjunct fellow Rand Simberg. Yet the D.C. Superior Court has still not decided this case on the merits. The case had been stayed pending an appeal regarding procedural matters with respect to D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act, when finally this past December the D.C. Court of Appeals decided to allow the case to proceed and that Mann had offered sufficient evidence to succeed on the merits, and thus dismissed the defendants’ motion.

        https://riipl.rutgers.edu/one-manns-assault-on-the-first-amendment-continues/

      • Bruce, you have a small-frog-in-a-small-pond notoriety of being troll-of-the-day. Do you call this glory? Or have you the slightest sense that, just maybe, you are embarrassing yourself?

    • Bruce, you are aware that your smear tactic against whoever won’t make appear Mann on list of recipient where is NOT, and just make you appear a bad faith, person resorting to any sort of bad trick to avoid recognizing a very simple truth
      Nobel could have awarded the prize to Mann just like it did to Al Gore; it didn’t. Mann is not Nobel recipient. Period.
      If you cannot even admit this simple truth, caling other “deniers” is just bad joke, and you ridicule all of your other beliefs (like CAGW), as well as fellows that share your beliefs.

  29. If “scientific consensus” ruled, the earth would still be flat and at the center of the solar system (universe?), time a constant and speed of light variable ( might be under certain conditions? ), living organisms would still be spontaneously generated, and so on. Consensus is not science. Science requires continuous questioning or it is simply dogma as in religion.

    • Actually, speed of light IS variable. It is max in the void, and reduced in any other material by a factor called “refractive index”.
      There are some variable speed of light theory (time dependent, for instance), designed to cope with some problems in cosmology (pretty much like “dark matter” or “dark energy”). Just google “variable speed of light theory”. Out of scope for most people, only very high profile physicists (or nuts …) discuss such questions.

      • My reference was to the speed of light in Einsrein’s special theory of relativity. E=MC2 where C is a constant. I am aware of that to which you refer. Note that there are also people who have hypothesized that C could vary under special conditions which would solve some of the inconsistencies in the standard model, and of course, regarding the general theory of relativity, raise others.See Author: João Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light.

      • No theories should be “out of scope” and one should not need any qualifications or special restraint clothing to be OK to discussing them. This is fundamentally why some science has “gone bad”. It did not used to be like this in the 1970’s-80’s, we felt free to chat about any theories however “wacky”.

      • @The Reverend Badger
        Most theories require extended learning, that most people just do not have. Many people still think it’s OK for them to discuss these theories, despite knowing little about, and GIGO apply: for lack of knowledge, they are just talking BS, repeating argument they don’t even understand. So, it is surely OK to discuss any theory, provided you are aware you don’t know sh!t and shouldn’t take any decision (let alone push political agenda) based on your (un)understanding. Sometime, you just have to trust your physician, or your physicist.
        There never was a time when science worked properly. Failure of science can be traced back right from the start, right to real geniuses (most went wildly wacky on some issue or another, some appropriated themselves work of others, dismissed fact that didn’t fit in there theories, etc).
        I don’t trust science, i don’t trust scientist.
        I trust reality, technicians who make real things work according to a set of theory. Obviously no technician succeeded in making anything out of CAGW theory, while they could (like, making big bucks out of predictions the way Thales did, not the way a doomsayer con artist does).

  30. This is all about Mann’s ego and little more. He made fame and fortune with his “hockey stick” graph and its mention in Fat Albert’s movie. He believes he is responsible for bringing to the world’s attention what he is convinced is potential catastrophe. Yet he doesn’t really think beyond his tree rings. Someone needs to explain to me how tree rings can actually tell us the effects of carbon dioxide on the climate. Length of growing season, precipitation, and possibly at a stretch temperature but carbon dioxide, I have never bought it.

  31. Mann:“were dealing with fake news and alternative facts before they were in fashion.”

    Really?
    This cracks me up
    He should say: were dealing INfake news and alternative facts before they were in fashion.

    Leftys project.
    Without fail.

    • In my opinion, Mann is a chronic and abject liar. I believe Mark Steyn thinks so as well. The possibility seems to be sufficiently likely that it is the basis of a court case that Mann appears to be avoiding. People can think what they want I guess, but why anyone listens to Mann is beyond me. A disgrace to his “profession”.
      On a lesser note, he is certainly a jerk.

      • sadly he is typical of his ‘profession ‘ for the type of behavior that would get you kicked out and laughed out in any other science. Is rewarded and celebrated in his .Mann is a ‘good’ climate scientists.

  32. That writer has no bias whatsoever. Yeah right. What excellent “journalists” the universities are releasing these days.

  33. Historically, whenever someone has determined that a Scientific Principle, Theory, or Concept is Indisputable, not Debatable, or Undeniably True, they have ALWAYS been proven WRONG!

      • Which is why it is so instructive to look at the NEW theories about the atmospheres on rocky planets, the new paradigms, the cottonesque ideas for it is within these ridiculous and stupid ramblings of obvious nutters that the knowledge to advance our understanding is likely to be found (subject to peer review of course)

        Here’s 4, insert as your religion dictates /s /s /s /s.

  34. We’ll all be wiser when Mark Steyn’s $20million countersuit is adjudicated. The countersuit locks in discovery. If Mann decides to drop his suit because he doesn’t want to meet discovery disclosure, the 20million is the price to pay to keep his secrets. Either way, the cat is out of the bag!

    Maybe the Team or the whole consensus will take up a collection and pony-up the 20 big big ones.

  35. Renowned climate clown Micky Mann suffers from the Dunning Krueger effect, among other things. He is also a pathological liar, appearing to believe all of his lies. His grasp of reality is so pathetic, it’s a wonder he manages to dress himself in the morning.

    • I pity him. I pity all who think they are “successful” for the wrong reasons. A day of judgement before Truth does come.

      Mann seems to be hoping he can buy time, and die first. I’m not sure this is wise. Probably it is better to be scolded by fellow scientists here on earth, than to escape judgement here on earth and face the consequences in the hereafter. Of course, Mann is likely hoping like heck there is no such thing as a “hereafter”. I just am very glad I’m not in his shoes. What he calls “success” is something I am repelled by.

  36. “…those on the front lines of the climate change debate “were dealing with fake news and alternative facts before they were in fashion.”
    Here Mann shamelessly displays his faux martyr complex, portraying himself and his cohorts as brave warriors instead of the vile lying hucksters they truly are.

  37. When it comes to Mann , I wonder what color the bus will be that his ‘friends’ throw him under to save themselves. Such is the ‘quality’ of the Mann . Lets hope it is going to arrive soon.

  38. I myself believe that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels is not such a good idea and I was hoping to use human caused global warming as another reason to conserve. The AGW conjecture at first seems to be credible but upon closer examination it is full of holes and I cannot defend it. The most glaring problem with the AGW conjecture is that the radiant greenhouse effect upon which it is based has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. Since the radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction, the AGW conjecture must also be science fiction. I keep reading explanations of global warming and the so called greenhouse effect on the Internet and I keep retorting that No!, the climate system does not work that way. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science. The idea that H2O provides a positive feedback ignore’s the fact that H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The computer models they have been using have the idea that more CO2 causes warming hard coded in and hence beg the question. All this computer work has been of no value and should be thrown out. It is nothing more than a sophisticated form of make believe.

    • Well, about fossil fuels. You also have to recognize the massive benefit they give. Cheap, abundant, and reliable source of energy is one of the basic needs of modern life which we unfortunately all take for granted. And currently only fossil fuels can give that. Without it society regresses back to the middle ages. And trust me. Life was NOT good back then. This is something that the media, politicians and the public has been ignoring for decades. We take all modern conveniences (medicine, infastructure, electricity, cars, etc.) for granted but without cheap, abudant and reliable energy we either can’t have them or they will be much more expensive. The so called “green” energy still isn’t as good enough. I believe that if everyone would just instantly switch over to “green” “renewable” energy it would be very bad, just like Germany’s example showed.

      And there is no evidence that the fossil fuels are running out. People have been saying that for decades and yet we keep finding more. In any case, I believe that free markets and human ingenuity are the best ways to deal with any resource scarcity, just like history has showed, not forcible conservation by the governments.

      People have been saying that the “world is getting worse” for decades, yet the evidence is on the contrary, which makes me hard to trust people who say such things. Everyone who has read history will know that life has improved dramatically in the last 200 years. If anything, fossil fuels are overall a very good thing, and if we want to give them up, we need a VERY good reason to do that. All the predictions about Global wa.. I mean climate change (or is it, climate “disruption”? They keep changing the label, it’s hard to keep track) have turned out to be false. UN and the politicians keep pushing the “point-of-no-return” deadline back and never apologize when they turn out to be wrong. And of course every single storm and every single refugee are these days schitzophrenically blamed on humans as if hurricanes, wars and refugees never happened in the past. And even if they are getting worse that doesn’t mean we should get rid of fossil fuels, because the wealth they give allow us to deal with them in the first place. But unfortunately so many people have been tricked into this simplistic black and white thinking where fossils fuels are evil and everything else is good. And if you try say anything people like Mann call you a heretic and try to shut you up, which should be disgusting behaviour no matter which side you are on.

  39. There have been a considerable number of comments here talking about the specific physical processes in the atmosphere (Good). Many of them have been talking about IR photons (Bad).

    A better understanding of the actual physical phenomena taking place will be gained if we consider only electromagnetic waves. Photons are not real. They are an invention of the human mind in an attempt to explain certain experimental results which did not fit with electromagnetic understanding at the time. Constructing a ficticious massless particle in our minds was supposed to help understand some stuff but the wave-particle duality idea is a just that, a fiction, it is not real.

    Try explaining everything about the atmosphere in terms of e.m. I am sure you will get nearer the underlying truth if you do so.

    • Well, wave are not real, either. They too are “an invention of the human mind in an attempt to explain certain experimental results”. Actually all physical concept are just that. Even mass (so a massless thing is no more imaginary that a thing with a mass). Never forget the implicit sentence beginning ALL scientific discourse:
      “to the best of our knowledge, everything happen as if…”

      • Totally agree and that the acronym CLIME explains that our scientific theories are the:

        ‘Current Least Incorrect Modeled Explanations’ of the universe that we are part of.

        Another well known saying is that ‘The Map is not the Territory’ comes to mind; any modelling of our home planet is just a gross explanation to high orders and cannot possibly model every nth order of influence.

        What sometimes surprises me is how well known mainstream fellow scientists will currently beat the CAGW drum because the majority of others do, and to mention an different explanation will probably put them out of work; mind you climate systems (Milankovitch cycles etc) are probably beyond mankind’s timescales on this cooling 3rd rock.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s