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.
Before capitulation an enemy will make bold claims.
Like Baghdad Bob, Saddam Insane’s spokesman, who claimed Saddam was winning, right up until the end of Saddam’s evil rule.
A great visual, JBom: Michael Mann as Baghdad Bob.
Sorry, TA; didn’t see your comment.
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.
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.
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) renowned….
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.
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.
+97
“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.
The “University Record” implies a “journalism” student.
Wrong spot. Should be a reply to JVW
Chap called Jones made the same pitch on the BBC recently. Was he Climategate Jones? BBC lapped it up, natch.
Michael “Piltdown” Mann would say that, like everything he says from cloud cuckoo land. What a loser.
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?
“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.
http://2hiwrx1aljcd3ryc7x1vkkah.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Mann-Hockey-Stick-graph.jpg
From the picture it certainly seems that ‘Big Climate’ pays top dollar. Nice work if you can get it …
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?
‘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?
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. !!
A well thought out reply.
He’s just following in your footsteps Bruce.
“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.
Lol, thanks for the caricature of a shallow reactionary true believer.
Not the best at arguing logically are you?
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
Bruce, he’s just following in your footsteps.
“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?
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.)
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
WUWTleftist 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 isis anthropogenic CO21989 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
In that case she trapped leftists, but not the way she had expected.
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.
Well no psychopathology there!
Ooooh, Bruthie! Bring on the stuff your physiologist told you.
And when it all spectacularly fails – go for simple ad homs with an aggrieved pout and sans any kind of rationale – which is unsurprisingly where you find yourself now, Bruce.
If I might be so bold as to quote your 3:36am post
“A well thought out reply.”
Hypocrite much?
Bruce October 5, 2017 at 2:28 am:
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?
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.
So no one else then?
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:
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 ?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/glaciers/mendenhall-glacier-tree.jpg
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,
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EquatorSurface300hPa200hPaDecadalTempChange%20BARCHART.gif
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………
“Those who pursue rational thinking doesn’t need a science degree…”
and there ladies and gentleman is the problem… there!
I see that Bruce is the stupid troll, who didn’t bother to counter my comment in any detail.
Congratulations!
Bruce is not helpful. He is not kind. He therefore is what? Hate?
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.
Hugs, AGW is science, CAGW is a strawman.
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.
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.
Dr. Mann is protected by academia. ‘Nuff said.
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.
Why act like we’re still battleing these people? They were smoked by the recent admission of being wrong. You guys get that, right?
It’s time to simply forward the theories that are better. Why beat a dead horse.
https://www.cpdn.org/cpdnboinc/forum_thread.php?id=8444&sort_style=8&start=75
If you want to see grass-roots fights at Oxford click here.
We’re still battling them because they are still stealing billions of dollars from hard working people to fund their schemes.
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 Mannites are not just wrong. They are a danger to humanity.
Mann is a dead horse whipping himself to go faster.
Mann: “I’m right, you’re wrong. Nyaaaa. So no debate.”
What on Earth is happening with the Steyn case?
The judge, a D.C. enviro activist, hasn’t seen fit to deal with it, instead spending her time making speeches.
The Norwegian Nobel Institute has today made a statement affirming that climate scientist, Michael Mann lied when he claimed he was a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/breaking-michael-mann-in-perjury-sensation-nobel-committee-affirm-he-lied/
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.
Nonetheless Mann was forced to refile his case against Steyn with his Nobel Prize claim removed.
Bollocks?
The Nobel has a website that list all recipients
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
Al gore is in. Mann isn’t
Period.
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?
Caleb, why do you accuse someone that does not participate in your circle jerk of being a “troll?”
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.
paqyfelyc,
you did your part in the debate by showing Bruce the HARD evidence that Dr. Mann doesn’t have the award.
He chose to ignore it,
This is for you Bruce,what Dr. Mann posted his claim on his website and facebook,that he says he is a Nobel prize winner,
?w=252&h=300
You fell for his lie too easily……….
You are free to agree with me.
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).
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.
We may not have bought it but we are sure as heck paying for it!
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.
I pity the poor fool. But I will not be kind to him until the day he admits he has been a fool.
That writer has no bias whatsoever. Yeah right. What excellent “journalists” the universities are releasing these days.
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!
The vast majority of theories are proven wrong eventually. (or at least incomplete)
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.