Michael Mann: “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

This is Michael Mann, Distinguished University Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Geosciences, Penn State.
Patrick Mansell, Penn State

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Alarmism in action.

Extreme global weather is ‘the face of climate change’ says leading scientist

Exclusive: Prof Michael Mann declares the impacts of global warming are now ‘playing out in real-time’

The extreme heatwaves and wildfires wreaking havoc around the globe are “the face of climate change”, one of the world’s leading climate scientists has declared, with the impacts of global warming now “playing out in real time”.

Extreme weather has struck across Europe, from the Arctic Circle to Greece, and across the world, from North America to Japan. “This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.

“The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”

“We are seeing our predictions come true,” he said. “As a scientist that is reassuring, but as a citizen of planet Earth, it is very distressing to see that as it means we have not taken the necessary action.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/extreme-global-weather-climate-change-michael-mann

Where I live months of high humidity weather in the 90s or above is what we call “Summer”. But I understand such conditions are distressing for people who are not used to them.

Mann’s comments are not helpful. In his apparent eagerness to take advantage of the heatwave to promote his climate message, he’s gone too far. How can you scientifically state we “would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change?” on the basis of a claim that the probability of such events has doubled? A doubling of probability still leaves a substantial possibility that such events could occur naturally, without human help.

379 thoughts on “Michael Mann: “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

          • Which is fine until you claim to be a scientist and that you are making your statements based on science rather than activism. Then it’s called lying.

          • Facts and Science, you mean from the phony baloney, climate data scientists, that have been time and time again proven, to be fixing the numbers to support the fake money scheme (carbon credits)and they call climate change? ROFLMFAO!!!!

            Look here, I got a FACT for you. Al Gore the King money maker off fake climate change is sooooo worried about Climate change, he states time and time again that the ice is going to melt and we are going to lose our beaches and shores…. YET he and his wife, bought a nearly $9 MILLION home, guess where buddy, ON THE BEACH… Neither he or his wife, believe his own sh7t. They just keep raking in the money, oh yeah he owns carbon credit money, well what do ya know…

          • By “crusader”, I think you mean “activist”, which in another forum would be called propagandist.

          • What a good link, thank you.
            Its almost like we had natural climate change in 1934 – who knew!

          • If extremes really are unusual, then wouldn’t we have to see those new extremes for quite a few years before one would begin to say they actually represent climate change?

          • Not when they just grab a few extremes from anywhere on the planet in any given year. And when they ignore error bars and call temperatures that are higher by 0.01 degrees a new record.

          • Not when you invent the data, and have every lib media outlet, out there hawking your fake climate change cra.p.

          • Gosh, that would not have been the peak of the last AMO cycle, now would it? Oh wait…

            Here in MA, I have run my air conditioner a lot less than I did at this time last year. Weather is weather, climate is weather integrated over the globe and a reasonable amount of time.

          • Let’s say “…climate is weather integrated over a similar region and a reasonably long time.” “Global climate” is a nonsense term.

          • In 1976 the UK had a draught and their lawns dried out and they thought they were dead so many spent big money not realizing that once the rains started they would be back to normal.

          • And in June the year before Buxton was cut off by snow.

            Argghhhhh! extreme weather, we’re all gonna die!!!!!

          • I remember it well. By June 7 we were in full summer. Most people remember ‘76 but ‘75 was just about the same.

          • “In 1976 the UK had a draught and their lawns dried out and they thought they were dead so many spent big money not realizing that once the rains started they would be back to normal.”

            Happens to my lawn every year here in the Pacific Northwest (Western Washington). The myth that it rains all the time is pervasive. Seattle gets less annual rainfall than Dallas. And at my place up the Sound on Whidbey Island, we get about 10 inches less annually than Seattle. My lawn is green during Fall, Winter, and Spring, golden brown all Summer. Only the Dandelions grow like crazy.

          • 1952 thru 1954 Southeast US heatwave — I was but a child but I remember those abnormally hot days with some triple digit F temps where I lived in the Southern Appalachians, especially in June.

          • ThomasJK, same w/me in west MD in the mid-1960s summers. Burned out lawns, never a drop of rain, and triple-digit highs.

          • Southeastern OK had highs approaching 110F last week. One bank clock/thermometer surrounded by a sea of asphalt was showing 116 when I drove by. A true heat island.

            And yet the grass is still green. Plants around here are tough. They gotta be. The high humidity almost every day probably helps. What rain we get this time of year often does more harm than good. It comes in on a cold front thunderstorm and dumps too much water in too short a time. The clay-ey topsoil quickly saturates, leaving the rest of the rain to run off it like a tarp. The subsoil underneath stays bone dry. And all that runoff cuts gouges in the dirt and gravel of rural roads. It often takes less than a day for everything to dry up again.

          • ReallySkeptical
            “I’ll go with “crusader”…..”
            Lots of these types of neurotic alarmist computer climate “crusaders” around. But Mann isn’t one of them. He is a con man. One of the public instigators enjoying the fame and fortune and perception of power his lies provide.

          • ReallySkeptical I’ll go with “crusader”. and you?

            The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The most commonly known Crusades were the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Muslim rule. Wikipedia
            So being a “Crusader”, AGW is obviously a religion for you and you are on a religious crusade to educate/silence the heretics.

      • I’ll tell you what he’s not. He’s not a world famous activist pretending he’s still a credible scientist.

        Your question makes you look a lot like a troll. Is that what you are?

      • Has Mann … ‘shown his work yet’? Or is he still fighting against transparency? Sorry, THAT’S not science.

      • ” Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.” … WUWT. If I haven’t said this before, but supporters of AGW have the shortest memories. ReallySkeptical just jumped in here not reading any of the other articles here on WUWT.
        Fear-mongering at it’s best, “….. .. wildfires wreaking havoc around the globe are “the face of climate change”, …” He probably didn’t check the facts.
        Then as if that’s not enough, in the WUWT article on wildfires, a supporter of AGW tried to imply wildfires weren’t related to the mantra of ‘climate change’, as if AGW never said that.
        It’s summertime in the NH, heatwaves are totally expected, ‘ looks normal to me’. maybe even a little below normal.

      • Somebody not claiming to be a scientist whilst actually being a crusader?

        Do you not understand the point?

    • Seems to see himself as an infallible authority and a prize-winning movie-star, from my peep-hole as an unwashed citizen scientist. I don’t see where a good scientist has time to be an activist. He must rely on others to recognize and promote his recorded observations and subsequent conclusions to remain neutral enough to avoid accusations of biased research.
      Mann has made a career of activism and has presented his thinking as infallible (unless you’re willing to shell out for legal assistance).

      • You must have missed the articles about him being the victim, and a “reluctant” activist. He was innocently doing his job as a researcher, and then big oil gave Steve McIntyre money to shame him. So he just had to go-out and restore his good name.

        It’s so good, it’s pukeworthy!

      • All the IPCC fawning-without-merit went to his head. And then the unholy alliances with the likes of No DamnGood Tyson and Bill Snyde the Snience Guy….and you end up with a narrow minded toady who tops up his incredibility with appeals to his own misbegotten authority.

    • “He’s not a scientist anymore. He’s a crusader.”
      Lying POS is more like it.
      I am sick of playing nice with these liberal maniacs.
      They do not care how much damage they do, who they hurt, how much money their half-witted alarmist nonsense costs us all, or even how many die because of their fake “crusade” against an imaginary hobgoblin.
      I sincerely hope to see Mann and his ilk being perp-walked and prosecuted and jailed in the near future.

      • A couple of books to grab before they burn them …

        Dr. Tim Ball: ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’
        and Mark Steyn: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’.

    • I don’t think he ever was a true scientist. He has always struck me as one of those little dweebs who cottoned on to a scam opportunity and went with it. He may have formal qualifications but so did Dr Mengele and many other utterly beyond the pale monsters. The letters after his name or the title before it are not what is at issue rather his ethics, honesty and/or judgement are. With the ‘Hockeystick’ and ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ on his CV he has a lot to do to get back in ‘the black’ in that area.

      His latest utterances are just self promoting, grandstanding drivel imo and the snapshot of the 1934 headlines provided by cerescokid tells us that it is not even orginal drivel.

      • One of those little dweebs who cottoned on to a scam opportunity with the help of the ultimate climate scam, underwritten by the great Goracle.
        Since then Mann and his government funded cohorts have gained many disciples who pretend to be protectors of Gaea while milking the current paradigm of public ignorance in meteorology and historical weather extremes, and publishing speculations based upon the circular thinking that CO2 rules all in weather (and therefore, climate).
        To research anything to the contrary would have received zero support, even though it constitutes good science.

        • I think something got lost in translation there George, don’t you mean his Nobble The Truth Price?

    • When was Mann a scientist. I thought e-mail scandal revealed him as a propagandist and a thug.

    • I don’t think he has ever been a scientist, if being a scientist means pursuit of the truth.

      • All who do science are scientists, but not all scientists do science. 🙂

        Science is the pursuit of fact, not truth. Fact is a part of truth, maybe even the greater part, but any claim that it’s the whole of truth cannot be falsified, so that question falls outside the domain of science.

  1. I am quite surprised that any news media publishes anything anymore about Mr. Hockey Stick, if it’s not just to offer readers a good laugh.

    However, I may have made a huge mistake by associating “The Guardian” with news media.

    • I was told-off on a comment board recently (here?, I can’t recall) … that Mann is ‘old’ climate science … that climate science has moved on from Mann. Ha! That’s what happens when your Messiah fails to resurrect himself from legal ‘discovery’.

    • Gordon Dressler

      It was published in the Guardian!?

      That’s OK then because apart from no one taking the rag seriously (so they must sensationalise everything to hang on to their dwindling numbers of devotees) it’s going down the tubes, racking up big debts along the way.

      • Unfortunately, the Guardian and BBC are joined at the hip – so guess what newspaper front page got top billing on the BBC Breakfast show this morning…

        • Roy

          When the guardian descends into it’s own gullet of rhetoric, the BBC will have to find another unfortunate victim for it’s support.

          And I don’t think they’ll be lining up for it’s benevolence.

      • “Has Trump _ever_ told the truth?” Yup, a lot of times. For one when he said the US economy would be roaring along at MORE than twice what his predecessor, the community organizer, said was the new normal and most “economist” said was now impossible. No really, Really! It really is real. 4.1!!!!! But what do care?

          • Again and again rs displays inability to read and absorb facts.

            From the WSJ

            “So much for “secular stagnation.” You remember that notion, made fashionable by economist Larry Summers and picked up by the press corps to explain why the U.S. economy couldn’t rise above the 2.2% doldrums of the Obama years.”

            Making your statement regarding Obama GDP, the falsehood.

          • That number was revised down to 3.5 percent. The media forgot to mention that little bit of info. I guess it was a mistake and not just fake news. During the Obama years that seemed to happen every quarter. I have now noticed since Trump it seems the number is revised up most every quarter when no one is paying attention.

          • Following today’s extremely disappointing US GDP growth data, we have the final nail in the coffin of President Obama’s economic reign. Not only is the average annual growth rate of just 1.48% during Obama’s business cycle the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949, he has just become the only President to have not had even one year of 3% GDP growth.
            An average annual GDP growth of 1.48% during Obama’s two terms…


          • But, Latitude, Obama was achieving one of his goals.
            Doesn’t that make him “successful”?

          • Obama’s goals all seemed to be harmful to the U.S. economy. Obama really didn’t have a clue about the economy.

          • It has always been my belief that it takes about a year for economic policy decisions to work through the system. The exception to this being decisions to increase the cost of things by a specific date. Things like the mortgage tax allowance or import duty on goods; the classic case is the Lawson House Price boom in the UK.

          • Not in a USA that is moving at the speed of Trump. Your belief is one that I once held also. However it is based on the assumption that the POTUS in power wanted the economy to succeed. Obama did not.

            Nobody can point to policy changes or world economic factors that occurred during the Obama Administration that have led to the economic growth spurt we in the US are experiencing now. I can show you example after example of democrats claiming that Trump being elected would lead to economic disaster.

            Links to a couple of articles that help explain what is happening and why.


          • Trump is going to be adding even more to U.S. GDP with his trade deals by reducing U.S. trade deficits.

            The prospects are looking so good for the U.S. economy that Trump is starting to talk about paying down some U.S. debt!

          • While it is true that Real GDP growth
            averaged 1.5% during the O’Bummer
            eight years, that number includes six
            recession months, of a recession Obama
            inherited, and did not cause.

            If you start the count from June 2009,
            when the “Bush” recession ended,
            Obama had an average of 2.2% growth.

            For Trump’s first six quarters as president
            real GDP growth averaged 2.7%,
            better than Obama,
            but that’s not saying much.

            The focus on one unusual quarter — 2Q 21018,
            based only on the advance estimate
            (averages one percentage point higher
            or lower than the final revision,
            believe it or not) is not good economics.

            There is no indication the 4.1% rate should be
            extrapolated into the future, or used for
            any other conclusions.

            I wrote two articles about the subject
            in my economics blog, one before,
            and one after, the GDP announcement
            if you have any interest:



          • ReallySkeptical
            Umm, Obama has higher in 2010 or around there. Sorry.
            ok you just blew it….even liberals are not stupid enough to post something that easy to check out

            ..you’re a plant, and here to make liberals look like idiot morons

          • You would think he’s a plant, but I deal with these indoctrinated low IQ leftists on a daily basis. This guy is one of the normal ones.

            I had some woman telling me to #walkawayfromtrump and her reasons for being against supporting Trump were that I was just wrong. No argument, no links to sources to back up her anti trump stance. I have literally over a thousand of these morons blocked on Disqus. You cannot reason with them, and the few that would ever stop and debate you, would lie about their statements if you bothered to readthrough their links.

            They like to flood comment boards with trolls in order to make commenting a hostile experience so the average person gives up. This is Soros’s money at work.

          • JMac
            That’s true Real GDP less inventories
            is called Real Final Sales,
            and it grew at a 5.1% rate
            in 2Q 2018 … but also at a 2.0% rate
            in 1Q 2018 — average the two numbers
            for a better picture of economic growth.

            I’ve tracked Real Final Sales in my
            economics newsletter for decades,
            and here are recent numbers:

               7/28/18 data release
            2Q  2018 GDP 
            Real Final Sales  
            excludes volatile inventory changes
            ( 2Q first estimate )
            2Q 2018 was +5.1% 
            1Q 2018 was +2.0%
            4Q 2017 was +3.4%
            3Q 2017 was +2.4%
            2Q 2017 was +3.0%
            1Q 2017 was +2.7%
            4Q 2016 was +0.7%
            3Q 2016 was +2.6% 
            2Q 2016 was +2.9% 

          • Yeh, you right, DJT won’t ever be able to stop SLR….as Obama B(erry) S. already doonit then “around there”. 🙂

          • Third quarter GNP for 2014 was reported as 5%. It turns out the Obama administration was lying.

            Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge takes a closer look at the data, and recalls a prediction he made at the end of the first quarter:

            Back in June, when we were looking at the final Q1 GDP print, we discovered something very surprising: after the BEA had first reported that absent for Obamacare, Q1 GDP would have been negative in its first Q1 GDP report, subsequent GDP prints imploded as a result of what is now believed to be the polar vortex..”

            “In short, two-thirds of the “boost” to final Q3 personal consumption came from, drumroll, the same Obamacare which initially was supposed to boost Q1 GDP until the “polar vortex” crashed the number so badly, the BEA decided to pull it completely and leave this “growth dry powder” for another quarter. That quarter was Q3.

            We can only hope that exploding Obamacare costs don’t drive “personal consumption” any higher in future quarters, and also that this sort of statistical manipulation comes to an end when the endlessly corrupt Obama administration finally departs the scene.”

      • You stepped into that one. Trump told the truth when he said alleged human-caused global warming was a “con job” and a “myth” while campaigning for the Presidency.

        • Trump has said a lot of inaccurate things about climate change,
          such as blaming China.

          However, he has excellent instincts, and knows how often
          claims of a coming disaster , such as “climate change”, are false

          Human-caused warming is NOT a con job.

          Skeptics who claim it is hurt our cause.

          The real con job is that someone actually knows
          what percentage of warming is from humans
          and what percentage is natural.

          And that no one knows.

          .. but if you want to make a worst case estimate
          for CO2 warming — by blaming CO2
          for all the warming since 1940,
          and then extrapolating that number
          into the future,
          it would take 133 to 200 years for the average
          temperature to increase +1 degree C.
          — so even with a worst case estimate,
          CO2 is harmless !

          My climate change blog:

      • “You really want the big picture?” Bremmer asked before continuing. “This has been a good week for Trump. We get out of CNN Land for just a second, and 4-percent growth in the United States. The Europeans backed down on trade; he now looks like a winner on that front. The North Koreans? More progress with remains coming back.”


      • ReallySkeptical,
        Three sentences really say a lot about you. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument, that Trump lies a lot. Even if he changes what he says, one of the statements have to be the truth. That means, logically, that he also tells the truth a lot. So, the answer to your question is obviously that Trump HAS told the truth. But, the point of your rhetorical question was to make Trump look bad by suggesting that he can somehow navigate through life without ever telling the truth. Again, for the sake of argument, let’s continue with the assumption that Trump does lie a lot. That is a strawman argument because what is of importance is whether Mann is lying. Your argument doesn’t exonerate Mann. It simply suggests that (in your mind) his lying is acceptable because it isn’t as bad as Trump. Any lying is bad, and the subject of the article is Michael Mann, not Trump. So, you have failed to defend Mann while demonstrating that you suffering from TDS.

      • Trump claims he is the president – he actually is.
        Mann says he is a Noble price winner, which makes him a lyer…

      • He told the truth about Hillary acid washing an email server. Which was counted as false cause she used to chemical, but acid wash is computer lingo. Which apparently The Donald isn’t a computer expert knows, but “fact checkers”, who are “progressives” hence expert in all technologies and progress, don’t.

        • simple tourist
          Acid wash is check forger terminology
          adopted by computer geeks
          I suppose because it makes sense,
          and maybe because BleachBit is a brand name.

          It really disturbs me that the so-called
          “fact checkers” almost always have a liberal bias,
          because I try to be a fact checker too, and I often get
          different results !

          • When a fact checker says the exact opposite of the BleachBit Web page cited as SOURCE of the fact check, it isn’t bias, it’s FRAUD. In the open. Knowing that there is no punishment.

            When people cite fact checkers who practice blatant fraud, they are complicit, like those people who rely on a study showing “no link with autism” relying on the data provided by a felon. They are complicit of fraud, like Forbes, whose resident vaxxist believes doubting a study done with data from a fraudster is guilt by association.

            Anyone who has respect for Forbes and Alianz is an accomplice after the fact.

      • What is this a limbo contest. I have never heard anything from Mann that seemed to be true. The difference between man and Trump is that one of them is a reality show TV host and the other is a fake scientist.

        • And we expect different standards of behavior from scientists than from the general public.

      • July 27, 2018 4:19 pm
        Lets see President Trump Did away with the Iranian nuke deal, said bye bye to the Paris climate deal. Is working on the “Wall” and dealing with illegal squatters.
        As for Mann the only reason “Stormy” hasn’t gone after him is even she has standards.


        • You left out that he can claim ownership to a strong economy, and is the first president in over 50 years to be able to arrange to bring home the remains of fallen soldiers in Korea.

      • RS, there are cures for TDS..

        One of them is rational thought.

        Another is accepting reality.

        So… sorry.. but you are going to be stuck with that TDS for ever..

        Enjoy 🙂

      • Bryan A

        I believe Spain is unseasonally cool this summer. Does that mean the UK will get an influx of Spanish tourism seeking sun, sea and sand next year?

          • Chris

            Why not?

            It’s a nice summer. Enjoy it. Next year according to you it will be “crap”.

            Sorry, my bad……..according to your mates it’ll be crap.

            PS….have you any idea how credible the red top rag you quote is? Ah! sorry, of course not, you have spent 20 years in Singapore.

          • Of course it is. Once one Lamestream Lemming get a a hold of a story they all Parrott the potty

          • Chris

            “The hottest period occurred between June 23, 1976 and July 7, when for 15 consecutive days the temperature topped 32C (90F) every day at one or more stations in England.”

            “It was during this period that the UK’s all-time June temperature record was set, with a high of 35.6C recorded in Southampton on the June 28, 1976.”

            No records actually broken this summer then, so far of course.

            But we were in the grip of Global Cooling in 1976, so that might explain why it was so hot.

            And your source is a parochial evening paper, barely read by anyone other than in Aberdeen. And of course in the winter of 2009/2010 they has snow for almost 6 months. But that’s just weather, isn’t it.

            But you keep trawling the internet to maintain your vicarious life style.

          • Hotscot said: “But you keep trawling the internet to maintain your vicarious life style.”

            Hahaha – a 75 yo retiree who resides in London and basically lives on WUWT is lecturing me about traveling. Too funny.

          • Chris

            I said I was semi retired, by choice, thanks to my modest earlier financial successes in life. I’m far from 75 dear chap. Most of my work now is in the community, I wonder how you contribute at your age? If at all.

            I also note that each comment of mine is parried by yours, which makes you no less engaged in WUWT than me. Nor do I live in London.

            Your assumptions are typical of a climate alarmist.

            For all you know, I could be a 23 year old female with a science degree, great legs, a fine figure and a sizzling personality.

            But then that’s something you’ll never be able to establish.

            Oh! And of course, you could just be living under a bridge for all I know.

            Shall we stop trading insults now?

          • Hotscot, oh so you can dish it out but can’t take it. I see. You mentioned experiencing Mao’s impact on China first hand. Unless that’s a lie, that makes you a minimum of 65. I comment on some articles, but skip many. But for some odd reason I see your comments on every article I read. So I suspect the ratio between us is at least 10 – 1.

            The other thing I notice is you rarely if ever provide supporting links for your claims.

          • Chris

            Need to get you little socks off and recount, I’m not 65 either and still witnessed the result of Mao’s disaster. Try again. The fallout didn’t go out like a light switch as you doubtless imagine in your naive little head, it continued for years.

            It seems you’re stalking me. Creepy.

            I believe I provided two links for you, to Sir David McKay and Matt Ridley. I do so when they are meaningful. You scurry around littering your posts with links to red tops and parochial evening papers you have no knowledge of. Nor do you have opinions, other than those prescribed by others.

            Nor have you provided any links to empirical evidence that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. Interesting that little question goes continually unacknowledged by you yet judging by your habit of posting of worthless links, I’ve no doubt you’ve searched frantically for the killer blow, but just can’t find it. Funny that.

          • Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Northern England have missed some of the heatwave temperatures at times mainly effecting SE of England.

            June and July 2006 were warmer than this year in England using the CET. Yes it is natural variation because blocked summers like this don’t happen often, but they do happen.

            Blocked summers in 2018, 2006 and 1976 for example, all happened around low solar activity.

      • You have not got the memo yet….Arson is in a fast acceleration increase due
        to “climate change” :p

        Holley stick saga continues….


      • “He blames Arson induced fires in Greece on climate”

        I’m sure he’s blaming climate change for making the conditions drier, and making the fires worse. Don’t know if that flies.

  2. I didn’t realize FEWER Hurricanes, Tropical storms and Tornadoes translate to a more dangerous unstable climate…………

    He is so pathetic, how does he sleep at night?

    • Righteously, the means always justified for the greater good, and a million a year atleast, progressives love money,

    • For the last couple of years I’ve been comparing historic average highs against current-month average highs in my city (1.5-2 M metropolitan population). Last year I call the “year without an August” since the local August average high was about 5F below the historic average and more closely matched September’s high. So far, this year is looking like we are skipping July as well. My wife (an authority on temperature) says our neighborhood pool has never been this cool in late July. It can’t be one-sided but unfortunately, that’s what is being reported by the tunnel-vision climate scientists.
      You can check temperatures in your area using data from Weather.com. Just click on the “Monthly” tab and it gives day-by-day temperatures you can average and compare with the historical monthly average shown on the right margin.
      (If there’s an easier way to access the data, please let me know)

      • I don’t know if it’d be “easier” but try entering the address of your “Monthly” into TheWayBackMachine search. ( archive.org/web/web.php ). If someone had archived a “screenshot” of a past page, you might see some changes.

      • FYI, for lower-48 info go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/visualizations.html and click on National Temperature Index. Chose average, maximum or minimum in the “parameter” box. Set the time scale to “previous 12 months” then click on plot. From 2005 on, data include Climate Reference Network data. The Reference Network is a set of over 100 very-high-quality weather stations distributed uniformly among the lower-48 states in areas far from cities, airports, roads and other human influences. The data shown are supposedly un-adjusted. Its hard for me to see any trend whatever in the maximum, minimum or average charts. You can also plot Historic Climate Network data back to 1895 but this data has been “homogenized” and is therefore unreliable in my view. The web site climate4you.com has interesting charts on the effects of the homogenization process if you are interested. Essentially, historic climate network data prior to 1970 has been reduced and that after 1970 increased to give the impression of more temperature rise than otherwise.

      • The contiguous US temperature anomaly doesn’t look scary to me (see link). The “Scary Factor” is dialed in by climate scientists using the Way-Back machine to lower historic temperatures and the Homogenization Trick to dial in some UHI effect.
        Thanks DHR for the link to the NOAA data.


    • I thought all that heat was going deep into the ocean, and not coming out as hurricanes and tornadoes but vulcanism!

  3. So the Greek fires, in temperatures usual at this time of the year and apparently deliberately lit, are a direct result of climate change?

    Greeks should be advised to mann their lifeboats!

      • Potential cases of Self Immolation or just the Mannian Climate Cabal burning skeptics at the stake

    • Yes – get with the program. AGW/CACC is resulting in more mental illness – more suicides. Don’t you read the news? These CACC affected souls are setting fires in order to commit suicide. /s

      Like the ‘mann’ bit.

    • Is the temperature at the fires hotter than normal? Were the fires set by humans?
      Therefore, human caused climate change.
      Just like the fact that my living room is intentionally cooler that the outside temperature, ultimately powered by some less than perfectly clean power plant is environmentally dangerous climate change. Not really a lie; just an incomplete, selective truth.

    • Gary Kerkin

      ‘Wildfires’ in the UK were also believed to be deliberately started. I also read somewhere that ISIS consider starting wildfires as righteous terrorism. No idea if it’s true or not but no less plausible than Mann’s claims. (I suspect ISIS would claim responsibility if they did light the fires so I’m pretty certain it’s BS).

    • From what I’ve seen and read the fires were probably started by people either deliberately or accidentally. The deaths were a result of at least two things, very strong winds leading to a very fast moving fire which caught people out, and illegal building blocking escape routes to the sea. Abandoned cars meaning further to travel on foot compounded these two problems.

  4. Clearly, Penn State University’s Professor Michael Mann has no sense of humor, nor does he have a sense of irony.

    Speaking at the “Lecture on Academic and Intellectual Freedom,” Mann gave a speech preaching for the end of climate change debate at the University of Michigan, after Michigan’s President Mark Schlissel introduced guest speaker Michael Mann by saying that the University of Michigan will always be “an inalienable forum for discovery, debate, and discussion.”

    This 27th annual lecture honors three former U-M faculty members—Chandler Davis, Clement Markert and Mark Nickerson—who refused to testify in front of the infamous House UN-American Activities Committee in 1954.

    Honestly, Michael Mann sounded more like a member of the UN-American Activity Committee than an academic advocating “discovery, debate, and discussion.”

    • Stephen: “Clearly, Penn State University’s Professor Michael Mann has no sense . . .”

      You could have stopped right there.

  5. The smirk. The SMIRK!

    He doesn’t see this as a scientific question: to him it’s Michael Mann vs most of the rest and he thinks he has got the upper hand.

  6. Greece was arson. Nuff said about this idiot making all events whether proven human or not will say its human. It was only in low 30s celsius in Greece. About average for July. Arctic circle is slightly under average according to DM. Alarmists tell skeptics dont look at one area but these alarmists now use European Arctic circle which does not constitute most of Arctic Circle as AGW.

  7. This is philosophically rancid. Mann implies that extreme weather
    is being “caused by climate change”: he might as well equally have
    said that “extreme weather IS climate change”.

    For all that “global warming” was doubly incorrect, at least it was
    a term with substantive meaning. “Climate change”, on the other
    hand, is just noise.

          • Chris

            Here’s something simple enough for even you to understand.

            Assuming there are 15 climate influencers, water vapour CO2, methane, the sun, the oceans, pollution etc. the possible combinations between them is fifteen factorial. Which is fifteen times fourteen, times thirteen, times twelve etc. so 1,307,674, 368,000 possible interactions. I daren’t imagine what that is calculated over 22 different studies on 16 different extreme weather events.

            “42, the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. This Answer was first calculated by the supercomputer Deep Thought after seven and a half million years of thought. This shocking answer resulted in the construction of an even larger supercomputer, named Earth, which was tasked with determining what the question was in the first place.” – Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy.

          • You clearly didn’t read the studies. Sad. Here’s the depth of HotScot’s scientific ambition: “There are lots of things that can affect climate. Therefore, it’s just too hard to determine if AGW is a major factor in the heat waves that are occurring in XXX (substitute Australia in 2013, UK in 2018, etc). So let’s just shrug our shoulders and say we don’t know, and it’s just too darn difficult to figure out.

            Thankfully, most climate scientists don’t have this defeatist attitude.

          • Chris

            Mate, come on, please. You’re continuing to do a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. Discuss the subject rationally rather than hysterically and at least we can agree to disagree.

            From your example, how about instead of mitigating and pouring trillions of $’s into it, why not adapt as circumstances change?

            Much cheaper, at least as effective, and it’s what man has done for centuries before computer models came along.

            Climate change isn’t the problem, computer models are.

          • HotScot, I”m not hysterical in the slightest. That is exactly what you said. you stated that you take the number of variables, do a factorial on it, and then look at the resultant number. That is not true, of course, this is not looking at dice combinations. But your underlying point is that there are too many variables, so we should just shrug our shoulders and adjust.

            You stated that adaptation is less expensive than reducing CO2 emissions – what is your evidence for that?

          • Chris

            The evidence is that we wouldn’t have spent trillions of $’s/£’s on wind turbines, solar arrays and carbon credits to line the pockets of rent seekers with taxpayer subsidies. Many of them paid even when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Al Gore closed his carbon trading investment fund to new investors when it hit $5Bn, stimulated by his marketing drive to whip up a frenzy over AGW. Including his utterly discredited movie which can’t be shown to schoolchildren in the UK without 6 major inconsistencies being made plain to them first, by order of the High Court.

            But what is the real cost of renewables?

            Try this, a short video of the late Sir David McKay, keen environmentalist and mathematician https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables

            The second is a short article from a qualified Zoologist, businessman, farmer, coal mine owner and AGW lukewarmer http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/

            Quite apart from which there remains no empirical studies that demonstrate CO2 causes global warming, as I have said to you many times before.

            When you can’t prove the basis on which you found your crisis, then any money spent in mitigation is wasted.

          • Hotscot, that’s not evidence that adaptation costs are less than that for reducing CO2 emissions. All you did was say “renewables are expensive.” That’s not proof. If CO2 reduction costs $5T, and adaptation is $10T, then adaptation is more expensive.

          • Chris

            Of course not, despite two highly informed scientist’s supporting my contention.

            So lets look at it another way. 120,000,000 people in developing countries will die by 2050 (32 years away) from smoke inhalation, many of them children, according to the World Health Organisation.

            The smoke comes from the wood and animal dung they are forced to burn for energy because there’s no reliable electricity supply, because people like you support restrictions on them building coal fired power stations.

            Kindly quantify that in terms of economics. Or are they just collateral damage in Christine Figueres and Maurice Strong’s use of climate change to create a new world order?

            But I have pointed all this out to you before and you still keep running round in circles evading the central issues.

            You are tedious.

      • One of the great things about SkepticalScience is that folks like us can comment there without fear of censure. You know, like you do here at WUWT.

      • There was an article on SkS where they explained that the working electronic in a thermometer cannot heat up the whole thing and slightly introduce bias, because there is thermal isolation around the electronic.

        No one in their community asked where the heat was going.

    • But climate change means you can claim everything is proof. More heat, more cold. More storms, less storms. More toxic green activists, less… no; there will never be less toxic green activists.

    • semi related, I just had a hysterical email foul my inbox requesting I sign a petition regarding the dubious claim that “ ..disposable coffee cups aren’t recyclable (are) the second largest source of landfill in Australia..

      Honestly, numbers and meanings and words are just fluid concepts to all these Mann-like snake oil salesfolk (salesfool? Fool is gender neutral, yes?) seeking an emotional reaction from useful idiots to further their agendas – which is as always, lining their pockets.

      Today however I felt snarky, so in response to their petition to put bloody warning labels on coffee cups to alert people that they *may* end up in landfill, I decided to sign their damnable petition, adding the note below in the vague hope it may inspire a coherent thought (one is enough of an ask for now)

      If nothing else it cheered me. I writ upon the ether:

      YES! We also need to put warning labels on apple peelers, banana slicers, milk cartons, balloons, anything at all made of mylar, mobile phones, mobile phone cases, plastic gloves, buttons, toothpaste tubes, computer cases, CD disks, Blue Ray disks, clown hats, thongs, underwear, ballpoint pens, AA batteries, dog costumes, bullet casings, USB cables, telephone directories, modems, car tyres, exhaust fans, sharpie markers, lever arch files, curtains, Harry Potter books, trombones, x-ray films, mittens, velvet wall art, doorknobs, cheesburger wrappers, housebricks, VHS cassette tapes, bicycle helmets, NAS enclosures, scanners, camera lens cases, gnome mages, thumb drives, cotton thread spindles, PU leather shoes, sporks, band aids, shrink wrap, keyboard illumination stickers, high attenuating wave guides, those elephant foot umbrella stands you see in old people’s houses, light sabers, skeleton costumes, tea bags, clown masks, lawnmower wheels, fuzzy dice, chopsticks, seed planters, aquarium glow tubes, thermostatic switches, besseler enlargers, traffic cones, elbow pads and those little tiny trapeze you see in flea circuses. I feel really strongly about this and urge people to go with their FEELINGS!! there’s no time to act, we must just do it, like the Nike add says. Add me to ALL the petitions, as long as they’re emotion driven and I don’t need to think, I’ll sign anything ! have a great day and try to avoid learning anything about C3 photosynthesis because you might hurt your brainicle.. hugs ♫

      .. as I said, mildly OT but I needed to share my snark

      • Come on now, let’s leave skeleton costumes out of this, that is just going to far. Otherwise yes your list is accurate.

      • As a person with arthritis in my hands, you will have to rip my spork from my cold dead hands first. I fully agree about the velvet wall art though.

  8. “How can you scientifically state we “would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change?” on the basis of a claim that the probability of such events has doubled?”

    You should not say stupid things. Like above.

    • Stupid things are easily identifiable, like when someone thinks weather is always in the normal range. Weather is the average of extremes always has been and always will be. That is why hucksters like Mann can so easily exploit it and fool gullible people like Reallysimple.

    • “You should not say stupid things. Like above.”

      We just went though almost 2 decades of no temp change….how did CO2 make extreme weather without changing the temp?

    • RS
      If the probability of you getting struck by lighting today suddenly doubled, would you stay inside all day to avoid that calamity?

      If your chance of winning the lottery this week doubled, would you run out and buy a BMW with the anticipated proceeds?

      Get the point?
      Until the magnitude of the probability is clearly established, the impact of doubling it is unknowable.

      Add to that the fact that many of the IPCC’s “probabilities” START with subjective estimates (likely, highly likely, etc.) and THEN are given a “numerical” value in accordance with a lookup table, you see why statements such as Dr Mann’s have no rational meaning.

    • RS, perhaps you can tell us exactly when there has ever been an absence of climate change?

    • Yes, there is nothing happening today that is any more extreme than weather in the past.

      The fact is the 21st Century is mild compared to the 1930’s. In the summer of 1936, Tulsa Oklahoma had 65 days of 100F or above. The average is nine 100F days, and Tulsa had two 100F days this year so far. It’s obvious which decade had the extreme weather and it’s not the current decade.

      There’s nothing going on now that we haven’t seen in the past. Mann is making claims he can’t back up. As per usual.

    • “They pretend the 1930s didn’t happen.”

      Not true. What they say is that heat waves can have both natural and man made contributions to their causes.

  9. Wow, who would have ever thought that the United States would experience heat waves in July? Or flooding? Surely it has never been this bad before! What? Great-grandpa says it was a lot worse than this in the 1930s? Naaahh.

  10. Note — He’s ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, Dr. Mann is.

    We wouldn’t have seen THESE extremes. We would have seen OTHER extremes. Sometimes MORE extremes, sometimes FEWER extremes. Sometimes hotter-here, colder-there extremes. Sometimes greater flooding, or longer period of drought, or shorter flooding, but more water, and so on. More or fewer hurricanes. Fewer or more tornadoes. Longer all-sun days, quicker onset of winter, longer delay to onset of summer.

    And WTF cares.

    Its weather. There’ll be extremes EVERY year, no matter what. If even one dâhmned forecast was both quantitative, prescient AND long-term … and correct, I’d give weathermen more respect. As it is, they barely can predict the evolution of warm fronts, cold fronts and catabatic winds.


    • I think your being a bit to rough on weathermen (and women).
      They’re doing the best can. They’ve never claimed the forecast is “settled”.
      (Except for maybe “The Storm Channel” crew. They never look back except to rerun old storms if a new one isn’t happening.)

      • You’re also ABSOLUTELY right.
        I should have said “climatologists”.

        My apologies to all those under appreciated weather people out there who daily scan their NOAA infrared imagery, who read-up on whatever-it-is is predicted for their zone, and reinterpret it with their own knowledge of terrain, history, almanac and pragma … for the next few days outlook.

        I meant no harm.
        Just used the wrong collective-descriptive noun.


      • Not really. They all rely way too much on models. They’ll give you a ten day forecast with a straight face.

    • The only way these extremes are not the normal extremes is if human caused climate change is a certainty, which it is not. “Certainty”, of course, being the key word here.

      Also, the possible contribution to a changing climate by humans may be, as SunsetTommy mentioned above “FEWER Hurricanes, Tropical storms and Tornadoes”, items clearly and conveniently ignored by M. Mann.

  11. I believe Joe Bastardi would approve of my observation of the good, but pitiable Dr Mann as the ultimate ‘climate ambulance chaser’ who is grasping for straws as his homeland sees near record lows in tornado activity and the AMO turns cold preventing African dust from contributing to the ACE.
    What weather extremes is he babbling about that folks much older than he haven’t already experienced?

    • I like it – a “climate ambulance” driven by Al Gore remarking “the earth has a feeever!”

      Of course, the ambulance would be knocking over trees and bushes and in general damaging the environment as it runs over a Bald Eagle (or, insert your favorite endangered creature. Polar Bears need not apply).

      Motto of ambulance company: “We’ll save you from yourself.”

      Name of ambulance company: Hmm… I can’t read it, maybe someone else can?


  12. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    Anyways it does not matter what he may or may not say ,the cooling climate will take care of that.

    Overall oceanic sea surface temperatures in a nice down trend in response to very low solar activity and where they go the global temperatures will go.

    The other shoe to drop will be a slight increase in albedo again in response to very low solar activity.


    2018 – transitional year, global warming ends

    2020 – AGW starts to be moved to the sidelines as global temperatures fail to rise.

    2022- All of the warming from the end of the Little Ice Age to year 2017 is gone.

    2023 – AGW theory is considered obsolete by just about everyone other then the few fanatics.

    • the Russians will be accused of hacking the climate model computers, and colluding with … against their theory AGW

    • Try reading about N-Rays.


      It says in part, “Wood surreptitiously removed an essential prism from the experimental apparatus, yet the experimenters still said that they observed N rays”. This is very similar to the climate change fraud, where the warmists claim that they can see proof in natural variation. Articles about N-Rays steadily declined until only Blondlot believed in them. After his death, the subject was dropped. We can expect something very similar to happen with global warming, although I expect a few changes of name to conceal past failures.

      • Sounds like the “rods” people. Video of insects flying through the field of view look kind of strange, due to frame rate and other video anomalies, and people claim these are aliens or alien forces invading the earth. Doesn’t matter than someone can prove them wrong.

  13. “We literally would not have seen these exagerations in the absence of climate change funding.”

  14. A doubling of probability also means that many events will have a probability greater than unity.
    Not a problem in Climastrology, of course.

    • Speaking of a relative increase of a probability makes sense for very low probabilities ONLY.

      • simple-touriste, when I first read your comment I thought there was a 50-50 chance I was missing something. But then, after I reflected further, I’m 99% sure I’m missing the point.

  15. One supposes if you use a completely unscientific term like “extreme” you can claim virtually anything. It’s not science, it’s completely dishonest, but as long as words have no defined meaning, you can do it.

    • He needs to watch “The Storm Channel” more often to learn expand his scientific terminology.
      He’d learn to use words such as “Historic”, “Unprecedented”, etc.

  16. “We are seeing our predictions come true,” he said.

    He never predicted anything. Predictions are made by validated models. There are no validated climate models. He may have made some projections, like the IPCC, but I don’t recall any.

    What, specifically, has M Mann projected? And upon what was it/they based? His own models?

    In a world with flat temperatures, reducing forest burning area, increasing biomass growth, decreasing tornado frequency and power, reducing hurricane energy and numbers, it is strange, to say the least, to hear someone trumpeting higher temperatures, more forest fires, desertification, more tornadoes and hurricanes of increasing power. At what level of cognitive dissonance does an alarmist start to rethink such statements?

    Now that the heat wave is ending in the UK, I see the wind is picking up again. Soon it will be cool and windy enough to power the air conditioners.

    • “Now that the heat wave is ending in the UK, I see the wind is picking up again. Soon it will be cool and windy enough to power the air conditioners.”

      Brilliant…Bravo to you!

      • Warmest summer since 1976 apparently, so that means every summer in between has been cooler! Stand by for reports of the hottest year ‘evah’ in a few months time. All of this after the coldest spring in living memory 😂

          • The BBC link is wrong because May was the second equal warmest since 1910.

            May also doesn’t have that much variance compared with other months.

            Spring was of course not the coldest overall, but it did have the coldest severe period in living memory for March. Some places recorded their first ever ice day in March, meaning the day temperature never went above freezing point.

            “March began with an exceptionally cold easterly flow and widespread snow, and daytime temperatures remained below freezing in many parts of the country.”

  17. …“We are seeing our predictions come true,” he said. “As a scientist that is reassuring, but as a citizen of planet Earth, it is very distressing to see that as it means we have not taken the necessary action.”…

    Priceless. So exactly what “necessary action” would have made things “normal?”

    • Does anyone know what predictions Mann is referring to? His hockey stick showed rising temperatures, not an increase in extreme weather. It seems to me that they did not talk about extreme weather being part of climate change until after the hiatus began and temperatures stopped increasing. Then they needed another reason to forecast gloom and doom to keep the research grants coming in.

      • Interesting, normally climate science says they don’t make “predictions”, but projections.

  18. The assertion is that “climate change” is bad and abnormal, ergo climate is normally static. Obviously climate has never been, and never will be, static. Most people are smart enough to grasp that intuitively, thank God.

  19. Here in the UK today’s high ( on Furnace Friday) was 35.1 C ( 95 F) per the Met Office website. Those promoting AGW climate change must be so disappointed.
    My forecast for the next UK summer in 2019 is grey cloudy skies, warm rain and intermittent spells of sunshine.
    And being the UK we missed the lunar eclipse due to cloud.

    • I’m looking at cloud cover here in Virginia, too.
      Sad, as yesterday’s moon was spectacular in preamble and Mars has been bright and red and beautiful for weeks.

  20. “Extreme weather has struck across Europe, from the Arctic Circle to Greece, and across the world, from North America to Japan. “This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

    The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”

    First decent summer in Europe for ages, especially UK and this nonsense is delivered.

    We haven’t seen blocking patterns in summer before in the NH?
    Climate change apparently causes blocking patterns and without it, the usual zonal jet stream would had occurred?

    These blocking patterns occurring especially in the Northern Hemisphere always had occurred at times in past history and given extreme weather around the world. So numerous that every decade can be included since recorded instrumental data began. The oldest data in the world being the CET, highlights these extremes throughout from the 17th century.

    Blocks in meteorology are large-scale patterns in the atmospheric pressure field that are nearly stationary, effectively “blocking” or redirecting migratory cyclones. They are also known as blocking highs or blocking anticyclones.[1] These blocks can remain in place for several days or even weeks, causing the areas affected by them to have the same kind of weather for an extended period of time (e.g. precipitation for some areas, clear skies for others).[2] In the Northern Hemisphere, extended blocking occurs most frequently in the spring over the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.[1]

    Polar cyclones are climatological features which hover near the poles year-round. They are weaker during summer and strongest during winter. When the polar vortex is strong, the Westerlies increase in strength. When the polar cyclone is weak, the general flow pattern across mid-latitudes buckles and significant cold outbreaks occur. Extratropical cyclones which occlude and migrate into higher latitudes create cold-core lows within the polar vortex.[3] Volcanic eruptions in the tropics lead to a stronger polar vortex during the winter for as long as two years afterwards.[4] The strength and position of the cyclone shapes the flow pattern across the hemisphere of its influence. An index which is used in the northern hemisphere to gage its magnitude is the Arctic oscillation.[5]

    Omega blocks are so-named because the height fields with which they are associated in the Northern Hemisphere resemble an Ω, the uppercase Greek letter omega. They typically have a low-high-low pattern, arranged in the west–east direction.[2]

    An example of a rex block off the West coast of North America in January 2007
    Rex blocks (or dipole blocks) consist of a high situated poleward (north in the Northern Hemisphere; south in the Southern Hemisphere) of a low. Very often both the high and the low are closed, meaning that the isobars (or constant geopotential height lines) defining the high–low close to form a circle.[6] Rex blocks are named after the meteorologist who first identified them.[7]


    Won’t hurt being wrong one more time when wrong so often before.

    There is zero indication that humans have had any affect on blocks in the NH or SH and without this evidence, impossible to claim any extreme weather has been caused by any human climate change whatsoever.

  21. So the “change” in the average of the “whole” of global weather, as created in the collective mind of humans, is now creating extremes in local weather…. WOW! So does that mean if WE just stop averaging the weather the “extremes” will stop? Or do we just stop/ignore the “change”?? Oh, and is that “change” + or -?? Oh #2, can someone please define what constitutes “change”?

  22. ““We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

    Mannical’s use of “literal” means strictly fiction.

    Manniacal is just trying to boost his alarmist profile so, he can become a beauty queen judge. With a lot of help, he might even be able to judge eco-looney gibberish.

  23. I seem to remember a few years ago these very same experts stating you cannot use one bad winter as justification to rubbish global warming…. Surely the inverse applies when we get a hot summer?

    • It’s not even a whole summer. The “heatwave” lasts a week or two and then it moves on and milder temperatures follow.

  24. Rainfall presents natural variability. Temperature extremes follow the rainfall extremes of the natural variability.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  25. I’m just waiting for Mann to release a version of the Billy Joel song – We DID Start the Fire

    • Of course they did. There have been a number of post recently that have to do with the psychological effects of “Climate Change”.
      (Though I’ve never a study that linked it to “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, there does seem to be a connection. 8- )

      • I found the link: people are getting crazy from too much heat. They know about Science, and Science says that too little dust in the air makes the sun worse.

        So, they lit stuff up to have more dust in the air.

    • Increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere causes more arsonists.

  26. What a huckster. What a dork. (Not) sorry to call names – Mann is a con man. Is there anything that Gullible Warming can’t do? Is there anything that would falsify the “theory” that Mankind is causing catastrophic climate change?

    No. No, there is literally nothing, no way to disprove the assertions. Not even the truth is enough!

  27. Just as with the hockey stick, it seems Mann is not really influenced by the data, but rather is selling a pre-ordained conclusion.

  28. Weather isn’t climate … if you’re a ‘denier’. However, every warm day is PROOF of of climate change. The American people aren’t that ignorant, even if they lack the ‘scientific’ training to balance a molecular equation.

  29. Mann (and a few of his pals) are becoming delusional. Some part of them knows that the planet is not warming as they predicted. As a result they are jumping on anything to maintain their belief system. They are literally in denial.

    Their extreme weather just isn’t happening. Sure, you get a year like 2011 with more tornadoes and a year like 2017 with extra hurricanes and now a year like 2018 with extra heat waves. But overall when these are averaged with other years the numbers simply are not going up. It’s nothing but the same basic weather we’ve been seeing for many decades.

    I predict a few of these pseudo-scientists are going to have serious mental breakdowns. It is inevitable.

  30. The old farmers I knew called this stretch of weather the Dog Days of Summer.
    But unsurprisingly the Canis Major of Climate Science finds the heat to be extreme.

  31. Let us try to imagine what sort of evidence would be sufficient for Dr. M. E Mann to admit and publicly announce that we was wrong and the CAGW theory has been falsified. (thinking… thinking… OK I’ve got nothing.)

  32. https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analyses/attribution-of-the-2018-heat-in-northern-europe/

    Michael Mann was referring to the above study for the purposes of this article.

    “This method assumes that global warming is the main factor affecting local temperatures since about 1900, and that virtually all global warming is attributable to anthropogenic factors. ”

    That one sentence alone invalidates the whole study as it makes the study subject to circular reasoning.
    Therefore since Mann was referring to the study; Mann was referring to garbage.

    • https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analyses/attribution-of-the-2018-heat-in-northern-europe/

      In the same study we find this nugget.

      “We can then assess the probability of occurrence of the observed event in the present climate, p1, and past climate, p0. These probabilities are communicated as return periods of the event in the present and past: 1/p1 and 1/p0 respectively. The risk ratio is evaluated as the ratio of p1 to p0. If the 95% confidence interval for risk ratio does not encompass unity, we say that the risk ratio is significantly larger (or smaller) than one and there is a detectable positive (or negative) trend in the observational data. ”

      As usual climate scientists don’t understand the meaning of the p value in statistics. However they are not alone. The biological,medical, and many other sciences all screw up the true meaning of the p value. It is a hard concept in statistics to understand.

      The best explanation is probably

      Imagine, that you have a temperature change that you suspect is caused by CO2. (Your null hypothesis is then that CO2 is not the cause. You take 100 temperature readings over a period of 100 months and you get higher readings(than your previous average) more times than lower readings. The p-value won’t tell you whether CO2 causes warming or not, but it will tell you the probability that you’d get at least as many higher temperature days if CO2 did not cause the warming. That’s it — nothing more.

  33. “we would not have seen these extremes…” Absolutely true as stated. We would have seen other extremes, not these. The other extremes would certainly have been higher or lower but, since they are extremes, they would not have been the same. We may also see these other extremes in the future – in fact I predict we will – that is why we call it climate change. It has probably been around since long before man moved out of the caves.

  34. Not related to Mann, but I am currently watching “C dans l’air” aka “CDA” on France 5 channel: “Canicule : faut-il s’y habituer?” = Do we need to get used to extreme heat?


    “CDA” is usually full on propaganda.

    [France 5 is part of France Televisions, one of the groups of state controlled TV channels: France 2, France 3, France 4, France 5, France O (for Outre-mer). State controlled info channel “France TV Info” is another, independent set of TV/radio channels. State controlled Arte is another, independent set of French-German channels. State controlled info channel “France 24” is another, independent set of worldwide info channels available multiple languages. “TV5 Monde” is another worldwide state controlled channel, known mostly for the “Cyber Caliphate” hack.]

    One invited “expert” just explained how ozone is created from the transformation of primary pollutants by UV. He said that more heated causes more sun light and more UV. At first I thought he misspoke and meant there is more heat in summer when there is more UV. But the host doubled down on the UV thing and he confirmed that more heat causes more UV so warming causes UV. He really plainly said it. Twice. It’s clear. He didn’t tried to say something else. I heard it.

    • Possibly he doesn’t mean to say heat creates UV, just that warm weather brings on a period of greater UV exposure due to less clouds present during atmospheric conditions accompanying a “heat wave”.

      However, anyone who chooses words so clumsily should never have been called on to speak on television. Probably chosen because anyone conscientious about being careful NOT to mislead would never appear on their program.


      • Yeah, the benefit of the doubt…

        Except it was not a single statement by one person. If was discussed for about 2 min by different persons and they insisted that global warming was contributing factor of ozone production.

      • We have a true scientist here:


        Directrice de Recherche à l’IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement)

        Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement & Laboratoire HydroSciences Montpellier

        – Prix collectif La Recherche, mention prix du ministère, 2006

        – Grand Prix Etienne Roth, Académie des Sciences, 2002 (avec Valérie Masson-Delmotte)

        – Prix André Prud’homme, Société Météorologique de France/Météo France, 2001

        She got many prizes. She must be very bright.


        @ 17:23
        “La Chine l’Inde et le Brésil ce sont des pays vraiment émergents. Ce sont les premiers products de gaz à effet de serre, mais ils ont une conscience de ça.”
        China, India, Brasil are emergent countries. They produce most glasshouse gases, but they understand that.

        @ 17:55
        – On nous dit à cause des pic de chaleur, il y a des pollutions à l’ozone.
        – L’ozone est un polluant secondaire… Et donc plus il fait chaud et plus l’ensoleillement est important, et donc plus cette réaction [de production d’ozone] est active.
        Avec le réchauffement climatique on a un problème de pollution.
        – We are told, we have record heat, there is ozone pollution.
        – Ozone is a secondary pollutant. … So the warmer is it and the sunnier it is, the most the [ozone producing] reaction happens.
        Global warming also causes the pollution problem.

  35. If Michael Mann is not the stupidest (and undeservedly arrogant) man in the world he is definitely in the running. It is so apparent that he has not read any history and his head is swollen into government grants – one simple example there – was an Arctic melt in 1817 – please investigate, explain and comment professor. If I have it wrong please let me know.

  36. He should stick to his specialty of misinterpreting tree rings and fraudulently manipulating data. He’s out of his element.

  37. Have we “literally” not seen these conditions before, or have we “virtually” not seen these conditions before? We tend to reside in a more virtual world than a literal one, lately.

  38. Dr Mann knows that the Global Warming Myth, which he helped create, is beginning to turn on him, as rightfully it should. Its a terrible lie, and if he doesn’t change the language right now, he will be forever labeled for this lie. So, he is making this move by stating the obvious right here:

    “Extreme weather has struck across Europe, from the Arctic Circle to Greece, and across the world, from North America to Japan. “This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

    Well, “No Schist Sherlock”. When this becomes obvious to everyone, the world over, he will be quick to tell everyone that he was right all along, and that what he really meant had been misconstrued. Mark my words, this is what he is going to use to rehabilitate his name and reputation, by being able to say that “Up is Down, Right is Wrong”, and “Global Warming is really Global Cooling”

    You wait and see, if I’m not correct here. Mark my words.

  39. Its not just Mann.
    Its virtually every “Climate Scientist” out there, aided and abetted by the biased MSM propaganda machine.

  40. But the IPCC told us that 2 degrees was the tipping point. And they are working on their next report, so it’s worse than they thought?

  41. It is unfortunately easy to compare guerrilla Jihadists trying to destroy Western society from within by for example arson and the Climate Change activists.

  42. To be fair those with ‘thin skin ‘ do have real issues with the heat , and Mann has proved himself time and again to have very thin skin , which is made worse its need to stretch over a planet sized ego .
    Frankly the only surprise is that it has taken this long for him to ‘join this party ‘

  43. Sounds a lot like the Obama administration – they couldn’t scare people enough so they ended the last 4 years with “Climate change is real and it’s happening now”. I have a few photos that prove something about climate change, too, but it’s certainly not the kind of extremes that they claim are happening. Matter of fact, the pics prove things are pretty consistent year after year.

  44. Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most deranged climate “scientists”. Fixed it.

  45. the media in the UK are reporting it’s hotter than ever before / records broken / ancient villages uncovered / hose pipe bans /blah blah – I quite like pointing out this summer isn’t as hot as ’76

  46. The Guardian isn’t any longer the paper it used to be. Back in the fifties of the last century it was a trustworthy news organisation which kept news and comment separate.

    All that was changing, but the rot progressed rapidly after the arrival of Rushbridger as editor. He drove it in the direction of activism (at the same time as nearly bankrupting it by his idiotic financial management).

    Its become an activist organisation where opinion has contaminated reporting to the extent that its reporting can no longer be trusted. And where it simply refuses to report things which are inconvenient, like the Rochdale grooming and child abuse scandals.

    The activism is efforts to actually get policies adopted in the world. Its incompatible with being an objective news organisation. The Guardian for instance wanted to see Kerry elected and not Bush. So it organised its readers to write to people in Clark County in the effort to influence the election the way it wanted. It actively helped Snowden make travel arrrangments in his flight to Russia. It mounted a campaign for the world to leave fossil fuels in the ground, cease extraction, and it also mounted a campaign for the sale of shares and disinvestment from fossil fuel companies.

    In terms of reporting, its handed over its environment pages to Skeptical Science and the egregrious Nuccitelli. None of its climate reporting can be trusted. Its promoting an extreme fringe feminist, LGBT agenda every chance it gets. Indeed, none of its reporting on security can be trusted. What can it be trusted on, is the question.

    Very little. Too little to be worth the effort to find out.

    C P Scott will be turning in his grave. Very sad.

    • It seems to be a common thread with newspapers and magazines to see their purpose to be to promote their particular political ideology instead of just giving their readership the facts. This happens all the time on controversial topics such as AGW, gun control, race relations, and political protests. One might say that the ‘educated’ journalists are responsible for the heightened contentiousness in society through their propagandist efforts.

      • Back in school, I expect many of them weren’t athletic enough to be Jocks, popular enough to be Groupies, smart enough to be Nerds, nor weird enough to be Arties. By one avenue or another they all drifted to the school newspaper, where they spent their time writing about and taking pictures of all the students who were more interesting than them. Ditto in college where they naturally settled for journalism majors. Mix in some activist faculty bending their ears, and some latent resentment of their past peers, and it’s understandable why many would become willing propagandists.

    “Going into particulars Mr Bussell
    said that as far back as 1738 the record
    shows a great drought, which lasted until
    1762, a period of 26 years.

    Kapunda Herald and Northern Intelligencer (SA : 1864 – 1878) Friday 21 October 1870

    The Drought in England.
    Evening News (Sydney, NSW : 1869 – 1931) Monday 4 July 1887

    The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933) Thursday 14 May 1891

    Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 – 1954) Friday 18 August 1893

    Darling Downs Gazette (Qld. : 1881 – 1922) Saturday 14 September 1895

    The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 – 1954) Thursday 23 July 1896

    Daily Telegraph (Launceston, Tas. : 1883 – 1928) Wednesday 23 May 1900 p

    The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW : 1883 – 1930) Saturday 5 October 1901

    Drought In England.
    The Richmond River Express and Tweed Advertiser (NSW : 1903 – 1904) Tuesday 27 September 1904

    A “Drought” In England.
    Gympie Times and Mary River Mining Gazette (Qld. : 1868 – 1919) Saturday 10 February 1906

    Sunday Times (Sydney, NSW : 1895 – 1930) Sunday 3 November 1907

    The Riverine Herald (Echuca, Vic. : Moama, NSW : 1869 – 1954; 1998 – 1999) Wednesday 16 August 1911

    The Sydney Stock and Station Journal (NSW : 1896 – 1924) Friday 14 June 1912

    Border Watch (Mount Gambier, SA : 1861 – 1954) Saturday 23 August 1913

    Observer (Adelaide, SA : 1905 – 1931) Saturday 24 October 1914

    The Border Morning Mail and Riverina Times (Albury, NSW : 1903 – 1920) Tuesday 29 June 1915

    Maryborough Chronicle, Wide Bay and Burnett Advertiser (Qld. : 1860 – 1947) Tuesday 24 June 1919

    Queensland Times (Ipswich, Qld. : 1909 – 1954) Friday 27 May 1921

    The shortage of rain during the past six
    months is causing concern in certain parts
    of England and Wales.

    A Drought in England.
    The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933) Monday 28 March 1932 p 8

    Singleton Argus (NSW : 1880 – 1954) Wednesday 13 September 1933

    Queensland Times (Ipswich, Qld. : 1909 – 1954) Thursday 2 August 1934

    The South Eastern Times (Millicent, SA : 1906 – 1954) Friday 3 June 1938

    Daily Mercury (Mackay, Qld. : 1906 – 1954) Saturday 27 September 1947

    Drought In England
    The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1931 – 1954) Wednesday 29 June 1949

  48. He gave up on his science training years ago when he become gripped by greed.
    He saw the millions that could be made from relentless propaganda.
    He become a high priest of lies wrapped in fake morality.
    A rank and disgraceful opportunist.

  49. I know its not “adult” of me
    but every time i see his smug mug , I feel the urge to slap it!
    and spouting crud like this claim enhances the effect

  50. This is all over the UK media:


    “World Weather Attribution network researchers compared the currently high temperatures with historical records at seven weather stations in northern Europe”

    “The research is still in its formative stage, as a full-scale study will take many months to complete. As a preliminary study, it will still need to be ratified and validated with further modelling using high-powered computers”

    But don’t let that get in the way of a good scare story!

  51. A classic example of pseudoscience. He’s now resorting to the unproveable. Perhaps he also supports the idea that when on a train you can prevent wild animals from attacking the train by tearing up bits of paper and throwing them out of the window. It works every time.

    • I don’t think that he is truly an idiot. I would say that he is gullible, and capable of fooling himself. He lacks the essential characteristics of a scientist, namely being skeptical, and demanding strong proof. He is not the classical objective, disinterested observer. He is quick to support anything that appears to be in line with his personal strong bias. and he is willing to use sophistry to promote his personal view of reality, and to sue those who dare point out his mistakes. That is not the behavior of a scientist, in my view. It is the behavior of a desperate ideologue.

  52. “Scientists say the global warming has contributed to the scorching temperatures that have baked the UK and northern Europe for weeks.”

    For Central England, June 2018 was the same as June 1804 but cooler than June 1818 in the Dalton Minimum, cooler than June 1896 in the Gleissberg Minimum, and much cooler than June 1676 in the Maunder Minimum. How interesting, increased early summer high pressure blocking over England, close to sunspot cycle maxima during centennial solar minima.

    ‘We literally would not have seen climate change in the absence of these extremes’

  53. Hey, Mike is looking like he lost some of his excess pounds!
    Now if he,m would only pick up some integrity, sense of balance, and a conscience.

  54. According to Mike:
    The extreme heatwaves and wildfires wreaking havoc around the globe are “the face of climate change”, one of the world’s leading climate scientists has declared, with the impacts of global warming now “playing out in real time”.

    Based on highly credible historical records, there is nothing unusual happening in Earth’s weather and climate at this time. There is certainly no dangerous man-made global warming, Earth may even be heading into a moderate cooling phase.

    Mike – the actual “extreme” happening now in climatology is your “extreme bullsh!t”. Stop running around telling lies to gullible imbeciles and scaring children with your alarmist falsehoods.

    The population of planet Earth has suffered greatly due to extremist bullsh!t – in the 20th Century over 200 million people were killed due to extreme leftist bullsh!t. That just includes the victims of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, not counting all the lesser murderers across Latin America, Africa and SE Asia.

    In the 21st Century, the great killers have been the phony greens with their false climate crises and their destructive green energy technologies.

    My expertise is energy. Mike, you probably think that green energy is environmental and sustainable. Almost NO green energy technologies are even remotely economic, let alone sustainable – they are typically anti-environmental and provide little useful (dispatchable) energy. Intermittent grid-connected (wind and solar) power generation destabilizes the grid and drives up energy costs, increasing Winter Deaths that especially target the elderly and the poor. Typically, the environmental downsides of these intermittent technologies greatly exceed their benefits.

    Biofuels are another environmental disaster. Corn ethanol is also a poor and destructive idea, as are most food-to-fuel schemes, which have contributed to excessive drawdown of the Ogalalla Aquifer in the USA and widespread rain-forest clear-cutting in the tropics. In Brazil the rainforest has been clear-cut to grow sugar cane for fuel ethanol, and in SE Asia the rainforest has been clear-cut to grow palm oil. This clear-cutting cannot be undone and is a global-scale tragedy.

    Earth is significantly colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. Expert meteorologist Joe d’Aleo and I wrote this conclusion in our 2015 paper, referenced below. Twenty times more people die from cold than die from heat – about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths every year worldwide – an average of about one hundred thousand in the USA, equivalent to two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year! In Canada, Excess Winter mortality totals about 5000 to 10,000 per year.

    Even more startling is the preliminary estimate of Excess Winter Deaths in the United Kingdom – about 48,000 this past winter! The UK suffered about HALF the average annual Excess Winter Deaths of the USA, but the UK has only ONE-FIFTH the USA’s population. High energy prices, or “Heat or Eat” as it is termed in the UK, is becoming a significant cause of premature deaths of the elderly and the poor. Anti-fracking groups in the UK have cost that country dearly in billions of lost pounds-sterling and hundreds of thousands of needlessly-shortened lives.

    The Excess Winter Death toll due to high energy costs in the rest of Europe is even higher.

    I am in a particularly benevolent mood today Mike, so I’m not going to tell you how I really feel about you and your dangerous warmist bullsh!t. Suffice it to say that I strongly disapprove.

    – Allan MacRae. P.Eng.

    By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

  55. “Where I live months of high humidity weather in the 90s or above is what we call “Summer”. ”

    And that summarizes what most non-scientists know about climate.

    • Which also summarizes how much anyone should care about climate, and all we need to know about Alley.

  56. Cold snaps prove “climate change” while heat waves prove “global warming”. Mann and his ilk have an extremely low opinion of the public’s intelligence; unfortunately, for about 25% of the public, the opinion appears to be correct.

    • Remember what George Carlin said: “Just think how stupid the average person is, then realize that half the people are even stupider!”

      However, I do not think it is a matter of stupidity of the public, but fraud on some peoples’ part. People expect the climate scientists to be sharing info from other parts of the world and from periods before their birth. People assume their own experiences do not represent the big picture. They think they can trust climate scientists to be truthful.


  57. All anyone needs to know is this bit:

    “We are seeing our predictions come true,” he said. “As a scientist that is reassuring, but as a citizen of planet Earth, it is very distressing to see that as it means we have not taken the necessary action.”

    The fake humility is sickening – ‘fake’ being the operative here.

    We know it, he knows it and here we have that ‘Gerald Ratner’ moment where it is actually admitted.

  58. ReallySkeptical is a member of the flock of the Church of Warming which is a sect of the religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is the government. One would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than disagreeing with the dogma of his cult. Disagreement or providing facts that are in conflict with the epistle handed down from his clergy like Mann will result in cries of heretic i.e. denier or the ultimate heresy-capitalist. People like Mann are the equivalent of the educated clergy of yore who provided legitimacy to the king’s right to rule and thus the church/clergy got to share in the spoils taken from the peasants by the king. Like all religion the Church of Warming mutates an individual’s spirituality for the leaders personal enrichment and power. There is little difference between Al Gore and Joel Osteen.

    • “People like Mann”….Billyjack, you believe people like Dr. Spencer do not deserve the ire you feel for Mann, correct? Am I right to think you are not intending to place blame on Dr. Spencer?

      I agree with your assessments of the faults of some religions and and some operators therein, but I do not believe faulting all who are religious (“Like all religion”) is any more warranted than faulting all scientists.

      Also, the subject of this thread is Mann’s behavior. Why try to redirect it?


  59. How many ‘factualists’ are there on either side of this issue: How many people are there who are making a good and honest effort to play with a full deck of the facts?

    It seems to me that maybe the “who is winning” in the ongoing argument has become the premier issue objective.
    There is a reality and there is just one version of reality. Reality is what it is. A ‘truth’ is what it is. Each truth is part of the whole truth. The sum of all truths is equal to the one reality.

    • If the debate was about how many grains of sand were to be found on an average beach, then there would be little incentive to deal with other than the facts. However, the alarmists are advocating significant political and economic changes based on their ‘facts.’ People are being taxed to support subsidies for alternative energy sources, and environmental degradation is endorsed to provide biofuels. So, one shouldn’t be surprised if those opposing the changes resort to similar tactics to counter what is a political struggle rather than a search for facts and truth.

  60. If the two of them were still around today, Mann would be taking his cues from Jim Jones and David Koresh. With his massive ego and extraordinary arrogance level, I have little doubt that Mann thoroughly enjoys playing the role of a high priest in what has commonly been referred to and characteristically described as a cult. In the eyes of its believers, the climate alarmist narrative (as is any cult) is holy, infallible and unquestionable, and Mann no doubt has every intention of making sure it stays that way.

    But that which is built on a shaky foundation must surely come tumbling down sooner or later. How long it will take the CAGW narrative to come tumbling down on top of Michael Mann remains to be seen, but the day it happens will certainly be an interesting one indeed.

  61. Extreme mendaciousness is the most noticeable effect of anthropogenic climate change.

  62. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

    There has never been an absence of climate change.

  63. MIchael Mann, the author of the fraudulent hockey stick graph, should have no business talking about science. He lost all credibility long ago as a scientist.

  64. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

    Yup, the whole Earth would have been a pleasant “Antarctica”, and we wouldn’t have existed!

  65. Greenhouse gas warming
    should warm the polar areas the most.
    (I know that’s not happening in Antarctica,
    but forget that for now!)

    That would result in a smaller temperature differential
    between the tropics and the polar areas.

    A smaller temperature differential
    should cause milder weather
    on our planet.

    That’s basic meteorology,
    and Mann doesn’t even know that.

    Of course no one knows what the climate
    would be like today, in the absence of man made
    CO2 in the air, but many will claim they know.

    I’m still waiting for scientific proof
    that 4.5 billion years of natural climate change
    suddenly stopped,
    or became a minor factor,
    in 1940,
    and suddenly humans became the “climate
    controller” — did you ever notice that the
    global warmunists never try to explain
    what they claim?

    Because it’s hard to explain climate change
    boogeymen, and fairy tales !

    My climate blog:

    • “I’m still waiting for scientific proof
      that 4.5 billion years of natural climate change
      suddenly stopped ….. ”
      It hasn’t – it’s just that a human life-span is to puny to register it. Vis orbital eccentricity changes.
      “suddenly humans became the “climate
      controller” ”
      It’s because we have burned fossilised carbon long enough to have nearly increased atmospheric carbon by 50%, with the same again having been absorbed by the oceans.
      That should have happened over 10,000’s years by the above via feedback.

  66. Here in the UK we have experienced hot weather this summer as we often do, although those writing apocalyptic headlines do not always seem to know this.

    These anecdotal snippets, from a wide variety of observers, are derived from the start of my detailed weather date base in the 13th Century- when reports became more numerous and reliable- which show many references to hot dry summers and severe drought, even in this 50 year segment. The 13th century is generally thought to be the start of a long and irregular decline to the intermittent Little Ice Age. The few hundred years preceding it are often known as the Medieval warm period.

    1238 Great floods in many parts during December. Cloudy and rainy in beginning until Spring had passed, then the drought and heat were beyond measure and custom in two or more of the summer months. Great deluge of rain in the autumn that straw and grain became rotten and an unnatural autumn which is held to be a cold and dry season gave rise to various fatal diseases.

    1241 Drought from March 25 to Oct 28 and intolerable heat. Pastures withered, herds pined away from hunger and thirst.

    1252 Very hot and dry summer, very wet autumn. Heat of the sun so great that all the earth became dry, no fruit grew on trees. At end of harvest there was great flooding breaking bridges, mills and houses adjoining the rivers.

    Matthew Paris (a chronicler) notes that ‘In most of March and the whole of the months of April and May, the ground was burnt up by the sun, the wind continuing from South, West, North or East. The sun rose up to its solstitial culmination and its immoderate and intolerable heat so burned up the earths surface and multiplied its warmth that the herbage withered away. Moreover the heat continued into the night and generated flies flea and other injurious pests”.

    He also writes ‘ in April, May, June and July, heat and drought prevailed intolerably, without beneficial sprinkling of rain or dew. Meadows were stripped of their grass, plant foliage withered.” According to John de Taxter ‘this year many died from the excessive heat of the summer. There was much thunderstorms.’ Robert of Gloucester noted (in 1270) ‘in the year of grace 1252 the summer was so dry and hot that even until this day there has been none hotter .”

    1253 Dry summer and wet autumn and in spring and summer a prolonged drought. Flooding in autumn which ‘dried up after the feast of St Michael . happened in spring (drought) contrary to the nature of the season, for at the time of the equinox with the whole weather moderate there is customarily peace in the elements.’

    Brooks and Glasspole believe 1252 and 1253 to be the driest consecutive years of which we have any historical account; (see Meteorological magazine 63 1928, page 4.)

    1260 Great and prolonged summer drought so that barley and oats remained hidden in the ground even until autumn . However, showers then caused germination but they didn’t ripen due to lack of warmth. Great thunderstorm on June 23.

    Matthew Parish noted: “In this summer great and enormous portents happened in the air so that some people said the last judgement was near. So many continuous thunderstorms that hardly anyone was bold enough to leave his house. (the London annals confirms these storms)

    “During the Christmas period there was such continued fine weather and serenity of the air that one would have said that it was pleasant summer time rather than winter.”

    1262 Hot summer

    1263 Hot summer in Ireland with a great drought and also in England, “in which year the earth by the fierce heat of summer was so dried up there was no fruit and at the end of autumn there was so much rain there was flooding. Aurora noted on July 29th in London.”

    1285 Neither snow nor ice were seen in Oxford to persist for the space of half a day during the winter. Other commenters noted this was such a very mild winter such that one aged man had never seen its like. Such a great summer drought and heat that men perished.

    1288 Such a hot dry summer such as has not occurred during many years before and many men died. Others date this from beginning of July ‘ there began an intolerable heat and an increasing great drought which endured continually for 5 weeks with no rain at all. ‘

    (Generally) Very warm, dry, settled summers from 1284 to 1311 according to Hubert Lambs’ “Climate History and the Modern World”

    There are numerous examples of very severe weather throughout my many centuries of records, whether very hot and dry, or cold and snowy. These are frequently topped or tailed by the opposite condition. Severe Flooding appears to be a common condition before and after a drought.


  67. So, there wouldn’t be one “extreme weather event” in the entire world if not for humans?

  68. I am still waiting for Mann and all the rest to tell us what we did wrong that brought the last Ice Age upon us – and what we did right that made it go away…until they can do that I am not worried about the wonderful climate we have now even if it gets a degree or two warmer and fewer people die from cold and cold-related causes…

  69. I assume that Mann uses the phrase, “climate change”, to mean “human-caused climate change”.

    Otherwise, his statements would be even more idiotic, like:

    We literally would not have seen dawn without the sun.
    We literally would not have seen oceans without water.
    We literally would not have seen our reflection without a mirror.

    We literally would not have seen these extremes in fact twisting without climate-scientists’ derangement.

  70. Excerpt interview “The Guardian”:

    Prof Mann said that asking if climate change “causes” specific events is the wrong question: “The relevant question is: ‘Is climate change impacting these events and making them more extreme?’, and we can say with great confidence that it is.”

    Again “we can say with great confidence that”

    is the sole “evidence” for

    “The extreme heatwaves and wildfires wreaking havoc around the globe are “the face of climate change.””

    Don’t give that “Mann” that much publicity.

  71. I am sorry all here, Mann is right: extremes are brought by climate change… Well, nothing new when the circulation changed from a slow mode to a rapid mode around the 1970s!
    The catch 22 is that Mann labels CAGW as “climate change”… Thus he is, as usual, wrong and a propagandist to boot.

  72. I bet Mann and Co are really fun to hang out with in July and Aug. Especially between 11AM and 4PM, dancing singing fun house of hysteria. It’s so hot he saw a robin take a worm with a pot holder.

  73. In Britain, we had the same warm temperatures back in 1976 – long before people were fretting about CO2.


  74. This kind of remark is a primary reason that I do not consider Mann to be a very good scientist. He (like James Hansen) has become an activist. All of us that do actual science know that there is a tremendous amount of judgement that goes into almost every scientific conclusion. When one becomes an activist instead of a scientist, that judgement becomes clouded by political concerns. The likely result is very poor science, as we have seen in main stream climatology.

  75. would that be like the extreme weather event that caused the MWP to sit over the same small patch of the globe for 300+ years

  76. What a crock of sh7t. It was not a “heatwave” or “climate change” that caused the Carr Fires, it was caused by… “The Carr Fire began Monday afternoon and was caused by a vehicle’s mechanical failure, Cal Fire reported.”

    Let’s see if I can spin this… Someone was so hot, and their A/C was broken in the house, so they decided to get in their vehicle and fire up the A/C in there to get cool, and the vehicle, was so hot from being outside in the sun, that it misfired and caused the this fire, when someone started the vehicle…. yeah that must be it… gotta be, right?

  77. Because he attributes everything that is happening to “climate change” and doesn’t distinguish between the two types of climate change–human-induced and natural variability– everything he says is nonsense. This what they are now reduced to: conflating human-induced climate change with natural variability in the atmosphere. So what he says is arguably true, but meaningless.

  78. The Carr Wildfire is currently around 85,000 acres. The Tillamook Burn in Oregon in August, 1933 burned 350.000 acres.

  79. I tend to trust the super-majority of scientists who study a particular science. For instance, I think chemists have this whole “stuff is made up of atoms” things correct.

    When it comes to this particular science, why do many of you trust the non-scientisst over the climate scientist?

    • Alley

      When it comes to this particular science, why do many of you trust the non-scientisst over the climate scientist?

      Isn’t it odd that, in climate “science”, those who favor and trust explicitly their government-paid, politically-connected and politically-funded government “scientists” absolutely as “pure and honest and ethical” regardless of their known moral failures and lack of ethics and absolute exaggerations and data manipulations and extrapolations, condemn so completely and vigorously ANY individual who disagrees with their politically-corrupt theory and money supply?

      In the CAGW world of political money and power and influence and exposure at government-paid conferences, they condemn ANY person who uses private money or corporate money are claimed to be corrupt and their conclusions invalid, but those who take government money every day of every year are somehow innocent and honest.

    • Michael Mann’s speciality, such as it is, is dendroclimatology. The super-majority of dendroclimatologists might have something interesting to say about that minor field — or not, since in Mann’s case his fame comes from application of statistics that a super-majority of experts statisticians are unlikely to support — but for most areas of climate science Mann is speaking as a layman, not an expert. And from some of his comments, like this one, he doesn’t sound like a particularly well-informed layman either, just a political advocate.

      “Climate science” encompasses a wide variety of disciplines, and covers many areas where performing actual experiments isn’t even possible. Comparisons to chemistry and physics are marvelously inapt here. If “consensus” physicists told us that the average gravity on earth was between 10 and 30 meters per second squared, and had failed to narrow that range in decades of research, no honest physicist would claim the science was settled, and I could readily forgive iconoclasts who suggested based on empirical evidence that the true value was outside and lower than this range. If those same physicists went on to project terrible consequences (that somehow had not actually been observed anywhere) from gravity at the high range and to advocate public policy that was both expensive and ineffective to mitigate the effects, they would rightfully be considered as idiots speaking way outside of their expertise.

  80. I googled a list of the 25 Most Destructive Wildfires Ever Recorded. I don’t claim this is the Holy Grail but why am i not surprised that the vast majority are pre CAGW.

  81. Can someone help me out here? When there are heatwaves in the summer I hear from “scientists” that this is climate change or global warming or whatever. But when the same areas get hit with brutal cold waves in the winter the same “scientists” say that there is a difference between climate and weather and that you deniers are too stupid to realize that. So which one is it?

    • My friend, I don’t know what ‘scientists’ you are listening to, but that is not what I hear is being said. Generally, the presentation is statistical – using the basic statistical principle of a normal distribution – and that the mean in this distribution is higher than previously. Also, the general notion is that there are more outliers (statistically speaking). It is not a single one here or there, there are just more extreme events. I think of it like any system – such as a car – when the car is running normally, the types of phenomena that one notices are pretty predictable. But if the car is aging, then that system will begin to show more and more anomalous phenomena such engine knocking, other unknown sounds, etc. That is the general idea.

  82. Mann’s rat like close set eyes betray his vermin like nature.

    That such a talentless incompetent hack that can’t even get a proxy series the right way up (how can you get it upside down in the first place?) can hold the position he does, explains all you need to know on the state of edu in the US. Sorry to say it, and there are infinitely more talented people shifting burgers at McDonalds

  83. It’s funny that in the sub headline they say “scientists find”. They didn’t “find” anything. It’s nothing but unscientific assertions being gobbled up by those who either don’t know better or are willfully ignorant.

  84. At this rate the jet stream is going to be discovered and a Nobel Prize will be awarded to an insider.

  85. Absent his Grand Theft, egregiously phony “hockey stick”, no-one would ever have heard of Michael Mann (and absent socio-pathologic liars, the world would be a better place).

  86. His stupid usage of the word ‘literally’ gives the show away. This is not a person – let alone a scientist- who should be taken seriously.

  87. Weird….I keep getting told by AGW cultists that WEATHER does not equal CLIMATE. Funny that Mann thinks that it does.

    Or is it that weather equals climate only when they think it supports their hypothesis?

Comments are closed.