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.
CREDIT
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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
379 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 27, 2018 4:03 pm

He’s not a scientist anymore. He’s a crusader.

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  Dave
July 27, 2018 4:22 pm

and what are you?

Sheri
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:46 pm

What are you?

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  Sheri
July 27, 2018 4:53 pm

I’ll go with “crusader”. and you?

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:39 pm

Makes sense, you have never been able to deal with facts or science.

Phoenix44
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2018 7:06 am

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.

Kitcha
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2018 4:07 pm

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…

Hivemind
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 7:55 pm

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

cerescokid
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 8:10 pm

Every age has their doomsayers freaking out. Even in 1934.

comment image

Steve Richards
Reply to  cerescokid
July 27, 2018 11:59 pm

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

Gil
Reply to  Steve Richards
July 28, 2018 4:49 am

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?

Bill_W_1984
Reply to  Gil
July 28, 2018 6:46 am

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.

Kitcha
Reply to  Gil
July 28, 2018 4:09 pm

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

shrnfr
Reply to  Steve Richards
July 28, 2018 5:29 am

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.

skorrent1
Reply to  shrnfr
July 28, 2018 11:21 am

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

MangoChutney
Reply to  cerescokid
July 28, 2018 1:00 am

1934 (world heatwave)
1976 (UK heatwave)
2018 (world heatwave

maybe Douglas Adams got the right answer

https://tinyurl.com/yaa6voao

mikebartnz
Reply to  MangoChutney
July 28, 2018 5:48 am

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.

MangoChutney
Reply to  mikebartnz
July 28, 2018 6:14 am

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

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

Newminster
Reply to  MangoChutney
July 28, 2018 11:29 am

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

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  mikebartnz
July 28, 2018 7:45 am

“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.

Reply to  MangoChutney
July 28, 2018 6:07 am

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.

beng135
Reply to  ThomasJK
July 28, 2018 8:05 am

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

drednicolson
Reply to  beng135
July 28, 2018 9:12 am

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.

Newminster
Reply to  MangoChutney
July 28, 2018 11:26 am

Tsk!
Cherry-picking!

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  MangoChutney
July 28, 2018 3:12 pm

Be an astrology nutcase and say it correlates with full Uranus return?!

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 9:16 pm

“ReallySkeptical”?/sarc

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
July 27, 2018 9:36 pm

“Really septical” seems more appropriate, from the responses on this blog so far.

Mark Donovan
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
July 28, 2018 2:23 am

Alarmists aren’t renowned for having a refined sense of humour

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 2:25 am

should’nt RABBIT follow the crusader?

beng135
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 28, 2018 8:08 am
RAH
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 8:12 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 11:05 am

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.

commieBob
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:08 pm

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?

hunter
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:40 pm

A skeptic.
You, on the otgervhand, seem to be just another true believing alarmist.

Kenji
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:46 pm

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

cerescokid
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 8:04 pm

I wonder what the Michael Manns in 1934 were saying. Most likely the same thing.

comment image

Steve Richards
Reply to  cerescokid
July 28, 2018 12:01 am

This link should be shared far and wide – thank you

Editor
Reply to  Steve Richards
July 28, 2018 9:07 am

You can find more of them at Tony Heller’s site:

https://realclimatescience.com/

tcpace
Reply to  cerescokid
July 28, 2018 5:18 am

1934 to 1976 was 42 years. 1976 to 2018 was 42 years. The answer to life, the universe and everything = …

Bryan A
Reply to  tcpace
July 28, 2018 11:11 am

Please…not while I’m drinking coffee

Richard Niven
Reply to  cerescokid
July 28, 2018 6:24 pm

I see from the map that New Zealand was not part of this climate disaster (NZ completely removed from the map). Maybe this means NZ is the only place in the world where there is the normal climate and everywhere else just has extreme (weather!) climate events. (worse ever, we will all die!!!)

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 3:47 am

” 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.

Phoenix44
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 7:05 am

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

Do you not understand the point?

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 8:12 am

Really skeptical
You have a -69 rating at the moment.
Not bad for a four word comment !
Maybe some kind of record here ?

Kitcha
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 4:01 pm

I would say he is a truth teller, and you guys must be the liberal anti-truth police…

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Dave
July 27, 2018 4:42 pm

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).

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 27, 2018 5:04 pm

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!

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 28, 2018 1:25 am

“And then big oil gave Steve McIntyre money to shame him”
And then Steve McIntyre was stonewalled when he wanted to see Mann’s data you mean.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 28, 2018 1:31 am

if you have evidence for your statement you had better it show it now.

You have committed a very serious libel and could be sued.

Evidence, please

Ragnaar
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 28, 2018 7:19 am

You’re a poser.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 28, 2018 7:53 am

Sarcasm detector broken Hans and Stephen?

Mike Bromley
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 27, 2018 11:07 pm

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.

J Mac
Reply to  Dave
July 27, 2018 7:36 pm

We really would not have seen these absurd claims, in the absence of climate change fraud.

Menicholas
Reply to  Dave
July 27, 2018 9:11 pm

“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.

Alley
Reply to  Menicholas
July 28, 2018 4:49 am

Should be apologize for the facts? Seems like a silly thing to do.

Tim
Reply to  Menicholas
July 28, 2018 7:22 am

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’.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Dave
July 27, 2018 9:14 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
July 27, 2018 10:09 pm

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.

George Lawson
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
July 28, 2018 1:47 am

.Don’t forget his Nobel Prize!

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  George Lawson
July 28, 2018 3:13 am

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

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Dave
July 27, 2018 9:28 pm

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

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 27, 2018 10:59 pm

He is a narcissist.

mike
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 28, 2018 5:25 am

The emails etc show that the Piltdown Mann needs to close its piehole forever.
A bully with too many pies and lies.

Bsl
Reply to  Dave
July 28, 2018 4:46 am

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

drednicolson
Reply to  Bsl
July 28, 2018 9:37 am

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.

mikebartnz
Reply to  Dave
July 28, 2018 5:44 am

He wouldn’t make a scientist’s arse hole.

Stephen Burchell
Reply to  Dave
July 28, 2018 1:50 pm

Junk science

John
Reply to  Dave
July 29, 2018 8:05 am

Huckster comes to mind, rather than crusader.

Gordon Dressler
July 27, 2018 4:05 pm

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.

Kenji
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 27, 2018 6:50 pm

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’.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 27, 2018 11:00 pm

The guardian is the Pravda of the UK

HotScot
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 28, 2018 1:05 am

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.

Sylvia
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 1:43 am

Good. I can’t wait for that poisonous rag to vanish.

Roy
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 4:17 am

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…

HotScot
Reply to  Roy
July 28, 2018 2:20 pm

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.

brians356
July 27, 2018 4:06 pm

Q: How can you tell Michael Mann is lying?

JClarke
Reply to  brians356
July 27, 2018 4:11 pm

He’s still breathing

Thomas
Reply to  brians356
July 27, 2018 4:17 pm

If he’s breathing. If his lips aren’t moving, he just lying to himself.

Rich Davis
Reply to  brians356
July 27, 2018 4:19 pm

Wait, wait, don’t tell me! A: If he’s breathing?

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  brians356
July 27, 2018 4:24 pm

Could be worse. Has Trump _ever_ told the truth? Mann is an angel by comparison.

Bryan A
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:46 pm

Yes compared to President Trump, Mann has a definite angle…

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
July 28, 2018 11:14 am

Obviously didn’t catch the ANGLE rather than ANGEL

Sheri
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:47 pm

Now we know what you are.

milwaukeebob
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:51 pm

“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?

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  milwaukeebob
July 27, 2018 4:56 pm

Umm, Obama has higher in 2010 or around there. Sorry.

milwaukeebob
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:08 pm

Your not just a troll, your a hilarious troll.

ATheoK
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:23 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
July 27, 2018 5:42 pm

That 2.2% was prior to GISS’s adjustments.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2018 11:16 am

MarkW
That 2.2% was prior to GISS’s adjustments.

And Karlization

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Like the rest of your facts, this one is also disconnected from reality.

bearman
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:12 pm

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.

Latitude
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:21 pm

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…

comment image

Gunga Din
Reply to  Latitude
July 27, 2018 6:57 pm

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

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 28, 2018 6:09 am

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

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2018 3:19 am

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.

RAH
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 28, 2018 8:57 am

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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RFiyqDAeO8

Links to a couple of articles that help explain what is happening and why.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/27/the-fundamentals-of-maganomics/

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/25/30-hours-at-trump-speed/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2018 6:05 am

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!

Chris
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 28, 2018 2:36 pm

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

False, the deficit is skyrocketing. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651

Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2018 8:35 am

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:

http://el2017.blogspot.com/2018/07/2q-2018-real-gdp-analysis-27-average.html

http://el2017.blogspot.com/2018/07/q2-puzzling-gdp-forecasts-45-vs-27.html

Latitude
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:24 pm

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

Mike Bromley
Reply to  Latitude
July 27, 2018 11:16 pm

A plant? I thought “paramecium”

Daelyn75
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2018 3:35 am

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.

hunter
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:43 pm

Poor RS, he shows up at a discussion of ideas completely unarmed.

Karlos51
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 7:21 pm

comic genius – thanks for the good laugh

J Mac
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 7:43 pm

Top Obama Economist: GDP Even Stronger Than It Looks
Jason Furman: “Big surprise: the underlying data for Q2 is even better than the headline 4.1% annual GDP growth rate.
Volatile NX added 1.1 but volatile inventories SUBTRACTED 1.0. All in consumption plus fixed investment up 4.3%.”

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/27/top-obama-economist-gdp-even-stronger-than-it-looks/

Reply to  J Mac
July 28, 2018 8:43 am

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% 

Mike Bromley
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 11:14 pm

Or around there?

whiten
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 3:44 am

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

Alan D McIntire
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 8:12 am

Third quarter GNP for 2014 was reported as 5%. It turns out the Obama administration was lying.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/about-that-5-gdp-growth-rate.php

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.”

brians356
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:02 pm

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.

Reply to  brians356
July 28, 2018 8:53 am

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:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Gunga Din
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:12 pm

If Mann was ever an angel then he’s definitely a fallen one now.

ATheoK
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:17 pm

More unverified unlinked nonsense from the fop crusader.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:40 pm

Like most trolls, you define truth as whatever you agree with.

Hoosier8
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:52 pm

As in the one cast out?

Latitude
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:09 pm

“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.”

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/27/cnn-guest-trump-good/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:22 pm

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.

Ravelaer
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 7:07 pm

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

simple-touriste
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 8:07 pm

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.

Reply to  simple-touriste
July 28, 2018 9:00 am

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 !

simple-touriste
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 28, 2018 9:41 pm

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.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 9:31 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 28, 2018 9:31 am

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

Mike Bromley
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 11:12 pm

Ah. The long-overdue Trump comparison as a means of thickening the lipstick. Nice!

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 12:07 am

July 27, 2018 4:19 pm
ReallySkeptical
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.

michael

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
July 28, 2018 9:33 am

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.

Fred250
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 1:39 am

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
Reply to  brians356
July 27, 2018 4:45 pm

He blames Arson induced fires in Greece on climate

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
July 27, 2018 5:43 pm

If it’s bad, CO2 caused it.
If it’s good, it happened despite CO2.

DavidS
Reply to  Bryan A
July 27, 2018 5:54 pm

Yes, Greece isnt actually unusually hot for the time of the year

Reply to  Bryan A
July 27, 2018 8:12 pm

Well, it must have been a climate refugee trying to cook his goat. Everything is climate change.

HotScot
Reply to  Bryan A
July 28, 2018 1:14 am

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?

Bryan A
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 12:12 pm

It’s possibule

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 12:51 pm

HotScot, Scotland is smashing heat records. But it’s all just natural variation, right?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/its-now-hot-scotland-people-12991186

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 28, 2018 3:45 pm

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.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 10:50 pm

HotScot, the same news is repeated across all other news sites. You would know this if you bothered to check.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/thunderstorms-to-end-heatwave-but-record-breaking-temperatures-still-possible/

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris
July 28, 2018 11:27 pm

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

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 29, 2018 3:11 am

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.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 29, 2018 4:55 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 29, 2018 5:15 pm

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?

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 29, 2018 5:27 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 30, 2018 1:22 am

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.

Matt G
Reply to  Chris
July 29, 2018 12:51 pm

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.

whiten
Reply to  Bryan A
July 28, 2018 3:59 am

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

Holley stick saga continues….

cheers

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bryan A
July 28, 2018 1:49 pm

“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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  brians356
July 27, 2018 8:46 pm

Because what Mann says doesn’t quite make sense, given reality and all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 28, 2018 9:35 am

Who needs reality when you have models?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2018 10:15 pm

“Who needs reality when you have models?”
Be careful, watermelons could apply that question to Trump…

Editor
July 27, 2018 4:06 pm

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?

R. Shearer
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 27, 2018 4:39 pm

With a hockey stick or puck between his cheeks?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  R. Shearer
July 27, 2018 8:57 pm

GOAL!

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 27, 2018 4:51 pm

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

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 27, 2018 5:17 pm

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)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
July 27, 2018 5:50 pm

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.

DHR
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
July 27, 2018 7:08 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  DHR
July 27, 2018 9:10 pm

Your link is outdated, DHR. The most I can get is a message that the page is temporarily unavailable at this URL:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/visualizations.html

HotScot
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 28, 2018 1:16 am

Pop Piasa

Mann got there before you and switched it all off.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
July 28, 2018 7:34 am

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.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2018&month=6

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 27, 2018 9:04 pm

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

Gary Kerkin
July 27, 2018 4:08 pm

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!

Sheri
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
July 27, 2018 4:47 pm

Climate change made the people light the fires. It causes everything, you know.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sheri
July 28, 2018 12:15 pm

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

GaryH845
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
July 27, 2018 5:03 pm

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.

Ted
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
July 27, 2018 5:42 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
July 28, 2018 1:21 am

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).

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
July 28, 2018 3:31 am

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.

July 27, 2018 4:08 pm

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.”

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Stephen Heins
July 27, 2018 4:14 pm

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

You could have stopped right there.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 28, 2018 9:04 am

Dressler
When I read your “no sense” Mann comment
I wished that I was clever enough
to create such high quality humor!
Well done !

Eric Stevens
July 27, 2018 4:08 pm

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.

Mr bliss
Reply to  Eric Stevens
July 27, 2018 6:52 pm

Didn’t one of the bond villains run SMIRK?

Joshua
July 27, 2018 4:09 pm

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.
FRAUD

Rex, Wellington
July 27, 2018 4:11 pm

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.

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  Rex, Wellington
July 27, 2018 4:20 pm

He is only quoting the published literature.
https://skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-atmosphere-seasonal-cycles.html
that isn’t the true ref, but you can find it there.

Sheri
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:48 pm

That is not the published literature.

MarkW
Reply to  Sheri
July 27, 2018 5:45 pm

I doubt RS knows the difference.

Chris
Reply to  Sheri
July 27, 2018 8:54 pm

Here is the published literature from heat waves in 2013 – 22 separate studies looking at 16 different extreme weather events. https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report_high_res.pdf

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 28, 2018 2:59 am

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.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 12:58 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 28, 2018 4:06 pm

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.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 28, 2018 10:54 pm

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?

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 29, 2018 3:55 am

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.

Chris
Reply to  HotScot
July 29, 2018 9:37 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
July 30, 2018 1:12 am

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.

ATheoK
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:27 pm

That is neither published nor literature.

Milocrabtree
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:32 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:45 pm

Any fool can get something published these days, so long as it blames CO2.

bearman
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:21 pm

Did he just say published literature? “I be a clown.”

Hivemind
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 8:00 pm

Isn’t that a warmist propaganda site?

I just checked. Yes, it is.

simple-touriste
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 8:19 pm

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.

WBWilson
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 9:58 am

Hilarious! ReallySkeptcal referencing Skepticalscience.

Hivemind
Reply to  Rex, Wellington
July 27, 2018 8:00 pm

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.

huls
July 27, 2018 4:13 pm

Soo… repent you Sinners !!

Pay for this indulgence and you might be saved after all.

Karlos51
Reply to  huls
July 27, 2018 11:47 pm

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

Jacob Frank
Reply to  Karlos51
July 28, 2018 12:45 pm

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

Warren in New Zealand
Reply to  Karlos51
July 28, 2018 1:28 pm

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.

ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:14 pm

“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.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 4:51 pm

You seem to be speaking from experience.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 5:46 pm

You just don’t like reality, do you?

Latitude
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:11 pm

RS…you’re making a total fool of yourself

bearman
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:29 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 6:30 pm

ReallySkeptical,
I see that you are logic-impaired.

Latitude
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 27, 2018 7:16 pm

“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?

George Daddis
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 6:58 am

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.

WBWilson
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 10:01 am

I think ReallySkeptical may in fact be the MickeyMann himself.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 1:58 pm

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

July 27, 2018 4:17 pm

They pretend the 1930s didn’t happen.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Toby Nixon
July 27, 2018 5:50 pm

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.

Chris
Reply to  Toby Nixon
July 28, 2018 1:46 pm

“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.

TDBraun
July 27, 2018 4:18 pm

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.

GoatGuy
July 27, 2018 4:20 pm

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.

GoatGuy

Gunga Din
Reply to  GoatGuy
July 27, 2018 4:58 pm

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.)

GoatGuy
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 27, 2018 5:59 pm

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.

GoatGuy

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 28, 2018 1:59 pm

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

JohnWho
Reply to  GoatGuy
July 28, 2018 6:36 am

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.

Pop Piasa
July 27, 2018 4:25 pm

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?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 27, 2018 4:43 pm

The next one that pops up that he predicted after it happened?

JohnWho
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 28, 2018 6:45 am

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?

Josh?

July 27, 2018 4:31 pm

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.

MY TIMELINE FOR AGW THEORY

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.

Joe Chang
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 27, 2018 5:36 pm

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

Hivemind
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 27, 2018 8:10 pm

Try reading about N-Rays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Hivemind
July 28, 2018 2:02 pm

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.

Firefly
July 27, 2018 4:32 pm

Found this study from 1977 about forest fires in northern Sweden. Since it’s been 74 years since the last fire it fits in well with the 80 year mean interval so nothing new about it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3543289?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Gunga Din
July 27, 2018 4:34 pm

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

lew skannen
July 27, 2018 4:44 pm

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

simple-touriste
Reply to  lew skannen
July 27, 2018 8:34 pm

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

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  simple-touriste
July 28, 2018 6:12 pm

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.

michael hart
July 27, 2018 4:44 pm

Sorry, but I just can’t stop looking at that lump on top of his head.

ATheoK
Reply to  michael hart
July 27, 2018 5:38 pm

The shiny one? or the misshapen ones?

Gunga Din
Reply to  ATheoK
July 27, 2018 6:01 pm

Kuato?

Sheri
July 27, 2018 4:46 pm

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.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sheri
July 27, 2018 5:24 pm

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.

July 27, 2018 4:51 pm

To be fair, given his increasing bulk and chubbiness, Michael Mann probably feels the heat more than normal sized people.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 28, 2018 2:04 pm

Cheap shot.

Michael Jankowski
July 27, 2018 4:52 pm

Unfortunately, climate change brought us the extremist Michael Mann.

Crispin in Waterloo
July 27, 2018 4:53 pm

“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.

Chris Dynak
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 27, 2018 6:10 pm

“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!

George Lawson
Reply to  Chris Dynak
July 28, 2018 2:16 am

Sorry, they will all be locked because the wind is too strong!

Andy Ogilvie
Reply to  Chris Dynak
July 28, 2018 5:27 am

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 😂

Chris
Reply to  Andy Ogilvie
July 28, 2018 10:58 pm

Andy, exactly which part of the spring was the coldest in living memory?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44341030

Matt G
Reply to  Chris
July 30, 2018 3:45 am

The BBC link is wrong because May was the second equal warmest since 1910.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2018/may

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.”

Michael Jankowski
July 27, 2018 4:55 pm

…“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?”

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 28, 2018 11:40 am

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.

climatebeagle
Reply to  Louis Hunt
July 28, 2018 2:24 pm

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

brians356
July 27, 2018 4:56 pm

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.

London247
July 27, 2018 4:57 pm

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.

ATheoK
Reply to  London247
July 27, 2018 5:36 pm

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.

Joe Chang
Reply to  London247
July 27, 2018 5:38 pm

bouts of sunshine must be causing a panic in London?

Susan
Reply to  London247
July 28, 2018 12:40 pm

Here in Norfolk we got a fantastic lightning display as compensation.

Matt G
July 27, 2018 5:01 pm

“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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_(meteorology)

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.

George McFly......I'm your density
July 27, 2018 5:02 pm

Poor Michael. He really is a sad little person.

milwaukeebob
July 27, 2018 5:03 pm

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”?

ATheoK
July 27, 2018 5:04 pm

““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.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  ATheoK
July 27, 2018 6:26 pm

Language inflation.

Derek Brabrook
July 27, 2018 5:13 pm

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?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derek Brabrook
July 27, 2018 6:39 pm

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

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
July 27, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Mr bliss
July 27, 2018 6:03 pm

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

Latitude
July 27, 2018 6:05 pm

…they predicted more arsonists?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Latitude
July 27, 2018 6:28 pm

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- )

simple-touriste
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 27, 2018 8:39 pm

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.

Neutron Powered, High Side, Sideways Racer
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2018 4:03 am

Increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere causes more arsonists.

eck
July 27, 2018 6:25 pm

What an ass. Extremes? Not. Thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere.
Sheesh!

NotChickenLittle
July 27, 2018 6:30 pm

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!

Jones
July 27, 2018 6:38 pm

Show us the raw data so we can find fault with it Prof.

hunter
July 27, 2018 6:39 pm

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

Kenji
July 27, 2018 6:44 pm

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.

Richard M
July 27, 2018 6:49 pm

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.

Nick Werner
July 27, 2018 6:49 pm

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.

Rick C PE
July 27, 2018 6:49 pm

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.)

Alan Tomalty
July 27, 2018 7:01 pm

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.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 27, 2018 10:20 pm

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 28, 2018 7:11 am

Close to a textbook example of the logical fallacy of “begging the question”!

Tom in Florida
July 27, 2018 7:34 pm

It must be time for the grant givers to start deciding who gets the checks.

July 27, 2018 7:47 pm

This is what Climate Hustle looks like.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 28, 2018 6:49 am

Or this:

NW Sage
July 27, 2018 7:58 pm

“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.

thingadonta
July 27, 2018 8:36 pm

Why is he Distinguished? Has he had more papers retracted than others?

simple-touriste
July 27, 2018 9:00 pm

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?

https://www.france.tv/france-5/c-dans-l-air/

“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.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  simple-touriste
July 28, 2018 12:35 pm

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.

SR

simple-touriste
Reply to  Steve Reddish
July 28, 2018 9:46 pm

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.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Steve Reddish
July 31, 2018 7:15 pm

We have a true scientist here:

https://www.lsce.ipsl.fr/Phocea/Pisp/index.php?id=81

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.

https://www.france.tv/france-5/c-dans-l-air/574675-canicule-vers-un-changement-de-nos-habitudes.html

@ 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.