Michael Mann: Reviewing Climate Change Claims is Stalinism

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon – Michael Mann thinks President Trump’s new climate advisory panel is equivalent to Lysenko’s murderous efforts to suppress genetics.

Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science

Michael Mann and Bob Ward
Wed 20 Mar 2019 21.00 AEDT

A panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous. Yet that’s what White House officials want.

Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House to try to discredit the findings of mainstream climate science.

The Trump administration has already purged information about climate change from government websites, gagged federal experts and attempted to end funding for climate change programmes.

Now a group of hardcore climate change deniers and contrarians linked to the administration is organising a petition in support of a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.

The panel will consist of scientists who do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are behind climate change and its impacts.

The creation of the new panel of climate change deniers, and the recruitment of supporters to provide it with a veneer of legitimacy, echoes the campaign by Joseph Stalin’s regime to discredit the work of geneticists who disagreed with the disastrous pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko wrongly believed that acquired traits could be passed on by parents to their offspring. Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/donald-trump-stalinist-techniques-climate-science

There are some differences between Lysenko and Will Happer. Lysenko didn’t just criticise his opponents, he had his opponents executed, or had them deported to socialist death camps.

As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone, though some people might suffer acute public embarrassment when Will Happer finds mistakes in their work.

Climategate is full of climate scientists expressing outrage at having their work reviewed, and discussing strategies to evade freedom of information requests for data and method, but the sums of money expected for addressing the climate “crisis” – billions, even trillions of dollars – in my opinion make opposition to review utterly unacceptable.

Update (EW): Fixed a typo

Advertisements

198 thoughts on “Michael Mann: Reviewing Climate Change Claims is Stalinism

  1. It appears Michael Mann et al are starting to sweat a little, knowing their jig is soon up. They will be lucky that we don’t practise the type of barbarity they were planning for humanity like the Soviet’s did, starving all of us back into in the stone age with their fraud against all the peoples of the good Earth.

      • “HA”, iffen Beto is gonna be talking trash …… then he’s gotta be eating dirt.

      • Mann and the entire clime syndicate are sweating it. What would be worse for them, though, would be being invited to the table to make their pitch for end of world warming! That would freak them out. Happer, being a conscientious fellow may well organize a red-blue team invitation to give a fair chance for making the consensus case. Not showing up would be good evidence that even they don’t think they have game.

      • I thought Christmas was over, but I saw Mann riding his hockey stick to the ice free north pole yesterday.

    • When you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

      Seems that Mann is very conscious of this truth.

      Were he not then he would welcome the opportunity to prove the scientific substance and truth of his and his colleagues “Climate change” claims.

      • It’s been interesting in recent weeks reading reports of studies on NoTricksZone of temperatures in Japan, Europe, Scandinavia and elsewhere that show a progressive Cooling over the last 30 years winters.

        These use recorded and unadulterated temperature from outside UHI areas.

        Quite significantly urban temperatures in Japan show UHI of 3+ reg compared to rural areas. I believe that the “normal” adjustment for UHI applied in homogenization adjustments is around 1.5 reg. If that is correct then that 1.5 deg elevation of homogenized temperatures is seemingly the way in which “global warming” is created.

      • “Were he not then he would welcome the opportunity to prove the scientific substance and truth of his and his colleagues “Climate change” claims.”

        Absolutely! If Mann were an honest broker he would be eager to display his science work to the world.

        Instead, Mann is trying desperately to prevent others from checking his work. That might give some people the impression that Mann has something to hide.

        • I disagree that Mann thinks his work is fallacious. More likely is that he knows politics and emotion are controlling factors in the Climate Wars. His side has had the upper hand for a long time, but cracks are appearing. Unlike those who think they are invulnerable, he battles back at every attack, real or imagined. The Climategate emails clearly show his combative personality.

          • “I disagree that Mann thinks his work is fallacious.”

            He absolutely knows it’s bogus. That’s why he tried to hide data in “censored” folders, refused for many years to provide data and code. Even some of his cohorts in the CRU emails doubted his results, but would never say so publicly, wouldn’t be good for “the cause”.

          • Either he knows or he is not a scientist. Period.

            Like most politicians Mann forgot science and became a politician. Most of them know half, or all, of what they say is nonsense but it allows them to achieve a goal, that goal being power.

            It is one thing to defend your work, it is another entirely to turn your work into a monument of yourself.

          • If he knows, he’s still not a scientist. A scientist wouldn’t knowingly do the stuff he’s done.

        • Mann’s own comrades told him his work was hooey.
          They supported him:
          A) because they wanted to present a united front.
          B) because the IPCC wanted to put manniacal’s work on the front pages of their report.
          C) because they feared provoking the unhinged manniacal.

      • Why would ANY legitimate scientist or engineer scream and fight against having their own work reviewed by others? I wonder if Mr. Mann opposes examining Boeing’s 737 Max Jet software or avionics? After all, Mann would happily crash our economy to save himself from showing his work.

    • Mann: “Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House”

      I know, right? We should only be fooled by the fascist tactics of the warming alarmists; for example, accusing your enemy of doing exactly what you’re doing yourself.

      • Not just the tactics should fool us, but the very poor science and the attempts to hide the horrid mess these folks have made of what was once a more or less honorable profession.

        • Exactly my point – the alarmists corrupt the science then accuse the skeptics of being anti-science, a pure fascist technique.

      • Stalin didn’t expose Lysenko, Khrushchev did. Stalin protected Lysenko as long as he lived.
        Mann’s grasp of history is as warped as his use of science. He has become a master of deception by getting away with comparing apple and oranges. His latest was the tweet telling someone to sit in a room of .04% Hydrogen Cyanide concentration if they believe .04% CO2 causes no harm.
        He takes the sublime and makes it utterly ridiculous with his ignorance of critical thought.

  2. Michael Mann wouldn’t make a scientist’s arse hole and the way he denigrated Dr Happer was absolutely disgusting coming from a fellow scientist.
    Mann has got to be one of the worst narcissists around.

    • He has found himself a suitable companion in Bob Ward. The Grantham Institute has undue influence in the UK and Ward is Grantham’s attack dog.

    • You know he’s a narcissist when he introduces HIMSELF as “the distinguishef climate scientist”, as he did when testifying before the Senate.

  3. So actual science is Lysenkoism, while Mann’s use of the apparat to try to destroy those who find faults in his work, and the apparat supporting him because it has a vested interest in a certain political scam …that’s nothing like Lysenkoism at all.

    • The left currently reminds me of the Red Guards who brought such wholesale misery to the Chinese people. On campuses these days, dissenting (ie. conservative) views are routinely de-platformed. In other words, speakers will be dis-invited and if that doesn’t happen, demonstrators will cause events to be cancelled for fear of violence.

      The actions of the climate establishment match exactly the modus operandi of the neo-red-guards. If it quacks like a duck … So, Mann et al. aren’t precisely Stalinist, they are more Maoist.

      • commieBob

        The left are so mentally distorted they’ll start to call Stalin a right wing extremist soon.

        My son 37 year old is left wing and lives in the “United Scottish Socialist Republic of SNP”(I hasten to add I din’t raise him, I didn’t have any contact at all for 12 of his formative years). We were discussing ‘right wing’ extremism one evening. He predictably pointed to the Na*i insignia as evidence of right wing values so I said “You do know that Hi*ler was left wing don’t you?” “What do you mean” he replied. I pointed out the conclusion was derived from the name of his political party ‘National Socialist German Workers’ Party’. He said, and I kid you not, “That was just a cover, the right wing all supported him”.

        • HotScot,

          I think it can be confusing to talk simply about Left and Right in the climate debates because at the surface things may appear to be of the Left. However, dig a little deeper and the Right is doing very well from selling non-dispatchable renewables technology in huge quantities and thereby driving up the cost of energy. This is illustrated in the book [Ref. 1] by Oxford University’s energy economics specialist, Dieter Helm, from which I quote below:-

          [pages 102 – 103]. “This is how Europe got its short-term 20% renewable energy target. But it would be too great a compliment to the green political movement to give them all the credit for the Renewables Directive. They have been aided and abetted by industrial interests for whom renewables represent a very large carbon pork barrel. Subsidies attract industry, and with guaranteed contracts and political support, major European companies began to sing the greens’ tune. Siemens led the way in Germany … The renewables lobby groups grew in size and influence, and the lobbying became overt, loud and very effective, funded by the companies that stand to gain most from the subsidies.”

          [page 240]. “Few politicians stand up and spell out that climate change is all about coal, economic growth and population growth. It is as if the three new coal power stations that have been opening every week in China and India don’t matter, as long as we open a few wind farms in Europe and install some insulation in our houses … Contrary to what many politicians would wish us to believe, energy policy cannot deliver both sustainable and cheap energy simultaneously … all across Europe we have been led to believe in this miracle, but it is just not happening … The cost of the decarbonisation of entire economies is likely to be very high, and it is going to involve sacrifices.” End of my quotes from Helm.

          Thus, I believe we need, at the very least, an independent ‘due diligence’ exercise (e.g. by Happer) to ensure that the world really needs to substantially decarbonise before we in the West – the East, as indicated above, seems unconcerned – ruin ourselves and our future generations in what may be an unnecessasy exercise.

          Reference
          1. Dieter Helm, “The Carbon Crunch”, revised and up-dated edition, Yale, 2015.

          Regards,
          Idiot_Wind.

          • People of means will find marks for easy accumulation of wealth. If the government is going to foolishly tax the poor to give the wealthy easy money, many will take them up on it.

            Government interference always distorts the markets because people will take advantage of whatever goofball loopholes those distortions create. Thus resources get spent on unproductive things because it provides a good return to the investor, but sucks resources out of the general economy.

          • Basically the argument is that if one is involved in industry, then you are right wing.

            That’s a load of bull, but it’s enough to fool most left wingers.

          • industry = right wing? Well, I see you are trying to live up to your first name Mr Wind.

          • Objectively, there isnt much of anything a reasonable person would call conservatism in Western Europe. The crony “capitalists” in the US are big government control leftists, indeed big global government ones. From your perspective, I can see you may consider both parties in the US far right!

            The real meaning of right wing conservatism in politics is small government, low taxes, laissez fair economy with regulations only to try to keep the playing field level and prevent predatory prices and other abuses. It is totally wrong to equate it with totalitarian dictatorial styles. That needs bigger and bigger government.

        • Fascism (e.g., Nazism) = national socialism
          Communism = international socialism
          Fascism is right of communism, so when they say fascism is right wing, consider who’s making that distinction.

        • The concept of Left and Right, in the sense, is often portrayed as a line and leads to this misunderstanding. If you draw it as a circle, with control on one side and freedom on the other, it makes a lot more sense.

          • not really spetzer86. The further one moves to the left, the more government (and thus the more control of others) one seeks, whereas the further one moves to the right, the less government (and thus the less control of others) one seeks.

          • what you are confusing, Spetzer86, is the concept of the left and right with those who give lip service to the concept but don’t actually follow it with their actions. So while the further right you go, the less government you desire, that are those (politicians) who purport to be on the right but when in power expand government (the total opposite of what they claimed to be for).

          • He may be thinking of left and right in terms of social policy.
            In that area, about the only difference between extreme left and right is what areas of your life they want government to control.

          • “The concept of Left and Right,”

            I think it breaks down to people on the Right favor individual freedoms while people on the Left are much more willing to give up their personal freedoms for the supposed good of the collective.

            The Right = Freedom Lovers

            The Left = The Borg. The Collective. Control Freaks. The opposite of personal freedom.

            The fight between Left and Right is basically that the Right attempts to retain their personal freedoms, and the Left tries to take personal freedoms away.

          • Tom not really because left wants control on meat eating, car-driving, presence of race and gender in companies etc, but wants freedom wrt expression of sexual orientation, migration in.

            Right wants freedom the other way -right to hire gender, sexual orientation by own appropriation.

            In short, right values freedom of legal persons, where left does not value that at all.

            Guess why the Atlas Shrugs?

          • He may be thinking of left and right in terms of social policy.

            Even then, Mark, the right tends to be for less government (and not for using government as a tool to crush those with an opposing opinion). where as the left wants the government to not only put it’s stamp of approval on their social issues and but also to put it’s boot heel on anyone who is against their social issues. Don’t fall for the left’s framing of social issues as the right trying to force their social issues on everyone else. that’s a more apt description of what the left does (as usual the left project their bad habits onto the right).

            For those on the right what you do in your bedroom is your business and that’s where is should stay, to the left the government has to acknowledge what you do in your bedroom (and change centuries old customs, traditions, and definitions along the way) and crush anyone who doesn’t approve of it. Most of the social issues and government involvement on the right is attempting to remove the left enshrining their social issues into the law (for example abortion or gay marriage) and protecting peoples freedoms from being crushed because they don’t have the “right” opinions rather than enshrining their own social issues into law.

          • Tom Abbott basically has it correct.

            The left -> The State is the most important thing.

            The right -> The Individual is the most important thing.

            What left wing ideologies put the State at the top of the heap?

            Communism,
            Socialism,
            Nazism,
            Fascism,
            Totalitarianism.

            Basically, the Individual must subsume their basic freedoms to what the State wants.

            Whereas in right wing governments the State should subsume their freedoms to what Individuals want.

            Straight Democracies,
            Representative Democracies,
            Parliamentary Democracies.

          • Jim, the state doesn’t have “freedoms”. As a construct of humans, the state only has the power that the humans allow it to have (whether willingly in free societies or otherwise in leftist totalitarian societies).

        • HotScot,

          I have seen a copy of an edition of Signal Magazine Na8z propaganda rag from that era. It’s the English language version. It features a picture of a pretty young woman. In the caption it reads, to paraphrase: That ‘although she is only a retail clerk she enjoys a comfortable standard of living and real hope for the future thanks to the new socialist state.’ Wonder what to happened to her?

        • Found any anarchists running for office lately ? Authoritarians, whether selected from many parties or one, are no different. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are not helpful labels – unless one wants to contend that the ‘right’ – aren’t. I’ll go with your son. It’s as good as in Geometry : a difference that makes no difference IS no difference.

          • Found any anarchists running for office lately ? Authoritarians, whether selected from many parties or one, are no different.

            So the only options in politics are “authoritarians” and “anarchists” and if you aren’t an “anarchist” then you must be an “authoritarian”? There’s absolutely nothing inbetween those two extremes in your world? wow. just wow. I don’t know what planet you are living on, but I’m glad it’s not Earth.

          • The one where ALL the super rich have given up their porperry rights to move off world…
            Or maybe Venezuela

        • HotScot,

          Tell him that LEFT is defined by those walking around with THE solution trying to find the appropriate problem.

          An alternative definition is that the LEFT are (predominantly) those that do not return the shopping carts to the appropriate location.

      • “So, Mann et al. aren’t precisely Stalinist, they are more Maoist.”

        I think the American Left prefers the Chinese economic model. The one where the Elites call the shots and the peons go along to get along.

        Of course, the American Left considers that they will be the Elites in this scenario.

      • In my view, everything the Climate Activists do is 100% opposite of what they say. Same with the Radical Left. The climate crowd hates air travel but supports flying 10,000 or more to climate love-ins multiple times a year in exotic places with public funds. They are against capitalism except when it benefits their favorite corporations. Those that make EV’s (Failed EV’s for that matter), wind farms and solar fields. Only those companies can exist in their world. The left is for free speech except when it disagrees with their mantra. Then it is suppressed. And the list goes on and on.

        • In my view, everything the Climate Activists do is 100% opposite of what they say. Same with the Radical Left.

          “Climate Activists” and “Radical Left” are one in the same more often than not.

      • Back in the ’70s Jacob Bronowski had a television special on PBS titled “The Ascent of Man”. Some very good observation that are relevant in particular today as more things become absolute truth that cannot be questioned or discussed. In it he examined our ability to perceive details and illustrated our limitations with the “absolute”. He summarized it very well stating essentially that we humans get ourselves in trouble whenever we assume our knowledge to be absolute and above questioning whether it be politics, religion, or science. At the end he stepped into a pond at a concentration camp and picked up a handful of mud and said that this is what happens when we allow ideas to be unquestioned, this is what remains of my relatives.

        We are at a turning point in human history that could result in the same results as the NAZI fanatics. Climate change is nothing more than a tool to frighten the masses into accepting a totalitarian government. Science is being corrupted for that end.

        “There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.” -Ayn Rand

        Yes, the Nazis were socialists.

  4. Refreshing to have a climate alarmist comparing climate realists to Stalin instead of Hitler. Maybe Mann isn’t as inflexible as I had thought. The next thing you know he might suggest that maybe the sun, orbits, cycles and cosmic and galactic rays have something to do with global warming (“climate change”).

    • Methinks he doth protest too much…

      CAGW advocates realize the gig is up and are desperately trying to inact some kind of GND policies before global temps start naturally declining, which they will, in turn, attribute the to insanely expensive government programs they’re now pushing.

      Now is the perfect time to conduct a complete audit of the CAGW scam, and expose the huge discrepancies between all of CAGW’s hilarious projections vs reality: SLR, global temps, CH4 levels, ocean acidification, severe weather incidence, Antarctic Land lce Mass, etc.,

      The Red Team must also show the 0.85C of beneficial global warming recovering we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 is a net benefit, and also offer some alternative explanations for it: LIA recovery, natural variation, 30-year ocean warm cycles, Super El Niño events, the 1933~1996 Grand Solar Maximum event, the 30% reduction of PM 2.5 since 1980, etc.,

      The Red Team most also expose the highly irregular way the Karl 2015 paper was immediately accepted and used to justify adding heat to raw temperature data to end the hiatus.

      • “trying to inact some kind of GND policies”

        It would be great if they “inacted” GND. Enacting it would be a bad thing, though.

  5. No decisions to spend money should be based on untested claims for cause and effect.

    As soon as we have access to a validated climate model, we can start talking about what the models project. At present, the models cannot replicate their own projections. Temperature uncertainty at 2100 is ±15 C. That’s meaninglessly inaccurate.

    There is no resemblance between Lysenkoism and holding the debate Mann refuses to host, support or even suggest. It appears he intends that claimants shall never have to face their challengers. If it is so solid, show the Committee. That should be a breeze for someone as smart as Prof Mann.

    If alarming projections turn out to be no more than speculative and imaginative guesses, we need not take them seriously. The cure could well be far worse than the disease, so to speak.

    I would rather bring water and irrigation and education and health care to all of Africa than to give them a handful of wind turbines and a boatload of propaganda about how there is no money. Each international climate conflab could pay for the drilling of 40,000 boreholes. That is the opportunity cost of this nonsense.

    • I could not agree more. If the science is completely settled, they’re should be no problem with this at all. It’s not a debate about opinions, nor beliefs, but about facts. Models need not apply, either…

      They should be saying “bring it on!”

      • Zig Zag Wanderer

        The climate ‘debate’ has never been about the science. It’s all about left wing propaganda tactics, bullying, smear and Ad Hom attacks. We know their science is rubbish, they know their science is rubbish but as usual with the left, belief matters more than facts. That’s why trying to persuade people with facts is like pushing treacle uphill.

        Sadly, sceptics must wish for precisely what we don’t want, a colder planet, but even that will be blamed on ‘Climate Change’ because, of course, they dropped the AGW brand when they realised they were wrong.

        The best thing that could happen now is for temperatures to fly past their dreaded 1.5C ‘tipping point’ and for absolutely nothing untoward to happen.

      • For a settled subject, there’s a hell of a lot of debate and disagreement ocurring on this subject.

      • That’s what — was it Jones at UEA? — should have done when asked for his data, instead of “I”ve spent 20 years on it and all you want to do is find something wrong with it.”

        You’d think he’d want someone to confirm his results and prove his brilliance. That he immediately accused the fellow of wanting to “find something wrong” shows his own mindset.

    • Correction: As soon as we have access to a validated climate model, we can start talking about what the models predict.

      • A “validated climate model” includes storm activity which is often too local to measure and track. It is not only past sensing, it is then past calculating. On a world covered by water known to affect Europe’s temperatures and conditions ( the current from the Gulf of Mexico ) ‘modeling’ from land surface data is so inadequate as to be a complete farce – which it is.

    • Canadians tried that in the Sahel. Eventually groundwater reserves were too deep for plant life to access. The same is happening in India today, with pumping for agriculture becoming more and more difficult.

  6. He’s perfectly happy to have the UN based panel promote one side of the story.
    But he’s horrified that “A panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous.”

    But then again, we all hope that it would be disastrous for this abomination of science.

  7. Mann is of course is using exactly the opposite of that.
    Lysenko demanded his “science” not be reviewed. No dissent or questioning was allowed. Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in the Soviet Union in 1948.
    That is EXACTLY what Mann wants. He wants dissent from “consensus Science” climate scam outlawed.

    Maybe the brainless media of liberals and fellow climate liars believes what Mann says. If they do, then they are stupid in addition to being corrupt.
    But thinking people should understands Michael Mann is a pathological liar.

      • Do not fear the word “and”, Bryan. Mr Mann can be both a pathological liar *and* deluded in his climatologist beliefs. We know for certain that he is the former – as he even lied on his statement to the court in this lawsuit against Steyn when he claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner. (If he’s willing to lie to the court about something so easily verified, who wouldn’t he lie to and what wouldn’t he lie about?) and he’s given plenty of indication of being the later as well.

    • Yes he is. And UN is the politbyroo behind his back.

      This episode is just amazing turn from that apemann. He is revealing his pure climatelysenkoism and he´s blaming sceptics are doing his kind of science.

      He´s digging he´s own grave happily smiling.

      He must be very proud maaannn. A real bad**s.

  8. A panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous.

    For Climate Scientology ™ yes!

  9. There are some differences between Lysenko and Will Happer. Lysenko didn’t just criticise his opponents, he had his opponents executed, or had them deported them to socialist death camps.

    Sounds a lot like what certain extremely vocal AGW proponents are expressing as needed treatment for Climate Sceptics.
    AGW proponents are the true Marxists

  10. As usual, Stalinists always blame other to behave as themselves actually do.

    The only Stalinist behavior highlighted in the last decades in the “scientific domain” concerns the climate gate.

    • TedM

      Hopefully not. Somewhere between 50% and 75% of Peer Review studies have been found to be non replicable. Science itself is in crisis over this but Peer Review is still touted as the gold standard of scientific integrity by those who refuse to acknowledge it.

      The real question is, which 75% of Peer Reviewed climate science would alarmists like to chuck in the bin?

      • You know, I am rather amazed by that statistic. It is impossible to get tenure by replicating and checking the work of other scientists, so very few studies are ever reproduced. If it weren’t for a couple of disastrous medical outcomes predicated on following study recommendations, this would never come to light. Too bad patients had to suffer and die to bring it forward.

  11. a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.

    They know their science is going to get shot full of holes when it faces scrutiny, so they’re already trying to cast any conclusions as “alternative explanations”.

    That’s bullsh*t. They’re not examining “alternative explanations”, they’re examining the facts.

    • You posting that reminded me of Ned Beatty in Deliverance as the hillbillies had him crawling on the ground before they put him over a log and did unspeakable things to him. Beatty did not want to take the part. He thought he would ONLY be remembered for the one scene the rest of his life. Burt Reynolds talked him into taking the role. He convinced Beatty that would never happen. Well, Burt was wrong and it did indeed happen.

      One time while walking together in NYC, fans recognized them. The fans yelled at Beatty, “Squeal like a pig!”. Both Reynolds and Beatty were mortified. Beatty turned to Reynolds and said, “I told you so.”

  12. I guess Mann’s version of overwhelming evidence is a bit different to reality.

    Not one prediction has been correct, not a single one, and none of the data points are going int he right direction for AGW, they are all headed in the wrong direction.

    He knows the house of cards is almost ready to fall, there is no stopping it, especially if the number one metric, which is global temperatures, need to be adjusted every month to try to keep the charade going.

    • Overwhelming “evidence” spewed out of a computer model. Mann is using the wrong “F” word, fact, when the proper descriptor is fiction.

    • “Not one prediction has been correct, not a single one”

      Please cite evidence of any “prediction” (MADE by the IPCC) in their ARs) that was EXPECTED to have come to pass by early 2019?

      Hint: you don’t get to strawman predictions made decades for now, err, NOW.

  13. They are that much out of course and so clueless that even dead reckoning can’t help them out of their dogma clouds.

  14. Scott Adams has wisely pointed out that a climate crisis is being presented to the public the same way scams are introduced. In the real world, if you tell businessmen that everyone agrees on something, that businessmen will know you are scamming them. If you refuse to answer the questions and claim that the debate is over, it is a sign that you are scamming people. If you refuse to present your raw data, you are a scammer.

    Micheal Mann has always behaved like someone who was perpetrating a scam, and he continues to act that way in this latest article. This is probably why half the population does not believe in an impending climate change disaster. These people don’t have the scientific background to even begin questioning the science, but they are wise in the ways of the world, and can recognize a scam when they see it.

    Good scientists don’t act like con men. Climate alarmists have acted like con artists from the beginning, starting with Hansen’s AC trick during his testimony before Congress in 1988 to Michael Mann’s continuous attempts to suppress and demonize all opposing viewpoints. It takes the brazen balls of a con man to write: “Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics”, when the author has embraced a climate change crisis as the basis for global energy policy, while consistently denouncing and persecuting scientific critics!

    • “a climate crisis is being presented to the public the same way scams are introduced”

      Just missing the “As Seen On Tv” label commonly found on products such as water powered flashlights.

    • Rather than being a scammer, I think Mann is proving himself to be a chronically delusional pseudoscientist. Does the mere fact that someone lays claim to the “title” scientist actually make that person a bonafide scientist?

      Is there any place in the world where there is a temperature record that spans enough years without the thermometer being moved or exchanged for a newer model that gives an indication that the temperature has increased since, say, 1955?

      • “Is there any place in the world where there is a temperature record that spans enough years without the thermometer being moved or exchanged for a newer model that gives an indication that the temperature has increased since, say, 1955?”

        The truth is we have all the temperature records we need to decide that CAGW is not real.

        Unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world show that the 1930’s was as warm as temperatures today. Which means we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, which also means CAGW is not happening.

        Here’s the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart which shows the 1930’s as being warmer than today (1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and 0.4C warmer than 2016 using the UAH satellite chart):

        https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

        Unmodified temperature charts from around the world show the same temperature profile as the Hansen 1999 chart, i.e., the 1930’s were just as warm or warmer than subsequent years.

        Since CO2 is not considered to be a significant factor in the 1930’s warmth, and the current temperatures are no warmer than the 1930’s, that means that CO2 is not necessary for our current temperatures to be what they are. Mother Nature caused the warmth of the 1930’s and Mother Nature is causing the similar warmth of today. This has to be the assumption until proven otherwise, and to date, there is no evidence for anything else as a driver of the climate.

        It was as warm in the 1930’s as it is today. All the unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world show it. The T-max temperature charts show it, too.

        The only thing that doesn’t show the 1930’s being as warm as today is the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts which were created to hide the fact that the 1930’s were as warm as today, in an effot to sell the CAGW fraud that the world is in unprecedented heat territory. Nothing could be further from the truth..

        I can understand why Mann doesn’t want his Hockey Stick investigated because it didn’t turn out very well for him the last time it was looked at. And I’m sure the creators of the modern-era Hockey Stick charts (the ones that cool the 1930’s to insignificance) won’t be too happy with having their work looked at, either.

        The chickens are starting to come home to roost.

    • It seems that Mann cannot speak or write much without using the word denier somewhere along the line.Im not a scientist nor do I know any personally but I dont think its cool for a socalled professional to so blatantly belittle others that question him. Am i wrong?

      • Did Einstein belittle those that questioned his theories? NO. He simply told them to disprove them. It would only take one instance to do so. That’s what is important about the 1930″s being as warm (or warmer) than today without CO2. Like it or not, that is the one instance that disproves today’s theory that CO2 is THE driver of temperature.

        You can’t ever prove a Theory but you can disprove one. You can run 10,000 experiments that show your theory predicts something but it still remains a Theory. But, it only takes one experiment to show your Theory is incorrect. Better yet, it won’t become a Law until you know enough to put it down on paper as an equation. A mathematical fact.

        AGW and CAGW don’t even have physical experiments that prove them correct. Global temperature calculations don’t even include CO2 as a variable, so they can’t prove or disprove anything about what drives temperatures. GCM’s are only computer programs of how someone thinks things work. They can’t prove or disprove anything either unless the “equations” that drive them have also been proven to be accurate. Somehow with GCM’s we have mixed up physical science with computer games.

  15. What review his and his esteemed colleagues work that has been so thoroughly cheeked reviewed and proved to be so accurate and true that anyone with a government or personal interest in the new order can see it’s true.

    WHY OH WHY would you want to do that?

    Maybe he needs to review his life?
    As he sings in this “I’m a bad’n and a bad’n I’ll stay”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96rC4X_KWl4

    James Bull

  16. The “Exxon Knew” narrative will someday be replaced by the “Mann Knew” narrative.

    I doubt in my lifetime, but I’m hoping to see that day.

  17. Lysenkoism from french wiki :

    “Propagandiste volubile du régime soviétique et du marxisme-léninisme, Lyssenko grimpe les échelons du Parti communiste de l’Union soviétique et, rompant avec le scepticisme rationnel et avec la méthode expérimentale, dénonce comme « contre-révolutionnaires » les généticiens scientifiques qui osaient discuter ses postulats. Lyssenko entend « appliquer la dialectique marxiste aux sciences de la nature » et, inversement, à démontrer la validité de la méthode dialectique par les sciences naturelles3. Bénéficiant du soutien de Joseph Staline, il gagne encore en influence et élimine sans états d’âme ses adversaires, jugés comme « saboteurs » et déportés au Goulag.

    Pour cette raison et parce qu’il s’appuyait sur des postulats faussement scientifiques en génétique, le lyssenkisme est depuis lors utilisé métaphoriquement pour dénoncer la manipulation ou la déformation de la méthode scientifique pour étayer une conclusion pré-déterminée liée à un objectif idéologique ou politique4,5,6.”

    Google Translation :

    “Spreading propagandist of the Soviet regime and Marxism-Leninism, Lysenko climbs the ranks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, breaking with rational skepticism and the experimental method, denounces as “counter-revolutionaries” scientific geneticists who dared to discuss his assumptions. Lysenko intends to “apply the Marxist dialectic to the natural sciences” and, conversely, to demonstrate the validity of the dialectical method by the natural sciences3. With the support of Joseph Stalin, he gains in influence and eliminates without qualms his opponents, deemed “saboteurs” and deported to the Gulag.

    For this reason and because it was based on false scientific assumptions in genetics, Lysenkoism has since been used metaphorically to denounce the manipulation or deformation of the scientific method to support a pre-determined conclusion related to an ideological or political goal 4,5,6. ”

    “breaking with rational skepticism and the experimental method,
    manipulating or deforming of the scientific method to support a pre-determined conclusion related to an ideological or political”

    Isn’t that the exact behavior of climate alarmists in their attempt to spread Malthusianism and impose Marxism as a solution ?

    • Yes, Mann is the very embodiment of what he is accusing Trump and Happer of.
      Mann’s accusation is a deflection-misdirection tactic when a propaganda campaign is at risk of being badly exposed, i.e. accuse your opponent of exactly the same behavior you are using as to appear to be seizing the moral high ground.

      The top -down directed IPCC climate science is fragile. It is going to crumble when credible, outside expert review of it is made in such a public fashion by someone with Happer’s cred.
      Happer’s first step should be to query the NASA OCO-2 data team and why they haven’t been putting out global CO2 papers and monthly products since summer 2017. OCO-2 is a spectrophotometer platform, which is exactly Happer’s expertise. Establish his cred and expand from there.

    • I’m surprised I had to read down this far in the thread for someone to observe that Mann has his accusation backwards. It was Lysenko’s theories, containing irrational assumptions and proposals, that were protected by the government and the elite; rejecting skepticism and the scientific method.

      You could easily paraphrase the first paragraph above inserting “Mann” instead of Lysenko and “Progressives” for the Communist Party and it would read very accurately.

      The bigger issue for me is why do legitimate scientists, even those with alarmist views, stand by and let Mann get away with these screeds that are filled with ad hominems and misinformation.

      I continue to think Happer has to avoid the appearance of being oppositional (such as a Red Team mission) and address every issue as objectively as possible. Pointing out the danger of acting when the data and assumptions are “uncertain” would be a good first step. Let’s return the “Uncertainty Principle” to its original meaning.

  18. No one is allowed to look at my climate data. Mine, all mine. Biggo secret. Now go set world economic policy based on it. No, noooo, you cannot look at it. Trust me. I am Lord. I rule here.

  19. Typical Climate Scientist they seem to think we care about what they think. As they are activists with very biased views it is only sensible to check everything. Same as you would check the work of any scientist working for a pharma company because they are obviously not unbiased.

  20. The only detractor from Mann’s work is Mann… because it definitely isn’t science by any definition. Actual science can stand up to scrutiny… and actually invites it in order to demonstrate it’s accuracy.

  21. Then is climate change not a real danger? Maybe Idai cyclone can wake up the skeptics of climate change.

    • Climate is always a real danger. It just isn´t worse than it has been. Sleep well and have bad climate dreams, and don´t wake up. Maybe reality is finally waking up.

    • malkom700

      By that metric, the 12 years the East coast of the USA went without a major landfall hurricane would mean climate change isn’t happening, wouldn’t it?

      “One swallow does not make a summer” – Aristotle

    • Sorry Idai is Weather NOT Climate.
      Have you forgotten the Definition of Climate ie it is based on at least 30 years of Weather?

    • malkom700… Idai was not the strongest tropical cyclone to hit Mozambique in the last 30 years, which averages almost 1 tropical system per year. Good records don’t seem to go back very far, so it is impossible to determine if there is any trend in Indian Ocean cyclones, but we do no that there is no trend in total cyclone energy around the planet.

      Where longer records exist in other basins, we find all kinds of trends, up and down, that last maybe 10 to 15 years, but no trend over the length of the entire record, so even if there is an upward trend in the frequency or intensity of Indian Ocean tropical cyclones, It doesn’t say anything about climate change, because such trends naturally occur without climate change.

      Whenever bad weather happens anywhere, alarmists are quick to call it the result of man-made climate change, but they always make the claim emotionally. They may point to one scientific paper to support their claim, but ignore all science that says otherwise.

      The media has an addiction to sensationalism, and alarmists have a powerful agenda. The two play off each other very well to present a fiction for the benefit of both.

      Climate crisis skeptics are very much awake and more knowledgeable than most about the full body of scientific evidence. The actual science does not support the notion of a man-made climate crisis! The science does support a slight man-made warming that is almost entirely beneficial, but indiscernible from natural climate variation. Everyone I know who has taken the time to understand the full body of science around climate change, has come to a very similar conclusion quite independently.

    • There have been bad storms in the past.
      Why do you believe that this bad storm is proof of climate change?

    • Then is climate change not a real danger?

      Oh yes, it’s going to kill us all in 12 yrs! We’re all doomed, so might as well party, eh?

    • Then is climate change not a real danger?

      The climate changes, it always has always will. some times it changes for the better, sometimes for the worse, as it’s always been. “Man made climate change”, on the other hand is only a danger in the sense that misguided policies to fight the chimera of Man made climate change can ruin economies and destroy lives.

      Maybe Idai cyclone can wake up the skeptics of climate change.

      if you knew anything about climate, you’d know that one weather event is not climate. if you knew anything about climate history, you’d know Idai was not the first cyclone to hit that part of the world and you’d know that it won’t be the last regardless of what nighmares you wish to subject the world to in an effort to control the weather. And if you weren’t a troll, you’d actually read the responses everyone has given you and learn a little something.

      • Nothing. But it does tell us that malkom 700 doesn’t know and/or doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

    • Cyclones haven’t awakened the IPCC. They claim no apparent association with the recent minimal warming.

      Those are the sceptics you’re referring to, right?

  22. Eric
    “or had them deported them to socialist death camps.” ?
    One too many “them” in there….. : )

  23. Surely sticking two graphs together (cut and paste) and hope nobody notices is the epitome of advanced science!
    Sometimes called the ‘trick’.

    Anyone who questions this is a reactionary troublemaker with a political agenda.

  24. Michael Mann juggles. Stalinism is just a ban on the revision of the “dominant theory.” Who is afraid of its revision? I guess, only those scientists who feel they have lied to people and soon their deception will be revealed and put on public display.

  25. Mann lives on the other side of the mirror. It is he who is the Lysenkoist, not Happer.

  26. Here at WUWT we all are well aware that the UNIPCC reports are political documents and that the underlying science has been politically massaged to to forecast the worst outcomes for the world.
    Will Happer and his team hopefully will bring some sanity to this whole mess that has infected climate science.
    I could only guess how many activist scientists believe the crackpot theories that they are predicting and the end of the world if drastic steps are not undertaken.
    If politicians had their way and cut the use of fossil fuels the whole world would be in crisis and the world would plunge into a recession that would be much worse than most of them could ever imagine .
    I know that they have absolutely no idea where the food comes from to feed 7 billion people and how that it gets to the supermarket and market stalls.
    Then there is clothing and housing and heating during the winter and cooling during the summer.
    So many people now live their lives completely in cities and they cannot imagine how the real cost of food has fallen in the last hundred years with mechanization, fertilizers and agricultural science .
    Fossil fuel feeds the world .
    Processing,refrigeration ,and transport from the farms to every corner of the globe is dependent on fossil fuels .
    The whole planet relies on fossil fuel to grow food and clothing which is the very first requirement of every human being.
    I have farmed for over 60 years and have seen major changes .
    Electricity came to my fathers farm in 1948 , tractors replaced horses ,combine harvesters and all other machinery such as hydraulic diggers can do the work of many men and it all requires fossil fuel .
    I hope that Will Happer and his team can change the way that people perceive CO2 and open up the discussion to bring about real change in the coming decade.

    • Activist science -Bottom of the pile: Ignorance and Ineptitude
      Top of the pile: Influence and Income

    • I could only guess how many activist scientists believe the crackpot theories that they are predicting

      “activist scientists” is an oxymoron. You are either an activist (someone who takes a side and works to achieve a preconceived outcome) or you are a scientist (someone who doesn’t take a side or have a preconceived outcome that they work to achieve but instead follows the data to wherever it leads) it’s impossible to be both as the goals of each are mutually exclusive.

      I know that they have absolutely no idea where the food comes from to feed 7 billion people and how that it gets to the supermarket and market stalls.

      Indeed. It’s easy to say “the food will be grown locally”. Tell that to a city like New York. Even if they knocked down every tree in central park and turned it into farmland, they wouldn’t be able to grow enough food to feed the entire population of the city. On the other hand, it would do the liberal elites in those cities a world of good to be forced into doing a honest days labor for once in their pampered lives by farming for food to survive.

      • I’m afraid that your hope is premature. The “elite” will live in ghettos and get all the necessities of life provided free of charge by the government. Inclusive apartment, heating,energy, food and clothes and what else is needed. For this, the army of the underprivileged will be charged accordingly. That’s how it is in socialism.

        • I think that’s the first time I’ve seen the words “the elite” and “live in ghettos” in the same sentence.

  27. There is plenty of stuff for Happer to draw on. He needn’t do any research. Should be all over pretty quickly. The MSM will give it the front page – oh, sorry

  28. “As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone,”

    As compared to the warming alarmists who have called for the execution of skeptics…

  29. “Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science”

    No, President Donald Trump is going to discredit Michael Mann. That’s what Mann is worried about.

  30. I would think that a review of Climate Science and in particular, Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick, would have a negative impact on his lawsuits.

    In his favor, should negative outcomes in the courts reduce Dr. Mann to penury, I’d suppose he has a lot of tree cores and cross sections lying around to burn to keep warm.

  31. The Climate Change cadre should welcome normal scientific review.

    If Climate Change data, falsifiable hypotheses, and predictions stand up to scrutiny, the position becomes stronger and defensible. That would get most everyone “on board”…to save civilization.

    If Climate Change cannot, it becomes indefensible. That’s how it works.

    Claims for a scientific “position” are just claims until they are put to the test…according to the rules of science.

    Any group that asserts that others should sacrifice freedoms and treasure (on the order of $100s of Billions to $Trillions) on the basis of untested claims is despotic if the power is there to enforce the sacrifices and deprivations.

    Unfortunately, the press can preach propagandize otherwise to anyone who is still listening to them. ( I turned them off decades ago)

    Climate Change is a political battle not a scientific one so far. And since earth’s climate is so complex, the debate will be messy and complicated.

    But for starters, it sure would be nice if just 1 contested Climate Change prediction came true before a verdict is handed out in their favor.

  32. Before any real science reviewing begins, I’d love to see Happer commission a professional pollster (or pollsters) to do a real in depth poll on the views of scientists and engineers and statisticians on global warming and climate change. At the least asking to what degree humans are responsible and then asking if it is a serious problem requiring $Trillions. Measure opinions of how much warming would be abated under the UN Plan since China and India get a free pass.

    It’s essential this polling be done right at the start because the established rule in the climate debate is that scientific consensus is what matters. And the 97% thing was not a scientific poll…just some selective advocacy work done by a cartoonist.

  33. In would be interesting to see whether the findings of “mainstream cimate science” would start changing if significant research funding were directed toward:

    1) investigation of positive effects of increased atmospheric CO2
    2) investigation of the reliability and robustness (or lack thereof) of tree-ring based paleoclimate reconstructions

    When billions of dollars worth of research funding were made available explicitly for research into ways increased atmospheric CO2 might be harmful, it was inevitable that that “mainstream” researchers would conclude that increased CO2 is harmful.

    If billions of dollars were to be made available now to investigate the positive impacts of CO2 fertilization, the possibility of increased CO2 forestalling or even preventing the next ice age, or such similar topics, it’s inevitable that “mainstream climate science” will form a consensus as to the benefits of CO2.

    While conducting a “Red Team” review of the science is a very good idea, making significant research funding available for investigation of the possible positive effects of increased CO2 will have a much bigger impact on “mainstream climate science”, and the administration can and should do both.

    • Better to get the government out of funding scientific research altogether, except perhaps for any necessary to the strategic security of the country. Like many others, you have pointed out the hugely corrupting influence such funding has had. I don’t support using the same technique to get a pre-desired result just because it may better comport with my own beliefs.

  34. Michael Mann wants what he’s always wanted; his word on climate taken as “gospel” not to be questioned, his data and methods never reviewed, and a whole lot of money with no strings attached.

  35. Without being disrespectful, I want to help point out how Mann and Ward are grossly misrepresenting Trump and his action of forming the Presidential Committee on Climate Security:

    A panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous. Yet that’s what White House officials want.

    The purpose of the panel is NOT to “promote” anything, let alone promote “an alternative explanation”. The purpose of the panel is to REVIEW the SCIENCE being put forth as the very basis for drastically altering major policies that challenge the foundations of society as we know it in the United States.

    “Disastrous”? — this is an unnecessarily loaded term that grossly misrepresents good judgment of rational people trying to take practical measures to insure that national policies are based on legitimate facts.

    Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House to try to discredit the findings of mainstream climate science.

    “Discredit?” — again, this term misrepresents the effort. It speaks more to fear of being proven wrong than to concern for maintaining integrity.

    The Trump administration has already purged information about climate change from government websites, gagged federal experts and attempted to end funding for climate change programs.

    “Purged”? “Gagged”? — more loaded terms, chosen to create dramatic effect to support a mistaken idea of administrative wrongdoing.

    “Attempted to end funding”? — one more time, this misrepresents a thorough review as an evil act.

    Now a group of hardcore climate change deniers and contrarians linked to the administration is organizing a petition in support of a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.

    “Hardcore climate change deniers”? “Contrarians”? — even more use of loaded terms, NOT becoming of someone who is scientific minded.

    “Alternative official explanation”? — still misrepresenting the effort as a plan to purposely alter the very facts being reviewed. A review of the facts is NOT and effort to promote. If another explanation is arrived at, then it is because the facts were found, upon REVIEW, to be faulty.

    The panel will consist of scientists who do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are behind climate change and its impacts.

    But they are scientists, right? — people who understand how science works? — and they disagree with what is being put forth as “overwhelming evidence”, and, AGAIN, they are SCIENTISTS, which means that the evidence must NOT be overwhelming to some SCIENTISTS.

    The creation of the new panel of climate change deniers, and the recruitment of supporters to provide it with a veneer of legitimacy, echoes the campaign by Joseph Stalin’s regime to discredit the work of geneticists who disagreed with the disastrous pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko.

    This entire sentence is littered with political terminology that pushes a ridiculous false comparison of Stalin with Trump and Lysenko with Happer. It conveys an air of transparent hysteria, rather than an air of intelligent analysis by supposedly competent “scientists”.

    Lysenko wrongly believed that acquired traits could be passed on by parents to their offspring. Stalin embraced Lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics.

    This is irrelevant, because it further forces an absurd comparison of people and events that have very little in common. Again, it speaks more to hysterical panic than to informed analysis. And it raises the question, “Why would scientists panic over a thorough review, when scientists typically understand such a process?”

    • Mann is no longer a scientist if he ever truly was one. He is an egomaniac defending his turf by all means necessary. He has done more harm to the scientific community than anyone in modern times. Rather than be canonized he should be exposed for the pompous power hungry fool he is.

    • If Happer merely puts out a statement that Mann’s study is wrong with no backup or evidence, then maybe Mann’s claim could be understood. I suspect there will be sufficient backup to show how and where the study went off track. Mann will then have a chance to factually and with evidence dispute the finding. He probably won’t get paid for defending his work, but tough cookies. It should operate much like a doctoral review and he can defend his work. All the whining beforehand is just that, whining.

    • Well said! That was the first thing I noticed when I read this. Complete misdirection and fabrication showing his own narcissistic rage and projecting his own ‘way of the world’ onto others. He projects this onto others because it’s the only way he can see the world, so therefore everyone must think and act the same way as him.

      Here are the 9 traits of a narcissist.. see how many you think Mr Mann displays

      Arrogance and Domineering. …
      Grandiosity. …
      Preoccupation with Success and Power. …
      Lack of Empathy. …
      Belief of Being Unique. …
      Sense of Entitlement. …
      Requires Excessive Admiration. …
      Exploitative.

      And the definition of Narcissistic Rage

      1.The narcissist doesn’t get his or her way, even when it’s unreasonable.

      2. The narcissist is criticized in some way, even when the critique is made diplomatically, reasonably, and constructively.

      3. The narcissist isn’t treated as the center of attention, even when there are other priorities.

      4. The narcissist is caught breaking rules, violating social norms, or disregarding boundaries. i.e.
      “How dare you talk to me this way in front of my son!” —Angry customer being called out for blatantly cutting in line

      5. The narcissist is asked to be accountable for his or her actions.

      6. The narcissist suffers a blow to his or her idealized, egotistical self-image (such as when being told he will not be given “exception to the rule”, or be granted “special treatment”).

      7. The narcissist is reminded of his or her charade, manipulation, exploitation, inadequacy, shame, or self-loathing.

      8. The narcissist feels (fears) not in control of their relational or physical surroundings.

      Me thinks he could be close to 100% score…

  36. As always, these guys dance around the truth and project it on opponents.

    Warmism IS Stalinism.
    It’s on purpose.

  37. [Dr. Michael Mann continues to communicate his point of view, with the confidence of the morally righteous. After hearing him testify at the Hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in March, I thought he is uncivil and anti-intellectual.

    First, he isn’t self-conscious enough to realize that he has all of the symptoms of a bias for the “noble cause” of climate change science. Also, he repeatedly uses ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, but yet he doesn’t like being the subject of wit or humor.

    Historically, Mann has tried to sue several people and media for “defamation” over the years: Anyone who was unkind to the science of his “Hockey Stick” graph or to him. In fact, Mann has been quote saying “it is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.” And yet, Mann wouldn’t turn over the data he used for the basis of his famous study to a British Columbia Supreme Court, claiming the data was his intellectual property in spite of the fact that the U.S. Taxpayer paid for his “Hockey Stick” Study.

    Also, this withholding of data isn’t new for Mann and it fits a pattern used by the last EPA: If one has the noble cause of climate change, they don’t have to provide access to their data; Although, if the loyal opposition withholds data, they are accused of denying history.

    Speaking of assault on science, Michael Mann continues his own.

  38. I am always glad to see that so many here on WUWT express healthy, SCIENTIFIC skepticism about climate change, especially when the “consensus” in the media and the “scientific” literature always implies or flat-out states that anything bad is Man-caused.

    It is high time that facts and evidence and observations are to be taken seriously, and computer models not so much. And also that we realize that we don’t really understand everything about the Earth’s climate and its trends, not even close, especially when the climatistas like to take 10 years or 30 years or even 100 years and extrapolate to doomsday predictions – when both recorded human history and geologic history show us that CO2 has been up and down, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler, and there does not seem to be any causative effect by CO2 and hardly any correlation either.

    I welcome a more open and honest discussion! No more business as usual the way Mann et al conduct it!

  39. I guess Lysenko would have accused real scientists of being too Mannish in trying to criticize Lyesenko’s disastrous pseudoscience, and that would have been sufficient justification to have his detractors censored, sued, imprisoned and executed. Perhaps the creator of the hokey stick is simply channelling his own secret inner Stalinism.

  40. Half of the political terms “Left” and “Right” is archaic.
    This was valid in the first part of the 1900s when the struggle was between International Socialists and National Socialists.
    Today’s authoritarians can’t take criticism and OK with being called “Left” accuse their critics as being “Right Wing”.
    Not so.
    The “Left” can be criticized in an academic or apolitical way.
    The best is Murray Gell-Mann’s definition of a totalitarian system.
    That which is not prohibited is compulsory.
    It describes every political movement from Communism to today’s Political Correctness.
    The term “Right Wing” in politics is archaic.

  41. Michael Mann has just provided proof that he is a fraud and ignorant as hell and one whohasn’t a clue as to how science works. The closest thing to the scientific method is our judicial system,in which evidence is proferred by opposed sides and judged as to which side has the advantage. However, science requires very pursuasive evidence to make firm conclusions.

    • Except in science, evidence is not “judged”. You may form a hypothesis of how something works. You may run numerous experiments to confirm your hypothesis but this doesn’t PROVE anything. It only show that your hypothesis MAY be true. The real science starts when you and others try to DISPROVE your hypothesis. After enough time and failure of enough disproving experiments, your hypothesis may become a Theory. But, only when you can mathematically derive a proof of your Theory will it become a Law.

  42. So now we have Mann on record opposing “peer review”. That is as long as he can’t choose the reviewers?

  43. I just put myself through a refresher course of reading all the ClimateGate emails. This coming from Mann? Please.

  44. The problem is that climate change is so extremely expensive. Above all, reducing CO2 is extremely expensive and brings practically nothing to the warming! It would be so much better to use the money for developing thied world countries, education and infrastructure and supplying the population with food and medicines.

  45. Everyone above has nailed it. If the ‘science is settled’ then the ‘consensus’ should just sit back and watch Happer et al make fools of themselves. Calmly.

  46. Let me explain the absurdity that even the “GHE” is in simple words.

    Since humans do not descent from apes, god must have created them. Thus the existence of god is proven.

    You may find this “logic” somewhat lacking, but you still believe in the GHE. So let us see how it is defined.

    Since Earth has an emissivity of 1 and clouds are not interfering with LWIR emissions, only GHGs can hold back IR emissions. Thus the GHE is proven.

    First you rule out reality, then you come up with an arbitrary alternative explanation which allows you to argue anything you like, regardless how absurd it is. The flat Earth is derived in a very similar fashion.

    Since Earth surface does have an emissivity which is substantially lower than 1, that is about 0.91, and since we all know how clouds massively reflect and thus block LWIR from emitting (just look at night time cooling rates relative to cloudiness), we already do now what is holding back IR emissions.

    Taking a closer, educated look at these factors, we can tell that the surface is not emitting 390W/m2, but rather just 355W/m2. Cloud forcing on the other side is responsible for another 80-100W/m2, which is a little bit more than the cloud albedo effect, meaning that clouds over all have a slight warming effect (not a cooling!).

    Both combined make up for 115-135W/m2, which is the biggest part of the so called “GHE” of 150W/m2.

    here some work in detail..

    https://de.scribd.com/document/369953233/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-2

  47. Amazing, a 100 carat Stalinist in steroids, moans and complains against Stalinist tactics.
    Incredible.

    Gosh, this guy is so lost, that he has no any clue any more, where ever he stands anymore.

    Oh, or maybe he is trying to get help, desperately!?
    Hopefully that happens to be it, hopefully.
    Hilarious.

    Maybe the Stalinist tactics may hopefully give this guy another chance, if he be really counting on it all…. Maybe!… A big maybe… but hey, you never really know…until trying!

    cheers

  48. I’m amazed that he brings up Lysenkoism, which is very similar to the climate change policy of the previous administration.

  49. It’s a classic Mannian tactic, and those of his brethren Warmunists to pose “climate science” as the victim, and the underdog. Thus, the whining and the passive aggressive behavior. They like to pretend that they are heroic martyrs, taking unfair and evil blows from the Goliathan “Deniers”, while they, lowly Davids are left taking potshots with slingshots. They do appear to suffer from some sort of mental illness. Telling lies for so long that they actually believe them will do that.

  50. Not surprising that all of his objections to reviewing “CAGW” are compared to past political policies that had supported failed “science” for political purposes.
    He seems to be cowering in a corner waving his Hackey Stick to keep the real adults at bay.

  51. If Man is the cause, why weren’t CO2 levels during the ice ages lower, or during the Jurassic higher? The so-called “proof” of CO2 conveniently ignores past Earth history, and the absence of the strong correlation of CO2 to temperature.

  52. “As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone”
    Nope – but there were sure plenty on THEIR side that wanted us imprisoned, executed, etc. for disagreeing. He has it backwards. They were (still are) the Lysenkoists.

    • He is not just wasting his lifetime, but that of others, who take their time to refute his>/b> bad science of which, I am certain, he knows its fraudulent and misleading character.

Comments are closed.