A Manntastic 60 minutes interview yields nothing new

Hero of the climate movement Dr. Mann, humbly takes credit for predicting western wildfires on CBS ’60 Minutes”. I knew about this segment well in advance, but couldn’t bring myself to watch.

On the plus side, Mann admits “We’re sorry that we failed.” 


The full video and transcript here https://www.cbsnews.com/news/western-wilfires-record-temperatures-california-60-minutes-2020-10-04/

Some excerpts:

At least 31 have died in the largest wildfires in California history. The east is defending itself against twice the usual number of tropical cyclones. And what may be the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth came in August in the United States. It’s a torrid 2020 and it was forecast 32 years ago. In the 1980’s, a NASA scientist named James Hansen discovered that climate change, driven by carbon emissions, was upon us. His graphs, of three decades ago, accurately traced the global rise in temperature to the year 2020. Last week, we had a lot of questions for Hansen. Are these disasters climate change? Do things get worse? Is it too late to do anything? But before we get to the causes, let us show you the effects.

Michael Mann: People ask, are we dealing with a new normal? And the sobering answer is, that’s the best-case scenario. A new normal is the best-case scenario ’cause that sorta means, well, we’ve got a new situation and we just have to learn how to deal with it. But it’s much worse than that. So, there are surprises in store and we’re seeing some of those surprises play out now.

Michael Mann is a geophysicist whose work on past climate showed today’s rate of warming began with the Industrial Revolution. Mann is a lightning rod for deniers, but his research has been verified again and again. Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Scott Pelley: But there’ve always been fires in the west. There’ve always been hurricanes in the east. How do we know that climate change is involved in this?

Michael Mann: Well, there are a number of independent sort of sources of information, lines of evidence that tell us that this isn’t natural, that this is human-caused. Let’s look at the big picture, the warming of the planet a little less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming of the planet since pre-industrial time. Now, people ask, well, couldn’t that happen naturally? Well, it turns out that if you look at the factors that are driving natural changes right now — small but measurable fluctuations in the brightness of the sun, Volcanic eruptions — they tell us that earth should’ve cooled slightly over the past half-century. 

Here’s what he means. In that yellow line at bottom, NASA has measured a steady decline in heat from the sun since the 1950’s. But the red line, the temperature of the Earth, has only increased.  

Michael Mann: We can only explain that warming when we include the human factor of increased greenhouse gas concentrations; in particular, carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Scott Pelley: Well, the president says about climate change, science doesn’t know. 

Michael Mann: The president doesn’t know. And he should know better. He should know that the world’s leading scientific organizations, our own U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and national academies of every major industrial nation, every scientific society in the United States that’s weighed in on the matter. This is a scientific consensus. There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.

Scott Pelley: If we don’t start to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, 50 years from now, someone doing research on this time might look at this interview and I wonder what you would like to say to them.

Michael Mann: That– that’s a tough question. I would say we did everything we could and we’re sorry. We’re sorry that we failed. But I don’t think that’s our future. I don’t want that to be our future. That’s a possible future. We have to recognize that. The worst visions that Hollywood has given us of dystopian futures are real possible futures if we don’t act on this problem; the greatest crisis that we face as a civilization.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
October 5, 2020 2:34 am

Mike finds it tough to say something to someone 50 years from now. I know what that someone 50 years from now will say to challenged Mike: you silly deluded fool.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 5, 2020 6:08 am

Or to put in it current vernacular: Ok, Doomer.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 5, 2020 9:33 am

In reality here in the U.S. “… the greatest crisis we face as a civilization.” is a Central Authoritarian Government.

The Democrat Party with all too complicit left of center Republicrats, has gone full on totalitarian and stands ready to control every aspect of our lives. They are using their “Its for the Children” and 2nd hand harm false fronts to nullify the Bill of Rights and lord over the great unwashed.

Reply to  Bill Powers
October 5, 2020 5:45 pm

Bill Powers, you are hereby banned from the Internet for providing excessive common sense in your comment. As a libertarian. I would say that with the gross over reaction to COVID 19, we already have totalitarian governors in most US states.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 5, 2020 11:37 am

He’s just Mannsplaning … again !

October 5, 2020 3:05 am

Ghalfrunt, Simon, Izaak, Lyodo…Mann delusional indeed. Hopefully they can build it back better 😉

Harry Passfield
October 5, 2020 3:07 am

“There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity”

Mann really is a poor debater and an even worse scientist. I offer him just one (of many) cases of scientific consensus that failed: Gastric ulcers and Helicobacter. I wonder where he stood on that consensus.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 5, 2020 6:10 am

He’s actually quite correct.

We observe the effects of gravity. We measure the effects of gravity. But we have absolutely no idea how it works, nor why it works.

We have also discovered serious discrepancies between our theories of gravity and observations, thus requiring a massive (pun fully intended) ‘fudge factor’ of ‘dark matter’ to explain the discrepancies.

This is akin to the search for Trenbeth’s ‘missing heat’ and the myiad explanations of ‘the hiatus’.

Only naive scientists would believe that we understand gravity. Mann is one of those, but I use the term ‘scientist’ loosely.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 5, 2020 6:26 am

Well…it would be very difficult to ‘deny’ gravity existed but if someone was to claim that gravity is caused by human intervention a la global warming….
So, perhaps the two theories have something in common: we think we know it’s happening but can’t prove how or why in either case.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 5, 2020 7:02 am

You had me going when you began “he’s actually quite correct.” Now I understand you were being ironic.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 5, 2020 7:51 am

Zig Zag …. I would love to be able to see u debate Newton or Einstein about our understanding of gravity!!
“Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move. “John Wheeler is commenting on a result of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, stating how space-time can bend. Gravitational force can be explained by the warp that a massive object causes on the space around it.

M Seward
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 5, 2020 9:22 am

I use the term ‘sciencist’ for the likes of Mann to delineate them from actual ‘scientists’. They are narcissistic ‘influencers’ in the Instagram sense, pouting and posturing for the media amd trailing their imperial robes for the cheap trade end of research funding.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 6, 2020 12:51 am

There would be a very small number of scientists that could tell you what matter or energy are so I don’t know why people get hung up on gravity. There are lots of scientists who use procedures, practices and forumla because they know how to follow instructions but the number who actually understand them is a considerably smaller pool.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 5, 2020 8:01 am

I would offer “dietary animal fat is bad for you”.
That one kills more Americans than anything, year in year out, and it makes covid 19 more deadly for Americans due the widespread co-morbidities

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 5, 2020 8:38 am

OK, let’s address Mann’s claimed “scientific consensus” about gravity.

1) According to the current “consensus” of astronomers, roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy and 27% is dark matter. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter and normal energy – adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Scientists call those things “dark” because we cannot observe them by any means other than their gravitational (and related universe expansion) effects on the tiny 5% of known (i.e., observable) energy and matter. In turn, this means we have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOW KNOWLEDGE of what creates 84 to 95% of the gravity in the universe (a range is stated because not knowing what comprises dark energy prevents us from asserting that such dark energy will have a total, or even partial, energy-mass equivalence).

2) It was only in September 2015 that gravity waves were first detected by physicists using LIGO. However, there is already this: “Nobel laureate George Smoot claims LIGO has observed amplified signals of black hole mergers from the very distant universe, but LIGO scientists disagree.” (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-ligo-seen-galaxy-warped-gravitational-waves/ ). Consensus about gravity, eh?

3) Scientists don’t even agree about the source of gravity at the most fundamental levels of physics. Some assert that gravity must have a force-carrying particle, the graviton. Others, including Albert Einstein, argue that gravity is nothing more than curvature in the space-time metric. And there is this: “Our understanding of gravity breaks down at both the very small and the very big: at the level of atoms and molecules, gravity just stops working. And we can’t describe the insides of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang without the math completely falling apart . . . The problem is that our understanding of both particle physics and the geometry of gravity is incomplete.” (see https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/ )

Don’t look to 60 Minutes to even hint at such things.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 5, 2020 12:00 pm

“Mann really is a poor debater”
Wrong !
Mann can debate several people at a time… he is a mass debater (:-))

Reply to  saveenergy
October 5, 2020 5:49 pm

Save energy
For 68.4 percent of MY okes, listeners don’t even realize I told a joke!

October 5, 2020 3:15 am

Professor Mann’s claim that the present “extreme weather” is human caused does not line up with the science.
In 2017, Roger Pielke testified to Congress that there was no evidence that hurricanes, floods, droughts and tornadoes are increasing.( Professor Roger Pielke Jr. Congressional Hearing: House Science Committee on Science, Space and Technology,29 March,2017).
He stated earlier in July 2013:
“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on global timescales either in the United States or globally.”(Testimony to US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,18 July 2013).
Unfortunately for Professor Mann, increases in extreme weather are not what the AR5 Report (2013) reported for almost any extreme weather event you could name.
The best they could mount was that there were more areas with increases in extreme precipitation than decreases, and the possibility that heatwaves were happening more often.Even the evidence behind these claims is debatable.
“Low confidence” is appended to several of the extreme weather events.
Low confidence according to Professor Mann means high confidence.

October 5, 2020 3:19 am

Scott Pelley: If we don’t start to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, 50 years from now, someone doing research on this time might look at this interview and I wonder what you would like to say to them.

Gee, I thought thermageddon was supposed to have killed everyone by then and so there would be nobody left to ask this question.

tom Abbott
Reply to  Charlie
October 5, 2020 10:01 am

Yeah, we only have nine years left before climate disaster, not 50 years, according to the Democrats. I think Greta gave us 12 years before climate disaster, but that was a year or two ago. Either way, climate disaster will be here a lot sooner than 50 years according to the current batch of alarmists.

Reply to  tom Abbott
October 7, 2020 12:37 am

I’m old enough to remember we only had 15-30 years before Armageddon 50 years ago;

Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.

Harvard biologist George Wald, first Earth Day 1970.

None of us are supposed to be here NOW!

October 5, 2020 3:36 am

Funny how climate caused fires obey man made borders. Did he mean activist caused fires? There’s a reason shouting ‘Fire’ in a theatre when there isn’t one is illegal. Mann should be in State Pen.

October 5, 2020 3:50 am

So 60 minutes turns to a proven liar with no rebuttal. I’m shocked I tell you! Shocked!

Reply to  rah
October 5, 2020 8:52 am

I gave up on 60 Minutes as a source for news back in the 80’s when they covered a couple of incidents that I happened to be fairly familiar with. They got nothing right, and all of their errors just happened to make the liberals look less bad.

October 5, 2020 3:57 am

BTW it looks like Mann is losing weight and lost the facial hair according to the pic provided. When taken I wonder?

Reply to  rah
October 5, 2020 6:12 am

Someone the other day noticed his Hitler mustache.

It’s Herr Mann, not hair Mann.

October 5, 2020 4:07 am

Is CBS marketing this interview as an anaesthetic?

You could say The Ego Has Landed… – with a very dull thud.

Reply to  fretslider
October 5, 2020 4:25 am

with a very dull thud.

More like the “splat” of a wet cow pat !

October 5, 2020 4:21 am

“Mann admits “We’re sorry that we failed.” “

His life story….. a FAILURE as a human being.

“The worst visions that Hollywood has given us of dystopian futures are real possible futures “

Certainly are if the green marxist totalitarian blob gets its way !

Reply to  fred250
October 5, 2020 7:40 am

a FAILURE as a human being.

Not difficult for a reptile.

October 5, 2020 5:01 am

“There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.”
If Mann jumped on the spot 1000 times, the proportion of times he would come down and not float off into space is estimated at 1.000 with 100% confidence limits [1,1]! What is the scientific consensus on the estimate of the proportion of global warming caused by human-origin CO2 emissions and its 95% CLs? Even the average global warming trend estimate has a wide 95%CL let alone the above proportion. The gravity comparison is absurd designed to make skeptics of his climate alarmism appear like anti-science flat-earthers!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve
October 5, 2020 10:04 am

“The gravity comparison is absurd designed to make skeptics of his climate alarmism appear like anti-science flat-earthers!”


Mumbles McGuirck
October 5, 2020 5:23 am

“The worst visions that Hollywood has given us of dystopian futures are real possible futures if we don’t act on this problem”

I fear the public gets its scientific info from Hollywood movies. Numerous films I’ve seen have sea level rise cover ALL dry land. Other films show the entire Earth as a desert. Great cinema, but not even remotely possible. Yet there is no reasonable counterpoint for the public. So when Gloomy Gus Mann touts these cinematic visions as reality there are no other, reasonable alternatives that people can call to mind. We substitute science fiction for science fact.
Shame on CBS for not showing ANY alternate voices or view points. Sloppy journalism to say the least.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 5, 2020 6:09 am

Hollywood should offer a film showing a slightly warmer Earth as a good thing- with a much greener Earth, vigorous forests in northern Canada and Siberia- and with better managed land in CA, far fewer fires, etc., etc.

Nuclear reactors providing most of the energy- all solar and wind “farms” torn down and that acreage replanted to marijuana, etc. 🙂

A happier planet.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 5, 2020 6:10 am

Sloppy journalism to say the least.

That wasn’t journalism. Not even close.

Reply to  John Endicott
October 5, 2020 8:54 am

They never intended it to be journalism.
All journalists view themselves as advocates and “educators” these days.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 5, 2020 6:15 am

Heck, in one Hollywood film, at the end in the Arctic, an explosion on the ice caused chunks of ice to fall to the bottom of the ocean. That’s the level of scientific understanding Hollywood has, and probably equivalent to the actual scientific rigour of much of Climate Scientology.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 7, 2020 1:34 pm

That was that silly G.I. Joe movie.

John Endicott
October 5, 2020 5:33 am

Michael Mann: “We’re sorry that we failed.”

Climate realists everywhere: We’re glad you failed.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  John Endicott
October 5, 2020 6:32 am

You still took the money, Mann. How dare you!

October 5, 2020 5:35 am

Living in a Western state for the past four decades, wild fire season is a known annual occurrence. Some years are worse than others. Looking at it from a historical perspective, it used to be a lot worse.

October 5, 2020 5:59 am

Interesting that Pelley mentions the future.
Have a look at Edgar Allan Poe’s Mellonta Tauta , Future Life :


Pundita, writes about the Amrricans while flying over the empire of Kanadaw, ” Every man ‘voted’, as they called it – that is to say meddled with public affairs – until at length, it was discovered that what is everybody’s business is nobody’s, and that the ‘Republic’ (so the absurd thing was called) was without a government at all.”

I think Dr. Mann is already in the Court of the Empire of Kanadaw.

Bruce Cobb
October 5, 2020 6:08 am

“We’re sorry that we failed” is classic passive-aggressive, which is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Mann’s pathological inability to tell the truth.

October 5, 2020 6:12 am

So the average 60 Minutes viewer is consider too dumb to question what is not in the brief Q&A discussion like medium and long term ocean temperature cycles? I like the part where they slip in the equivalence of Mann’s work to the testable theory of relativity from Einstein–“but his research has been verified again and again.” They get an ‘A’ for cleverness in manipulating their viewers–at the expense of truth again and again.

October 5, 2020 6:47 am

We, the readers of this blog, are preaching to the choir. The warmers are talking to the world on CBS – a large audience. We are talking amongst ourselves on a blog that 99% of America doesn’t know about, much less read. Where is the response? Where are the responses to Mr. Mann? Who is getting the truth out?

Frankly, I think the truth is losing. In Kentucky I have read that we, the rural electric co-ops, are getting two large solar farms. As our electric rates are probably in the lowest 10 in the country, we are undoubtedly working to raise our rates and reduce our reliability.

It is one thing for California and Washington to go down this path, but when Kentucky joins in it means that we are LOSING. Waiting for the truth to percolate to the top is a losing proposition.

My suggestion is that we, the deniers, should write to CBS and demand that a person like Dr. Christy be given equal time. Act people.

John Bell
October 5, 2020 7:03 am

Same old same old: ‘It’s even WORSE than we thought, and now MORE worse and WORSE still!’ They keep ramping up the hysteria, thinking if they just keep cranking up the scare tactics someone will panic. It is all they have and it does not work.

Vincent Causey
October 5, 2020 7:03 am

All of what he says is proof of the “slow march through the institutions” was not some conspiracy theory.

October 5, 2020 7:13 am

All propaganda must be repeated ad nauseam until there is no dissent. The Nazis perfected that, and also mentioned that if you make the lie big enough and say it enough times, it will become the truth and impossible to untangle from the web of lies. May as well tell a whopper of a lie then, if you have the platform and mike.

October 5, 2020 7:25 am

As Paul Homewood pointed out, Climate Change seems to skipped Canada with respect to wildfires.

Reply to  bernie1815
October 5, 2020 7:55 am

Except that is propaganda now too, except maybe for straight up arson. The Canadian forest fires of 2017 and 2018 far exceeded anything in area and volume of timber that burned in California or the Pacific Northwest these last 2 years if you compare those years in all of Canada (2017/18) to the last 2 years in the USA. In 2019 and 2020, the jet stream was plowing into North America in early spring and summer at approximately the 49th parallel. Everything north of that was wetter than normal in Canada, and things south of that got a lot drier real quick the further south you went. But now this is some type of urban myth that took off and is supposedly the truth.

Western Canada and northern Canada just had two years of less fire behaviour than normal because of cooler wetter weather. Plus the area we do manage for commercial logging wasn’t able to burn because it was harvested, so maybe a kernel of truth to the forest management part, but if it had been dry these last 2 years in Canada, there would of been a lot more fire activity. I suppose we should just let the myth expand, but it isn’t true as stated that somehow fires stop at the Canadian border. That is far to simplistic an explanation for anything. I only mention it because we should be truthful, otherwise we are no better than the climate nazis. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Earthling2
October 5, 2020 8:10 am

We are just lucky the last couple years with the weather.
This looks more like typical Canadian buffoonery, trying to puff ourselves up at the expense of the Americans.

Even worse, canadians thing we are actually doing something when we are not so when the fires come again it must be climate change
Because we are so awesome otherwise

This wet weather means growth and then the next dry year means return to fire.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 5, 2020 12:10 pm

Let’s not forget, CDN Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to add plant 2 billion trees over 10 years to the 320+ billion trees Canada already has. The stated goal, to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint. The actual goal, more vote buying with ludicrous rationale.

Reply to  Bob Hunter
October 5, 2020 3:50 pm

It’s mainly the forest industry that will be planting those 2 billion trees anyway, which they are obligated to plant to reforest the old mature forest they harvest. I just finished up planting 50,000 Fir/Spruce and some Pine on my 2000 acres of privately managed forest land. President Trump supports the 1 Trillion tree plan globally over the next 10-15 years. Which is an awesome plan. Who could be against making the planet greener with more trees growing everywhere? We already have enhanced CO2 fertilization, so the health of the biosphere is not in question. We can hopefully assist other countries to get their act cleaned up.

Plus DJT makes a point about cutting real pollution with the cleanest air and cleanest water possible. He is more of a real environmentalist than most wannabe fake environmentalists that don’t even know what they are talking about. Since when has CO2 been pollution, like this ignoramus of a Prime Minister keeps calling it.

Carlo, Monre
October 5, 2020 7:34 am

Did Pelly happen to ask Mann about the measurement uncertainty of his proxy reconstructions?

October 5, 2020 7:38 am

The hallmark of the radical climate change movement is that of failure. The failure of faUC science, the failure of predictions, the failure of assumptions, the failure of models all lead to a foundation of failure.
Years ago somebody posted some thing about corporations allowing an idea to fail three times before they shut it down and put the brakes on the failed notion. Corporations will give a person with an idea a chance to prove the worth of the idea. They will allow the idea to fail three times before they stop any funding.
How many times have we seen the failure of tipping points, how many times have we seen the failure of predictions? Yet, with all this history of failure these people still seem to ride their dead horse down the road.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 5, 2020 7:55 am

I think it was very revealing that the 60 Minutes piece with Michael Mann also featured clips of interviews with James Hansen. Hansen was full of himself for “predicting” 30 or so years ago all the usual CAGW stuff: you know, an overly hot climate, the polar caps melting, and increase in frequency and intensity of storms, all the forests of the world burning up.

But Hansen conveniently did NOT mention his prior, failed predictions of long term global cooling made, together with many other “climate” scientists, in the early 1970’s. They even published articles in the Washington Post and the journal Science on the subject. (Source: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971 ).

As to Hansen jumping over to the CAGW bandwagon, his related predictions were far off the mark. For example: “In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the ‘greenhouse effect’ would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). ‘The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,’ Hansen claimed. ‘And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…. There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.’ In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.” (Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry )

And 60 Minutes has the hutzpah to state, referring to James Hansen: “His graphs, of three decades ago, accurately traced the global rise in temperature to the year 2020.” Yeah, right.

The fact that the producers and editors for the subject 60 Minutes segment did not reveal these not-too-hard-to-find facts about James Hansen speaks volumes about their lack of objectivity and/or having a hidden agenda. As if putting Michael Mann on a pedestal wasn’t enough.

Of course, since 60 Minutes fronted the segment as being about forest fires and tropical storms specifically as predicted by Michael Mann (when in reality is was really all about the CAGW meme), this allows them to assert there was no need, in terms of journalistic integrity, to present any other person that would offer points-of-view on climate change™ contrary to those presented Mann and Hansen.

Basically, it was all a set-up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 5, 2020 11:08 am

“And 60 Minutes has the hutzpah to state, referring to James Hansen: “His graphs, of three decades ago, accurately traced the global rise in temperature to the year 2020.” Yeah, right.”

60 Minutes ought to ask Hansen about his U.S. surface temperature chart. Ask him how California’s forest fires are caused by higher temperatures than normal when the temperatures are not higher than normal. California and the whole USA have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.

Here it is:


As you can see, the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart is on the left of the webpage and on the right is the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick global surface temperature chart.

You can see from the text on the webpage, Hansen says that 1934, was the hottest year in the USA. Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998. The year 1998 is statistically tied with the year 2016 (the Hottest Year Evah!, according to NASA) being one-tenth of a degree warmer, but still cooler than 1934 (the Real Hottest Year Evah!, at least in the modern era)..

So if CO2 warms the Earth’s atmosphere then Hansen should explain why it is that the US is cooler now than in the 1930’s, yet there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today, than there was in the 1930’s. CO2 levels increased from the 1930’s, yet temperatures declined.

Human-Caused Climate Change is supposedly caused by increased CO2 production which then causes the atmosphere to warm. Yet here we have a situation where the CO2 has increased but the temperatures have not.

So there is no unprecedented warming going on in California which means CO2 is not driving anything with regard to forest fires. Blaming the forest fires on human-derived CO2 and higher temperatures is just an unsubstantiated assertion by a guy with skin in the game.

Notice the two charts. The US chart on the left has a temperature profile that is very similar to just about all other unmodified, regional temperature charts from around the world. I say “just about” because I haven’t seen them all, but the ones I’ve seen very strongly resemble the US temperature profile where the 1930’s show to be just as warm as it is today.

You can see the hot 1930’s clearly and you can also see how the temperatures dropped after the 1930’s, all the way down through the 1970’s to the point that some climate scientists were predicting the Earth was entering another ice age. Then the temperatures warmed up starting in the 1980’s and warmed up all the way to today, but this latest warming has not exceeded the previous warming of the 1930’s, so we are still technically in a temperature downtrend since then.

Now look at the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart. What you are looking at is Science Fiction. Hansen and many others bastardized the temperature charts of the past, erased the hot 1930’s, and diminished the 1970’s, visually on the temperature chart.

This science fiction modification of temperature charts is to make it appear that the world has been in a temperature uptrend for decade after decade and that now the world is at the hottest point in human history. It’s a scary picture, but it’s all a Big Lie. No unmodified regional surface temperature chart has this Hockey Stick profile It’s all by itself. We like to call it an “Outliar” around here.

It’s cooler now in the US than it was in the recent past, so Hansen should explain how human-caused CO2 warming can be affecting the forests of Californis, when there is no unprecedented warming in Califorinia.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2020 4:41 am

And don’t you love how Hansen tries to explain away the difference between the look of the US surface temperature chart and the look of the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart.

Hansen says: “Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.”

Oh, really, James? The US is unaffected by the CO2 that is supposedly affecting the rest of the globe? That doesn’t make any sense. Especially when we know that regional, unmodified temperature charts from all over the world resemble the US surface temperature chart profile. They do NOT resemble the Hockey Stick chart. So what Hansen should be saying is the global surface temperature Hockey Stick chart does not follow the global climate. And I would add that the Hockey Stick chart is a bastardization of real temperature charts.

Hansen’s claims are so ridiculous. Completely illogical. And he is considered *the* authority. The climate science world has gone mad.

October 5, 2020 8:04 am

“Unfathomable’ California wildfires shatter new record after burning through more than 4 million acres this year – more than double the previous high in 2018 ”

I read today…

This level of fire is far, far beyond the ordinary; far, far beyond the last few hundred years. The cause is obviously a warmer, drier set of weather conditions: climate change.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
October 5, 2020 8:14 am

Jim Steele put up a post a few weeks back that decimated every point you just made

But a troll has to troll
You are just like Mickey Mann
Trolling continuously
A disease

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 5, 2020 8:57 am

More likely, it’s a profession.

Reply to  griff
October 5, 2020 8:37 am
Reply to  griff
October 5, 2020 8:43 am

Griff , where exactly did you read that? Not suggesting that you did not see the report ,
but I am interested to know the source and I suspect others would likewise.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  griff
October 5, 2020 8:57 am

“Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California.”
Griff- here’s a very informative article which you could learn a lot from. It isn’t the climate that has changed, it is forest management, and population growth in California.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 5, 2020 11:15 am

But he does read the comments before he slinks away.

Oh, and more people = more arsonists.

John Endicott
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 6, 2020 2:22 am

You know, I’m not sure who should be more insulted by that comparison, griff or Mosh. There was a time, long past, that I think Mosh might possibly have felt shame at the comparison being so apt, griff on the other hand has always been shameless (that’s not a compliment).

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
October 6, 2020 2:24 am

I read today…

Well, if you’d stop reading the likes of the Guardian, perhaps you won’t read (and believe) so much fake news.

Bruce Ploetz
October 5, 2020 8:10 am

Didn’t watch the show, gave up on “60 Minutes” long ago, but it was funny to see this ridiculous statement:

Michael Mann is a geophysicist whose work on past climate showed today’s rate of warming began with the Industrial Revolution. Mann is a lightning rod for deniers, but his research has been verified again and again.

Dr. Mann’s “hockey stick” starts in 1950, the year that the IPCC and almost everybody used to agree was the beginning of human influence on climate.

Somehow by using the magic propaganda phrase “beginning of the industrial revolution” instead of the more accurate “end of the Little Ice Age” they can blame all the warming since 1750 on today’s SUVs. A magic trick of epic proportions.

Pat from kerbob
October 5, 2020 8:15 am

Just now reading Steyn’s Disgrace to the Profession.

How can anyone still take this clown seriously

October 5, 2020 8:17 am

Organisations are not science and do not carry out the scientific method. They are by nature political.
Being an academic also does not make one a scientist..

October 5, 2020 8:20 am

Well, Mann, maybe that phony hockey puck graph of yours contributed to your failure? Maybe you ought to ponder that, huh? Scott Pelley….one of the besr PR men around….but Scott, you forgot to ask what Mann’s favorite color is?

Hoyt Clagwell
October 5, 2020 8:34 am

“Michael Mann: People ask, are we dealing with a new normal?”
I’m so tired of this line. I’ve lived in California for my entire 57 years, and in the last dozen years or so, every time something unusual happens, the alarmists call it “a new normal.” When it rained heavily two years ago, they said that would be the new normal. When it is dry and we have lots of fires, that gets called the new normal. When we have more earthquakes than usual, that becomes the new normal. The only thing about California’a climate that is normal is that it is unpredictable.

Bruce Cobb
October 5, 2020 8:45 am

LiarMann doesn’t have a humble bone in his body.

Steve Z
October 5, 2020 9:09 am

Scott Pelley: If we don’t start to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, 50 years from now, someone doing research on this time might look at this interview and I wonder what you would like to say to them.

People in their 20’s now , 50 years from now will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, since they will be dealing with the same weather then as we do now. They can then tell their grandchildren about Mann’s broken hockey stick.

David Ball
October 5, 2020 9:27 am

I would be happy if he paid my father what the judge determined he owes. It’s a lot.

Reply to  David Ball
October 5, 2020 9:58 am

David, I think Mann might be waiting for a change of government, whereupon his ‘expenses’ claims can be processed and paid by a ‘friendly’ regime.
(Part of me would be ok with this, if only to get your Dad paid. One way or t’other, Mann and ‘The Team’ always want Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer to foot their ‘expenses’ )

Reply to  David Ball
October 5, 2020 11:49 am

Do you have a link to that David, please. I didn’t see that amount posted on here.

John Endicott
Reply to  philincalifornia
October 6, 2020 6:28 am

According to an article at climate depot:
“The judge in the Mann-v-Ball case ruled that the defeated Mann must pay Ball’s legal costs, which are in excess of US$700.000. “

October 5, 2020 9:47 am

More than any other person I owe my skepticism to Michael Mann. When he combined his paleo record of temperature with the instrumental record in his hockey stick chart, it showed that these really loud people did not know what they were talking about and furthermore they were dishonest. If he had used only the paleo record his chart would have shown a temperature decrease after 1950. This temperature decrease would either imply that the paleo record is suspect or that the paleo record is only showing summer temperatures which were decreasing at the time of the hockey stick. Either way it would have advanced science. Instead he combined two different temperature records to make a political point and to advance his career.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Lowell
October 7, 2020 1:43 pm

There there was that one tree out of however many sampled which had a ring growth pattern which fit their desired result, but only up to 1960. So that line on the chart is just made to appear to be buried behind the other lines after 1960, but isn’t actually there at all past 1960.

That was “Mike’s Nature trick”, as done for a paper submitted to the journal “Nature”.

October 5, 2020 11:00 am

I watched long enough to see the temperature plot that had predicted it all so accurately.

It had no ‘pause’

October 5, 2020 11:22 am

When does the six-part CBS documentary air on the ill effects of agenda science and journalism coming from the Climate Crusades? Or are they aiming for another one of those personalized tours of the White House from President Biden like one Bill Clinton gave Dan Rather as reward for special bias in reporting?

October 5, 2020 11:44 am

Mann’s the name. Michael Mann. Licence to shill.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  leitmotif
October 6, 2020 4:45 am

“Licence to shill.”

I like it! 🙂

October 5, 2020 12:26 pm

Defund Penn State.

Mickey Reno
October 5, 2020 5:44 pm

People fifty years in the future will be calling Michael Mann a double dumb ass.

October 5, 2020 5:53 pm

I’m impressed that anyone could listen to Mann for long enough to be able to comment on what he blabbered. I lasted about 90 seconds before I changed the channel.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 6, 2020 4:52 am

Mann and Hansen would have been laughed off the WUWT stage had they been brave enough to step on the stage in the first place.

They have been scaremongering for decades and yet here we are with the same type of weather we had all those decades ago. They claim to see changes, but that’s all in their minds, not in the statistics.

They are selling a false narrative, but Mother Nature is not cooperating with them so they make things up.

October 6, 2020 7:58 am

If noting else, from the photo, he looks thinner.

%d bloggers like this: