By James Taylor from Climaterealism.com
Prominent scientist and climate activist Michael Mann appealed to an asserted scientific consensus to chastise President Donald Trump on CBS’s 60 Minutes program last night. Ironically, Mann himself ignored clear scientific consensus in order to promote his own, out-of-the-mainstream climate change theories.
While interviewing Mann, CBS’s Scott Pelley said, “There have always been fires in the West. There have always been hurricanes in the East. How do we know that climate change is involved in this?” Pelley followed up with, “The president says about climate change, ‘Science doesn’t know.’”
Replied 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.”
Mann’s description of the conclusions of the “scientific consensus” however, is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report.
As documented in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expresses “low confidence” in any connection between climate change and changes in hurricane activity.
Similarly, as documented in Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires, U.S. wildfires are much less frequent and severe than they were in the first half of the 20th century – 100 years of global warming ago. Moreover, the IPCC reports a decrease in drought conditions – which is the primary climate factor regarding wildfires – in the global region including the U.S. West. Moreover, the IPCC finds no evidence of an increase in drought globally, either.
Ultimately, data, evidence, and scientific facts are far more indicative of scientific truth than a real or imagined consensus of scientists. Yet, to the extent Michael Mann wishes to invoke consensus as a scientific argument, the clear consensus of scientists is that Mann is promoting extreme climate theories that have no basis in reality.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…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…”
Then why didn’t 60 Minutes talk to one of those more interesting people instead of you?
U.S. National Academy of Sciences? Like Dr. Edward Wegman?
He never answered the question asked. He created a new question and answered it, just like a politician answers questions. My follow up question would have been what causes gravity?
Remember that the everyday science that makes stuff work is not the same as science used to justify public policy. One is wont make money until it is correct and the other is rewarded for interpreting graphs, tweaking computer models and writting reports in support of the one who funds the research.
So I don’t watch 60 Minutes as I find they pick sides. Did 60 Minutes ask him how his litigation in Canada went against Dr. Ball? If he has paid Dr. Ball the money ordered by the Court? Has he paid the money ordered by the DC Court in June of 2020 in the National Review Litigation? Just when is that litigation going to trial? When will discovery end?
My guess is not.
Past “scientific consensuses” included: the Earth is flat, lead can be changed into gold, and the Earth is at the center of the Universe. Any “scientific consensus” can be be destroyed with a single piece of evidence that shows it’s wrong, that’s how science works.
Lead can be changed into gold, just not the way medieval alchemists thought (and hoped).
“Past “scientific consensuses” included: the Earth is flat”
I don’t think that’s true.
Jeff Alberts,
I think ScienceABC123 put “scientific consensuses” in quotes to indicate that science has been and continues to be commandeered to fit to some prevailing orthodoxy. In times past, there has been a prevailing orthodoxy that bloodletting cured certain diseases, there was nothing to the West of Britain but empty water, and, yes, the Earth is flat. All because authorities of the times said so.
The Earth being a sphere was known in early BC years by greek scholars but even in the 17th century the vast majority believed in the flat earth. Read about Columbus having to lie about how far they had sailed so as to not alarm crew they were about to sail off the edge … Columbus believed in Ptolemy and the world was a sphere but his men did not.
Hence why it was “scientific consensuses” (with quotes) and not scientific consensuses (without quotes). You’re letting the grammar Nazi side down by not recognizing the difference.
“There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.”
You realize that scientists know that both the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories are at best incomplete and cannot explain easily observable phenomena such as the shape and sizes of galaxies.
The words of Michael Crichton from his 2003 lecture at Cal Tech are relevant here:
“Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”
Love it!
That’s just what we have with alarmist climate science: No solid evidence.
I realize those things, but Mann doesn’t.
So, what he is saying is there is no consensus. Frankly, I would title this article as “Michael Mann admits there is no consensus on climate change.” Then explain the line you quote as evidence. People, don’t deny gravity exists. Yet, the cause and the mathematical models for gravity are under debate. Just like the cause and effects of CAGW are under debate.
If that is not what he meant to say let him clarify it.
To equate his climate fables with what we know about gravity is an insult to the many serious researchers who spent their lives on understanding gravity.
What is the hurricane claim?
Al Gore made claims that they were going to get more frequent and stronger. I believe his claims were in 2006, right after Katrina, 2005.
Is this what Mann is referring to?
The hurricane data are on Wikipedia. You can get the Atlantic Hurricane Season data there, and do the calculations. Overall, the number of “major hurricanes” is on a slight downward trend. For the recent 100 years or so.
“ACE,” Accumulated Cyclone Energy, the composite measure of a hurricane season, including number of tropical storms and how powerful they were, for how long, has been trending down, not up. For the recent 100 years or so.
We have NOT been hearing about hurricanes for a couple years now, since it has been over a decade since Katrina, and the fear-mongering projections have shown to be wrong, at least thus far.
A couple years ago, they tried to refurbish the Killer Hurricanes mythology by declaring that Global Warming was making hurricanes go SLOWER, and thus more destructive in whatever area they slowly meandered over.
Of course, this “slow hurricane” was NOT a prediction of the Global Warming hucksters; they just capitalized on it after the fact.
This “slow hurricanes” meme will also die out, as Nature plays out her variability – more here, less there, slower here, faster there. Laura and Marco were pretty fast.
I am not sure what they will come up with next.
At least they do have “property damage.” Yes, as there is more property across time to get flooded and destroyed, if we have normal hurricane occurrences, we have increased property losses.
I predict that they will eventually be forced to come around to declaring that fewer hurricanes are a sign of Global Warming.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200422151312.htm
It was shameful of 60 Minutes to air this interview without any criticism. This well-respected program has simply become a propaganda channel for the apocalyptic left.
When you drill down, inconsistencies, contradictions & failed predictions abound in the alarmist pseudo-science of man-made global warming.
Mann is a liar.
He was caught long ago with his so-called “hockey stick.”
Why pseudo-science? Because intellectual dishonesty disqualifies it from actual science.
Elmer Fudd
Does anyone else see a resemblance to Elmer Fudd?