The Tragedy of the Climate Wars

Mike Hulme has written a book review of Mann’s lastest opus:

And it can be found at issues.org

Hulme puts his review into a historical perspective.

Wars, battles, attacks, fights, and enemies litter its 260 pages. Much of what I said about Mann’s combative militancy in my review of his 2012 book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, can be equally applied to this new one. Now, his central argument is that there is a new war afoot. The old war—fought mostly around the claims of climate scientists—has been (largely) won. But a new war has been ignited; Mann and his allies are now having to fight against the forces of inaction.

https://issues.org/new-climate-war-michael-mann-hulme-review/

However, Hulme is no fan of Mann.

The tragedy, however, of Mann and people who think like him is that they view arguments about these questions through a Manichean lens: the source of all opposition to the “correct” view—Mann’s view—of what should be done about climate change is traced back to an orchestrated evil empire. The basic doctrine of Manicheanism is that of a structural conflict between good and evil. For Mann, the source of this evil is the fossil fuel industry representing, as he puts it, “the eye of Sauron,” that omnipotent dark power in The Lord of the Rings.

There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels. And there is also no doubt that vested political interests have obstructed its progress. But Mann is so conditioned by his Manichean worldview that wherever he looks in the public, scientific, and political debates around climate change he sees the shadows of the Koch brothers (52 name checks in the book), Exxon Mobil (23), and the Heartland Institute (15). The nefarious hand of the fossil-fuel lobby is everywhere. This worldview leads him to some ludicrous contentions that, taken together, result in The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet offering an incoherent and distinctly unhelpful narrative on climate change. Let me give some examples of what I mean.

https://issues.org/new-climate-war-michael-mann-hulme-review/

He describes Mann’s militant behavior at length.

Indeed, he finds it necessary to create enemies out of a variety of scientists, scholars, writers, filmmakers, and think tanks that are actually engaged in the serious search for solutions to climate change—just not his solutions. People with whom Michael Mann disagrees—a long list that includes even such progressive stalwarts as Michael Moore and Bill Gates—become enemies: agents of the dark forces of inactivism, or contrarians, or “soft denialists,” or deflectors, or apologists, or defeatists. Mann’s playbook here is reminiscent of 1950s McCarthyism or the ideological purification pursued by the Communist International during the 1930s Spanish Civil War.

https://issues.org/new-climate-war-michael-mann-hulme-review/

And.

This is an America-first book. It perpetuates the fallacy that the global politics of climate change can be read through the peculiar lens of American political partisanship. The other climate superpowers—the European Union (6 mentions), China (8), Brazil (3), and India (0)—seem bit players for Mann. There is no analysis about the political economy of the global energy transition, and he is dismissive of the global challenge of alleviating energy poverty (“a contrived concept”). And Mann uses a trick he accuses his enemies of using—trivialization—when the concerns of those arguing for a just transition for the world’s poor are swept aside with his disdainful comment “there are always winners and losers.”

https://issues.org/new-climate-war-michael-mann-hulme-review/

Read the full review here.

5 9 votes
Article Rating
246 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2021 6:06 am

“There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.” Because fusion power and rapid charge large capacity batteries are right around the corner? Because we would perfer to live in darkness and cold?

Derek Wood
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 27, 2021 6:15 am

That same line jumped out at me too. It implies that there might be some small truth in the CO2 narrative. There isn’t.

Disputin
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 27, 2021 9:04 am

There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.

I do.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Disputin
November 27, 2021 11:01 am

Right, but there isn’t anything wrong with more efficient use of fossil fuels- not to save the Earth but because efficiency of the use of all resources is smart economics.

DonM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 27, 2021 5:11 pm

Smart economics is usually the outcome of individual/group efficiencies as it relates to freedom. sometimes not, but usually.

Put govt (in this case biden) in charge, directed by people that (usually) have something other efficiency as their goal, and the use of the resources will have nothing to do with smart economics or efficiency.

It is not a resource if it is not used.

The true lesson from the ‘tragedy of the commons’ is that common management of a resource trashes the resource. It is not a resource if it is not used.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DonM
November 28, 2021 4:08 am

“It is not a resource if it is not used.”
That’s certainly true of forests- most should be intensely managed- but now the greens want to lock up the forests to do nothing but sequester carbon. As for govt wanting something other than efficiency, you’re right there too- I have been “interfacing” with the state govt of Massachusetts since Nixon was in the White House and they certainly have goals other than productivity.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 28, 2021 9:14 am

Yet at the same time those greens are perfectly happy to see vast swathes of forests cut down to be replaced by unreliable wind turbines. Hypocrites.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Andrews
November 29, 2021 2:49 am

But now the greens are beggining to oppose large solar “farms” in MA now that they’re being built in forests near them. And in MA very few wind turbines will be built on land. But they still think the state can be net zero by 2050 and not just regarding electricity as the state law covers all use of energy.

Blank Reg
Reply to  Disputin
November 28, 2021 5:58 am

Also begs the question: What really IS a “fossil fuel”, anyway? Coal you might make an argument for. Oil and natural gas, however? Natural substances generated deep within the Earth. Saturn’s moon Titan has oceans of it – that wasn’t caused from degenerate biowaste.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 27, 2021 9:37 am

Who wrote this line? “There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.”
Seems to be Mike Hulme. That’s not to imply Mann doesn’t agree.
Maybe I need a drink!

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 27, 2021 9:37 am

If we were to accept that, we would now just be negotiating the terms of surrender.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 27, 2021 11:00 am

Because Hulme essentially agrees with Mann, he just doesn’t like Mann’s attitude.

bonbon
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 28, 2021 12:32 am

Exactly – Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee decided to have a battle, over a rattle.
They told Alice some families have 1, they have 2!
Climate Wonderland!
Now for the Walrus, has anyone seen him here?

Last edited 1 month ago by bonbon
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 28, 2021 12:35 am

“There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.”
– Mike Hume

Hi Mike,
My primary career expertise is energy and climate, and I am far better-educated and more accomplished than you, and I say that your above statement is .FALSE. There is doubt.
Regards, Allan

Read my publications list, included with my latest paper.
Learn something before you write your next article.

“SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT”
by Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 20, 2021, Update Nov. 8, 2021
http://correctpredictions.ca/

Last edited 1 month ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Denns Topczewski
November 30, 2021 3:25 pm

He also says “Indeed, he finds it necessary to create enemies out of a variety of scientists, scholars, writers, filmmakers, and think tanks that are actually engaged in the serious search for solutions to climate change—just not his solutions.” How can you “solve” climate change? Change we also change the length of the day so we don’t have to keep going to Daylight Savings Time? And maybe lower gravitational forces a bit so I don’t have to lose weight?

fretslider
November 27, 2021 6:12 am

The fight to take back our planet? Take it back from whom, the people that inhabit it?

One aspect of these ‘wars’ troubles me greatly and that is the politicisation – and abuse thereof – of the young. It’s even worse when people like Mann say

“learn from children”

That really is putting the cart before the horse. Deliberately. It is, to my mind, unforgivable.

Scissor
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 7:03 am

I’d wager that Mann doesn’t even have the fortitude to take back a pair of pants.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Scissor
November 27, 2021 8:05 am

Nor has he ever taken advice from children. As a betting man I would wager he doesn’t even like children unless they are poached with hollandaise sauce. By his latest picture he really needs to lay off the sauce.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Scissor
November 27, 2021 11:02 am

he certainly hasn’t the mann-hood to show up here

SxyxS
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 7:52 am

When they want to take your country,your freedom,your rights and destroy infrastructure,borders ans d culture while billionaires are buying huge territories of Land for pennies on a dollar(and one front beach mansion after another as Pelosi recently did)you can not expect that they will tell you what they are doing.

Therefore they call this UN powergrab ” take back our planet”
This sounds so much better than “totalitarian global marxism” is the future.
As noone would accept such a thing they created 2 deus ex machinas to justify the power transfer with good intentions = covid and global warming.

Mann’s statement is only true in specific context:
A tiny powerful group consider this “their planet”
and they already told us that they will own everything during the Davos meeting
” You will own nothing and you will love it ”

As George Carlin already predicted in the 90ies:

“Have a look at your owners.The politicians are put thereto give you the idea that you have a freedom of choice.YOU DON’T(that’s why Biden has the same opinion as Obama,as Trudeau,as Boris,as Merkel and Merkels succesor,as the bitch in NZ and the troll in Australia )
You have no choice (AGW,vaccines,irreliables,mass immigration,CRT,genderism,UN etc )You have owners. They own everything.They own all the important land.They own and control all the corporations.They have long since then paid for the senate,the congress,the state house.They got the judges in their pocket.They own all the big media companies so they just control almost all of the news and informations you get to hear.They got you by the balls.
They want more for themselves(= take back our planet )and less for everyone else”

Mike Maguire
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 8:04 am

“The fight to take back our planet? Take it back from whom, the people that inhabit it?”

Take is back from the plants. We are feeding them too much CO2 and they are greening the planet to death (-:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mike Maguire
November 27, 2021 11:04 am

Mann and his kind prefer ice over a greener planet.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  fretslider
November 30, 2021 3:26 pm

From what he says, it appears that Mann needs to see a psychiatrist.

bonbon
November 27, 2021 6:12 am

Summary :
Mann is a Mannichean.
Fixed it for you.

bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 6:40 am

Strangely one thinks of Albert Pikes Scottish Rite, a Luciferean Manichean dualism. Is the entire climate saga a Scottish Rite summoning demons? Myth replacing science, so long as the public accept?
I think someone let the demon out of the bag so to speak…

David Elstrom
November 27, 2021 6:38 am

Forge alliances? Two things are certain across the wide spectrum of crises and grievances pushed by leftists—including the Climate Change (fka Global Warming) scam. (1) The glue that holds these disparate groups together is their devote hatred of the West—especially the USA. (2) They aren’t interested in what others think, preferring submission instead. Why would any normal person ally with ideologues whose “solutions” always involve less liberty for us and looting ability for them?

griff
Reply to  David Elstrom
November 27, 2021 7:08 am

‘Hatred of the West’?

The UK govt and the new German govt and the entire EU ‘hate the West’?

They are the West!

fretslider
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 7:16 am

The peoples are the West and your elites have a deep disdain for us

Hate sounds about right

How about a vote on net zero?

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Pat Frank
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 7:26 am

“The West” is individualism and individual rights. And the personal freedom that attends them.

Progressives, and likely you griff, are innate collectivists. They yearn for the certainties of moral slavery. Of course they hate the West.

John Bell
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 8:08 am

Griff, please move to Lancaster, PA and live with the Amish people, and just think you will be saving the Earth from C02. No phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury.

Rhs
Reply to  John Bell
November 27, 2021 9:07 am

Like Robinson Caruso, as primitive as can be…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rhs
November 27, 2021 12:26 pm

That’s Robinson Crusoe. He wasn’t primitive. He was all about modernity, labour saving, efficiency and local improvement.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Rhs
November 30, 2021 3:33 pm

I always loved MaryAnn.

rah
Reply to  John Bell
November 27, 2021 9:34 am

Never make the cut in so many ways.

Abolition Man
Reply to  John Bell
November 27, 2021 2:59 pm

John,
How could you be so cruel to the Amish!
Besides, the griffter could never handle working on a farm, and think how scary it would be for him living among the unvaccinated!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 8:15 am

Self hate is painful to watch.

fretslider
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 9:04 am

And he’s frequently here to be seen.

SxyxS
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 8:27 am

The governments of Uk,Germany,EU are not the west but a few hundred people.
The EU itself is an elitist project that goes back more than 100 years ago.

Not a single one of those people voted for the destruction of their countries and infrastructure.Same in the USA .

bonbon
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 9:18 am

Griff actually has a point.
Something else is going. See my posts below on Mannichean.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 10:45 am

bonbon,

I agree.
It is delusional to think “The West” consists solely of right-wing Americans and excludes e.g. NATO members. The promotion of such madness displaces any possibility of rational discussion of what is really happening.

The delusion has already induced a group of nutters to attack the US Capitol in attempt to usurp the US government, and it is surprising that there are people who failed to learn from that.

Richard

bonbon
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 27, 2021 11:51 am

The 1/6 was a show. NATO says these poor voters attacked the System.
The main guy Ray Epps is an FBI asset.

Learn from the FBI Cointelpro carryon over decades.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 27, 2021 12:37 pm

The delusion has already induced a group of nutters to attack the US Capitol in attempt to usurp the US government,

No such event took place. What we saw was a set piece consisting of a tiny group of extremely frustrated people agitated by well paid professional agitators plus several dozen unaffiliated hangers on who just wanted to break stuff and cause trouble.. It was planned by the Democrats to further their narrative of vilifying Trump.

The US Government had already been usurped on November 3, 2020.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 3:13 am

Rory Forbes,

What you say “we” saw is nothing like what most of the world watched live as it happened.

And it really is delusional to think “The West” consists solely of right-wing Americans and excludes e.g. NATO members.
As I said, the promotion of such madness displaces any possibility of rational discussion of what is really happening.

Richard

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 28, 2021 10:07 am

What you say “we” saw is nothing like what most of the world watched live as it happened.

Sorry I as unclear. When I said “we” I was referring to all those without blinders and those with their heads firmly up their fundamental orifices. Just last month it was discovered that Mark Zuckerberg donated $419 million to local, non-partisan, election offices overwhelmingly in favour of Democrats. That was the mechanism which allowed so many of the documented irregularities.

But, yes, the Right are the West. The Left have done everything in their power to destroy human progress, but in their failure managed to murder 10s of millions while destroying the lives of 100s of millions. What is really happening is the result of the Left trying to take over completely.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 29, 2021 3:22 am

Rory Forbes,

Please be assured that you were very clear.

You were promoting irrational far-right political propaganda that has no relation to reality
as a response to
my mention of what the entire world witnessed as it happened.

Richard

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 29, 2021 7:35 am

Who is John Sullivan?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 29, 2021 10:01 am

my mention of what the entire world witnessed as it happened.

Considering that the world only got to see what the Left leaning Media would allow and social media was censoring most of anything that remained, it’s little wonder the echo remains.

No one can hear the faint whisper of “far-right propaganda” against the stentorian voice of socialist lies filling all available media.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 1, 2021 4:16 am

You are completely wrong. I don’t know what you saw but it wasn’t what really happened. You have the far left BS version of events, probably because you watched the garbage on the BBC.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 1, 2021 4:14 am

You have an extremely warped view of what happened. A bunch of unarmed protesters were guided into the building (which is actually not that uncommon) and some agitators caused trouble which led to the death of an unarmed woman. The Democrats and their synchophant media told a completely different story. The original videos on YouTube showed the true story, just like the Nick Sandmann case.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 11:06 am

self hatred is a not uncommon psychological problem

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 11:20 am

It’s difficult to believe that a person could be so stupid, but we’ve seen you in action for a long time, griff.

You know very well that “The West” refers to traditional Western Culture, Western Civilization, Christendom. And you know very well that totalitarians everywhere hate that, just as you do, whether they happen to have political power in the geographical area that used to house western civilization or in any other place. You’re a despicable dishonest troll.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 1:02 pm

” They are the West! ”

Perhaps… probably they have lost their compasses…

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 1:20 pm

The UK govt and the new German govt and the entire EU ‘hate the West’?

They are the West!

Karl Marx was German but moved to the UK to write his anti-Western screeds.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  CapitalistRoader
December 1, 2021 4:17 am

He was also an anti-semitic Jew.

whiten
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 1:33 pm

To whom it may concern.

Clause IV is part of the constitution of the Labour Party, which sets out the aims and values of the party. The original clause, adopted in 1918, called for common ownership of industry, and proved controversial in later years.

“The original version of Clause IV was drafted by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in November 1917,[1] and adopted by the party in 1918.[2] It read, in part 4:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.[3]

This section was widely seen as the Labour Party’s commitment to socialism, even though the word “socialism” is not explicitly mentioned.[3] The Manchester Guardian heralded it as showing “the Birth of a Socialist Party””………

….”In 1918, nationalisation was seen by many voters as akin to modernisation”

Sidney Webb, a socialist economist and early member of the Fabian Society who drafted the original Clause IV in 1917

——————————————–

Blair proposed that the Labour Party needed a new statement of aims and values and stated that he would draw one up and present it to the party.

The new version was adopted at a Special Conference at Easter 1995 following a debate, and reads, in part:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.[3]

This version of Clause IV currently appears on the back of individual Labour Party membership cards today.
—————————————–
Under Blair, the party used the phrase “New Labour” to distance itself from previous Labour politics and the traditional idea of socialism. Despite opposition from Labour’s left-wing, he abolished Clause IV, the party’s formal commitment to the nationalisation of the economy………..

WIKIPEDIA

———————————————

My own understanding;

Under Blair, the Labor party, mutated from a marxist socialist one, to New Labour party, a radical paty with all tendencies and fascist attributes and characteristics, calling itself and considered to be:
a democratic socialist party”. (only in name)

Socialism with no nationalization of the economy equals fascism,
aka a democratic socialism is a new garment, for Fascism to be renewed and resold to the masses.

Any doubts, please view this you tube video:

"Tony Blair on how to renew social democracy - BBC Newsnight
65,677 views"

Premiered May 29, 2019

At minute 6:35 it becomes more interesting.

It comes from the very mouth of the horse.

The socialist democrats are still stack in the old past marxist socialist territory, not yet evolved to a proper new democratic socialists…. Blair’s point.

cheers

Lrp
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 10:45 pm

The statist elites hate their own people

Abolition Man
Reply to  David Elstrom
November 27, 2021 7:37 am

David,
While I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote, I believe Point (1) should be more specific! It’s not just a “devote hatred of the West,” it is a hatred for the fundamentals of our civilization; like the rule of law, the concept of private property and the rewarding of excellence that leads to a meritocratic system!
Remember that “Western” civilization is an amalgamation of everything that WORKED! Starting with the Greek attempts at logic and the scientific method; that were fine tuned by the Romans, who emphasized engineering and the arts. This was all expanded during the Renaissance, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire which pushed scientists and artists into Southern Europe! One can easily see the propensity for using ANY concept that was useful and workable; like the Arabic numerals that came to them from India by way of Islamic scholars! The civilization that spread to Northern Europe was built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality, but it took knowledge from ANY source! The only criteria was utility and workability!
Forgive me for running on, but it is important to distinguish between what climate alarmists and their brethren want, as opposed to what most of humanity desires! The alarmists, like the other sects within their atheist cult, view themselves as the only smart people in the room! They do not accept the intelligence of those who wish to debate or disagree with them; in fact they see most others as evil heretics, just like most radical cultists do! That their beliefs are mostly works of fiction, and wrong, completely escapes them; they believe devoutly and that is the end of it! The rest of humanity just wants to get on with living life as best they can. They want shelter from the cold and wet, and for food and water to be available when needed. This puts them at odds with Climastrologists because fundamental human desires for comfort, freedom, and prosperity are completely unimportant to their beliefs!

Steve Case
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 27, 2021 9:09 am

“…they believe devoutly…”
____________________

Yes it’s a religion, and should be treated as one.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 27, 2021 12:47 pm

Forgive me for running on, but it is important to distinguish between what climate alarmists and their brethren want, as opposed to what most of humanity desires!

Yes it does need constant reiteration. The moment we stop repeating those truths, the True Believers will fill the silence with the constant bleating of their dogma.They’re not only after our wealth, the sort of wealth that only Western economic philosophy can produce, they’re after the values that allow Western societies to be so successful (and not just in monetary wealth).

Abolition Man
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 2:53 pm

Rory,
I believe that since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, mankind has experienced the largest growth in human prosperity and freedom ever! This was continuing right up to the time of the release of the ChiCom bio-weapon from Wuhan; perhaps the two are connected somehow!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 27, 2021 3:22 pm

mankind has experienced the largest growth in human prosperity and freedom ever!

I’ve been declaring variations of that observation to anyone who will listen, especially those trying to spread the AGW message. Things had never been better. But the globalists couldn’t stand it. We weren’t scared enough, obedient enough and credulous enough to suit the elites. We were too carefree, confident and having too much fun.

The Chinese were getting very nervous and China’s domestic situation wasn’t as buoyant as most people think. They needed a distraction from the success of our free market system. Hey presto … a made to order pathogen, endorsed by the likes of Bill Gates, the Democrats and the ruling elite. Call me a conspiracy theorist … but if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck … I’m going to err on the side of it being a duck.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 4:40 pm

Yes, how dare you have fun?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 27, 2021 4:37 pm

There is also serious discontent over people making their own choices, independently, rather than slavishly following what they, the opinion makers and influencers, tell them, repeatedly, what is right. It must be do frustrating to offer yourself as a leader, to demand to be followed, and have people not follow you.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 27, 2021 4:38 pm

“so”, not “do”. Fat fingers

Kevin kilty
November 27, 2021 6:45 am

There is a saying in business to the effect of “the customer is always right”. On the otherhand, having had customers of all stripes myself, I have learned there are also customers you don’t want to have. They end up costing you money and reputation. In this same vein one should consider there are people and groups we should not hope to ever forge alliances with. Whatever group Michael Mann is currently in might be just such a group.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kevin kilty
November 27, 2021 11:49 am

Whatever group Michael Mann is currently in might be just such a group.

“might be”
Should say “would be”

mwhite
November 27, 2021 6:47 am
November 27, 2021 6:51 am

Excellent review by Hulme.
Mann is a character who can best be described by the person to whom he is most – almost identically – similar in recent history, namely Heidrich Himmler. Like him, Mann is fanatically devoted to a cause and every means justifies the grand end. And every person who in any conceivable way opposes – or fails to support – the grand end, is a non-human enemy who must be destroyed.

Mann uses a trick he accuses his enemies of using—trivialization—when the concerns of those arguing for a just transition for the world’s poor are swept aside with his disdainful comment “there are always winners and losers.”

How many times must Mann’s doppleganger, Himmler, have used the same phrase as Mann: “there are always winners and losers”. How many times were those words used as defence in the Nuremberg trials?

griff
November 27, 2021 7:06 am

constantly demonising… like labelling anyone who prints a climate change article as leftist/Marxist?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 7:39 am

Oh dear.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 7:47 am

“ anyone who prints a climate change article ”

Has been checked vetted and approved as ‘on narrative’, right?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 8:19 am

We don’t label them. They have labeled themselves. Frequently and vocally.

Drake
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 8:20 am

constantly demonising… like labelling anyone who prints a climate change article propaganda as leftist/Marxist?

There, fixed it for you.

And YES.

SxyxS
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 8:22 am

climate change is the deus ex machina for global marxism .
Try to implement a global tax and a UN powergrab without a global crisis .You’ll see it’s impossible.Therefore the label marxist is correct.

There is a reason why the global cooling lie started instantly after the club of rome was created by the Rockefellers.
It’s the same reason why the ice age scare ended but ALL fearporn scenarios of the ice age scare remained when AGW took over.

To quote David Rockefellers biography
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal that works against the best interests of the USA and conspiring with others to built a global and political structure – one world . If that’s the charge I stand guilty and I’m proud ofit ”

“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past century”

” We are greatful to the Washington Pest,the NYT,Time magazine etc whose directors have attended our meetings(Bilderberger, Bohemian Grove)and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world (impossible to execute without covid and agw)if we had been subjected to the light of publicity”

Last edited 1 month ago by SxyxS
Rory Forbes
Reply to  SxyxS
November 27, 2021 12:59 pm

Great post. Too many people lose track of those threats and pretend that “climate change” has anything to do with science or the weather. The international response to covid clearly has nothing to do with a dangerous “pandemic”. It’s the most recent tool globalists are using to get the public in line so the elites can do what’s best for us.

rah
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 9:40 am

This from person who obviously believes the function of governments is to dictate the bounds of all human activity and through such power it can do anything, including controlling weather and climate.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 12:09 pm

And of course, like you, they’re not leftist at all, right griff? They’re centrists, just to the right of Stalin and Pol Pot. Like Corbyn. Practically right-wingers.

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 1:02 pm

According to some, a right winger is anyone who wants to slow down the rate of government growth.

Lrp
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 11:08 pm

Griff has two left hands.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 1:01 pm

Or like you and other alarmists declaring that anyone who disagrees with your imaginary consensus is bought and paid for by big oil.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 1:03 pm

Climate is ubiquitous and needs no articles to keep us abreast of the fact its dynamic. We’re constantly aware of that fact. Blaming humans for it is politics, not science.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 1:11 pm

constantly demonising… like labelling anyone who prints…

griff, let me tell you a story. When I was a teenage, I had a cat. I remember the first time thaat cat saw the image of itself on a mirror… he detested it!

You alarmists are like my cat: you like to criminalize and call “negationist” to people with sound scientific careers, or with fairly good general scientific knowledge, but you call “demonising” to them when they just put a mirror infrom of you.

Foul play, griff, foul play!…

Lrp
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 11:07 pm

If the shoe fits, …..

Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 7:14 am

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Hindu Prince Gautama Siddhartha. (563-483 BCE)

The Earth is cooler with the atmosphere & albedo not warmer.
If this is correct, greenhouse effect theory fails.

To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. (TFK_bams09.pdf (ucar.edu)
As demonstrated by experiment such a scenario is not possible.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
If this is correct, greenhouse effect theory fails.

No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or global warming.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)

K-T Budget solar & calcd.jpg
bill Johnston
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 7:35 am

IOW. You can go willingly into socialism. But you must shoot your way out.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 7:50 am

Christ, Nick! Please stop Thread-bombing with your unscientific “no greenhouse effect.” You have become a crank.

mkelly
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 8:00 am

Please explain what you believe to be a greenhouse effect.

He at least gave links and evidence for his stance you hail him as wrong with nothing.

MarkW
Reply to  mkelly
November 27, 2021 8:24 am

You remind me of griff. Repeating the same disproven claims over and over again, and demanding that unless the claims are fully refuted each time, they must be considered proven.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 8:31 am

If you have not followed the “debate” for years you missed the refutations. Read relevant information from experts such as Roy Spenser, Richard Lindzen & etc. Random exercises with novel physics/math that Nick puts out is not physics.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 9:54 am

More lukewarmist bluster from Dave Fair. Evidence of the warming effects of the GHE. Put up or shut up.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 10:22 am

I love it when when lukewarmists fight.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 9:52 am

You remind me of griff. No evidence for the warming effects of the GHE.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 10:17 am

Sorry, Mark; I was responding to inane comment by mkelly.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 10:26 am

Perfectly logical comment by mkelly.

Your comments? Nada.

Just typical Dave Fair bluster.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 1:05 pm

Just like the alarmists they claim to hate, they take the position that unless you agree with them 100%, you are part of the enemy and must be destroyed.
Also just like the alarmists, it doesn’t matter how many times you present the evidence they claim they want, they will still continue to proclaim that you have never presented any evidence.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 2:52 pm

Just provide evidence that the GHE is real and actually heats the planet surface then all your climate denial will go away, MarkW.

You are just a warmist, MarkW, A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 5:39 pm

Thank you for proving my point about the close mindedness of the sky dragons. I don’t agree with you that 200 years of science is wrong, and instantly I’m no different from those people who think CO2 is going to kill us.
Once again, the science has been presented to you over and over and over again. You refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn’t fit into your narrow religious beliefs.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 10:47 am

So no evidence. OK.

Once again, the science has been presented to you over and over and over again.”

Once would be enough. You’re a liar, MarkW.

Dave Fair
Reply to  mkelly
November 27, 2021 8:27 am

Read some relevant physics and get back to us. I cannot argue with ignorance.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 9:55 am

Where is the relevant physics for the GHE? Please provide evidence for the warming effects of the GHE.

Dave Fair
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 10:18 am

Evidence of the warming effects of the GHE? You are alive on this planet.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 10:39 am

I see you have a firm grip on the scientific method, Dave Fair.

Dave Fair
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 2:04 pm

The scientific method consistently shows you are alive on Earth due to the GHE.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 2:53 pm

Repetition is part of the mantra.

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 5:40 pm

That’s funny, coming from you.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 10:49 am

I hope I got an uptick.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 11:16 am

or do you mean H20 vapor yes, CO2 no??

Peter Wells
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 8:01 am

If there is a greenhouse effect, why are we experiencing so much cold weather?

MarkW
Reply to  Peter Wells
November 27, 2021 8:22 am

Being warmer than it otherwise would have been is not the same thing as being always hot.
Is there a sky dragon out there that can do even basic science/logic?

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 10:08 am

If you could provide evidence of the warming effects of the GHE then maybe sky dragons wouldn’t exist.

You do realise lukewarmist like you are doing to people like me and Nick and others here exactly the same as warmists at the Guardian do to people like you i.e. they try to shut you up.

Why can’t you see that?

It’s evidence that matters not consensus. Where have you been?

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 1:06 pm

Evidence has been available for over 100 years. Evidence doesn’t disappear just because it goes against what you want to believe.

ironicman
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 2:10 pm

The evidence for AGW is wishy washy and 100 years is not long enough. Have you heard of paleo climate history?

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 2:27 pm

So give us some evidence MarkW. Where is the evidence that the GHE causes surface arming?

I await your epiphany.

Admit it you are just a warmist who hasn’t come out of the closet yet.

whiten
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 2:57 pm

Of course.

Only if lukemarxists could have done it,
socialism would have worked and done miracles.
The masses, the proletariat, would be already by now eating from silver plates with golden spoons.

cheers

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 5:07 pm

Speaking of which:

Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo. A barren rock ball hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as analog for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut MMU w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)

Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
Trenberth atmospheric heat balance model (TFK_bams09.pdf (ucar.edu)) and dozens of clones.

Fact 3: Because of the significant non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
 

K-T Budget solar & calcd.jpg
leitmotif
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2021 10:53 am

CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.”

Or if you are a lukewarmist:

CONCLUSION:
Some RGHE, some GHG warming, no CAGW but some mankind/CO2 driven climate change.

Lukewarmists are warmists who are yet to come out of the closet.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Peter Wells
November 27, 2021 8:36 am

Is this sarcasm, Peter, or are you really that ignorant?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 8:10 am

Two clear, simple points supported with evidence.
How & why am I wrong?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 8:35 am

Your physics doesn’t hold up and you won’t listen to people like Roy Spenser, Dr. Lindzen & et al who work in the field. You are a crank on a mission that won’t be deterred by fundamental facts.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 10:01 am

It’s Roy Spencer, FFS. Please provide evidence for the warming effects of the GHE.

You sound like a warmist referring to authority.

What does Liam Norton of Insulate Britain always do? Answer: he quotes Sir David King as an appeal to authority.

Dave Fair
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 10:13 am

So its Spencer, not my mistyping his name. Sue me.

It’s not just people, I refer you to physics textbooks. It’s up to you to do some research and avoid novel math and physics misdirection.

You are on your own; I won’t continue to try to “fix stupid.”

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 10:31 am

Spenser. Twice.

So if I did research how many papers would provide evidence of the warming effects of the GHE?

Is it a number not entirely different from zero?

If you want to fix “stupid”, Dave Fair, you may want to start with yourself. Good luck with that. 🙁

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 1:07 pm

Dave, when they’v got nothing, and know they’ve got nothing, they have to pounce on any perceived weakness no matter how silly it makes them look.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 2:38 pm

So MarkW show we have nothing, Give us your evidence that the GHE is real. Show us who have nothing that the warming of the planet by the GHE is real.

You can’t. You know you can’t. Because it is bullsh*t.

whiten
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 3:57 pm

leitmotif

I bet you, all these “guys” when they say or mean the GHE, they mean the effect of the minor GHG(s), like CO2 or CH4 on the climate… for which there is no any evidence at all, potentially or otherwise.

At least the warmists claim and consider that effect to have some detectable potential only by the anthropogenic means… not natural though.

So the lukes and alarmist warmists share the same boat… obviously.

In the case of lukewarmists is even worse, scientifically, as their position and claims firmly oppose and contradict the very and the only theory of climate, the M. cycles radiative theory of natural climate… when and in the same time the same lukewarmists hold that theory as a fact…
The lukewarmist’s paradox.

I bet you, none of these “guys” are able or capable to ever clearly say and state;

that GHE in overall or of minor GHG(s) is real and can be considered as real regardless, but still with no detectable effect on the climate, as per natural means.

cheers

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 2:27 pm

MY physics doesn’t hold up!?

The K-T diagram surface balance: 160 down = 17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 IR by difference up & BALANCED!!!!!

The K-T diagram shows 396 W/m^2 “extra” appearing out of thin air. That’s more than arrived from the Sun in the first place, more than the net albedo, more than the net/net to the surface. An egregious violation of LoT1 conservation. The 333 downwelling from cold to hot violates LoT2, hot to cold ONLY. 396 – 333 = 63 produces whole ‘nother duplicate copy of the 63. Can’t be two, violates LoT1.

396 W/m^2 is the theoretical denominator for the emissivity ratio. Energy leaving by radiation or 63 over radiation leaving at surface temperature of16 C or 289 K aka 396 = 0.16 which is why ALL the IR instruments that assume the surface is BB are wrong!

The graphics arts and engineering major summer interns that made the K-T graphic just put numbers where they were told and had no idea they were junk.

And if EITHER of my points stand RGHE fails.
What about Earth cooler not warmer with atmos/albedo and much like Moon w/o?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 3:48 pm

You are misstating the 2LoT; it is net flow from hot to cold. And energy is not created; energy out at TOA equals the Sun’s energy in. You need to get a current textbook on atmospheric physics; I cannot convince you of anything on a blog. And you sure the hell can’t convince me that practicing atmospheric physicists like Dr. Happer don’t know what they are talking about.

Does the atmosphere as a whole, with all of its attendant compositional molecules, have an average temperature above 0 K? If so, it radiates energy both up and down. Get over it.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 5:03 pm

“Net flow” is complete rubbish.
Both up & down is total nonsense.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 5:04 pm

BTW you STILL have not addressed colder not hotter and “extra” energy from BB of the K-T diagram

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 7:28 pm

I’m going to emulate Dr. Roy Spencer; there is no benefit to arguing facts with a crank. Bye.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 28, 2021 10:57 am

Roy Spencer believes the same crap as you, Dave Unfair.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2021 7:05 am

In my experiment I actually measured W into and surface area of a 125 W heating element.
For ALL of the W/m^2 entering to radiate BB requires a surface temperature over 800 F.
The operating temperature was about 670 F.

Where did the missing 130 F go?
This is what some want to call “back” radiation. The surrounding “back” radiating cooler air “cooled” the heating element by radiation.
As demonstrated the surrounding air cools the element through the non-radiative kinetic action, i.e. conduction/convection/advection/latent of the contiguous participating molecules.

The concept of “back” radiation was created (like caloric and phlogiston) to explain the downwelling 333 W/m^2 that the upwelling of 396 requires for balance.

There is no 396, no 333, no second helping of 63 and no spoon.

A Modest Experiment 063018 R2.jpg
leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 9:50 am

Maybe, Dave Fair, you should offer some real evidence for the GHE instead of hiding behind the safety of the general “consensus” of WUWT.

Nick doesn’t have to disprove something for which there is no evidence.

So, on you go. Evidence for the surface warming effects of the GHE. I’ll give you 24 hours.

Dave Fair
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 10:08 am

I’ll give you 24 hours.” [to provide evidence of the GHE]. Fu leitmotif, I’m not yours to order around.

If you deny the physics of GHGs, I can’t help you. You are apparently allowing the abuse of feedback processes by CliSciFi to warp your view of radiation science.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 10:34 am

23 hours 18 minutes and counting.

Put up or shut up.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 11:53 am

Oh dear! I’m certain DF is quaking with fear.

leitmotif
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 27, 2021 2:40 pm

DF is too dim to quake with fear.

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 5:42 pm

What are you going to do if we continue to ignore you and your ridiculous demands? Go away and stop bothering us?

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 11:00 am

MarkW puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes tight and goes la la la la la la.

Are you going to scrweam and scrweam and scrweam till your sick?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 11:18 am

Dave Fair,

You are using the worst kind of sophistry by failing to clearly define your terms (in this case the GHE) and switching the meaning you adopt as and when it suits you.

It is not possible to prove a negative so I cannot prove the radiative greenhouse effect does not exist, but it is known as a certain fact that the anthropogenic (i.e. human induced) global warming (AGW) projected by computer models of global climate (known as GCMs) is not happening. 

The GCMs are constructed to present the changes to warming of the atmosphere which would result from changes to radiative forcing. And all the climate models show more warming in the upper troposphere than near the surface (especially distant from polar regions) as a result of increased radiative forcing from increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. 

Nobody doubts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing, but AGW-proponents say this will cause the atmosphere to respond in a particular way. The pattern of the proposed response is a ‘fingerprint’ for AGW. Therefore, if a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW is absent then any observed warming is not a result of the AGW the climate models project.

This pattern of warming is known as the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’.

The Hot Spot is fully described in Chapter 9 of the so-called “scientific” WG1 report of IPCC AR4 that you can download from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf

The Hot Spot is shown Figure 9.1.

It is on page 675 and is titled,

Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from

(a) solar forcing,

(b) volcanoes,

(c) wellmixed greenhouse gases,

(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,

(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and

(f) the sum of all forcings.

Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa

(shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)

The Hot Spot is the big red blob that is only in plots (c) for wellmixed greenhouse gases, and (f) for the sum of all forcings.

As you can see, in the Figure the blob is warming of between 2 and 3 times the warming near the surface beneath it.

Furthermore, the plot is of predicted temperature rises “from 1890 to 1999” and the measured temperature rises are for the latter part of the period (since 1958 for the balloon data and since 1969 for the satellite data). Thus, warming measured by balloons and by satellites was for when “wellmixed greenhouse gases” were at their highest.
Therefore, if the effect of wellmixed greenhouse gases is as predicted in Figure 9.1 of IPCC WG1 AR4 then the measured warming in the Hot Spot should be MORE THAN 2 to 3 times greater than warming measured near the surface beneath the Hot Spot.

But the completely independent balloon data and satellite data each show the Hot Spot does not exist: i.e. enhanced warming is not observed where the GCMs indicate the Hot Spot should be.

The Hot Spot occurs because of the assumed water vapour feedback (WVF).

Any increase to temperature increases evapouration of water (H2O) from the Earth’s surface. H2O is the major greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 is the greatest of the minor GHGs. The models assume CO2 warms the surface and, thus, increases evapouration and, therefore, the warming effects of water vapour in the air: this is known as the water vapour feedback (WVF). The cold at altitude in the troposphere means there is little H2O up there so any increase to the H2O concentration at altitude has large warming effect.

The Hot Spot is missing so the GCMs are known to provide wrong projections of AGW because their assumptions of WVF are observed to be wrong.  And the absence of the Hot Spot (i.e. the ‘fingerprint’ of AGW) indicates there has been no discernible AGW of the kind predicted by the GCMs.

Richard

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 27, 2021 12:19 pm

Well, Richard, I agree pretty much with your statement. The GHE is the overall effect of the properties of radiatively active gasses in the atmosphere. CliSciFi assertions about the feedback properties of WV (and clouds) have been disproven by experimentation such as your Hot Spot example.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 1:54 pm

“…radiatively active gasses…”
Actual demonstration pls of this property not handwavium thought exercise.
And at 0.04% there is simply not enough mass to matter.

In a translation of Planck’s 1920 lecture notes on heat radiation he remarked that for radiation to interact w/ stuff there had to be comparable dimension.
Gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays are on the order of molecular dimensions and tear them up.

Short and log wave UV wave lengths temporarily displace electrons and when they recover fluoresce visible light. Incident minus work function = emergent.

LWIR heats actual surface but not the air between. Stand under an IR heater at the Home Depot checkout stand. Or next to a patio heater. They heat you but not the air.

LWIR goes right through GHGs.

Look at IR on a solar spectrum. It’s Planck relative to the total incoming is miniscule. That upwelling from the surface is miniscule^-2.

Wavelength.jpg
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 2:18 pm

Does the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth exceed that leaving TOA? Please show the spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 3:12 pm

“METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY

Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%.” [That trace amount (presumably less than 1% {actually from about 10 ppm}) is at higher, colder elevations, the poles and deserts.]

The fact that CO2 is about 0.042% of the atmosphere means nothing. Methane concentrations measure in the billionths (ppb) and it is also a GHG. Those small percentages add up rapidly considering the total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.1 X 10^18 kg. CO2 mass is about 4.2 X 10^-4 X 5.1 X 10^18 = 2.14 X 10^5 kg, a big number.

Your graph of the spectrum of Solar radiation at the Earth shows that both H2O and CO2 intercept infrared radiation received from the Sun. So they both heat the atmosphere by transferring vibrational energy to more numerous adjacent molecules. You fail to show the spectrum of LW energy leaving both the surface of the Earth and TOA. Life as we know it would not exist on planet Earth without the GHE.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 5:01 pm

Like this?
The upwelling IR from the surface is several orders of magnitude less J than the miniscule level what entered.

Can you explain that GHE?
Can you ‘splain where comes that “extra” warming energy?
The K-T diagram and all of its clones are junk
Got a backup plan?

Solar spectrum graphics.jpg
leitmotif
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2021 11:04 am

Nick, all we ask if for evidence and they react as if it is a ridiculous request.

They have learnt something from Michael Mann.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 27, 2021 1:43 pm

Nobody doubts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing

Richard, I think that’s not very nice to call Nick and leitmotif “nobody”.

Unless I am far off the mark, they are not arguing that the models exaggerate the GHE of CO2. They are in fact doubting that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing.

They are not quibbling over ECS being too high, they are denying that there is any effect from increasing GHGs, which presumably includes H2O as well.

Perhaps Nick and leitmotif will set the record straight.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 2:33 pm

Rich, I have read and do understand what they are saying. They deny the physics of radiative gasses and their established operations in our atmosphere. I can’t school cranks.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 4:55 pm

I was responding to Richard Courtney, Dave. I agree with everything you wrote. I was pointing out to Richard that indeed the whole discussion revolves around doubting that there is any GHE at all.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 3:20 am

Rich Davis,

I can only repeat,
It is not possible to prove a negative so I cannot prove the radiative greenhouse effect does not exist, but it is known as a certain fact that the anthropogenic (i.e. human induced) global warming (AGW) projected by computer models of global climate (known as GCMs) is not happening. 

And I explained that “certain fact”.

Richard

whiten
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 4:25 pm

Mauna Loa ans OCO2 NASA satellites measure the CO2, and the increasing variation of that GHG.

What methods or means of measuring, in one way or another, are there for the GHG H2O.

Even in consideration of paleoclimate, the variables considered are, primary the cryosphere’s ice content variation, then sea level variation, surface atmospheric temp. variation, atmospheric CO2 concentration variation… and to a degree the aridity or global precipitation pattern…

No any GHG H2O variation much there as per climate.

oh, well.

cheers

Rich Davis
Reply to  whiten
November 27, 2021 5:13 pm

Sorry whiten. I have no idea what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re trying to start one of your inscrutable arguments with me over some minor aspect of what I wrote, having nothing to do with my main point. But I’m not up for it.

It is very obvious to anyone who has lived in a climate with widely varying humidity that the coldest nights are clear dry nights, and overcast winter nights are usually warmer. This is a practical proof of the greenhouse effect of water vapor as far as I am concerned.

All the best to you though.

whiten
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 5:08 am

Rich

“They are not quibbling over ECS being too high, they are denying that there is any effect from increasing GHGs, which presumably includes H2O as well.
Perhaps Nick and leitmotif will set the record straight.”
————-

If I am not misunderstanding the above statement of yours;

You do imply that “they” are denying the effect of GHGs on climate, for which there is no evidence.
Especially by mentioning the varibility factor of the GHGs,
for which evidence consist but only for
minor GHGs like CO2… and not for the major GHG H20.

The H20 as GHG is not considered or accounted as with an effect on climate, and there is no evidence for it as varying in accordance or not,
unless one accepts some of the
CC AGW claims of the warming feedback mechanism as evidence…. or data.

There is no evidence, consideration or assessment in/from the data, paleoclimate or modern, about some supposed correlation of H2O variation with temperature variation.

Pointing out clearly, that there is no evidence, when that happens to be the truth, is not denial.

The fact that climateriat as a whole keeps running around the bushes for ages now, about the ECS and it’s supposed value, does indeed further support the standing that the GHGs have no effect on climate, regardless that GHE of GHGs in overall being real in one way or another.
Noise is real too.

Wondering who is actually denying and ignoring what, in reality.

The evidence and facts, as do stand, deny the GHE of GHGs in overall as having any effect on climate.

The rest is only assumptions, thesis, hypothesis, claims, suppositions… academic, scientific, intellectual, or not…
but never the less not supported by facts in evidence… definitely not by conclusive,
and mostly not even by circumstantial facts in evidence…
but mostly supported by hyped “electrolyte” conjectures.

Rich,
albedo too is real, but still no any evidence that it does effect climate.

If your case of regional H2O variation, effecting regional “climatic” conditions in short term, is the basis of the claim that GHE of H2O on climate is real…
then yes indeed definitely you will have no idea what I am saying, or the others “they” are saying…. the “they” you claimed to be denying;
“that there is any effect from increasing GHGs”

Again, there is no evidence that increasing GHGs have any effect in climate or in what so ever else… in any time or periodic term,
and also there is no evidence what so ever that H2O is increasing or varying, ether in accordance or not with temperature… in any time or periodic term.

Publishing, or commenting in a public forum comes with the price or/and the pain of being engaged by the rest, rightly or wrongly, whether one likes it or not…
especially when the condition of misunderstanding is quite ripe.

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Rich Davis
Reply to  whiten
November 28, 2021 1:37 pm

whiten,

Not sure if this helps, but let me try.

I clarified to Richard C that Nick and leitmotif state absolutely that there is no actual green house effect (GHE). I did that because Richard C said that nobody doubts it.

I indicated my disagreement with Nick’s and leitmotif’s view about the GHE, based on the observation that the amount of water vapor (short-term weather condition) dramatically changes observed nighttime cooling. This is an observation that can easily be made, whereas the same “experiment” cannot be run with the minor greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon dioxide, because it does not vary substantially or in any easily observed way, notwithstanding that satellite evidence may cast doubt on the well-mixed gas hypothesis.

I did not endorse any CAGW hypothesis. I suspect that the net effect of many factors known and unknown explains the recent mild and beneficial warming, and that a minor but real effect is a warming from the increasing GHE of CO2. This makes me a contemptible “Lukewarmer ™”

I did not intend to imply that water vapor has been responsible for any significant part of the recently observed mild and beneficial warming. If I recall correctly, the evidence shows a slight reduction over time in atmospheric water vapor, but I may be wrong on that. If that were the case it would imply a slight cooling effect attributable to water vapor.

Richard C replied that he can’t prove a negative but that climate models have failed. I concur that climate models have failed. This says nothing about the reality or unreality of the GHE. It says that the models either do not properly simulate the GHE or they are missing some other important effects, or they do not properly simulate some important effects that have been identified or any combination of the above.

My purpose in mentioning water vapor is that it provides evidence that molecules that have a structure allowing for vibrational modes do in fact absorb energy from IR photons in the real world atmosphere and not only in the lab. CO2 and H2O are similar in this regard.

That’s about all I have to say about it.
cheers

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 4:49 pm

“Radiative forcing” = caloric and phlogiston.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 27, 2021 4:51 pm

The latent properties, evap/cond, of H20 are what move massive amounts of energy. Look at the psychrometric properties of moist air charts and how energy moves between RH and DB.
No “radiative forcing” hocus pocus needed.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 5:43 pm

Nobody in this discussion has denied that convection is an important effect.

It is not a latent heat effect that causes it to be warmer under humid conditions at night compared to clear dry conditions.

Your fundamental error is that you conflate heat flow with radiative flux. In the absence of work being performed, heat flows from hot to cold. That is true. It is true because the radiative flux is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature. So the net flux must be from hot to cold because the flux from hot is always bigger than the flux from cold. But there is always some flux from cold, because there is nothing in the known universe that is at absolute zero. You deny that there is a radiative flux from cold objects which reduces the amount of energy lost from the hot surface. That is where you are simply wrong.

When you compare the atmosphere to heat flow through an insulating wall, it’s not wrong. It’s just that part of the resistance to heat flow is the radiation that GHGs intercept.

leitmotif
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 11:17 am

So the net flux must be from hot to cold because the flux from hot is always bigger than the flux from cold. But there is always some flux from cold”

So provide some experimental evidence instead of just making statements that you think “make sense”.

Rich Davis
Reply to  leitmotif
November 28, 2021 2:04 pm

Do you dispute that objects radiate energy?

If you do, then I would have to defer to someone who has a deeper understanding of the mechanics of radiation to go further.

If you accept that radiation is a thing, then ask yourself the simple question of whether an object on earth can control whether it radiates or not based on the temperature of an object in deep space, say 1000 light years distant and only radiate if the distant object is cooler than itself? Of course it cannot because it would take a thousand years for information about the remote object to reach it.

Every object radiates independently in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Even the coldest liquid helium radiates something.

It’s a matter of logic, not what I think seems right. Objects radiate and must do so independently therefore radiation from a hot object is offset by radiation from the cold target.

leitmotif
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 5:29 pm

You confuse radiation with heat. To explain the difference to you would be quite an undertaking considering your level of ignorance on the subject.

Here’s a clue. Heat is the transfer of internal energy from a warmer object to a cooler object.

Radiation is what an object above 0K does.

Objects radiate and must do so independently therefore radiation from a hot object is offset by radiation from the cold target.”

Yet you provide no experimental evidence.

Rich Davis
Reply to  leitmotif
November 28, 2021 6:26 pm

Ok leitmotif you’re free to take the last word. After that comment I am sure anyone paying attention will have understood that you’re invincibly ignorant. I’ll have to try to remember not to try to teach a pig to sing next time. (Wastes your time and annoys the pig).

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 2:33 pm

Picture a large south facing patio door on a 95F afternoon. Draw the draperies. Is the room warmer now or cooler?
Picture same door at midnight and 30 F outside. Pull the draperies. Warmer now or cooler?
The albedo cools the lit side and the thermal resistance warms the dark.

The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air.
The Earth is energized only on the lit side and loses energy spherically 24/7 per Q = U A (Tsurf – Ttoa)

Heat exchanger equations..jpg
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 27, 2021 3:29 pm

You forgot to note that the LW emissions of the surface of the Earth heat the atmosphere by trapping photons and transferring their additional vibrational energy to adjacent molecules, the same as done by the Sun’s LW energy as shown in your previous posting’s graph. Clouds greatly complicate this process.

I have suggested that people walk under a tree on a cold night to experience “back radiation.” I was doing an energy loss inventory on my house in Spokane, WA during the winter at night. The display of the IR meter looked like flames shooting from an open window. Pointing it at the clear night sky showed nothing much. But pointing it at the evergreens in the yard showed a faint glow emanating from the individual trees. Low clouds do the same thing at night; back radiation. The molecules in the atmosphere (being above 0 K) do the same thing.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 4:45 pm

“Back” radiation is the current phlogiston and caloric.
Energy6 flows from hot to cold – period.
There are ZERO exceptions.
The 396 up/333 down/63 net of the K-T diagram is non-existent rubbish.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2021 2:56 am

Energy6 flows from hot to cold – period.”

You missed out a very important word at the beginning there.
It’s NET
Period.

leitmotif
Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 28, 2021 11:19 am

Evidence please.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2021 5:20 am

Nick Schroeder,

You write,
“Energy6 flows from hot to cold – period.
There are ZERO exceptions.”

I don’t know about “Energy6” but normal energy flows from cold to hot in the microwave oven I use to heat my lunch, and in the vicinity of the radar transmitters on the Yorkshire moors, and etc..

Richard

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 28, 2021 7:09 am

From cold to hot WITH THE ADDITION OF WORK, ie all those microwaves!

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2021 9:43 am

Nick Schroeder,

1.
You said,
“Energy6 flows from hot to cold – period.
There are ZERO exceptions.”
2.
I pointed out that there are many “exceptions” and cited some.
3.
You have replied,
From cold to hot WITH THE ADDITION OF WORK, ie all those microwaves!”
4.
OK. Point 4 is an admission from you that your original statement (in point 1) is plain wrong, so all that remains is the need for you to apologise for having posted a falsehood.

Richard

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 4:46 pm

The tree canopy stifles the convection.
Q = U A dT. If U goes down dT goes up and surface gets warmer.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 4:48 pm

IR meters measure temperature not W/m^2. They assume W/m^2 by assuming an emissivity and assuming 1.0 is assuming wrong.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 27, 2021 11:14 am

perhaps he meant “minimal greenhouse effect”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 27, 2021 2:35 pm

No, he denies the physics of radiative gasses and their established operations in our atmosphere.

leitmotif
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 28, 2021 11:22 am

That word “denies”. What a giveaway.

Pat Frank
November 27, 2021 7:18 am

There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.

Yes there is.

Mike Hulme is like the cultist who accepts the proof-text but doesn’t like the abusive dictates that descend from it.

Belief by the moderates powers the madness of the fanatic.

Figure it out, Mike. Give up the fantasy of the elect. It’s your only route to sanity.

Ellen
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 27, 2021 8:26 am

There actually is a reason for cutting back on fossil fuels. (Assume, for the sake of argument, that we don’t count nuclear fuel as “fossil supernova”.) Our modern societies could fail. Heaven knows, there are enough barbarians at (and within) the gates to do it.

If we use up all the easily-accessed fossil fuels, we’ll have a hard time getting a new technical civilization going. Nuclear energy isn’t going to happen until we have a proper technological civilization going anyway, so we can use that all up with a clean conscience. Not that that will be easy.

Mention that to a Green. Since the Green leadership and friends want to destroy modern society, that will put them in a bind. If we stop using fossil fuels, once they destroy society we will be able to get it back — not what they want.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ellen
November 27, 2021 4:03 pm

There’s an easy 500 years of readily accessible fossil fuels, Ellen. There’s no materials point in cutting back on them. If we haven’t graduated onto fusion by then, we won’t deserve to survive as a species.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 27, 2021 6:53 pm

That’s a high bar for deserving survival. If we really needed to “graduate onto fusion” within five centuries in order to deserve survival, then I guess it would already be a foregone conclusion that we’re the undeserving doomed. I don’t think that there will ever be cost-effective controlled fusion, even though we may eventually manage to control it. Other alternatives will be cheaper such as space based solar.

We existed for many millennia before any fossil fuels were used. We will certainly continue to survive as a species even if we have to go back to times where only biomass was used for fuel. Not with 11 billion people and a high standard of living of course. Maybe 1 billion though with medieval standards.

Certainly we have much longer than 500 years with fission—including thorium, and eventually mining asteroids. I’d have a lot more confidence in that than ever seeing fusion.

And of course as long as we have an energy source, we can synthesize any organic compounds that we want from biomass, so it’s certainly correct that we don’t need to conserve our fossil fuels.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2021 1:01 pm

If we end up colonizing and mining asteroids and using space-based solar, that’ll be fine with me, Rich. Solar could certainly power moon colonies.

About the limits of future knowledge, I have no insights.

In organic synthesis we had to devise routes to complex molecules starting from ethanol. So, I’ve no qualms about organics either.

Nature passes judgment on species. A billion people living a medieval life are just waiting for the next large bolide. Our future as a species is either high energy or obliteration.

Ellen
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 28, 2021 7:27 am

I did say “easily-accessed fossil fuels”. What is easily accessed by a technological civilization might not be so easy for a woodburning-windmill-waterwheel civilization. We have all of those in use now, but how long could we keep civilization going with just them?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ellen
November 28, 2021 1:04 pm

With just fossil fuels, several hundred years. But you’re right. We’ll need greater energy density.

MarkW
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 27, 2021 8:27 am

That was Hulme quoting Mann.
You need to recalibrate your attacks.

bonbon
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 8:47 am

¨There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels. And there is also no doubt that vested political interests have obstructed its progress. But Mann is so conditioned…¨
Sure looks calibrated to me.

leitmotif
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 10:53 am

There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.”

“No doubting”?

Oh dear. Why?

bonbon
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 11:52 am

The Myth, which even Mann is shaking, must stay….

Pat Frank
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 4:06 pm

No it wasn’t.

Vuk
November 27, 2021 7:45 am

Now this is not only funny but very telling.
For two days new SA variant of covid virus was known worldwide as ‘nu’ after next due Greek letter. Nothing unusual about that.
Steps the WHO and decides, no, no, its name is ‘omicron’, hence jumping two letters i.e ‘ nu’ and next one is, wait for it, it’s ‘Xi’, yes you guessed it name of the Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Who is then the rascal who suggested let’s call it by Greek letters since we are not allowed to call it Chinese virus, knowing full well that the 14th mutation will be Xi.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
November 27, 2021 7:50 am

Greek letters graphics and names

images.jpeg
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Vuk
November 27, 2021 8:15 am

I remember a math professor who liked to use lowercase Xi, calling it “squiggle” or “any old thing”.

bonbon
Reply to  Vuk
November 27, 2021 8:24 am

It is actually from Botswana with Africa less then 5% vaccinated. Suck it up!
This virus will go through the entire Greek Alphabet, so why are you stuck at the letter Xi?
For COVID, the menu, us, reads appetizing petri dish!

Richard Page
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 8:56 am

It’ll be interesting if there are more variants than Greek letters, you’d have to use a combination – “Is that a COVID variant or a US fraternity?”

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Page
bonbon
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 9:08 am

LOL!
As if there was a difference!

Derg
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 9:49 am

Just one more variant 😉

Derg
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 9:50 am

“ It is actually from Botswana with Africa less then 5% vaccinated. Suck it up!”

The vaccinated have nothing to worry about.

bonbon
Reply to  Derg
November 27, 2021 11:53 am

When only 5% are vaccinated what do you think even Darwin’s evolution predicts?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Vuk
November 27, 2021 1:22 pm

How did we get to Omicron without landing on all the others? Last anyone was talking about around here was the dreaded “delta variant”.

Vuk
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 2:05 pm

I heard of lambda in Peru and mu in Columbia, the others I have no idea, probably mutations which evaporated before they took hold.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Vuk
November 27, 2021 3:01 pm

Whenever I hear ‘Lambda’, this or ‘Mu’ that, I think of a gaggle of overly made up college girls in twin sets … not dangerous pathogens stocking the planet looking for increasing numbers of victims to infect.

I think I can smell shite – YouTube

Vuk
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 2:26 pm

Apparently Greek letters are for us plebs, medics use B & P numbers whatever they are
Quick research produced this:
Epsilon: B.1.427/B.1.429 ; Zeta: P2; Theta:P3 Kappa: B.1.617.1; Iota: B.1.526; Eta: B.1.525
There you have it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Vuk
November 27, 2021 3:08 pm

Hmmm … all I can say is:

It’s Greek to me.

John Bell
November 27, 2021 7:46 am

Typical Leftist projection, that’s Mann!

Richard Page
Reply to  John Bell
November 27, 2021 8:57 am

He’s a complete paranoid fantasist.

Abolition Man
November 27, 2021 7:47 am

One can only hope that Mickey Mann continues to make enemies out of potential allies, and Mike Hulme is able to dig his way out of the ever expanding pile of Climate Cult garbage!
Standing back and watching ones enemies destroy each other is quite reasonable, but with cretins like Mann the temptation to poke and prod the combatants is irresistible!

Smart Rock
November 27, 2021 7:58 am

Michael Mann has progressed from very flawed science to outright fanaticism. He’s riding the tiger – no way he can get off without being eaten.

Commenters who attribute political motives to Mann – I think are doing so without a whole lot of evidence. IMHO he is somewhere between a “fellow traveller” and a “useful idiot” to borrow a couple of terms from old-school communism.

Doug Danhoff
November 27, 2021 8:03 am

Mann is not a man … he is a lying prostitute of a scientist, who has sold the reputation of us all. If you are no longer as respected as a scientist by the general public, it is because of him and others of his ilk . Don’t try to argue, reason, or make him understand …

Abolition Man
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
November 27, 2021 2:34 pm

Doug,
That is a HUGE insult to prostitutes, especially scientific ones!
Just call him a cretin who has to tilt his head back to find pond scum; maybe something from a septic system would be even more descriptive!

John Garrett
November 27, 2021 8:09 am

The Mann has a serious psychiatric disorder. As I am not a professional, I won’t attempt to diagnose it. Nevertheless, it should be recognized and labelled in order to prevent further harm to the public.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Garrett
Andrew Wilkins
November 27, 2021 8:13 am

Mann is a weapons grade twat.
He should just be ignored. The majority of the public wouldn’t have a clue who he is.

markl
November 27, 2021 8:18 am

It’s part of the divide and conquer plan.

saveenergy
November 27, 2021 8:21 am

“there are always winners and losers.”

Should read “there are always whiners and losers
Mann has proved himself to be the epitome of both !

Peta of Newark
November 27, 2021 8:24 am

Quote:”There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels.”

Yes absolutely.
Not because of the contrived garbage about CO2, because they are such precious and irreplaceable raw materials for soooo many things.
Burning them, esp oil, so you can go from A to B and come back again a few hours/days/weeks later, is unforgivable.

Michael Mann is a modern-day incarnation of King Henry 8th – a belligerent, buck passing warmongering Zombie

Henry’s dull & blinkered mind, lack of social skill and belligerence created the Little Ice Age………….

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 27, 2021 8:59 am

“Henry VIII … created the Little Ice Age?” Seriously?

Vuk
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 10:26 am

Actually it was that well known alchemist Isaac Newton/sarc

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 1:16 pm

Peta also believes that deserts are created by wildfires. The amount of rain has nothing to do with it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 1:36 pm

“Henry VIII … created the Little Ice Age?”

That left me speechless. I had no idea how to respond.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 5:45 pm

If I remember the post correctly, the warmonger Henry VIII cut down all the forests in England in order to build ships with which to oppress the peaceful French. It was the loss of this forest that caused the whole world to cool off by several degrees.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2021 5:55 pm

Huzzah … well spotted that man! I knew it would come back to haunt him.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 4:21 pm

Please tell me that’s completely sarcastic. Building 50 ships didn’t need every forest in England and France was far from peaceful.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
November 29, 2021 10:43 am

Allegedly quoting Peta of Newark

Richard Page
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 4:19 pm

Me neither.

bonbon
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 27, 2021 8:59 am

What is utterly unforgivable is the price at the gas station. A crime! And the criminals of finance spot-pricing given full sway by de-regulation, chuckle all the way with SUV to the bank.

Henry VIII started out not too bad with dad Henry VII a genius. His procreation advisor Zorzi from Venice, George to friends, sent him on a rampage of Syphilis. Result? Venice broke the Church, before Luther. So instead of 1 corrupt church, 3 began to war for 100 years until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Mann is something else entirely….

Last edited 1 month ago by bonbon
Disputin
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 27, 2021 9:16 am

I think you might have traduced Henry VIII.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 27, 2021 1:33 pm

Henry’s dull & blinkered mind, lack of social skill and belligerence

Clearly history was never your forte. It’s hard to imagine a less accurate description of Henry VIII. Pretending he was anything like M. E. Mann is an enormous stretch. The two couldn’t possibly be more unalike. I’m guessing you’ve never actually read any English history and your ideas about English royalty came from comic books.

bonbon
November 27, 2021 8:32 am

For people stuck in the 78rpm shellac record track, repeating left-right-socialism ad nauseam, the Author actually left the demon out of the bag.

It looks like Mann is breaking one of the Mannichean 5 Rules :

Freedom, Tolerance, Brotherhood, Transcendence, Initiatic Secret.
Some master is not too happy.

The climate Brotherhood is loosing its grip on the secret, what?

John Bell
Reply to  bonbon
November 27, 2021 10:05 am

But they always think that THEY are going to do it RIGHT this time, but they always repeat the SAME mistakes, fall in to the same traps and dead ends. Maddening, they should be reeducated.

bonbon
Reply to  John Bell
November 27, 2021 11:54 am

The Brotherhood is likely working on that – what will they come up with next, I wonder?

Michael
November 27, 2021 9:12 am

Darn, WUWT didn’t get mentioned in Mann’s book. Must be doing something wrong, HAHA

DMacKenzie
November 27, 2021 9:13 am

“…Consistently demonizing those who think differently than you makes it harder, if not impossible, to forge alliances. “
Don’t demonize them….RIDICULE is more effective and you can throw in a thought provoking fact…”Geez Derwood, at the present rate of global warming, when can give my sweater to a homeless person?”

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 27, 2021 11:25 am

“Don’t demonize them….RIDICULE is more effective”
Something like a Saturday Night Live skit showing the lunacy of the climatistas would be awesome. Let’s see, who could best play Mann? If I were wealthy, I’d pay for the skit.

Coeur de Lion
November 27, 2021 9:17 am

Don’t forget Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ wherein his collection of 100 world class scientists express their opinion of Mikey Mann.

rah
November 27, 2021 9:30 am
Philip
November 27, 2021 9:56 am

I personally find it very difficult to believe that the climate alarmist holds any wish or intent to forge alliances with anyone who hasn’t adopted wholesale, CAGW. Change the name as often as they may. It is still CAGW that they are pushing. Worse, as ‘science’, CAGW is very, very bad science.

Climate believer
November 27, 2021 10:16 am

“Unsettled” by Koonin, a very intelligent book, has completely swamped Manns juvenile ranty attempt to make himself the centre of the climosphere again.

Manns book came out 3 months before Unsettled but still can’t beat Koonin on Amazon.

People see right through him, it’s the same old lefty “deplorables” speech demonising anyone that doesn’t have the same thoughts as our demented author.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Climate believer
November 27, 2021 2:44 pm

C.B.,
There is the small problem that many true believing Climastrologists are recent graduates and thus incapable of reading; most of the others just go slow and sound the words out as they go!
This may be the reason that the griffter never answers questions about paleo-climate; he’d have to read something containing large words, and his programmer refuses to translate heretical texts in simpler language

Joseph Zorzin
November 27, 2021 10:58 am

Mann’s new book is his Mein Kampf. Or should I say his Mann Kampf.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 27, 2021 2:45 pm

Joseph,
Mann’s reason for the book is strictly mercenary; he’s only after Das Kapital!

Doonman
November 27, 2021 11:07 am

The Planet Doesn’t Care what Michael Mann thinks.

Only people do. That’s why there are chicken littles in every society that ever existed.

You’ll shoot your eye out. Calvin Coolidge’s son died from a tennis blister.

In reality, life is a crap shoot every day of your life. It pays to be cautious. But if you spend all your time fighting against hobgoblins, there is no time left to enjoy the benefits.

CapitalistRoader
November 27, 2021 1:16 pm

…become enemies: agents of the dark forces of inactivism, or contrarians, or “soft denialists,” or deflectors, or apologists, or defeatists.

Stalin’s terminology: wreckers, hoarders, kulaks, saboteurs, and Jews.

leitmotif
November 27, 2021 3:03 pm

This is supposed to be a sceptic website but anyone who disagrees with the GHE hypothesis is automatically branded a heretic.

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 5:47 pm

Being skeptics doesn’t mean we leave our brains at the door.
We criticize all bad science, regardless of who’s pushing it.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 11:23 am

You have a brain, MarkW?

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
November 27, 2021 8:18 pm

As far as declaring others heretics, that’s your schtick.
You are the one who’ s been declaring that unless someone agrees with you 100%, then they are evil ‘warmists”.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 11:26 am

Straw man. I asked you to provide evidence of the warming effects of the GHE.

You refuse to do so. Repeatedly.

Rich Davis
Reply to  leitmotif
November 29, 2021 11:31 am

If I were a Russian troll tasked with discrediting skeptic bloggers, I think that I could be much more effective by convincing skeptics that they are not radical enough, than to follow in the footsteps of a griff, Simon, or Izaak who honestly attempt to turn skeptics into CAGW believers.

I would relentlessly harp about theories that could discredit WUWT if I managed to get a lot of people duped into believing them.

So much easier to lead people too far down the path they are already on than to convince them that they are totally wrong and need to make a U-turn.

I’d also want to be mean-spirited and humorless, so that maybe the casual observer would conclude that skeptics are really nasty pieces of work.

Just some random thoughts. Gee I hope nobody would apply that approach. Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2021 11:10 am

No, no, Mark, don’t you know that we’re Lukewarmists? But we’re in good company with Anthony, Willis, and Judith Curry among many others.

Also you should know that by acknowledging valid science, we forfeit the right to disagree with CAGW. If we think doubling CO2 might warm the climate by a totally beneficial 1.7K and that even a further doubling would likely still be net beneficial, that’s handing the Warmunists a weapon.

Because people who are absolutely convinced that there’s a greenhouse effect that is going to lead to catastrophic heating are much more likely to change their mind by hearing a crackpot theory that there is no greenhouse effect at all than that empirical evidence puts its effect at about 1.7K per doubling.

Kind of like if the police told you not to install an alarm system in your home because burglars are a myth. Obviously that would put your mind at rest right away.

Tom Abbott
November 28, 2021 6:03 pm

Michael Mann is one of the most destructive people in our lifetimes.

We are in the “climate crisis” situation we are in now because too many people listened to Michael Mann.

The truth is not in this man. Follow his lead at your peril.

%d bloggers like this: