By Robert Bradley Jr.
“And yes, there is empirical, peer-reviewed support for the conclusion that climate deniers, in general, are truly awful human beings.” (- Michael Mann, below)
Michael “Climategate” Mann cannot get out of his own way. His arrogant, condescending social tweets speak for themselves–just as the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the East Anglia emails did. He is not the kind of person you would want in just about any endeavor, much less as a climate scientist trying to present a case.
This post traces Mann’s angst on X and then at BlueSky, his successor to X.
This is my final post on this platform (aside from my social media team’s pro forma posts noted below) until it is no longer owned by Elon Musk. “But on X, my social media team is reposting things” [Joe Romm?]. The idea is to make twitter truly “ex” with BlueSky emerging as the medium of choice for all but the trolls & bots, who are then left barking into the ether. Jan 20 [2024] is the date for my X-odus.”
And how has that gone Michael?
Here are a sampling of Mann’s anger and despair at his critics, and even the Left that is weakening in the face of utter rejection from the political majority. Start with this one:
“A note to trolls who comment on my posts: I hide your comment so nobody sees it, then I block you, mute you, and report you appropriately (e.g. “hateful entities”), which is a 4x hit to your account based on twitter’s algorithm.” (here)
And then his headlines:
“Scientists brace ‘for the worst’ as trump purges climate mentions from website…”
“The keys to the car have been given to the polluters and fossil fuel plutocrats and they intend to drive it off the climate cliff.”
“Conservative and Concerned about Climate Change? You’re Not Alone – A Conversation with Bob Inglis and Michael Mann”
“Humans brought the heat. Earth says we pay the price”
“‘They Know They’re Lying’: The Fossil Fueled War on Science, Humanity: Latest #BradCast“”The US is poised to become an authoritarian state ruled by plutocrats and fossil fuel interests.”
The US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is unfortunate, but multilateral climate action has proven resilient and is stronger than any single countries politics and policies.”
“I just reported [X] as a ‘violent & hateful entity’. You can too.”
Mad at Allies
“@HuffPost has offered no explanation of why it has chosen to act as an enabler of fascism, racism, bigotry, misogyny, and authoritarianism.”
“The sad irony of an account that purports to speak for science (a) referring to the overwhelming evidence for human-caused climate change as a matter of “belief” while (b) ignoring what the science actually says here
“To save the planet, stop reading The [Washington] Post.”
“Note to journalists: If you are writing about these wildfires and not mentioning climate change at all, you are complicit w/ an agenda-driven campaign of misinformation by the right.”
“one of the more dangerous forms of trollbot, the ‘divider’. They pose as climate activists but they are actually ‘agent provocateurs’, whose m.o. is to create conflict, discredit experts, and divide the community of climate advocates. Make sure to report and block!” (January 11, 2025 on X)
“A reminder, Bjorn Lomborg & the WSJ editorial page habitually team up to promote disinformation about climate change and extreme weather events, especially wildfire.”
“MAGA is everything that is evil in this world. And they must be viewed and dealt with as such.”
“These people constitute a threat to us and the planet: #PeterThiel #ElonMusk #VladmirPutin #MBS #RupertMurdoch #LeonardLeo #DonaldTrump #CharlesKoch“
“Actually, the greed of a small number of malicious plutocrats & autocrats we can count on the fingers of our hands: #Thiel #Musk #Putin #MBS #Murdoch #LeonardLeo #Trump.”
“The malicious lies spread by Musk, Putin, Trump & their MAGA parrots represent an existential threat to us and the planet.”
“Self-styled climate “centrists” deflecting attention from the PRIMARY underlying contributor to these disasters (fossil fuel burning and human-caused warming) are a free gift to polluters and petrostates.” January 11, 2025
‘Wildfires will get worse as the planet gets warmer.”
“Trump continues to be one of the most despicable people on the planet. He hates America and Americans (unless they bend the knee). An utter disgrace.”
“Well, @WSJ/Murdoch are a central cog in the fossil fuel disinformation machine, and Lomborg is their chosen liar-for-hire.”
“And yes, there is empirical, peer-reviewed support for the conclusion that climate deniers, in general, are truly awful human beings.” here
“The United States is now poised to become an authoritarian state ruled by plutocrats and fossil fuel interests. It is now, in short, a petrostate.”
More Recently (BlueSky)
“Scientists decry Trump energy chief’s plan to ‘update’ climate reports: ‘Exactly what Stalin did’ [yeah, that was me]” (12 days ago)
“Zeldin and EPA doing ‘opposite’ of protecting Americans from environmental threats with rollbacks. Lee Zeldin parrots discredited fossil fuel industry climate denier talking points.” (5 months ago)
“To be fair, the reputation and credibility of those five individuals [of the DOE science study] was already in tatters.” (17 days ago)
“There’s a reason it’s called the “enDANGERment finding”. Carbon pollution from fossil fuel burning represents a danger to both us and our planet.” (19 days ago)
“I don’t understand how any parent could so willingly serve as an enabler of the destruction of our world.” (20 days ago)
“I can’t think of anyone more qualified to present antiscientific climate denial propaganda than these five. And I can’t think of anyone more likely to seek out these fossil fuel apologists than Christopher Wright.” (22 days)
“It’s naive and unhelpful to argue this is just about some old man and his grudge against wind turbines. In fact, it’s in service of an agenda promoted by his deep-pocketed plutocrat backers. To ignore that connection is to play into their disinformation campaign. (23 days ago)
“Wondering why Trump is suddenly spending all his time bashing renewable energy? It’s to placate the petrostate actors & fossil fuel interests who installed him in the first place. He’s begging them to stand by him, knowing the very worst is yet to come….” (24 days ago)
“Sadly, it’s young American males who are buying into a really warped sense of masculinity (with plenty of help of course from a full court press by polluters, petrostates, plutocrats, and yes in many cases our press). Don’t simply blame the messenger.” (June 26, 2025)
“Trump (and more to the point, the polluters whose decades-old, focus-group-tested climate denial talking points he’s parroting) aren’t this ignorant. They’re banking on the fact that the American public is.” (2 months ago)
Final Comment
This is enough to keep a psychologist busy. Mann stepped into his own manhole, and he keep digging down. Like Al Gore, he hurts his cause more than helps it, as 97 percent of his colleagues (just an estimate) are more rational and quieter than he is on the same subject.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann demonstrated that he is a serial liar through out the Steyn NR/simburg/CEI litigation. Every pleading ,with the courts, interrogatories, depositions, discovery, etc had numerous misstatement of facts, misstatements of law, misstatements of precedents, etc. Probably over 300-400 lies and material misstatements (That is without regard to any factual misstatements of climate science).
The question is why would anyone belief his professional scientific work when his personal ethics are so pathetic.
Fascinating. The courts don’t believe Mann’s legal claims, but they accept his his climate claims, especially about technical issues outside his academic wheelhouse.
Fwiw – in my post – I make no claim on any of his science. I only note the serial lying through the litigation. In my line of work, I am frequently involved in litigation (expert and/or fact witness). The attorneys I have dealt have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that absolutely everything in a deposition, interogatory, exhibits, reports is factually correct. Likewise, I go to extreme lengths to ensure that every statement they make is factually correct.
In the Mann case, The pleadings were littered with hundreds of misstatements and misrepresentations, Those misstatements were on Mann. Likewise, the pleadings were also littered with misstatements and mischaracterization of law and holding in applicable case law. Those misstatement are the fault of the attorneys.
in reply to Warren B – regarding the global LIA and MWP –
0-30s latitude band – Pages2K
?w=544
The 0-30S Network
The 0-30S latitude band is mostly Indo-Pacific tropical ocean, but includes most of Australia and South America and the lower part of Africa.
The PAGES2K 0-30S proxy network has 46 proxies (as compared to 8 proxies in the 60-30S network). It has one – yes, one – proxy from an ocean cores and two proxies from land. 43 of 46 series are very short coral series.
The 0-30S network only has two (!?!) proxies with values prior to AD1500: the ocean core (a temperature estimate from Mg/Ca at Makassar Strait, Indonesia [Oppo et al, Nature 2009] and the classic ice core d18O series from Quelccaya, Peru (as updated in 2013) that had been staple of Mann et al 1998-99, Jones et al 1998 and many other studies. Neither of these series contains a hockey stick; if you squint, you can discern lower values in each in a generalized LIA period.
in reply to Warren B – regarding the global LIA and MWP –
30-60s latitude band – Pages2K
in summary, in the 0-60s latitude band there are only 5-6 proxies going back to mwp . Concluding anything about the Global nature of either the MWP or LIA is absolute BS.
Warren – you are parroting BS with out doing any form of due diligence
No Ocean Proxies
Although the 60-30S is almost entirely ocean, PAGES 2019 did not use a single ocean proxy in its data. They used only eight series (out of 19 PAGES 2017). Seven tree ring series: two from New Zealand (both less than 500 years), three from Tasmania (one long, two less than 500 years), two from southern South America (both less than 500 years) and one weird lake sediment from Chile (a “singleton” proxy using pigments in the sediments).
Only One Long Proxy
Only one proxy in the network has values prior to AD750 and only two proxies have values prior to AD1450. Thus, the only information directly comparing medieval and modern values comes from these two proxies: Mt Read, Tasmania (a series used as long ago as Mann et al 1998 and Jones et al 1998) and many times since and the Laguna Aculeo pigment series – neither of which have shapes remotely similar to the PAGES2K 60-30S latband reconstruction – see below. (The latband reconstruction was calculated from the enormous file at NOAA here).
Take a look at the underlying data (converted to SD Units) – more commentary below.
I wonder if St Michael ever did real science?
Mr. Halla: I have imagined Mann’s eighth grade science project started out promising. Mann theorized that red apples are sweeter, and selected three red, three green, and four mixed for his “data”. He found a red sour; two greens sweet; and the mixed were all over the place! After adjusting out the “non-conforming” data, he found his theory confirmed two-to-one (from a sample of ten!). The science fair judge was the theatre teacher, so impressed with Mike’s “statistical wizardry” that Mann was impressed and went on to create a new field- Theatre Science!
Hope this gets a laugh.
Well, Paul, it got at least a chuckle out of me.
I wonder if he can even boil a pot of water.
What I have wondered is wether his algorithm that produces “hockey sticks” from red noise was deliberate, or a product of incompetence.
Or, wait for it, deliberate incompetence. 😉
Considering that his academic background is in geophysics, rather than climatology, perhaps the fact that he changed his vocation speaks to his competence in the area in which he has a formal educational background.
Yep, deliberate incompetence is certainly the front runner in the overall betting.
I think he tried to boil a pot of water once.
But the CO2 fire extinguisher he used to speed up the process kept putting the fire out.
Perhaps more importantly, if he knows how to calibrate a thermometer using a pot of boiling water?
Can you cite anything Mann said that is contradicted by the body of scientific literature?
MBH98 contradicts prior historical and proxy records and reconstructions of climate.
Dealing with historic shifts in climate that were unrelated to greenhouse gasses is a problem for advocates, and Mann purported to deal with that issue by denying the Little Ice Age, Medieval
Warm Period, etc, even existed.
Mann didn’t contradict the findings of science. That’s because there was no scientific consensus that either the MWP or LIA were global phenomena.
What flavor was the Kool Aid?
Oh, you have a citation from the scientific literature that concludes the LIA and MWP were GLOBAL phenomena? That would be real news, so let’s see your citation.
A quick google fro MWVB in CHina (where they had good records) gives this:
Central China – MWP Evidence
QED It was North Atlantic and North Pacific so it had to be global.
Sorry. That just shows it was all arounfd the Northern Hemisphere. To show it was global I would need to search fro the southern hemisphere as well.
So I did.
1. Glacial Retreat at Rothera Point (Western Antarctic Peninsula)
2. Sediment and Diatom Evidence in the Bransfield Basin
3. Ikaite Hydration Isotopes in the Antarctic Peninsula
4. Ice-Core Deuterium Isotope Data from McMurdo Dry Valleys
5. Scott Coast Raised Beach Chronology (Ross Sea Region)
This internet thing has lots of information. You should try reading.
Yes, just as Mann knew — the LIA and MWP were regional events. But not global. Keep trying.
Your citations are just for China, ie, they were only regional events. Still awaiting your citation of any scientific assessment showing they were global events. So far, Mann was right.
We agree it’s North Atlantic, North Pacific and Antarctica…
Surely you can google Australia yourself?
Are you really going to claim that it’s found all over the world, wherever we have proxies, but it may not have been in the mid Pacific wher we have no knowledge? That’s ridiculous.
Time to have a long, hard look at yourself. Faith in things unknown is admirable but faith in things disproven is fanaticism.
And neither are science.
Let’s see. You haven’t included the entire southern hemisphere (except for Antarctica), the USA, New Mexico, Canada, or the Arctic. Keep trying. Remember, you’re looking for a GLOBAL scientific assessment.
I’m kinda missing the references where Mann showed that the MWP and LIA didn’t occur in the – and I quote “the entire southern hemisphere (except for Antarctica), the USA, New Mexico, Canada, or the Arctic.”
So I remembered that old logical fallacy and Googled, DuckDuckGo’d and Bing’d for when Warren Beeton stopped beating his wife and blow me down, according to the best search engines we have, there are no records of when the aforementioned stopped beating his wife …..
I hope the cops where he lives
aren’tare reading this.Mann didn’t show what you claim. In fact, when scientists find that the LIA or MWP were only regional, not global, they are finding that warming or cooling patterns weren’t synchronous across the entire world, as they would be if those phenomena were indeed global.
Note that in order to conduct such an assessment, ALL regions of the world must be considered, not just the ones you’ve listed.
In other words, despite the fact that every place that has been studied has shown that the MWP and LIA both existed. There has not been a single study that shows it doesn’t.
Until you have studyied every place on the planet, you must assume that there was no MWP and LIA.
Let’s also point out that all of the temperature proxies that Mann used showed the existence of the MWP and LIA existed. The only proxies that Mann had that didn’t were the tree ring proxies, and tree ring proxies don’t record temperature.
Of course they both existed — and were shown to be regional only.
Actually the data shows that it was world wide, but since your religion requires you to believe otherwise yoiu won’t allow yourself to accept that.
Aren’t you forgetting that Mann’s (or MBH) disproof of the LIA and MWP came from a few select bristlecone pines — ALL of the in the Northern hemisphere. Thus, your the one tossing bricks from your glass house.
Mann or NBH never ‘disproved’ the LlA and MWP. Rather, they had no evidence that they were global phenomena. And since then extensive studies have shown that these phenomena were indeed regional, not global. Thus you are very mixed up. https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
China is a big f*cking region and Mann was wrong.
If you think Mann was wrong, all you have to do is cite the published science that supports your claims. Since you’ve had ample opportunity, but have found nothing, it appears you must have been wrong.
I think Mann was wrong and I DON” HAVE to do sh*t for you.
Of course you’re entitled to your own views. But not your own facts. And you can’t come up with the simplest possible fact — a scientific report– that would support your claim. Not very impressive.
Give it up Courtney, unless you can find a cite for every square inch of ground/sea on the planet, the true believers will just dismiss them as mererly regional.
It’s not necessary for you to crunch all the numbers. It’s only necessary for you to find just ONE scientific report to support your claims. But so far, you’ve failed to do so. It appears you’ve been blowing smoke
Those studies have cited, and as usual, completely ignored by you.
Not one study has been cited that found that the LIA or MWP were global. Not one.
Every study done, shows that they both exist. No study shows they don’t Your excuses probably impress your co-religionists.
Of course they both exist. But they were regional, not global. Eg., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
Too bad the data doesn’t agree with what your high priests want you to believe.
I realised that I was talking to a bot when ‘Warren Beaton’ refused to acknowledge the peer reviewed papers that were quoted.
A human would have been dignified and acknowledged their mistake or just have disappeared to fight again another day.
Only a bot would repeat an assertion that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong in the same thread. Because only bots have neither shame nor enough tactical sense to stop digging.
None of the papers you cited addressed the question as to whether the LIA or MWP were global. Each paper addressed only specific regions.
Funny, how sites all over the world, show both the MWP and LIA, as well as every site that have been studied.
But since none of these many regional studies have uttered the magic word, global, we must ignore the evidence presented and hold to the party line.
Studies of individual regions show that a warming (or cooling) phenomenon was , well. REGIONAL. Are you still trying to figure that out?
This is ridiculous.
You have to agree that I have shown many papers that prove the LIA and MWP are present in many regions.
But you complain that I have not found a proxy that samples every region, everywhere, all at once.
What proxy do you possibly imagine could do that? Time-travelling weather satellites? Galadriel’s mirror? A Divinity with no desire for free will?
The only thing that real people can do is look at regions all over the globe and show that they all agree. And they do all agree. They show the MWP and LIA are found wherever we look in the world.
Mann was wrong.
You are wrong.
And I am wrong.
Because I am arguing with a bot. Which is pointless.
You say “LIA and MWP are present in many regions”.
Since you overlooked major regions, you came to the wrong conclusion, i.e., the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.
Fascinating how you are actually illogical enough to claim that the absence of evidence is proof. Then again, you believe that models are proof.
Beyond that, despite the fact that you have repeatedly claimed that without world wide evidence, no-one can claim that the MWP was warmer than today. On the other, despite the fact that you have no studies showing that MWP was cooler, you make that claim.
I don’t know if you really are that ignorant, or are just a flaming hypocrite.
The most ironic aspect of Beeton’s act is that Mann’s carefully selected treemometers were themselves not even close to being “global”.
Michael Mann’s prominent proxy temperature reconstructions focused primarily on the Northern Hemisphere, not the entire globe. However, the general findings have been reinforced by more recent, broader studies that do cover global temperatures.
Original Northern Hemisphere reconstructions
Context and subsequent studies
This should be clues for you…
—snort—
There was precious little overlap in time between the proxies that Mann used, so for the vast majority of time covered by his so called paper, there was only one proxy used.
Not a single one of Mann’s proxies was world wide.
Worse still, some of the proxies that Mann did use, weren’t even temperature proxies.
Mann’s paper, that Warren is proclaiming to be the gold standard of science, meets none of the criteria that Warren is proclaiming that everyone else must meet.
Beyond that, it has been proven that if even one of the proxies used has a hockey stick shape, then then the output of Mann’s special statistical method, will be a hockey stick. Doesn’t matter how many proxies are used, or what the other proxies show.
He also doesn’t quite grasp how averages work — to get a flat stick handle, there must have been significant areas that were colder than average during the MWP. Where were they?
He’s desperate to avoid a reality that refutes what he wants to believe. Even at the cost of his integrity.
Another reason for believing ‘Warren Beaton’ is a bot is that he must be less than 25 years old. Most humans who post on this subject are older than that, except on TikTok.
Why must he be so young?
Because his version of logic is that:
A) There is a consensus. The MWP did not exist, globally.
B) No-one can overturn that consensus with references to peer reviewed papers as he knows of others.
C) Mann represents the consensus.
Yet, before Mann wrote a paper based on models (models that provide the remove the MWP and LIA even if the input data is random, not measurements)… before Mann wrote that paper the logic worked like this.
A1) There is a consensus. The MWP did exist, globally.
B1) No-one can overturn that consensus with references to peer reviewed papers as everyone knows of others.
C1) Mann did not represent the consensus.
QED ‘Warren Beaton’ must have been created after Mann wrote the Hockeystick paper. Therefore, on age alone, he is probably a bot.
McCourtney, you bounce from one thought to another without purpose, except perhaps to avoid dealing with the issue at hand:
Are there any scientific papers that conclude the LIA or MWP were global phenomena?
And the answer so far is NO. You haven’t found any that conclude they were global. But your attempts to avoid dealing with the issue are somewhat impressive.
Speaking of desperately trying to avoid the issue at hand and issuing one illogical claim after another, nobody holds a candle to you Beeton.
There have been hundreds (/ thousands ?) of individual scientific papers looking at specific proxies from individual regions for evidence of either a MWP and/or a LIA.
The IPCC was created in 1988, and Working Group One (WG-I) promptly given the task of “synthesising” the accumulated knowledge of the “expert climate scientists” into what is now called “the FAR (First Assessment Report)”,
The WG-I contribution was titled “The IPCC Scientific Assessment” — known as “The Physical Science Basis” since AR4 (2007) — and included a graph of the results of what the IPCC scientists concluded about “recent” climate changes in Figure 7.1, panel (c) of which was for the last 1000 years.
A copy of that graph is attached to the end of this post.
.
You are correct that there is no “one single paper” that concludes that “the LIA or MWP were global phenomena”.
That “conclusion” was left to the IPCC scientists to reach, after performing their “assessment” of the entire “scientific literature”.
The evidence no longer supports the idea of epochs of globally coherent and synchronous climate. Yes it was warm in Europe in the Medieval Warm Period. However, it was much cooler, for example, over the Pacific than it is today.
The coldest epoch of the last millennium is known as the Little Ice Age. But here too, the effects were not the same everywhere at the same time, as pointed out in a recent paper published in Nature. Its authors commented that peak cold occurred at widely-spaced locations hundreds of years apart. Coldest temperatures occurred during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. But by the seventeenth century it was coldest in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America.
In contrast the same study found that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the 20th century. The warmth affects more than 98% of the globe. That constitutes solid evidence that modern human-caused global warming is unusual. As the paper says, it is, “unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures and also unprecedented in global coverage within the past 2,000 years”.
A remarkable statement. And obviously unreferenced because you are a bot and so unconstrained by integrity.
But you might be misleading human readers so I will provide the reference for you:
The mean state of the tropical Pacific Ocean differed between the Medieval Warm Period and the Industrial Erahttps://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00734-4#citeas
And I will quote this caveat from the paper’s abstract.
The word “sign” is significant. It explains why fig 4 does not definitively prove you are wrong.
The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.
You have just admitted that Mann was wrong.
Mann said the MWP didn’t exist because it was the same flat temperature.
You now claim that Mann was wrong and the temperature was lower.
It matters not that you are a badly programmed bot that spouts lies. It matters not that the evidence shoes the MWP was warmer, everywhere.
Your lies have just conceded the case.
Mann was wrong. You have conceded the point.
We can at least agree with you on that.
(Programmers, you should study this field test. Your bot is outclassed by real people because we remember what the point is without the effects of re-enforcement during the debate. Your bot got into a loop and lost the starting point).
Mann didn’t say the MWP didn’t exist. Rather, he said it was regional , not global. You guys really have trouble with the simplest of concepts.
Mann’s hockeystick is so called because it has a flat handle.
You conceded that the handle is not flat.
You have conceded the argument.
All you are now doing is regurgitating irrelevant outputs because you have no real understanding.
The failures of AI.
Your posts are getting progressively more absurd and childish, McCourtney.
I said nothing about the shape of the Hockeystick. It’s whatever Mann published. And there was no MWP nor LIA included because they were not Global.
Back to where you began going wrong. Let’s quote the thread above.
But you have now conceded that MBH980 is wrong.
You still don’t admit that it’s wrong because it contradicted “the prior historical and proxy records” but you have still conceded that Mann was wrong.
If you were the real Warren Beeton, the CFC replacement salesmen, you would have shrunk off in shame.
But I am talking to a bot. A broken bot. And a proven-to-be-broken bot.
I don’t know who or what MBH 98 is, but sorry to burst your bubble, I never conceded nor stated that Mann was wrong, least of all about the MWP or LIA. They existed — but were regional phenomena. Not global.
Regional, NOT global? You mean just like Mann’s very few bristlecone pines? The ones that the “Hockey Stick” NAS panel concluded ought to be avoided in temp reconstructions? Because of false positives? Any you wanna die on that critically rejected pile of excrement?
Your ranting doesn’t change the facts: At the time Mann published his original work, there was no evidence that these were global phenomena. Since then, several studies have shown that indeed the phenomena were not global , and the case is closed. Time for you to catch up on the science.
Another point is Warren has taken the position that unless you have studies, for the ENTIRE world, that proves the MWP was warmer than today, you cannot say that it was warmer than today.
Then, without a citing a single study, he proclaims that the MWP was cooler than today.
Claiming that Mann’s treemometers are “global” is absurd.
Michael Mann’s prominent proxy temperature reconstructions focused primarily on the Northern Hemisphere, not the entire globe. However, the general findings have been reinforced by more recent, broader studies that do cover global temperatures.
Original Northern Hemisphere reconstructions
Context and subsequent studies
Another parrot post.
The LIA was regional not global. Published in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
That paper proves there is no such thing as a GAT.
If by GAT, you mean a globally synchronized change in the climate, you would be wrong. The paper makes no such claim.
Fascinating how Warren actually believes that one doesn’t need any data to make proclamations regarding what was happening world wide.
But, but, but, The LIA and MWP were regional to Europe.
China is 180 degrees opposite.
Sheesh.
No evidence that LIA or MWP were global (and by the way ,no one on WUWT has-been able to come up with any scientific paper that says so 😂): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
The absence of data is not proof.
Exactly. So where is your scientific citation concluding that the LIA or MWP were global phenomena?
Every place where we have good proxies, places scattered all over the world, evidence for the MWP and LIA, as well as the other warm periods have been found.
Then it should be easy for you cite just one scientific paper or report that shows they were global events.
over 1200 reports from around the world
Medieval Warmth Was GLOBAL…Confirmed By Over 1200 Publications At Google Maps
No scientific reports or papers in there. Massive fail.
Dodge and weave, dodge and weave.
Warren Beeton
Reply to
bnice2000
August 24, 2025 5:21 am
Warren’s comment – “No scientific reports or papers in there. Massive fail.”
Warren – the map has links to the scientific studies for each dot on the map. Try again.
There are no peer reviewed papers in the bunch that claim the phenomenon was global.
And Dr Luning does not appear to have published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Massive fail
Poor Warren, he actually believes that it isn’t science unless it’s published in a publication that he approves of.
Warren Beeton
Reply to
joe-Dallas
August 23, 2025 1:45 pm
Exactly. So where is your scientific citation concluding that the LIA or MWP were global phenomena?
Warren – your response indicates you dont understand facts regarding the question as to whether the MWP or the LIA was global. The conclusion that the MWP and the LIA was not global is based on the lack of proxy data. It is not based on the proxy data. Contrary to the paleo climate science community, the lack of data pointing either way is not proof, nor can it ever be proof.
Throughout the paleo reconstructions, especially the Pages 2k network, there are very few proxies extending back to the mwp and those that do, rarely show an elevated mwp or lia, yet also dont show a blade. On the flip side, there is considerable proxies that show a likely elevated mwp such as law dome , dome c , higher mwp tree lines in the pategora, exposed forests from retreating glaciers in southern chile.
Warren Beeton
Reply to
joe-Dallas
August 23, 2025 1:45 pm
Exactly. So where is your scientific citation concluding that the LIA or MWP were global phenomena?
Warren – perhaps you dont understand – the paleo reconstructions claim it wasnt global based on the lack of proxies in the SH.
Your information is out of date. https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
Warren Beeton
Reply to
joe-Dallas
August 25, 2025 8:39 am
Your information is out of date. https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
Warren – Seriously citing Skeptical Science – regardless of what you think of watts up with that – Skeptical science ranks as one of the most anti-science websites on the planet.
Reply
The state of delusion on WUWT is remarkable.
Reality is delusion? Are you sure that you want that to be your final argument?
Warren – Skeptical science is especially dishonest and flat out wrong with their commentary on renewables. Michael Sweet who is one of SkS top commentators and highly respected within the “SkS community” has the most delusional grasp of renewables and lacks any understanding of the fundementals, yet gets rave reviews for his commentary.
Someone on WUWT calling SkS dishonest? That’s rather rich, considering the extent of Science Denial on WUWT.
Denial means we don’t accept the bad science and naked declarations of the climate worshippers.
It’s mainstream science, done in every country of the world. Whereas you guys have no consistent theory to explain the current warming of the planet. Stupid would be an accurate description of your intellect.
joe-Dallas
Reply to
Warren Beeton
August 23, 2025 1:33 pm
The absence of data is not proof.
warren’s reply:
Warren Beeton
Reply to
joe-Dallas
August 23, 2025 1:45 pm
Exactly. So where is your scientific citation concluding that the LIA or MWP were global phenomena?
Warren – you have part of the response correct
The absence of data is not proof of the global MWP & LIA
Likewise the absence of data is not proof of the non-global nature of the MWP & LIA. The paleo climate scientists are using the absence of data as proof. Note the important distinction.
There is now proof: they were not global events: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
You seem to confuse or conflate scientific findings with scientific consensus. therefore, you can be ignored.
There is no research that supports your beliefs, yet you cling to your superstitions with a child-like ‘I don’t care about facts’ . I think you’re just another Denier.
This from the guy who thinks it’s been proven that CO2 is a climate control knob. That’s rich.
All the research concludes so. Can you cite a scientific paper that contradicts these findings?
Research is not data. There is no data that supports your religious convictions. There is no science that supports it either.
All you have are a handful of computer models. Models that were sritten to prove that CO2 is the demon molecule and are famous for predicting way more warming than has actually happened in the past.
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
How does it feel to be wrong 99.9% of the time, MarkW?
And the lie continues to get bigger. Now it’s 99.9%. It doesn’t matter how bad the “study”, it doesn’t doesn’t matter how many times it’s been refuted. If it says what Warren wants to believe, then it’s true, and any attempt to disagree is dismissed as being “unscientific”.
The 99.9% is from a Cornell University study of thousands of new research papers. You’re completely free to post your own study, presumably from “Lord” Monckton, or any of your other luminaries.
It doesn’t matter how poorly done a paper is. So long as you agree with the result.
Like most of the papers that tried to claim a “consensus”, it has been shown to be so full of holes it wouldn’t even work as a colander.
First ott, the papers were read by grad students, most of whom were from other disciplines who only read the summary. If the paper even mentioned climate, it was counted as being “supportive” of climate change. When other people, who actually knew something about the subject checked the same papers, they found that the actual number was closer to 3%.
You should know.
You wouldn’t know a fact if it walked up to you and kicked you in the shin.
Kicked in the shin is the more refined version…
He wouldn’t know a fact if it was his own personal Lemmiwinks.
The same people that constructed a scientific consensus about CO2 out of thin air, are now whiping out actual an actual consensus because it refutes their earlier claims.
First off, consensus is meaningless in science.
Secondly, the data clearly shows both the MWP and the LIA as well as the 4 previous warm periods as well as the Holocene Optimum.
Perhaps if you were more interested in science than in ideology, you might have known that.
A consensus that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the warming occurred because thousands of scientists working independently in every industrialized nation of the world reached that conclusion in their research. What’s meaningless is a random denier on WUWT claiming the scientists are all wrong, but can’t point to any research that contradicts the scientists.
It also appears you still can’t cite any scientific support for your belief that the LIA or MWP were global phenomena.
And once again, Warren relies on his belief that only people who agree with him count as scientists. The thousands and thousands of scientists who disagree with his mythical consensus are disqualified.
Whatever it takes to keep your religion intact.
Please cite any peer reviewed scientific paper that disputes AGW.
LoLz!!!
“Can you cite anything Mann said that is contradicted by the body of scientific literature?”
An appeal to consensus/authority argument?
Even if any of papers claiming “97%” weren’t themselves flawed, that leaves 3% of the “scientific literature” that shows he was wrong.
And it only takes one.
And the 97% shows that YOU are REALLY wrong.
Along with the 97% that once condemned contenental drift?
No, scientists did not dismiss plate tectonics; in fact, there is a 100% scientific consensus on the theory of plate tectonics. The idea that 97% of scientists dismissed it likely stems from a misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation campaign targeting the climate change consensus, which was also around 97% in some studies. Plate tectonics was fully accepted in the scientific community by the late 1960s.
You know not of what you speak. I can remember sitting in a lecture hall at Stanford University (actually next to Dallas Peck, then newly-appointed director of the US Geological Survey) for a monthly meeting of the Peninsula Geological Society, shortly after the Mount St. Helens eruption in May 1980. The topic was Plate Tectonics, with a lot of arm waving and cartoons on how things were supposed to work. There were some senior geologists in the audience, who were still not prepared to accept the thesis, asking uncomfortable questions of the early converts.
Actually, in the 1960s and ’70s, J Tuzo Wilson was still actively trying to convert geologists to supporting, what was then still a highly debated thesis:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/Wilson.html
Any scientist still refusing to accept plate tectonics in 1980 would have been the then-equivalent of today’s Climate Deniers:
1965: A symposium at the Royal Society of London helped initiate the official acceptance of plate tectonics. 1967: A complete model of six major plates and their motions was published, marking a significant step toward final acceptance. 1968: The collection of scientific evidence was considered complete, cementing the theory of plate tectonics as the established scientific understanding.
Your insistence on claiming that the Plate Tectonics hypothesis “was considered complete, cementing the theory of plate tectonics as the established scientific understanding” prompted me to interact with the Copilot LLM:
Me: You cite Wikipedia as your source for a “landmark moment” in 1968. For anything remotely controversial, I have not found Wikipedia to be a reliable source because people with an agenda often take it upon themselves to edit the Wikipedia article to support their views. I find it somewhat problematic that J. Tuzo Wilson was still notably writing papers in the 1970s, well after your “landmark moment.” [See https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/Wilson.html ] Would you like to reconsider your initial claim about “general acceptance?”
Copilot: A More Nuanced View of Acceptance
• Mid-1960s (1965–1968): This period saw the conceptual consolidation of plate tectonics. Key papers by Vine & Matthews (1963), Wilson (1965), and Morgan (1967) laid the groundwork. The 1967 American Geophysical Union meeting is often cited as a turning point where many geologists began to adopt the theory.
• Late 1960s–1970s: Acceptance was gradual and uneven. While oceanographers and geophysicists embraced the model quickly due to compelling marine magnetic and seismic data, some structural geologists and paleontologists remained skeptical. Wilson’s continued contributions in the 1970s—including work on hotspots and transform faults—were part of the ongoing refinement and expansion of the theory, not signs of resistance.
• By mid-to-late 1970s: Plate tectonics had become the dominant paradigm in Earth sciences, reflected in textbooks, curricula, and funding priorities. The USGS article you referenced confirms Wilson’s active role well into the 1970s, underscoring that the theory was still evolving even as it gained traction.
Why the 1968 Date Persists
It’s often used as a pedagogical simplification—marking the point when the theory became coherent enough to be broadly taught. But as you rightly point out, scientific revolutions are rarely that tidy. The persistence of Wilson’s work into the 1970s reflects not a lag in acceptance, but the dynamic nature of theory-building itself.
……….
I lived through the transition, while teaching geology at the college level, and I can assure you that replacement of the geosynclinal theory was less a sudden paradigm shift than it was a struggle to make sense of often conflicting data and hypotheses to forge a coherent theory of how Plate Tectonics worked, and there were still significant unanswered questions in 1968, which is why Wilson (and others) was still submitting papers and inventing new words into the mid-’70s, when he retired. There was a general acceptance of things such as large, terrestrial strike-slip faults being equivalent to a transform fault, but the theory was simply not fleshed out sufficiently to claim that ‘It’ (whatever “it” was) had general acceptance. There are still unresolved issues to this day. Just as there are many people who agree that there is one God, they can’t seem to agree on the details of what this God is like, nor what He, She, or It should be called. It leads to all kinds of problems in the world, but they all claim to be in possession of the Truth, be it ever so ambiguous.
Is there any lie that you won’t believe and repeat, not matter how disproven.
There never was a consensus, much less a 97% one.
Just keep repeating Goebell’s lies over and over again. Perhaps one of these days you will start believing them yourself.
I didn’t say 97%. I said ALL relevant research concludes so. And I’m still waiting for any contradictory citation from you. It appears you’ve struck out (no surprise)
Of course in what passes for your mind, research is only relevant if it supports what you are so desperate to believe. Any research that disagrees with your religious convictions is dismissed out of hand.
All of it.
Concensus.
It is political and has no place in science. There is no vote on facts.
Now ask me a difficult question !
Does that mean you’re unable to find a scientific citation concluding the LIA and MWP were GLOBAL? Guess so
Data from all around the globe has been made available many times.
Not our fault you have near zero knowledge of it.
And It seems the neither you, nor Huls, nor Joe-Dallas, McCourtney nor anyone else on wuwt can find any scientific assessment of this data that supports the idea that the LIA or MWP were global phenomena. Amazing, but not surprising.
You’re an ignorant, one-trick pony. Go do your own research. No one owes you an answer or explanation just because you keep demanding the same thing over and over.
You are right.. you owe me nothing. And you’ve found nothing — no science that supports your claims. So it appears you were blowing smoke.
Smoke is better than what you have been blowing.
Medieval Warmth Was GLOBAL…Confirmed By Over 1200 Publications At Google Maps
You don’t understand. Unless every point on the planet is covered by these studies, you can’t say the MWP and LIA were global.
Beyond that, there is a consensus, and that trumps mere data.
/s
Warren Beeton
Reply to
Tom Halla
August 23, 2025 8:10 am
Can you cite anything Mann said that is contradicted by the body of scientific literature?
Warren – quite a few of the individual proxies used in the paleo reconstructions do not reconcile with the botanical record and/or the archelogical records. Note that the absence of proxies in the SH pointing either way during the MWP is not proof that the MWP was not elevated.
Your statement is not a citation from the published scientific literature, and is not a refutation of Manns work (which has been validated and replicated many times in the body of peer reviewed scientific research)
His claim that a function, which demonstrably generates a ‘Hockey Stick’ from red noise, is incontrovertible proof of the culpability of humans in the current warming trend because of their use of fossil fuels.
All relevant scientific research concludes that human activities — primarily the combustion of fossil fuels- is the cause of industrial era warming. No research concludes that it isn’t. So good luck finding any science that supports your view. There isn’t any.
The definition of a “relevant scientific research” is limited to only those studies that support the alarmist narrative.
BTW, models aren’t data, and if you knew anything about science, you would have known that already.
Models are never evidence, and no scientist considers models to be evidence. Only data counts as evidence.
And “relevant” means ANY studies of the climate.
Funny how your studies of climate, completely ignore all the studies that refute your imaginary consensus.
Outside of models, there is nothing that supports the belief that CO2 is the climate control knob. All of the historical data disproves such a silly notion.
You, and many others, cite observations and measurements that leads one to the conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is wholly responsible for warming. The problem is that it isn’t all the evidence. There is a considerable amount of Cherry Picking because the countering evidence is simply ignored.
Explain how the Eemian was warmer than today, had sea levels higher than today, and less ice in Greenland than today, yet apparently had CO2 concentrations much lower than today. If you can’t do so, then it invalidates your claim about “all relevant scientific research.”
The Eemian was warmer than today because:
I don’t think that you understand what the LLM you queried is telling you. The challenge question was not why the Eemian happened, but rather why with less than half the CO2 it appears to have been much warmer. The generic Milankovitch cycles referred to are an explanation for the cyclical behavior of the several ice ages and the associated interglacials of the Pleistocene. To be responsive to my question, you have to demonstrate that something about the Eemian, compared to the Recent interglacial, is different. There is no suggestion in your cut-and-paste response that the orbital forcings are different. While there is some plausibility to the conjecture that a rapid rise in CO2 levels is preventing equilibration, you have not presented any evidence supporting the conjecture. There is no data for the rate of warming for the Eemian and we can’t be sure how long the current warming will last. And the issue isn’t that the present is warmer because of the higher levels and rates of increase of CO2. Rather, the issue is that the present is cooler despite higher CO2 concentrations and assumed higher rate of increase. It is only a supposition that eventually it will get warmer than the Eemian. There is no proof!
In summary, you have not made a compelling case that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current warming, only that the Milankovitch Cycles are still occurring. Thus, you have failed to support your claim that “All relevant scientific research concludes that human activities — primarily the combustion of fossil fuels- is the cause of industrial era warming. No research concludes that it isn’t.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
I understand completely. What you want is someone to do your homework for you. I suggest you pick up a good textbook, eg, Pierrehumbert’s “Planetary Climates”, and hire a tutor.
His Hockey Schtick for one.
One would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than refute the Church of Warming gospel that you “woke again” cult accept without question.
Thank God I’m not as stupid as those that reject the body of scientific research out of hand. Neanderthal seems an appropriate name for the attitude you display.
Then there is the poor sod who imagines up a “body of scientific research’ that never existed.
I love the sound of sniffling in the morning… it sounds like victory. With apologies to Apocalypse Now.
yep, and the smell of Mann’s desperation is now not just in the morning, it’s 24 x 7 x 52
He coulda been a contender. He coulda been somebody! (Apologies to Brando.)
WUWT could publish an article verbatim by Michael Mann, without comment, and people would still ‘get’ it. WUWT has I think done that sort of thing in the past but maybe not from Michael Mann.
Spikes of Doom — Gorilla Science:
https://rumble.com/v6xj7z2-spikes-of-doom-the-nonsense-hockey-sticks-propping-up-the-climageddon-scam.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a
Excellent video.
I think it covered all the bases.
Maybe he will take on Phil Jones next. The guy that created the instrument-era spike out of bogus data. The spike that is attached to the end of all these Mann-like Hockey Sticks.
Great idea!
He did mention the historic “600 regional charts” that show no unprecedented warming.
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
He should ask how Phil Jones got a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trendline out of data (the historic, regional charts) that has no “hotter and hotter and hotter” trendline.
The historic, regional temperature data is ALL Phil Jones had to work with. There were no other original temperature records. So Phil Jones turned data that shows it was just as warm in the recorded past as it is today, into a global temperature chart that *does* show unprecedented warmth today.
Where did Phil Jones get this trendline? It’s not in the original, historic temperature data. Look at the charts above. “Hotter and hotter and hotter” is not in the original temperature data.
Phil Jones just made it all up out of thin air, and to top if off, Phil Jones refused to tell us how he came to these conclusions, saying if he told how he derived the “hotter and hotter and hotter” trendline, someone might disagree with his methods.
Yes, somebody should disagree with Phil Jones’ conclusions. You can’t legitimately get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trendline out of data that has no such trendline.
So how did Phil Jones do it?
And why? Is Jones just another run-of-the-mill socialist/marxist operative?
I think Phil Jones deliberately sought to create a global temperature chart that correlated with CO2 increases.
The goal was to make today appear to be the hottest time in the last 10,000 years, and to blame the unprecedented heat on CO2.
In order to do that, Phil Jones had to make it appear that past temperature highs were not as warm as the temperatures today, so he had to downsize the high temperature points of the 1880’s and the 1930’s, so they would appear to be cooler than the present day.
Phil Jones had two alternatives. He could use fake land surface temperature data, or he could use sea surface temperature data to cool the past and make the present look hot.
I think Phil Jones put in bogus sea surface temperature into the mix and this is how he lowered the temperatures in the past.
Keep in mind that there were essentially NO sea surface temperature data for the period from 1850 to World War II. Phil Jones said as much, that the sea surface temperatures didn’t exist and were just made up.
Phil Jones had to change the temperature trendline of the original, regional temperature charts because they all show periods that were just as warm as today, and you can’t make CO2 look scary using charts that show no warming.
The trendline of the original temperature data, the only data that we have, does not match the trendline of the bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.
Climate Alarmists should explain how this change was made, or they should stop using this piece of climate change propaganda and admit it is a Big Lie.
Its too bad that the presenters of the video did not include Steve McIntyre’s revelation that Marcott was guilty of academic fraud in creating his hockey stick by altering the beginning and ending dates of a few of other scientists’ data series for his study. The original data series were used in his University of Oregon PhD thesis paper that showed no hocky stick. Its telling about the nature of the ethics of the climate science ‘crew’ that his PhD Advisor was also a co-author of this published study.
Please see Rud Istvan’s discussion of this sad episode of ‘motivated CliSciFi’ in his excellent ebook “Blowing Smoke.” Everybody should have a copy.
Maybe they couldn’t fit into the time limit…
Wish I had a PDF of Blowing Smoke, all I could find is the Kindle which is unreadable.
The IPad has a Kindle app.
That’s what I use when I want to read something. It’s much better than using the Kindle reader.
Except that McIntyre’s work was incompetent. He was debunked by several mathematicians, who went on to prove Mann was right.
As usual, you have that completely backwards.
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 by McIntyre claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxyrecord. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick – that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Yes, exhibit A: Deniers who ‘know’ that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels cannot be responsible for the fastest rate of global warming in millennia. Even though all research worldwide concludes it to be the case.
Exhibit ZERO.
No measured evidence of warming by human released CO2 anywhere on the planet.
It only exists in models using a Not-Earth atmosphere.
Wow, one of Mann’s pals, using the same data and same methods got the same result, which in the minds of true believes is sufficient to prove that Mann can’t be wrong.
OK, sure! Never mind that the 2006 Hockey Stick NAS panel heavily endorsed M&Ms critique of Mann. Read their report. The REAL report, not the misleading summary that “news reports” claimed saved the Hocky Stick. In fact, I saved a copy of Roger Pielke Jr’s blog discussing it, after it came out in late July-August that year. And various German climate science guys were distraught are their errors, including one at the Potsdam Institute crying…CO2? “That’s all we could think of” to explain the data then. Thus, they misled themselves. Fault supervision prevailed over good science.
The theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of today’s rapid warming has been well established science for over 50 years. I think it’s time for WUWT to get its head out of the sand.,
Too bad there has never been a shred of evidence to support that belief.
Only Beeton has come to aid poor Mann, none of the other usual suspects dared try.
Beeton is this week’s designated pinata.
Given the quality of Warren’s and AJ’s argumentation, the climinista’s are definitely scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
Awww com’on mann…..Mikey is just tryin’ to save the planet….you can’t get more virtuous than that….go get’em Mikey.
But he is a perfect fit for Penn State.
State Pen might be more appropriate.
….Or even that State penitentiary!
His Climate Gravy Train has jumped the track.
There’s the rub, eh?
Yeah, but he and many others are already rich and famous and there will be no legal nor financial consequences for their fraud. Can’ get much better than that in the world of scammers.
I thought he owed Mark Steyn over $1,000,000 in legal fees ? That’s not chump change.
He is a confirmed leftist democrat, that is WHY he is a miserable person who hurls insults like a drunken sailor.
He is a bad mann.
Mann is a delusional man.
Please stop comparing Mann with sailors, drunk or otherwise
(from an ex sailor – sometimes drunk but then sleepy rather than insulting)
+100%, John.
Isn’t that a carbon di-oxymoron?
No but leftist democrat is redundant.
He’ll go to the grave a bitter man because climate skeptics exist and are winning.
We can add to that list. He’s short, fat, ugly and alone. He has a loathesome personality. No one wants him. When he dies, no one will care; thousands will cheer.
And still there is no full disclosure of the model that would rule them all in global climate policy and funding. Getting away with that is the truly amazing thing in a ‘modern’ world.
Sounds more like a crazy sports fan barracking madly for his own team.
I would describe Mann as “unhinged” but I don’t think he was ever “hinged in the first place. I am quite happy that I don’t live on his planet – it sounds like a hell hole. Here on Earth our climate continues be be best described as entirely normal.
Re Mann: Quite apart from any of his scientific qualifications and motivations, I can’t help but think he acts like a True Believer, whose mind is made up and never in doubt, regardless of reality…
I think we are all fortunate that he’s not really in charge of anything and can’t really force anyone to do anything – he’s already done so much damage in spite of that, imagine if he had power over others…
Imagine … president Gore???
Gore as president would have been a disaster. Worse even than Joe Biden, I think.
President Hillay,
President Kamala
I see a trend here.
That picture at the top of the page is suited for Mann. He belongs in a Rubber Room.
Watts Up With That – “We read Michael Mann so you don’t have to!”
Michael Mann is losing the intellectual and political relations battle. That’s why he is always whining.
He actually has a social media team? Climate alarmism must be a good gig.
Those government paychecks never bounce.
“His arrogant, condescending social tweets speak for themselves”
How does one “tweet”?
tweet, is the sound a tiny brained “Noisy Miner” makes.
So much inventive. It’s the sign of a desperate man who is losing the argument. And very odd (pathological) coming from a man who has lost at least two libel/slander lawsuits. You don’t have to read many of his texts on BlueSky to understand that he’s an avid Socialist, as so many know-it-alls in academia are. They think they are smart enough to reinvent an economic system that has been evolving since most humans were hunter-gatherers. And they think they can do it without first taking the time to understand how that system evolved and why. Shocking hubris. Smart but not wise. It’s a sign of our times that one man can be so wrong about so much and still get put on the evening news. But the illiberal media are going broke, so hopefully that won’t last much longer.
“Invective” … auto type is my worst enema! 🤣
“You don’t have to read many of his texts on BlueSky”
Isn’t this a leftwing social site?
My only social site is WUWT. 🙂
Yes, it is. And it is crashing in flames as we speak.
Jonathan Turley had an article a couple of months ago describing the trials and tribulations of the BlueSky platform. but as I do not frequent it (or X, or Facebook, or …) I have no idea if the decline has continued since then (or not).
From that article, this is his description of a “typical” BlueSky user and the environment they chose to “live” in :
I am constantly reminded of a wealthy NY City matron’s reaction to the first election of Richard Nixon to the Presidency: “How is that possible? Nobody I know voted for him!”
Thanks for all that good information, Mark. It is appreciated.
However, always remember that disaster, horror & etc. always have a market. While these people should be relegated to the fringe, don’t get your hopes up.
SQUEE!!!
This is so fun.
Wait…what?
Mann has a team to run his social media?
Who pays for that?
Still a long way to go in the UK before sense prevails as the government and press are still all in on the climate crisis and how deniers are preventing salvation:
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-crisis
Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/climate-capital
The Times: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/climate-change
Human beings are very easily misled and hang on to primitive beliefs. After all, Father Christmas must exist – why else would presents arrive in December?
Windmills and Industrial Solar and CO2-phobes who promote them are going to be the death of the UK.
UK voters need to wise up. Their current leaders are leading them astray and it’s going to end badly, if things don’t drastically change.
The UK needs Nigel, and should follow Trump’s advice on windmills and solar. Trump says only stupid countries build windmills. Don’t be a stupid country.
Trump went on a little tirade against windmills and industrial solar yesterday.
I hear the United States Department of Agriculture is denying the use of good farmland for windmills and solar now.
The UK should do that, too.
I was horrified to see that Mann has been elected to the Royal Society. I have written to them twice asking why and with a brief resumé of Mann’s scientific life but have had no answer. Must try again.
It’s politics, not science, that got Mann elected.
Apparently, the Royal Society will let just about anybody be a member.
The Royal Society appointed Paul Ehrlich as well. Another serial-failure self-propagandist. Is it a pattern?
Like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he even had time to do anything to warrant it.
That practically ruined any value the Nobel Peace Prize had.
If you can get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing other than being a radical leftist, then what value is it?
Instead of the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump should just have a picture made of the 40.000 Cambodian Monks who are nominating Trump for the Prize for stopping the war in their country. That’s more of a genuine honor than the Nobel Peace Prize.
Nothing stirs up religious fervour like an impending, unstoppable, imaginary apocalypse. Sounds like this guy will go to his grave still doom-mongering even if between now and then the world turns into a fossil-fuel-free agrarian utopia.
Things are not working out so well for Michael Mann.
He’s fighting a losing battle and he knows it. His “vision” will not be realized, and it is eating him up inside.
““Scientists decry Trump energy chief’s plan to ‘update’ climate reports: ‘Exactly what Stalin did’”
Stalin updated climate reports? 🙂