Wednesday
Mar292017
by 
Josh
Josh Dr Mann in the dock - Josh 388
Mar 29, 2017 Climate: Curry Climate: Mann Climate: RP Jnr Josh ;)
On this historic Brexit day the fun has not been confined to this continent. Over in the US they have had a 'hearing' on Climate Science with three of the world's most eminent climate scientists. Michael Mann was there too.
Worth watching (nearly) the whole thing.
Reader Comments (217)
Loved the " ..... with three of the world's most eminent climate scientists. Michael Mann was there too."
I would hope that my views on this subject were well known on BH however it is obvious that Mann was a far better communicator than the other panel members :(
I thought in particular that Judith came over as scatter brained and vague, I speak as I find as usual.
The best line was Judith's last in her oral testimony. "Let's make climate science great again." Trumped everything else.
Happy Brexit day, Josh.
To the utter dismay of the Chairman, the attending Representatives reckoned the final score as roughly Mann 97, the Usual Suspects 3.
Watch the whole thing ,and you can judge how well science works when allowed to.
The problem is that there are two types of testimonies. Honest ones that articulate the uncertainties and Mann who brazenly lies through his teeth at every opportunity. That's why he sounds impressive and solid.
Science is drowning in a oil slick of dishonesty.
"Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778
http://www.nature.com/news/muddled-meanings-hamper-efforts-to-fix-reproducibility-crisis-1.20076
"Richard Horton - editor of The Lancet.
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue".
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes
You need a new echo chamber- this one was shattered earlier today by a few hours controversy in a public fourm.
Link to written testimony from all four witnesses. This is what they read out during the session, before the Q&A started.
Mann's testimony whines about "Science critics will therefore often select a single scientist to ridicule, hector, and intimidate" before doing this to Curry, "Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry".
Pielke's evidence talks about the lack of any evidence of trends in hurricanes, floods etc, and there's an appendix with data and IPCC statements about this. He also talks about the Grijalva witch-hunt.
Mann's testimony is stomach turning;
First look at all my awards- the appeal to authority
Then he as the "victim" - I'm in a minority here whereas in the "real world" there is the 97% consensus
This is followed up by the "vested interests" argument linking fossil fuels to "big tobacco" denial.
And so it goes on.
Man is a genius, but not at science, but at grandstanding and twisting the facts.
Russell - keeping your head buried in the sand as long as you have done isn't good for the health.
I fear Josh was looking in the wrong direction whilst clutching his crayons. Here's my own initial take on yesterday's proceedings:
The House Science Climate Model Show Trial
It reproduces several paragraphs of Mike Mann's written testimony, plus a picture of Dana Rohrabacher about to explode. At just that moment my YouTube feed inexplicably cut out.
Coincidence? I think not!
Pinch of salt reqd
I just read Jim's previous blog post , where he shows that he trolled Malcolm Roberts open Climate discussion
throwing around slurs and namecalling etc.
Then Jim claims
'I put questions ' "They all seem to have disappeared:"
"@SenatorMRoberts. You seem to be censoring my #Facebook comments on your #climate data "
http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/03/censorship-down-under-by-senator-malcolm-roberts/
This is first class
Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann
Given what happened today in live testimony before the House Science Committee where Dr. Mann was testifying, this review seems germane and timely.
Guest essay by Rick Wallace
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/29/reflections-on-mark-steyns-a-disgrace-to-the-profession-about-dr-michael-mann/
Travesty and false narrative on R4 now
"Adam Rutherford meets atmospheric scientist Professor Michael Mann after he emerged from the heated debate and who's just published a new paper suggesting a direct link between extreme weather and greenhouse gases via a particular behaviour of the jet stream across the northern hemisphere"
Tweets heavily biased presenter sent first
" @AdamRutherford
Fab interview with @MichaelEMann, which in one sense was dynamite, and in another was simply factual. On #bbcinsidescience tomorrow at 1630."
"AdamRutherford
I'm talking to @MichaelEMann in half an hour, fresh out of his heroic House Science Committee hearing. On #bbcinsidescience tomorrow. "
Thanks for the plug Stew!
What precisely is it that you object to about my altercation with Malcolm Roberts? Are you not a fan of "free speech" either?
In particular what "name calling" am I alleged to have indulged in?
Re 5:06 PM Jim Hunt made 2 trollish posts each a longwindinded childish sneering way and not adding any info except to try to drive people to his own blog
#1 Childish comment saying Tony Heller tells porky pies"
#2 Strange comment linking to troll video ..appearing to call the hot a troll
(832 comments seem to be left on that FacebookLive from parliament post)
Malcolm Roberts explained the commenting policy
Tom Nelson gives a direct youtube link to the Mann bit 5 mins
"Shorter Michael Mann :
Stew - That's the standard excuse from "skeptics", which cuts no mustard with me I'm afraid. What would the good senator prefer, do you suppose?
Tony Heller is a proven liar. Here's the incontrovertible evidence:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/that-deaf-dumb-and-blind-kid-sure-plays-a-mean-climateball/
Mr Hunt, you do seem to have misread the terms of the question and answer session: "An invitation has also been extended to the Chief Scientist, CSIRO Chief Executive and staff, and the Director of the Bureau of Meteorology to attend and engage in these discussions." Are you any of these persons? Also, you seem to misunderstand the principle of “free speech” (to use your scary quotes): yes, you may say what you want in public… but, would you define someone’s personal web site as “public” or “private?” Facebook does give you the options of preventing others from viewing or contributing to your site, so a fair assumption is that it is “private.” Similarly, you have full discretion to “moderate” comments on your own site – are you inhibiting free speech should you choose to moderate?
Considering that the Arctic was forecast to be clear of all ice by the summer of 2013, hindsight does show that it seemed to have been over-optimistic/pessimistic*. Ah, well… at least it keeps you entertained/employed*.
*delete as personally applicable.
Thanks I've given you all the info on Jim Hunt we need
I guess we should stick to the topic of Mann's testimony here
Rather than ruin the discussion by driving it off point and into a promotion for JH's blog
The WUWT about Mann's testimony is quite good
and alerts us to Warmist Michael Mann tells whopper at congressional science hearing? *
On Climate Depot
* I don't like the "?" bit, but I guess it's to avoid getting sued.
Stew - You started it!
RR - Hello again. Long time no see!
Who do you suppose wrote the hundreds of comments on Senator Roberts' Facebook posts. By and large not senior CSIRO or BoM staff I'd wager.
How Mann blocks you on Twitter ..in this case the guy sent one tweet challenging him
https://www.steynonline.com/7734/the-vertigo-at-the-top-of-the-stick
Steve Goddard tweeted
What did I tell you Stew? You are aware that "Steve Goddard" isn't his real name?
If it's any comfort to you I'm blocked by Mann as well. I figure he must have some sort of automatic blocking software, assuming some such thing exists.
@JH This isn't Climate Kindergarden like an avg GreenParty meeting
Everyone here already knows Tony Heller/Steve Goddard and backstory , ppl hijacking his blog etc.
The Josh cartoon is really appropriate don't you think? :) Perhaps even apposite ?
Michael Mann has just been given about 10 minutes of airtime on the Radio 4 Inside Science program. Worth listening to if you want to form a strong opinion about the BBC.
Why, thank you, Mr Hunt! So flattered you remember me! (And I do hope the memory is good. Also, while flattery is very nice, I do prefer cash…)
Anyhooo… that is all an aside, and we should not wander too far off-topic; however, you do highlight that Mr Mann is demonstrably not habituated to upholding the truth – he denied calling Dr Curry a denier, yet the quotation of his that you offer contains the very words: “…climate science denier Judith Curry…” Indeed, the above link does uphold the view that Mr Mann’s words should constantly be viewed with suspicion. He also has claimed to be a joint Nobel Prize winner: it being shared, did he get the Nob-end, or the Bel-end?
Sadly, I am not a scientist, so cannot call on my authority, however, I do think that I am capable of scientific thinking, and a key element of that is scepticism – and that means scepticism about everything, including my own observations, summations and conclusions. Mr Mann’s (and others in that clip) opinions are that there is incontrovertible evidence that humans are responsible for the present climate change – until this evidence is presented to me, I will remain sceptical of that conclusion. A single volcano popping off can incontrovertibly cause climate change within a few days, and a change that can last for weeks or even years; yet the Earth eventually reverts back to what we considered normal. In my (perhaps simple) mind, this shows that human efforts trail a long way behind Mother Earth, and that Mother Earth is a lot more resilient than we are giving her credit for.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/29/reflections-on-mark-steyns-a-disgrace-to-the-profession-about-dr-michael-mann/
In a word Hosers
RR - I doubt that he'll be interested, but I recently attempted to put Steve McIntyre straight on that point:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847571086392913921
At least Morano includes that quote, but he doesn't include Mann's CV!
Combine the two "skeptical" half truths and what have you got?
Damn you all, haters!
Nobel Mann is a saint and a genius. He puts the memory of, say, Newton to shame.
It is quite simple really. Normal Climate Science rules need to be applied, with a subtle twist.
Trump asks Climate Scientists whether they believe in Mann and his Hockey Stick. Those that "Yes", LOSE US Taxpayer Funding.
Allow Cook to recalibrate his Consensus results at his own expense.
Everyone lives happily ever after (apart from Climate Scientists who don't count, because they can't count)
Damn you all, haters!
Nobel Mann is a saint and a genius. He puts the memory of, say, Newton to shame.
Mar 31, 2017 at 12:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla
That's just ridiculous.
For one thing, Mann can't and never sings. For another thing, Wayne Newton never claimed to be a Nobel prize winner and is still alive.
Mar 31, 2017 at 12:23 AM | Ayla
Good to have you back Ayla!
Climate Scientists needs to wage a war that they can win for a change. How many of Skeptical Science's atom bombs of heat need to be dropped within the Arctic Circle, to get rid of that Inconvenient Ice, and those pesky Polar Bears that keep reproducing, as Climate Science keeps failing to reproduce Mann's Hockey Stick?
Hockey Stick reproduction has been a dismal failure of Climate Science evolution, and extinction is imminent. Mann should receive a Darwin Award, for failing Climate Science development.
Climate Science might have achieved something useful, but for the Hockey Sticks rammed up their emissions ouput.
Mar 31, 2017 at 1:23 AM | clipe
Olivia Newton John did a bit of singing, though even with a change of wig and a bit of make-up, I can't imagine that Sir Isaac and John Travolta would have made a convincing on-screen couple.
Combine the two "skeptical" half truths and what have you got?
Mar 30, 2017 at 11:30 PM | Jim Hunt
Four times the honesty of Climate Science?
If it wasn't for the fact Newton is alive and well, Michael Mann could be "King of Las Vegas".
That explains his bitterness.
Sometimes the MSM missed the little bits of drama - this is one of them.
No Shame V V Russell gatecrashes Hearing. Well some folk stop at nothing. This guy aught to know better ....but nah. No fools like old fools as the saying goes.
https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html
It’s amazing Mann sticks with Mann et al 1999 which features in his written testimony along with the familiar refrain: “… we have now broken the all-time global temperature record for three consecutive years …” as if that is somehow significant, considering the records go back only about 150 years at the most.
Even Mann et al 2008 shows that the NH temperature at the start of the instrumental record was the coldest in at least 1800 years (LIA) while the Greenland ice core proxies (GISP2) show the LIA was near the coldest since the Younger Dryas, or in around 10,000 years.
What would he and his claque have preferred, the GAT to drop even further?
Amazing also that he still gets away with heavily overlaying the supposed instrumental record up to 2008 (in red) which is pure propaganda intended to fool the ingenuous and is very wrong statistically and scientifically.
Nowhere in his written testimony does he attempt to address the attribution problem, in fact nowhere does he even mention ‘carbon dioxide’ or the symbol ‘CO2’.
Hello again Charlie!
No - What you have is evidence of the dishonesty of two well known climate "skeptics" trying, but failing, to pin something on Mann.
Did you by any chance actually watch that section of the "hearing"? If not, here you go:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/the-house-science-climate-model-show-trial/#Mar-31
Here is a 17 second clip of the bit referred to in Josh's caption, where Mann denies having called anyone a denier, and Curry points out that he did exactly that in his written testimony.
PM
That's game, set and match then, isn't it.
I think we should give thanks that this House Committee was graced with the presence of Dr Mann, the foremost, leading climate scientist and Nobel Laureate. In this meeting he was able to finally demonstrate, without fear of contradiction, that:
Today's temperatures are hotter than any time since 1000 AD. The Medieval Warming Period did not exist, and neither did the Little Ice Age, as proven by Dr Mann,
There has been no pause in global warming,
The predicted, Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot has been demonstrated
Global warming is causing increasing numbers of floods, as proven by Dr Mann,
Global warming is causing increasing hurricane activity as proven by Dr Mann,
And that throughout his long career he has behaved impeccably at all times, fostering a spirit of investigative, inclusive scientific thought and discussion.
Dr Mann clearly serves as a role model for all aspiring climate scientists.
I’m sorry, Mr Hunt, but you are not applying any scientific rigour to your own observations – the facts have been presented to you that Mr Mann has lied in congressional (or whatever they are – pretty high-powered, though) hearings at least twice, yet you refuse to acknowledge that. These facts are presented in as many forms as possible over this interwebby thingy; short of being grabbed by the scruff of the neck and having your nose rubbed in them, how can you not see what everyone else can? Is it that it impinges upon your devotion to this shady character? Or are you unable to do anything but deny everything that blatantly contradicts your dearly-held beliefs?
Given your resistance to even the mildest form of scepticism about this debacle, how can we accept that you are a scientist, let alone one of such stature which you seem to portray yourself as?
Many a true word spoken in jest, Capell. Notwithstanding the fascinating debate about whether a being called a climate science denier is the same as a climate change denier, Christy's bogus chart is eviscerated here and here.
Interesting that everyone testified that is AGW is likely to be a big problem....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3_sHu34imQ [2.01.30]
PC
Your second evisceration leaves me somewhat bemused: the author is trying to claim that the average value of the models is not the same thing as the observed temperature readings (which are themselves arrived at by statistical manipulation of hundreds of temperature observations) . . . .
Sorry, I didn't come down with the last shower, and that argument is rubbish.
And
everyone testified that is AGW is likely to be a big problem....
well, that's just awesome. But as Christy pointed out, the models work just fine if you take carbon dioxide out of any consideration. So we might have a problem, but it seems likely that it's not down to us and there's little we can do about it other than mitigate the effects.
Hang on, everyone testified that AGW is likely to be a big problem, but Curry's a denier? LOL