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)
here is dr manns vitriol, especially minutes 8-10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1b1l
(one probably needs a VPN to poke through the bbc's pathetic country barring)
I find it curious after predicting more katerinas in 2005 (there wasnt any) and all these grandstanding statements that all science is setlled, now the good man trots out a new theory to toy with his millions of parameters in expensive GCMs , Hmmm?
@BarryJWoods tweeted
#1 @BBCScienceNews bias? @AdamRutherford Long interview M Mann testimony. Does'nt mention other 3 scientists by name or viewpoint. @curryja
#2 "@BBC bias? @AdamRutherford Inside Climate interviews Michael Mann. But not other 3 scientists on the panel. Like @curryja @RogerPielkeJr"
Rutherfords's Pathethic excuse
"Inside Science. We were primarily interviewing Mann on the new paper. It was coincidental that he was just out of the hearing.
Then Paul Matthews
Replying to @etzpcm @AdamRutherford
False claims by Mann about increasing floods unchallenged in fawning BBC interview by @AdamRutherford
Phil Clarke & Jim Hunt,
Do you still maintain that Mann's Hockey Stick remains an honest and accurate bit of science?
RR - Here's the intriguing thing. Everybody can see exactly the same snippet of video, but you seem unable to see what I can see?
Rep. Higgins continually not allowing Dr. Mann to even finish a sentence. When Mann was allowed to string some words together he said:
"I've submitted my CV. You can see who I'm 'associated' with"
And what does his CV reveal? As Steve McIntyre points out on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/847495802322788352
Q.E.D?
Mar 31, 2017 at 3:17 PM | Jim Hunt
You still "see" Mann and his Hockey Stick as honest. Should have gone to Specsavers.
So, Mr Clarke, AGW is likely to be a big a problem… in what way, exactly? What GW, A or not A, that we have had, so far, has shown itself to be predominantly beneficial; how will its switch from benign to malignant be manifest? And what about the non-A part of GW? Is that likely to be a problem, as well, or can that be ignored? What happens should this plateau of temperatures upon which we presently are proves not to be a pause but a pinnacle, and temperatures start to drop? Will the world be saved, then? Or will you then start pounding the drum about the onset of a new ice age – probably all caused by human emissions, of course.
Ho-hum….
I have just finished watching the whole video of the hearing. No surprises, but it did provide some theatrical scenes. We saw three 'ordinary' witnesses and one zealot in the form of Prof Mann. It was an illustration of how impenetrable zealotry and fanaticism can be, and what a long uphill task faces us in rolling it back since it has clearly won the hearts and minds of the political classes overall. Why Mann was invited was perhaps to help expose the zealotry, and if so, it worked. This post at WUWT is a timely one given this hearing: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/29/reflections-on-mark-steyns-a-disgrace-to-the-profession-about-dr-michael-mann/
Extract:
That post is packed with insights, and I thoroughly recommend it.
We might be critical of our Commons Select Committees, but I was dismayed at how this House Committee functioned, how it handled its witnesses, and how the examinees could simply use the meeting as a platform for a two minute speech of their choosing.
Witnesses were not addressed in the round but singled out for response. Since, it seemed to me, the Democrats were in the majority, it was no surprise that Dr Mann got most of the questions. And Dr Mann, obviously, knew what was coming. He even had notes and prepared slides ready for the questions. This was no committee enquiry, but a committee charade. There was no exchange of views amongst the witnesses, so Mann could say whatever he wanted, without fear of challenge.
If I were Trump, I'd see this meeting for what it was worth - a Democratic playhouse.
Mr Hunt (my bolding):
Link.Summation: The Climate Accountability Institute Council of Advisors include one Michael E. Mann – in other words, being on the Council of Advisors for the CAI, Michael E. Mann IS affiliated or associated with an organization called The Climate Accountability Institute, ergo, Mr Mann lied to a congressman.
(We have already covered the point about him denying that he called Dr Curry a denier, despite having stated in writing submitted to the council that Dr Curry is a denier!)
It is also interesting to note that the other “witnesses,” having been introduced with all their authority by the chair, immediately launch into their scientific argument; Mr Mann, however, decides to let everybody know – yet again – just how important he is, with a full litany of all his qualifications, titles and accolades (45:40 – 46:15). For the rest of his introductory speech (to 51:10), he never offered one jot of scientific argument backed up with verifiable evidence – it was all spin, including lashings of derogatory statements about a whole swathe of other scientists, and concludes:
Sorry, bub, but that is not science, that is politicking – what challenge to humanity is there? None from global warming, that’s for sure. I feel the real challenge is to ignore charlatans such as this, to drop the travesty of science that is claimed by the likes of Michael E. Mann, and discard the burden that it is placing on ALL of humanity, be it the struggling working people of Michigan, Manchester or Manchuria, or the abject poverty being enforced upon the people of Africa as they struggle over their dung fires, causing their painfully early deaths, with the benefits that electricity could bring is denied them based on the word of people like Mr Mann and his ilk – of which you, Messrs Hunt and Clarke, are stalwart members.RR - Can you see the section of the video which shows Rep. Higgins continually not allowing Dr. Mann to even finish a sentence?
The section your quote is extracted from? Where Rep. Higgins once again does not allow Dr. Mann to even finish the sentence?
Hunt,
So, what's your Point? Are you claiming Mann was on the brink of some dignified, cogent response? On previous conduct therein, I'd doubt that possibility.
Mann is revealed as RICOH Mann.
Clipe gets zero for Zola-- the K- Street coolists put Esterhazy to shame in funding and prevarication alike, and driving bad models out of circulation has been my metier ever since Sagan tried scaring the word into disarmament, at the expense of science-- CF our exchange in Foreign Affairs
Stewgereen asks:
How Mann blocks you on Twitter ..in this case the guy sent one tweet challenging him
Could he please explain Breitbart & Watts instant , and persistant ,erasure and censorship of all things and persons contradicting thier peculiar views, while Istvan's literal canonization of Judy as a "climate saint" passses unchallenged ?
The Bish's tolerance of candor and contraversy seems beatific by comparison, and for completeness sake I shoud note that three appointments to its Faculty of Arts & Sciences do not automatically yield a Professorship- I'm just a regular Fellow.
Where Rep. Higgins once again does not allow Dr. Mann to even finish the sentence?
Mar 31, 2017 at 6:07 PM | Jim Hunt
Many Climate Scientists should be compelled to start a sentence.
Jim Hunt and Phil Clarke still won't confirm that they have 100% Confidence in Mann and his Hockey Stick. Those who write out Big Green Blob Cheques are realising how much money they have wasted.
Watts of course does not censor as R ussel describes
Anyone can see there is mass uncensored challenging of WUWT articles within their comments
Watts does have a clear anti-troll policy ..and he does implement that against persistent offenders
I believe 99% of people find it fair and reasonable.
Delingpole has a new article about the Radio4 #bbcinsideScience Debacle
Where the BBC yet again broke their charter rules on impartiality
by offering "free kicks" to Mann to bash his political opposition
..whilst at the same time failing to mention the 3 other scientists on the panel all opposed Mann
..And offering no challenging of Mann nor any speaker from his those opposing him at the hearing.
Capell - My point is that Wednesday's hearing is a shining example of a quite literally ludicrous way for any government to seek to obtain sound scientific advice.
YMMV of course.
Stew - Watts does indeed censor much as Russell describes:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/alice-f-convicted-in-wuwt-show-trial/
I don't find Watts' so called "anti-troll" policy in any way "fair and reasonable"!
Capell - My point is that Wednesday's hearing is a shining example of a quite literally ludicrous way for any government to seek to obtain sound scientific advice.
Mar 31, 2017 at 11:19 PM | Jim Hunt
Not nearly as bad as President Obama citing the 97% Fraudulent Consensus. Climate Science had nothing better to offer him, and few were prepared to risk ridicule by mentioning Mann's Hockey Stick
I assume we have a USA following, but can someone explain this:
'Clipe gets zero for Zola-- the K- Street coolists put Esterhazy to shame in funding and prevarication alike, and driving bad models out of circulation has been my metier ever since Sagan tried scaring the word into disarmament, at the expense of science-- CF our exchange in Foreign Affairs'
Before anyone suggests 'I hate America', they're absolutely wrong. I just want to know.
Dr Bera did manage to put Mr Mann firmly in place, though (at 1:29:30). Yes, I know you are, for whatever mysterious means, utterly in thrall to Mr Mann, Mr Hunt, but do listen to the outright lying commencing at 1:30:35.
All in all, Mr Hunt, I think that the other three scientists, with their dependence on scientific facts, rather than supposition and hyperbolic rhetoric, came over a lot better than Mr Mann.
Mar 31, 2017 at 11:25 PM | Jim Hunt
Climate Science decided the Science was Settled, at a secret meeting that no one else was even aware of. That is Dictatorial Censorship and not open and honest science. Climate Science is welcome to do what it likes behind closed doors, as nobody else cares anymore, and there is no reason for it to receive taxpayer funding.
Even prior to Mann's Hockey Stick, can you confirm details of the Science that deemed Carbon Dioxide the only cause of Global Warming?
Mar 31, 2017 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell
Lots of verbiage without anything coherent, other than "contraversy", to discuss.
Michael Mann exposes himself under severe and focussed questioning at the House Committee hearing on science - He just keeps digging a hole.
https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html
Greetings Heathens
You might want to know that our druid led an emission-free™ ritual burning of our collective undergarments in order to summon the magnificent powers of grand mother nature and finally defeat the heteropatriarchy you seek to disastrously and catastrophically continue imposing on humanity.
Your days are numbered.
Couldn't agree more. I am however at a loss to understand why when asked:
"CONGRESSMAN CLAY HIGGINS: “Are you affiliated or associated with an organization called The Climate Accountability Institute?”
DR. MICHAEL MANN: “No. I mean I may have corresponded with people.”
CONGRESSMAN CLAY HIGGINS: “You’re not affiliated nor associated with them?”
DR. MICHAEL MANN: “I can provide– I’ve submitted my CV you can see who I’m associated with and who I am not.”
You are interpreting this as an admission from Mann that he was affiliated withThe Climate Accountability Institute that he was affiliated with it.
My reading of the answers was that his first instinct was to deny he was affiliated (he is after all a serial liar, who was telling the committee he hadn't called anyone else on the panel a denier when in his written evidence he'd called Dr. Curry a "climate change denier)", and when he realised the Senator already knew he was associated with them, mumbled his way out of it rather than be shown up lying.
God help him if ever gets to court in any of his libel cases he'll get ripped to shreds.
No serious scientist thinks the Mann et al 1998 and 2003 papers are real representations of the climate over the millennium do they?
No serious scientist thinks the Mann et al 1998 and 2003 papers are real representations of the climate over the millennium do they?
Apr 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM | geronimo
Well I have asked Phil Clarke, Entropic Man, Jim Hunt, aTTP etc to clarify this point.
How does anyone actually define "serious" in the context of Climate Science, when Mann can't be serious about honesty, integrity and, hypocrisy, let alone Science, Nobel Prizes etc?
Trump just needs to ask US Funded Climate Scientists to define their confidence in Mann. Then judge who is being serious, and who is laughing. He will save £Billion$ for the US and UK.
ergo, Mr Mann lied to a congressman.
He gave the wrong answer, for that to be a lie you would need to show it was knowingly done, rather than an honest mistake. He then pointed the Congressman to his CV, already submitted in evidence, where the correct answer can be found, which rather supports the honest mistake interpretation. If he was trying to hide his affilliation he was doing a lousy job.
Of course the Congressman already knew the answer to his question and was playing games, which may perhaps explain Dr Mann's apparent bemusement.
And what is so bad about being an Advisor to the Climate Accountability Institute, anyhow? Interesting is the amount of attention being paid to this one brief exchange out of a 3 hour hearing.
Heh.
RR - I've read your comments, but you don't sound as though you've read mine, which continues to make my point for me. From my perspective at least. YMMV!
Try this for size:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-lies-and-politics/#comment-844249
Does Nick Stokes' explanation assist you at all in appreciating my point of view?
97% of Climate Scientists DEPEND on Mann and his Hockey Stick for their jobs, so can't write that they don't trust Mann and/or his Hockey Stick.
Climate Science has proved incapable of finding its own mistakes, let alone correcting them. It gives them Awards, Titles, Accolades, Qualifications etc (see Radical Rodent 31 March 5:46)
97% of Climate Scientists are welcome to carry on as they always have done, but nobody else should be forced to pay for their unscientific prognostication, or pay them any attention at all.. Washed up decaying seaweed plucked from a beach is more useful for forecasting, than washed up decaying Climate Science. They both stink, and are best avoided.
Jim Hunt and Phil Clarke still won't confirm that they have 100% Confidence in Mann and his Hockey Stick. Those who write out Big Green Blob Cheques are realising how much money they have wasted.
Mar 31, 2017 at 11:09 PM | golf charlie
You still can't answer a simple question.
That Folks, is why it is all over for Climate Science.
I think Geronimo nailed it, above; Mr Mann’s default position if to lie. He lied, then wriggled a bit, lied again, then remembered his CV. Mr Clarke, you are either very naïve or find the possibility that one of the priests of your faith of Climate Change could be flawed to be so utterly abhorrent that you cannot consider it. I wonder which it is?
From JAMES DELINGPOLE31 Mar 2017379 at Breitbart
"Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar."
97% of Climate Scientists are in Denial about this.
Phil Clarke has stated that Gergis proves Mann, and Gergis still stands in Climate Science
Some pretty unpleasant ad-homs in there. Not much else.
Mr Hunt, you are giving the impression that you are as ingenuous as Mr Clarke… or perhaps you are being disingenuous. Quite why you are in such confusion about what is obvious to everyone else does suggest you are trying a bit of manipulation of truth:
Rep. Higgins asked one question; how can Mr Mann be confused about which question it is? However, he still responded with a lie (“No,” despite having already admitted that he was, in his previously-submitted CV). Rep. Higgins noticed this, and gave Mr Mann another opportunity to tell the truth; he lied again. The reason for the question is irrelevant; the important thing is the answer. Perhaps Rep. Higgins’ agenda was to reveal what a duplicitous person Mr Mann really is. I mean, why would Mr Mann feel he had to lie? Why should he be so uncomfortable with being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute that he felt obliged to lie? Could it be that lying really is his default position?Rep. Higgins asked one question
He asked about the Union of Concerned Scientists and the CAI. People are not allowed to make mistakes in your universe?
Your days are numbered.
Apr 1, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ayla
My number is £3789- 98. That's what you owe your now intolerant underlings who kept station despite your absence. And now you return sans explanation spouting the same threats against the heathen. It's just not good enough oh ring around the moon.
Others are not exactly impressed with Mr Mann’s performance, either: Julie Kelly at National Review –
(h/t Jo Nova)
Some pretty unpleasant ad-homs in there. Not much else.
Apr 1, 2017 at 2:22 PM | Phil Clarke
That is a fair description of Mann's output since the Hockey Stick, including his recent "testimony", but what do you think of the actual Hockey Stick and the damage it has done to ALL of science?
People are allowed to of course make one or two mistakes...ask Kelly Anne Conway
2 things with Mann and LibMob
#1 His mistakes are more frequent than one or two
#2 They can give offence but not take it.
Yet in a long interview Kelly Anne Conway dropped the quick phrase 'Bowling Green Massacre'
when she meant "The Bowling Green terrorists." (and the presenter didn't pick her up, but just moved on to the next question)
... there was no TOLERANCE at all from LibMob
..there was hours and hours of useless news reports sneering at her.
The actual Iraqis involved were arrested trialled and jailed in 2011-13
97% of Climate Scientists are in Denial about Mann and his Hockey Stick.
Drs Curry, Christy and Pielke are proud to represent the 3% that understood honesty in science, well before Trump was elected, despite all the abuse hurled at them by Hockey Teamsters.
"Honesty Rehab" awaits those 97% currently employed in Climate Science and still in Denial, who want to stay employed in Climate Science, but cuts in US Govt spending could lead to redundancies, and too many have already ruled themselves out of contention.
The contrast between Dr Mann’s ‘passionate’ speeches and the considered statements of the other panel members was quite notable and presented a perfect example of the way in which modern climate science is conducted.
Assuming the premise that the science is settled and that there is a 97% consensus supporting Dr Mann’s position, one has to wonder why he felt the need to denounce his fellow panel members with such aggression; calling them ‘deniers’ and liars. Why not just smile and present factual evidence to expose their errors in a clear and concise manner?
I suspect those who support Dr Mann will see this as an unquestioning victory for the consensus and a crushing defeat for the ‘deniers’. However, I also suspect that those without a specific ‘view’ on the subject may not be so convinced and will form a very different opinion on the merits of his argument.
David Salt should read and listen to what Congress has heard :
In the testimony presently linked in her blog in Dr. Curry's erstwhile defense, it takes her barely 30 seconds to proceed from :
“I was basically called a denier…” to “In the 20th century 40% of the warming occurred before 1950, when
carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming.”
Dr. Curry’s indignation at the word “denier” is hard to credence when she has told Congress that ,within living memory,:
” carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming “
Dr. Curry’s indignation at the word “denier” is hard to credence when she has told Congress that ,within living memory,:
” carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming “
Whether I agreed with her or not I doubt the word "denier' would define her position unless to a zealot.
Apr 1, 2017 at 10:23 PM | Russell
Do you accept that Mann is honest, his science good, and his Hockey Stick is a fair representation of climate history?
If you have any doubts, you too are a "Denier". If you have no doubts, then you are not a "Denier". People with no doubts tend to be gullible, rather than credible, and fail science, just as Mann has failed science, and let it down rather badly.
From the evidence to date, it would appear that both Russell and Dr Mann practice the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language...
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Dave Salt, Hockey Teamsters deny they are collaborators, but the Wikipedia entry does show similarities
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II
"Within nations occupied by the Axis Powers, some citizens, driven by nationalism, ethnic hatred, anti-Communism, anti-Semitism, or opportunism knowingly engaged in . These collaborationists committed some of the worst war crimes, crimes against humanity and atrocities of the Holocaust."
Googling Collaborators reveals much for Hockey Teamsters to feel uncomfortable about.
Phil Clarke is correct, as always and on everything he says, no matter what. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.
So, yes, absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt, anyone that disagrees in any way whatsoever with Mann is a denier.
I will now accept your unconditional surrender.
Phil Clarke is correct, as always and on everything he says, no matter what. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.
So, yes, absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt, anyone that disagrees in any way whatsoever with Mann is a denier.
I will now accept your unconditional surrender.
Apr 2, 2017 at 1:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla
Yes, Phil is always "correct". No cookies otherwise.
I think Dr. Curry might be referring to the rise in temperature between 1910 and 1940, when atmospheric CO2 rose by a mere 10ppm, which was followed by 40 years of cooling of around 0.1C and a rise of CO2 of 20ppm. There should be not temporal issue with rising CO2 it's either in the atmosphere greenhouse gassing away, or it isn't. (All numbers are from the CRU).
Between 1975 and 2000 the temperature rose by around 0.5C with an accompanying rise in CO2 of 35ppm.