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)
Re: RR - Apr 1, 2017 at 2:22 PM
According to the CV which he helpfully kept telling Rep. Higgins he'd already provided to the
inquisitionCommittee Dr. Mann was once involved in a "webinar" organised by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Do you suppose that counts as "associated" in Mr. Higgins' book?For some strange reason the video that Marc Morano and others have been hawking leaves out the part where Dr. Mann asks Mr. Higgins:
You haven’t defined what “association” even means here, but it’s all in my CV which has already been provided to Committee.
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/the-house-science-climate-model-show-trial/#Apr-1
Perhaps in actual fact it's Morano et al. who are being "disingenuous" and "trying a bit of manipulation of truth"?
Perhaps in actual fact it's Morano et al. who are being "disingenuous" and "trying a bit of manipulation of truth"?
Apr 2, 2017 at 5:37 AM | Jim Hunt
No it isn't. Thank you for confirming your understanding of "fact". You are being disingenuous, and trying to manipulate the truth. I am sure Mann will be pleased to recommend you for a prestigious award in Climate Science, he knows all the biggest and shiniest ones. They are running a bit short of prize money though.
Mornin' Charlie,
Oh no I'm not!
Morano, McIntyre et al. are the ones not telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
Have you actually watched all of Higgins' bit of the video?
The video of the hearing should be a valuable resource for Mark Steyn’s lawyers, if the litigation ever gets to court, as it shows how easy it is to get Mann hostile evasive and even lie under oath when asked simple straightforward questions.
Jim Hunt, either you have 100% faith in Mann, and trust all of his utterances, or you don't.
Which is it?
It was Mann who set out to turn science, history, archaeology etc on their heads, by turning his data upside down, not McIntyre or Morano.
If you do not have 100% faith in Mann, which bits of his "facts" are you denying?
http://humanprogress.org/blog/human-conditions-improving-at-a-remarkable-speed
Charlie - You cannot be serious? Of course I don't have "100% faith in Mann"! Do you have "100% faith" in anybody? If so who?
At the risk of repeating myself, "Have you actually watched all of Higgins' bit of the video?", or read my commentary on it for that matter? Here's an extract for you:
https://youtu.be/XnS49c9KZw8
Jim Hunt, at the risk of repeating myself, I did trust Mann and Climate Science. I had my doubts long before ClimateGate, but kept quiet as it was not Politically Correct to question the Holy Hockey Stick.
Why should Collaborators like you be trusted now, to provide links to any information that represents anything honest about science, history, facts or law?
If you have Cherry Picked a segment of Mann being honest, what about Mann denying calling anybody a Denier, when his written testimony clearly showed he had?
You just come across as another of Climate Science's Cherry-Picking Fact Dodgers, but US Courts can decide on Mann,
Were Mr Mann just another cog in the wheel of science, this discussion would not take place, as he is so outrageously unscientific most would ignore him. However, he has managed to inveigle his way into a position of almost unbelievable authority – “Mann says it, so it must be true!” – and has an horrific level of influence on national and international policies. It would appear that, no matter how often he is exposed for the utter charlatan he so obviously is – as this video so clearly demonstrates, with next to no science but a boat-load of policy issuing forth from his pudgy face – that is all water off a duck’s back to the True Believers.
One can only hope that the President turning off the faucet of funding that Mann and his associates quench their never-ending thirst for power at will be enough to return them back to the obscurity that they deserve.
By the way, Mr Hunt, what other definition of “association” could there possibly be other than what most of us have already determined? Your argument sounds as hollow as Clinton’s, “It all depends what the definition of ‘is’ is…” Man up, boy! Mr Mann lied! And Mr Mann lied in a congressional hearing! Not only that, but he also accused a congressman of lying in a congressional hearing.
Why not ignore Russell? Look at his website. It beggars belief.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/dynastic-science-advisor-speaks-truth.html
the best he can hope for is the intercession of someone’s death.
Apr 2, 2017 at 11:41 AM | Radical Rodent
Collaborators like Jim Hunt, Phil Clarke, aTTP etc, have already killed Climate Science by denying Mann's dishonesty.
Anyone in the "association" of the IPCC must be treated with grave suspicion by Politicians, until proven innocent. Guilt by "association" has been one of Climate Science's tactics, as Phil Clarke has demonstrated with such enthusiasm.
Time for more info on the RICO 20, and dishonesty amongst the Climate Science Collaborators. Defence AND Prosecution Lawyers could always call Mann as an expert witness if it gets to the US Courts.
"Collaborator" Charlie? That sounds like fighting talk to me!
I refer you to: https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847908571673133057
Why not ignore Russell? Look at his website. It beggars belief.
Apr 2, 2017 at 12:03 PM | perry
Even Climate Science Collaborators have given up on vvussell's vvebsite. He's from Harvard University and Cambridge, which proves something about great minds, and the damage done to academic reputations, by an extra 50 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide in the air that we all breathe.
"Collaborator" Charlie? That sounds like fighting talk to me!
I refer you to: https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847908571673133057
Apr 2, 2017 at 12:39 PM | Jim Hunt
Can't be bovvered with your Collaborator propaganda.
You can't be bovvered to get honest about Mann and his Hockey Stick.
If you have time on your hands and have any evidence to reinforce the Hockey Stick, Mann would be very grateful, as he can't find any, and Gergis wasted a lot of Taxpayer funds too.
Charlie - Since you can't summon up the energy to click a link, here is what it says at the far end:
"Who said Mann is my hero? I certainly didn't, not least because he isn't."
Personally I prefer watching ice hockey instead of jolly hockey sticks. Here's my latest cryospheric news bulletin:
Facts About the Arctic in April 2017
I don't suppose you can be arsed to click that link either?
Apr 2, 2017 at 1:48 PM | Jim Hunt
Correct! Your "truth" is in your head.
You are still in Denial about the damage done by Mann to ALL of science.
Your problem, you deal with it, but Delingpole's article about Mann at Breitbart may help your Manniacal Dependency issues.
The "Climate Science Legal Defense Fund" should spend money on Rehabs for Climate Science Collaborators still in denial, rather than waste more money on Lawyer's fees. Hillary Clinton and Juncker may have need of some expertise.
Nope
The Subject here is Mann's testimony
: There's no need for to allow the Trolls to spoil this thread by moving onto topics they promote on their own blogs.
If anyone was interested they'd create a custom BH thread for it.
Was this the best that the 97% could put up to make their case ?
Man-Oh-Man ! Monckton done a better job on his own back in 2010 and he's not even a scientist.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2cssne9Q5KM
Stewgreen. I have noted that once a thread has extended past two pages, most of what needs to be written has been and contributors tend to trend off into new pastures - as here. Of course it can be brought back on topic by a contribution with a fresh point of view, but this doesn't always happen. Best let the divergence happen, although I agree that occasionally someone seems to deliberately steer a discussion over to the left field (but occasionally that field is a rich pasture). This, and other blogs like it, have a dynamic all their own and, passed a certain length, a discussion topic usually unsteerable.
Now see I have potentially steered this thread down a different pathway - shame on me.
😥
Apr 2, 2017 at 4:57 PM | Supertroll
Mann's dishonesty to his fellow man (and woman) has filled the pages of many blogs. This has been met with total denial by his own Hockey Teamsters and associated collaborators.
If Jim Hunt wants to pretend that Mann was not dishonest, when it is on tape, in written and verbal testimony, presented before elected members of the US Government, available to all Scientists, Lawyers and people of the very Planet he is allegedly trying to save, then what is the point of anyone trying to save Climate Science?
I have repeatedly (ad nauseam?!) suggested to Mann's Collaborators that they might want to ditch the Hockey Stick, 97% Consensus, and more recently Gergis, and see what they have left. The response has been zero.
The weather has been simply marvellous today along the Solent Coastline, how has it been in East Anglia? Two more days of this, and the Met Office will announce an unprecedented April heatwave due to Global Warming!
Supertroll, forgot to add...
Mann is SUING people for saying rude things about him.
Mann lies verbally about rude things he has recently written himself, in front of one of the people he was derogatory about.
Mann's Lawyers have just seen their possible fees for a lengthy trial plummet.
Pants on Fire Gate?
PoFGate
Mr Hunt: how do these recent satellite observations of the Arctic ice compare with the satellite observations of 100 years ago? Oh, sorry… I forgot… we only have satellite observations from when the Arctic ice was at an unusually high level, in 1979. Is it any surprise that all observations since then are lower than then? Had the satellite observations from the first year of such records been used, 1973, then the difference would have been very little. Apart from that, how do present-day records compare with similar records of 100 years ago? Oh, sorry… we do not have records of similar extents of the Arctic from then. Hmmm… quite a conundrum, eh?
It is not obvious what records you seem to find acceptable, but it would appear those of the 1920s and 30s are not, as they do reveal that the ice extent was reducing to what was considered a worrying extent, and ships were sailing in unheard of ice-free waters, then. How thin did the ice have to be for a submarine to surface at the North Pole in 1957? As we have discussed in earlier exchanges, the comparisons you make of present day satellite observations with old, incomplete maps show a remarkably similar extent, so why are you trying to create such alarm? Could it be for similar reasons that Mr Mann created his alarm, and defends with such blatant levels of deceit? Beware of guilt by association, Mr Hunt, for it could seriously curtail your work, as the axe on funding seeks its targets.
Radical Rodent, Climate Science has never produced details of the meeting of "minds" that decided that CO2 was the sole cause of Global Warming.
If Mann's testimony is to be taken as seriously as it was expensively provided by taxpayers, the flaming pants of Climate Scientists must account for most of the warming, and some of the CO2, that they have pesonally been recording.
These Personal Heat Islands could explain some of the Unprecedented Ice Loss recorded by Climate Science experts, everywhere they go in the Arctic and sit down, though never seen by satellites,
Mann is a useful idiot that does not know when to shut up. Politicians, policy makers, and the press use him out of self-interest. Once that interest is gone, the useful idiot will find that only his cat has time for him.
raul
That's what I've always said. A useful idiot was required to make the MWP disappear for the Kyoto Protocol. One with advanced decline hiding skills and a moral compass pointing at Antarctica.
Apr 2, 2017 at 11:00 PM | raul
Cats have feelings about honesty too, you know. If they are always promised a hot fish supper and it is always cold, they will learn quicker than most Politicians.
Cats would eat you if they could.
Apr 3, 2017 at 12:46 AM | raul
A cat could not eat a whole Mann without being very sick.
When it comes to Mann's expertise in bending or breaking rules, it Is often said that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Posted this on The Guardian earlier.
A cat tried to befriend me today. It suddenly appeared at my feet and rolled around on its back looking up at me. I wouldn't trust a strange woman who did that, never mind a cat. I thought it might bite me.
Anyway, to show good will, I threw it some crisps. Unfortunately the crisps hit it on the head as it ran toward me. From then on I was clearly perceived as a very uncouth, low life creature. Head in the air, in a dignified pose, it looked around and found an excuse to move on.
Story of my life right there.
Do you really think Mann is a cat person?
Do you really think he could tolerate another arrogant, self-preening and cruel companion (the cat that is)?
Charlie - If you'd bothered to click my links you might have noticed that I've already denounced Dellers in no uncertain terms.
Steve McIntyre continually refuses to answer this question, so I'll put it to you instead:
"Watch the video. Did Rep. Higgins interrupt Dr. Mann on more than one occasion? Yes or no?"
RR - I've already been accused of attempting to derail the thread, but if you want to pursue the matter here what evidence do have that Arctic temperatures in the 1920s and 30s were in any way comparable with the winter of 2016/17. See my DMI FDD graph for example.
Whilst we're on the subject, please also provide some evidence for a "submarine surfac[ing] at the North Pole in 1957".
Thanks in anticipation.
'Catastrophe',
'catatonic,'
cataclysmic,'
all these
give ' cat'
a bad name.
Poor cats, programmed
to hunt and be
centre of own universe,
can't blame cats fer
Naychur's tricks.
But mann, well,
he's able to reflect,
compare, contrast,
measure, check, we
developed scientific
method to transcend
subjective-ness, a
means to escape
catti-ness,
WH
Google submarine north pole
There are several reports from Arctic ships navigating those waters at the time, most of them amazed at the retreat of the ice. Sadly, I have lost the links I did have for them so will have to content myself with offering this in the (perhaps forlorn) hope that you may find it interesting (though, regrettably, there are no pictures), with plenty of links for you to pursue at your leisure.
Did Rep. Higgins interrupt Dr. Mann on more than one occasion? Yes or no?"
Apr 3, 2017 at 9:37 AM | Jim Hunt
Who cares? Did Mann, the Hockey Teamsters and assorted Collaborators conspire to deny open debate about Global Warming? Did Mann lie in front of Legal Trained experts, aswell as Politicians? Has Mann Barracked his opponents and trashed their careers?
Getting tetchy now about Mann's hurt feelings, is an irrelevant diversionary sidetrack. If you have now expressed doubts about Mann and his Hockey Stick, congratulations, you are on the correct path to honesty in Climate Science, but it may be too late
What is your motivation for defending the indefensible? Money?
Did Mann lie when he replied 'No'? Who can tell, but on past form, probably yes.
I was more struck by his 1 in 10,000 claim. I assume this comes from a previous claim of 99.999% certainty that more than half the warming between 1950 and 2010 was caused by mankind. This is a a stupid and unalarming claim, but Mann chooses to peddle it.
Stupid because claiming anything has been determined to 5 places of decimals should raise everyone's antenna for a spurious claim, even more so when the underlying data is characterised by a sprawl of temperature data observations. In short, this is just piffle.
And is this claim alarming? Well, back to wood for trees and the various amounts of warming between 1950 and 2010 range from 0.4 to 0.8 K (the latter, at a stretch and an El Nino for help). CO2 levels changed from 310 to 390 ppm over the same period. A doubling of CO2 level concentrations would deliver 2.16 times the observed temperature rise. If humans cause half of the observed warming between 1950 and 2010, that is 0.2 to 0.4 K, then a doubling puts us on course for between 0.43 and 0.86 K down to us. To 'achieve' that we have to get to 620 ppm. And we've only managed 310 to 390 in 60 years!
Should we be alarmed?
Should we deny the third world the benefit of fossil fuels?
I don't think so.
Should we be alarmed?
Should we deny the third world the benefit of fossil fuels?
I don't think so.
Apr 3, 2017 at 1:02 PM | Capell
Has Climate Science been worth the £Billion$ wasted? No.
We need to keep the good bits, but Climate Science won't admit which bits are total rubbish, so it is all destined to be found guilty, until proven innocent.
Mann found Judith Curry guilty, based on evidence he made up, could not substantiate, and lied about, so Climate Scientists really ought to be challenging Mann about their Unprecedented loss of future earnings, and suing him, in the manner he has advocated for others.
Radical Rodent, the USS Skate surfaced in this thread
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/11/the-lewandowsky-concoction.html?currentPage=2
Others helped to explain why the dates given differ. In the context of the Cold War, and the possibility of launching missiles with nuclear warheads, the US Military were probably enthusiastic about telling the Soviets what they could do...
Radical Rodent, that nice Anthony Watts (97% more reliable and trustworthy than any of that taxpayer funded Climate Science propaganda) had this thread.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
It happened, it was a "publicity stunt", precise details may never be known for reasons of secrecy. Just like Mann's Hockey Stick that has torpedoed Climate Science.
Jim Hunt is getting honest about Mann, leaving aTTP, Entropic Man and Phil Clarke etc out in the Denial corner.
Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, Polar Bears keep demonstrating their reproductive abilities, but no one can reproduce Mann.
Planet Earth gets greener with happiness every year, as the Green Blob gets more sickly.
Do you think Climate Change Advocacy (or lying) causes you to lose your hair? The others on the panel don't appear to have suffered from this affliction. Or perhaps Mann's scalp is upside down (like some of his data) and the hair is growing downwards.
Supertroll, that is just the type of disgusting, typecasting correlation/causation confusion that gives us (slightly) baldies a bad name.
It is why Climate Science has got what it has to date, and deserves every Unprecedented nothing, that is coming. Well, at least 97% of nothing anyway, which by coincidence, is exactly the amount of Global Warming that Climate Scientists have proved to be caused by man. Mann did the rest.
It's time for the Bishop to call for bell, book and candle :
Yesterday at WUWT, Nick Stokes lucidly adressed the question Chrisy's acolytes like golf charlie continue to evade evade:
Nick Stokes April 2, 2017 at 8:16 pm
“The hotspot prediction is easy to understand. The atmosphere is thicker, reaches higher into space over the equator than the poles, due to centrifugal force of the Earth’s spin. “
It’s more just that the air is warmer. Lower density. Surface pressure is the same (else big winds), so 10 tons/m2 above the tropics occupies more volume that 10 tons/m2 at the poles.
“For example one theory is the balloon measurements are not being analysed correctly, so the hotspot is there, but it is evading detection unless you properly homogenise the data.”
Yes, and homogenisation is very important. It’s not like surface, where you have a thermometer in one place that you can look at whenever you want. With balloons, you get a snapshot of ever different trajectories, once a day at best, and with poor geographic spread, especially in the tropics.
“Another theory I have seen mentioned is that the hotspot is there, but the effect is not pronounced enough to be detectable as yet”
That is a signal/noise issue. It doesn’t necessarily mean the signal is weak, more that the noise is strong.
“Does the absence of a tropospheric equatorial hotspot mean anthropogenic climate models are unequivocally wrong?
The answer is no.”
Indeed.
First, of course, the absence isn’t unequivocal. And there vis a range in the models.
The relevant part of AR5 is 9.4.1.4.2. It starts:
“Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013). There has been an extensive and sometimes controversial debate in the published literature as to whether this difference is statistically significant, once observational uncertainties and natural variability are taken into account “
And they go on to provide details. The conclusions
“In summary, most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2012.
Roughly one-half to two-thirds of this difference from the observed trend is due to an overestimate of the SST trend, which is propagated upward because models attempt to maintain static stability. There is low confidence in these assessments, however, due to the low confidence in observed tropical tropospheric trend rates and vertical structure (Section 2.4.4). “
Anticipating the more obvious objections true believers here will raise,this drew a an entirely predictable exchange April 2, 2017 at 9:08 pm"
"Nick is there any part of the consensus science which you will not defend? Or any evidence against the consensus science you will not attack?
As I ask Mosshher the Great and Powerful, what ever happened to you?
Reply
John Eggert April 3, 2017 at 7:51 am
"Forrest Gardener: You said: “Nick is there any part of the consensus science which you will not defend?”
Nick’s defenses are, for the most part, reasoned and polite. A lot better than I can say about many on either side of this debate. I encourage Nick to continue to post his rebuttals here as it provides a forum to test a point of view and it proves that reasoned debate is acceptable to at least one side of this argument.
Regarding this thread, his point about “thickness” of the atmosphere is dead on. It isn’t absolute distance or concentration that is important in radiative absorption, but the product of the two.
As such, an atmosphere at 100 kPa and 400 ppm CO2 will have the same radiative impact whether is is cold and thinner or warm and thicker. Mosher probably got tired of the knee jerk tirades against him..."
Oh Gwendolyn. I am so very sorry, it never occurred to me that a lady of your vitality might be hirsutely challenged. You have 97% of my sympathy.
Apr 3, 2017 at 6:15 PM | Russell
Why has "Nick Stokes" achieved credibility in your view? Is he more, or less less dishonest than Mann? If he has published his views on Mann's credibility, do you have a link please?
Apr 3, 2017 at 6:18 PM | Supertroll
Have you got 97% of my hair aswell? If so, you could have cleaned the whole bath, not just the plug hole.
Apr 3, 2017 at 6:15 PM | Russell
From your post:
"Forrest Gardener: You said: “Nick is there any part of the consensus science which you will not defend?”
"Nick’s defenses are, for the most part, reasoned and polite. A lot better than I can say about many on either side of this debate"
If Nick Sokes believes in Science, shouldn't he take issue with the concept of a "Consensus" in any field of Science?
If Nick Stokes believes in Science, what are his views of Cook's fabricated psychobabble 97% Consensus?
If Nick Stokes believes in Science, and honesty, will he provide Expert Witness in support of Mann in any forthcoming Court cases?
Despite the extensive work by Hockey Teamsters including William M. Connolley, the Medieval Warm Period won't disappear, and Climate Scientists can't explain that away either.
Perhaps if Nick Stokes was so clever at Climate Science, he might have been asked to Peer Review some of their work, and spot the mistakes they could not see, but others, including non-Climate Scientists could, and did.
Belief in the Consensus manufactured by Climate Science requires Denial of Inconvenient Truths. Nick Stokes seems to demonstrate some expertise in the Denial of Science, to Climate Science, although Mann has Denied the truth of his own written testimony.
What is there about Mann that is so trustworthy, that others are prepared to sacrifice their own careers and credibility for?