..
The unstoppable Mark Steyn has collected illuminating quotes from Michael Mann’s peers about the value of the Hockey Stick and Mann’s work. Steyn has both announced the book, and taken apart the critics like “Sir Charles” already. In fine form:
“…not a single amicus brief was filed in support of Mann by any scientist or any scientific body. As I say in the book, Mann claims to be taking a stand for science, but science is disinclined to take a stand for him”
Is there any writer more apt, more prosaic or more entertaining? There are cartoons from Josh too:
A guy can’t sit around waiting for litigious fake Nobel Laureates to agree to discovery and deposition. So, with the Mann vs Steyn Trial of the Century currently stalled in the choked septic tank of the DC court system, I figured I might as well put some of the mountain of case research clogging up the office into a brand new book – all about the most famous “science” graph of the 21st century and the man who invented it.
Michael E Mann’s defamation suit against me for a 270-word blog post is about to enter its fourth year in the District of Columbia Superior Court, so I’m confident this little tome should be good for at least a third of a century.
As you know, Mann’s plan was to sue me into silence. I leave it to legal scholars to assess whether that’s working out quite as he intended. However, as Barack Obama likes to say, this isn’t just about me. It’s also about the perversion of science and the damage done by the climate wars in which Mann has played such an egregious part.
If you’d like to support my end of this interminable case, then “A Disgrace To The Profession”: The World’s Scientists – In Their Own Words – On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage To Science: Volume One is a great way to do it, and have a few laughs along the way (courtesy of Josh’s cartoons). To order the book, simply click here.
One of the people who inspired Steyn to start this project is Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University:
The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.
Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that’s what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science… It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.
Read the post introducing it, and read “Punching Back Twice as Hard” where Steyn takes the critics apart.
Be entertained, and help Steyn’s battle in the courts: buy the book at Steyn Online, also at Amazon: A Disgrace To The Profession.
Commenters please keep it clean. The F words are moderated. – Thank you for your restraint. – Jo
Poor little Mikey. He must be sobbing in his gluten-free beer.
This is just too delicious to watch!
352
He’s not just satirically brilliant but sanguine and precise with the content of his material.
For a huge improvement to your mood I highly recommend to watch Mark Steyn at the Heartland Institute on 12-June-2015 keynote 4.
321
Thanks for the heads-up Yonniestone. Compulsory viewing for the institutional eco-sycophants.
“…taking a wild ride on the hockey stick corrupted the heart of climate science, it has corrupted everything it touched in the last 15 years, trashed the founders legacy (Hubert Lamb).”
“Climate science must climb off its hockey stick and recover its integrity.”
Also very nice to know some Kiwis (from the environs of the Hawkes Bay) were apparently present at his address.
301
Pre-ordered for delivery Sept. 1
161
Ordered and I’m sure it will be worth every penny.
171
Don’t forget it is also illustrated with cartoons by Josh.
171
I received a copy on Tuesday. Quite interesting.
171
GREAT CHRISTMAS PRESENT!
For all the fence sitters on your Christmas list. (I have at least a dozen on the list who need this book.)
181
WOW, what a compliment!
The Detroit Pistons and the Denver Nuggets on December 13, 1983 had a combined to score 370 points, with the Pistons defeating the Nuggets 186 to 184.
An IQ of 184 is nothing to sneeze at.
152
Baseball Gai!
90
I’s a big sports fan so forgive me for being off topic here in reply.
That game which gai mentions here had three Overtimes and was after the NBA introduced the three pointer.
Before then, and before the NBA is what it is today, there was one game which did stand out. Played back in 1962 in Hershey Philadelphia, The Philadelphia Warriors defeated the New York Knicks 169 to 147, in regular time (no OT’s) and before the three point introduction.
What is most astounding from that one game is that one player, Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points, the only time that has ever been achieved. (at NBA level)
Just reading about that game, especially that fourth quarter, is amazing. (link here)
At seven foot one inch (2.16M) and a playing as a Center, (or even Centre) he was nicknamed The Stilt, but he always preferred ‘The Big Dipper’, because he had to duck his head to get through doors.
Great game in a day before the money took over the game.
Tony.
141
Wow … he totally dominates the top scores in a single game category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_players_with_most_points_in_a_game
60
Bullies love to chase cowards and to pick on the weak.
Mike’s tactics seem to have backfired when he picked on a man of superior intellect, integrity, courage, knowledge, honesty, accomplishments, and decency.
The old boxing maxim is to never fight over your weight. But, as in this case it sometimes happens. Is Penn State a big enough lace to hide?
452
Oh look everyone: some eco-buffoon of a troll is down-ticking every single post, no matter how accurate the post is. Well, well, what a surprise.
Maybe it’s a diversion tactic to shift attention away from Steyn’s eviscerating take-down of Mann?
394
Wear the ‘Red Thumb’ with pride it is a badge of honour.
253
Hey… I wasn’t even going to comment on this thread but I feel I need to add my yin to your yang.
err… my only comment is – it lead me to go back and remind myself of what the whole case was all about. My conclusion is it amounts to nothing much and is vastly overblown. The hockey stick “controversy” is of little significance and Mann’s response to Steyn was thin skinned. Why Wikipedia needs an entry as long as this to discuss it is unclear to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy . At least the Steyn non issue gets no mention in an entry about a non-issue.
PS I didn’t do the red thumbs.
623
I don’t hand ’em out either – but I’m happy to receive them.
61
Ooer
02
Relax cheshired! @ #10
Merely the usual play-toy pop gun shots from the low life CAGW gang of drive-by shooters with their very small pop gun corks and their very small and short bits of manhood.
[ or whatever the womanhood version is. ]
122
ROM said
” or whatever the womanhood version is.”
Overstuffed padded bra?
72
MM’s behaviour is remarkable – makes John Cook and Gavin Schmidt look civil by comparison.
101
Judith Curry on Steyn’s book.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/
201
Great read. Thanks. Savage criticism even from people who support man made climate change! As the world refuses to warm and the BOM keep adjusting the raw data, the whole international [snip “sordid mess”] is falling apart. For courts to decide on science is utterly wrong and a failure in itself, but increasingly unnecessary anyway. Mann’s peers and seniors see him as a [snip], a figure of ridicule, an embarassment and as Steyn rightly says, Mann is not the defender or the victim but the aggressive litigant. Can PhDs be withdrawn?
181
I believe in most reputable institutions PhD’s can be withdrawn at any time no matter how long ago the award was and even if the person is dead if it is shown that scientific misconduct was undertaken in the production of the dissertation.
141
That’s a nice little preview with good links to other articles.
71
Um…gai…those are BASKETball teams…not baseball. Just sayin 🙂
101
So climatologist Barry Bickmore goofed and named the wrong type of ball game. What do you expect from a ClimAstrologist, the truth?
131
Any chance it will become available as an E-book? Kindle would be nice.
111
Yes Jim,
You can pre-order it now for delivery Sept 1 from Amazon. I’ve just done it.
Cheers,
Dave B
111
Thanks, just pre-ordered it, too.
91
Mark Steyn has been called the greatest wordsmith on the planet.
But his gut feeling and judgement about a subject are probably just as important.
If he comes after you WATCH OUT. And Judy Curry even gave the Mann [snip] full warning. Go, go,go Mark Steyn.
161
Having now pre-ordered online,
From that most worthy skeptic Mark Steyn,
An inspiring book,
On a stick with a crook,
Which science must now realign.
341
🙂 🙂 🙂
61
One of the best view points on this whole mess is from a comment by someone identified as HAS in an earlier thread on John Cook:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/cook-scores-97-for-incompetence-on-a-meaningless-consensus/#comment-1479795
It’s all about professional lobbyists at work.
Think power, money, influence, control; anything BUT Science or altruism.
KK
162
>An inspiring book,
>On a stick with a crook
A crook indeed, that Mann.
151
It’s interesting that his peers are complaining as much about the stick as the crook.
141
Mark Steyn has highlighted the great misunderstanding of today, by showing that not only Mann and his version science, but all science, is fallible. Science can, and does fail.
Hopefully Steyn will encourage those who would govern us, to understand that when governing a society, science should advise governments and not drive them. Science should not be the regulator of our society. Civil society is more than the linear wishes of science, it is the balance of the wants, needs, and aspirations of all the population.
Mann and his ilk had attempted to ensure that his version of ‘climate science’ is in the driving seat, directing how we all live by their received wisdom. Mann and his ilk, by their faulty attributes of their broken academic world, and with the sponsorship of the elites in the UN, wished to guide our rulers by using ‘climate science’ as their battering-ram to power. Their power through fear.
Mark Steyn has graphically in this book, and publically in the courts, pierced the consnsus scientist’s inflated ego of certainty, allowing others to question ‘climate science’s merit.
Thank-you Mr Steyn.
331
I can not say that I am surprised that no one has actually come to the defense of Mann. From the Climategate e-mails I got the feeling he was tolerated but not liked. So now we see a bit of ‘no honor among thieves’ This is quite interesting because a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was set up.
(Read the link only if you have a strong stomach.)
161
Nobody has come to the defense of Mann in terms of submitting supporting briefs, but there are many that have supported him on blogs. For instance, William Connolley, who as a climate expert is always right on everything, proffers the legal opinion that in the Anti-SLAPP opinion Mark Steyn is running away. The reason Mann’s lawyers have not requested a brief from the famed wiki-editor is they are aware that Steyn is counter-suing Mann for $30m.
40
Lismore Central has an unbroken record from 1907 – there were no moves. It was closed in 2003 and is NOT included in ACORN.
Lismore Central Maximum Temperature
Lismore Central Minimum Temperature
161
Wonderful data. Spectacularly boring, which is a relief. It must have been too hard to homogenize.
The whole business of one temperature for the planet, let alone one valley or mountain or country is ridiculous. Why can’t some bits get hotter while others get cooler, like the other side of the street?
It is enough that the satellites ignore all the geography that makes them better for this concept, that they average over wide areas, something no one imagined when Stevenson Screens were invented.
Even so, it is great to see that in the 20th century in just one place in this vast country with a thousand climates, nothing happened.
51
In climatology opinion not only matters, it is the bedrock to science. Except when that opinion is contrary to the received wisdom. It might be a bad time to use this metaphor on an Australian blog, but I feel the pejorative language and (incomplete) lawsuits used by Prof Mann are simply not cricket. In a free society it is crucial to win on the arguments, based on respect for the opposition. We should give the arguments our best shot, knowing that if we are on the losing side that by challenging the winners we will have upped their game and made the outcome better.
131
The ‘fear-the-climate’ mob have already cherry picked Mann and dumped him as a now useless has-been. Their tactic of turning on people when fake data gets difficult to support applies just as much to their own fraternity when they need to save face. They’re quite happy to be left alone while the large world of sceptics gang up with Steyne picking the bones of one of their previous leaders while they move on. Steyne’s problem is that after success of this single case with Mann, nothing will really change.
Big question – how can this one case be spread across the whole climate enterprise?
101
Maybe. This is very similar to what is happening with Hillary Clinton. Remember her as “the candidate and nominee”? Al Gore has just suggested he might consider running, Joe Biden said the same and Bernie Sanders is beating her in several polls. So much for loyalty—she’s not an asset, so bye-bye Hillary. It remains to be seen if she’s wiling to take down her party in retaliation (I’m sure she knows where the bodies are buried.)
121
The Clinton Foundation USA was given, actual amount not disclosed, but estimated to have been “up to $25 million” of Australian taxpayer’s borrowed monies by PM Gillard.
101
Gary,
Nothing is likely to change as the actual opinions of the expert scientists have been largely abandoned. Any attempt to create hockey sticks that infer unprecedented warming quickly fall apart, like the Marcott paper. The real thrust is now in opinion polls.
30
A couple of years ago Judge Frederick Weisberg ignored the claims made by the defendants that their viewpoint was ‘pure opinion’, apparently protected by the First Amendment.
‘Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.’
121
Steyn’s book has a good chance of making the bestsellers’ lists without MSM support.
compare with cool dudes who got all the MSM praise imaginable for their anti-“climate change denial” documentary, only to fail spectacularly at the box office.
Wikipedia: The Yes Men Are Revolting
The Yes Men Are Revolting is a 2014 documentary film directed by Laura Nix and The Yes Men, a culture jamming duo who use the aliases Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno…
The film follows their exploits as they prank various organizations and corporations who engage in ***climate change denial…
It was released theatrically on June 12, 2015, in the US. As of July 30, 2015, it has grossed $50,190…
Harvey of Variety called it “another entertaining mix of agitpop, pranksterism and autobiography”…
Sheri Linden of the Los Angeles Times wrote that “fans will find fewer of the elaborate deadpan stunts than they might have hoped for”, but the ones included “highlight corporate greed and governmental shortsightedness as shrewdly as ever”…
Stephen Holden of The New York Times made it a NYT Critics’ Pick and wrote that it “has a personal poignancy that is missing in the forerunners”…
Clarke of The Village Voice wrote, “Their globetrotting easy conversation, nitpicking, and laughter despite anger and environmental upset create an unusual space for the viewer to do the same.”…
Michael O’Sullivan of The Washington Post rated it 3.5/5 stars …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men_Are_Revolting
Mojo Box Office: The Yes Men are Revolting
Domestic Total as of Jul. 30, 2015: $50,190
Widest Release: 20 theaters
In Release:49 days / 7 weeks
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=theyesmenarerevolting.htm
131
Regardless of global warming claims being a result of scientific misconduct, I think the whole CAGW thing is unstoppable and has a life of its own. It is now a matter of political belief and religion, not science.
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said in 2010:
181
I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism: Prime Minister Tony Abbott 2014
211
actually, although he said that in 2014 he also said it at least a year earlier.
71
He said in 2013
“Let’s be under no illusions the carbon tax was socialism masquerading as environmentalism,”
Just wish he’d say it more often
151
Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry?
The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal.
(insurancejournal.com)
81
Follow the money trail.
51
el gordo,
Industries only survive for the time that people see value in their product.
51
The trouble has always been, that Mann, and other scientists like him, think they know the answer before one conducts the experiment.
So one then takes the liberty to push or ‘fudge’ the results, to show what they think and want the experiment to show. If one already knows the ‘correct’ answer anyway, (or so they think), what is really wrong with doing this?.
Modern science needs reform, and one way is to educate scientists that this is not how science is done. Experiments do not get performed simply to show a pre-conceived result. Better auditing and ‘peer review’ standards are also required.
As Michael Crichton put it, ‘I’m certain there is too much certainty in the world’.
142
The IPCC con continues regardless of the Environmental Pollution Acts and enforcement that has been in place for over 40 years to date in developed countries. The concept of a carbon tax on carbon pollution is ridiculous.
111
Dennis,
Using the simple idea of pollution being defined as a substance in an inappropriate place; then carbon pollution surely must be diamond gemstones, especially the ones that just decorate women…
71
“A price on carbon”
I’m still unable to comprehend that phrase, it’s so meaningless
Industrial diamonds need an extra nudge in price ?
School pencils need an extra nudge in price ? Especially the 3B-7B ones, they have all that extra graphite (carbon). And artists’ thick, black pencils – oh, shudder !!!
Whenever that phrase is unctuously uttered by a politician or a pundit, I genuinely feel like vomiting at both the deliberate dishonesty and the insulting assumption that I’m stupid enough to believe them
102
horror horror – SE Asia with a population double that of the US, & a GDP of approx one eighth of the US, might overtake the US in coal-fired emissions by 2030!
12 Aug: Financial Times: Avantika Chilkoti: Joko Widodo criticised over coal power expansion plans
The country is struggling to meet growing energy demand, yet existing coal power plants cause an estimated 7,100 premature deaths in the country every year caused by ailments such as lung cancer and respiratory diseases, according to a Greenpeace report. That figure could rise to more than 28,000 if the government goes ahead with proposals to add more than 100 new facilities…
???“Indonesia is one of the only countries still planning a new expansion in coal,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, coal and air pollution specialist at Greenpeace…
The researchers forecast that the Asia-Pacific region will overtake the US by 2030 in terms of noxious emissions from coal-fired plants, which are projected to increase threefold in Indonesia alone…
“There is definitely a lock-in, in the sense that Indonesian decision makers are used to seeing coal as the most affordable way to provide electricity for the public,” said Mr Myllvirta…
The new government plans to add 35,000 megawatts of electricity capacity by 2019, with at least 20,000MW coming from coal power alone…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91cff528-403b-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3ikT8zIf9
12 Aug: Greenpeace Blog: Clean energy could save thousands of Indonesian lives
Blogpost by Hindun Mulaika
(Hindun Mulaika is a Climate & Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia)
In a country where 28 million people live below the poverty line, development is on everyone’s lips in Indonesia. And rightly so. Everyone wants a life with dignity and opportunity, as well as simple things such as running water and electricity. But when does so-called development come at the cost of real progress for all Indonesians?…
Check out the full report here. Every new coal-fired power plant means thousands of air-pollution related deaths over its lifetime. Breathing should not be life threatening…
???But there’s another way. Here’s why Indonesia could bypass the age of dirty coal now:
In large economies, such as China, the US, and the EU, new power generation is already coming predominantly from renewables…etc
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/clean-energy-could-save-thousands-of-indonesi/blog/53770/
71
As I mentioned at the end of an earlier Thread, and while readers move on, I suppose it may not have been seen.
The target date for emissions reduction is 2030, 15 years from now.
By 2030, if EVERY one of the 193 other Countries say that they will reduce their emissions by a target of 26 to 28%, it may seem that would be a great start. Keep in mind that India and some other Countries, major ones as well, will be increasing their emissions, India on a scale second only to China. But for the sake of the exercise, lets just pretend that they will offer to reduce by that percentage.
China, of its own, will not be announcing any decrease at all, and they HOPE to reach peak emissions by that same target date, 2030.
So, IF, IF, IF every other Country decreases by the targeted 26 to 28%, that will be completely and utterly offset by the increase from just China alone, and in fact, China will be increasing by a substantial amount more than ALL those other decreases added together, and the World total for emissions will be 18% higher than it is now.
By 2030, if all Countries reduce, then China will be emitting just over half (52%) of the whole World’s emissions.
And want to know something else. Even if China does exponentially increase their emissions by the amount they say, they will STILL have a lower per capita emissions rate than Australia.
Sorta defeats the whole purpose of reductions doesn’t it?
Bet you won’t hear this coming out of Paris.
Tony.
231
Steyn’s take-down of the crazy cat lady Sou is slice&dice 101.
Sou will be busily archiving comments in various plastic bags and pigeon holes for some reason known only to her.
Maybe she imagines a time when all these ‘deniers’ will be held to account, and these comments will prove it.
Sou, the crazy cat lady will be vindicated. You’ll see!
122
Do any of you remember those “association” tests from high school–e.g., W is to X as Y is to Z, and you’re given five choices for Z? Well, I’ve got one; and for the benefit of the sous out there, I’ve made it difficult to get the wrong answer:
In a battle of wits, Lady Astor is to Winston Churchill as Sou is to
A: Mark Steyn
B: Mark Steyn
C: Mark Steyn
D: Mark Steyn
E: Mark Steyn
91
Jo
O/T but FYI
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/el-nio-and-cold/#comments
31
I see the climastrologist troll has given nearly everyone a red thumb.
71
I am about to meet my state member of parliament who is the LIB shadow minister for “renewables” in VIC and will try to explain to him the lie of CAGW.
171
Tell him the hiatus proves carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
Baird is a warmist, so you won’t get any traction from that mob.
60
‘in VIC’
Oops… probably no different.
30
Well, I gave him some information about the lie of CAGW, including references to this site but he said it was not his job, as a politician to educate the people. I disagreed with him on that and I also said that the only way CAGW can be demonstrated is by malicious fiddling with raw data as the BoM are doing and equivalent agencies elsewhere. He also told me that 70% of Liberal voters wanted more “renewable” energy and he had to be responsive to that. (If that is the statistic for mostly educated Liberal voters, just imagine what it would be for Labor voters.)
I said that an acceptable solution to get out of the mess was to allow market forces to operate – and he had apparently already had ideas of that. I said those who want renewables can have as much wind and solar as they wanted AND WERE PREPARED TO PAY FOR WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDY.I said smart meters can manage the distribution of energy produced by different methods and, as someone suggested on this blog, I said a “green” consumer could nominate the maximum price they were prepared to pay for electricity before their lights went out as the supply of GREEN energy dried up or the wind stopped blowing or the sun stopped shining. (I also said if green energy users wanted a steady supply of electricity they could spend $50,000 of their own money on a suitable battery pack.)
I suggest other readers see their MPs as well and provider them some reading material.
(NOTE to USA readers – our “Liberal” Party is the supposed conservative party while the Labor Party is the liberal party.)
70
The whole situation is due to Mann. If he had proceeded in a straight forward way, the case would be historical today. His delay should be considered in the evidence.
Einstein said it best. If a scientist is wrong, it only takes one voice to show it. Mann’s problem is that he took the public advocate’s role without accepting the blowback.
72
“History repeats itself …. perhaps”
Mann’s “Hockey stick” and the [snip] way in which it was produced have remarkable similarities to another embarrassing story from early 1900s.
In 1912 the discovery of “the Piltdown Man” by Charles Dawson was heralded by many Scientists as the find of the century and confirmed as authentic by many renowned institutions both in Britain , Europe and the U.S.
Scientists wrote over 250+ papers on the subject all quoting the find as proof of the “missing link”.
A few years later in 1924 the discovery of the “Taung Child” by the Australian anthropologist Raymond Dart, was vigorously rejected by fellow scientists as of having any significance and was largely ignored in favor of the Piltdown Man.
It is perhaps coincidental that only a few scientists of the day wrote papers claiming the Piltdown man to be a hoax. However these were ignored and it took almost 40 years for the forgery to be discovered and accepted by the scientific community.
The Piltdown man was exposed as a forgery in 1953
[Best to avoid words that could lead to the same drawn out saga Steyn has found himself in. Mod]
102
This is pathetic.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/scientists-say-how-they-27feel27-about-climate-change/6698622
Scientists ‘feel’ about climate change on RN Afternoons
with Michael Mackenzie on RN
Friday 14th August
Summary
These days it’s rare to watch the news and not see a scientist talking about climate change. But how affected are we by the figures they reel off about the dangers of a warming planet?
Professional science communicator, Joe Duggan and his new project, Is this How You Feel? is attempting to put a human face on climate science, by asking them to respond personally to the data and evidence they collect.
20
The above was meant to be a new thread, not sure how it ended up as a sub thread. Could you please delete it Jo and I will repost?
10
‘… this isn’t just about me. It’s also about the perversion of science and the damage done by the climate wars in which Mann has played such an egregious part.’
Yes indeed.
The good thing to come out of all this is that the legal profession will have to find evidence to prove Mann manipulated the data to achieve a desired outcome.
The Defense only need put up a temperature graph to show real world observation, suggesting to the prosecution that their client may have tortured the data.
111
This is pathetic.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/scientists-say-how-they-27feel27-about-climate-change/6698622
Scientists ‘feel’ about climate change on RN Afternoons
with Michael Mackenzie on RN
Friday 14th August
Summary
These days it’s rare to watch the news and not see a scientist talking about climate change. But how affected are we by the figures they reel off about the dangers of a warming planet?
Professional science communicator, Joe Duggan and his new project, Is this How You Feel? is attempting to put a human face on climate science, by asking them to respond personally to the data and evidence they collect.
20
Is it correct that Volume 1 “A Disgrace to the Profession” will be followed up with Volume 2 “A Steyn of Mann’s Character” ?
20
should read “on”
00
Mark Steyn is not doing himself any favours by publishing a book attacking Dr Michael Mann’s character. It will add to the perception of malice towards Dr Michael Mann.
110
So publishing a book of comments by scientists concerning Michael Mann is “malice”? They do that in a court of law—it’s called “character witnesses”. It seems the only “character witnesses” Mann has bloggers that adore him. No one in the science community bothered to file an amicus brief.
The whole case is interesting. The references to Sandusky came into play because the person who investigated Mann was the same one who investigated Sandusky. That probably lead to people saying “Wait a minute”. One guilty person was simply pronounced “not guilty” so why not another? The comparison to the child molester was based on molesting data. However, since thin-skinned academics often do not take any criticism well (I am an EXPERT do not question me complex is common), Mann decided to sue. I don’t think he really realized just how few scientists would actually support him. The IPCC did, but they are not scientists and when the court case arrived, no one backed him. I can’t see how Steyn can make Mann look any worse than he himself does as far as being a egotistical scientist who will not admit he was wrong.
81
Sheri.
Is it malice? In my opinion, yes. A book is not a court of law so I do not understand your comment about “character witnesses”. The book does say a lot about Mark Steyn’s character, I agree with you there.
28
Your opinion isn’t court of law. I was using an analogy, but in the future I’ll stick with literal for you. You are NOT agreeing with me and you know it, so that says a lot about your lack of character (as in you have none, it seems—see literal, so you can understand it).
41
Of course someone comments favorabley over at Hot Whopper would indeed have a hard time identifying malice—you’re steeped in it day and night over there. You do understand that what Hot Whopper does is just as inflammatory and anti-science as what you accuse Steyn of, right? Or is it okay for scientists to be rude and nasty and bloggers to write hate-filled posts, but God forbid if someone on the opposing side does the same. That’s mallice and mean and bad if skeptics do it. Climate scientists and their faithful followers really are thin-skinned people hiding behind the curtain as the Wizard of Oz. That’s not an insult, just an accurate evaluation. We will always have those who fear the truth for whatever reason and hide behind the curtain. It’s a life choice that most freely enter into.
41
Sheri.
Odd change of subject.
Sou of Hotwhopper says she uses “sarcasm and snark”.
00
So if a blogger clearly states they are using sarcasm and snark, you’re okay with that? If Steyn had called it snark and not mallice, you’d have been okay? Maybe someone should have made clear that personal attacks and snark are okay if labelled as such. You know what we call this—word play. Same behaviour, but call it snark and it’s dandy, call it malice and you’re just an evil person. I submit that Mark Steyn is simply engaging in snark, whether the actual word is used or not. By the way, where does snark become malice? I’d say Sou has exhibited a great deal of malice with her “sarcasm and snark”. Probably even leveled the charge of “incompetent” to certain bloggers. Some are probably even climate scientists. Should she be sued for malice? (My bet: You’ll say “no” because she’s on your side and you’re right and therefore so is she. It’s only malice if it from the other side.)
01
The ONLY records where I’ve EVER found CRYSTAL CLEAR CO2 signals:
Mann‘s temperature reconstructions!
After letting the CO2 out of Mann’s tires, it’s the sun, as every sensible Man knows from common sense:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/scd_t_co2_mann09.png
If Man’s going to worry about climate, I’d suggest some focus on the ~1800-1820 sun.
We’re tired of Mann’s CO2-inflated spin.
60
Are any of you aware of Humpty’s Law (aka Mann’s Law) of Post Science Modernism™ which states:
“If reality conforms to neither models nor expectations, then reality is wrong”
/sarc
50
Reality is the enemy of subjective politics mate. Mann ain’t no scientist. He is the Rook for their King. He moved in tricky ways. Politics 101 is the art of convincing people that the bear in the room is a cuddly blanket. Mann was always a politician first, scientist second.
10
I’m anxiously awaiting the delivery of my copy.
10
The hockey stick has been reproduced several times now, by independent methodologies (Marcott et al, PAGES 2k, Tingley and Huybers).
How many more times are necessary?
10
120 other proxies show a different pattern. How many more times are necessary?
51
Marcott’s dissertation did not have the hockey blade. Marcott himself said “The 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions”
21
How many more times are necessary?
David, the answer to your question comes in two parts: Before and after the AGW gravy train runs dry.
Before: Googolplexian.
After: One.
11
Paul Vaughan wrote:
“We’re tired of Mann’s CO2-inflated spin.”
Mann’s work reconstructs past temperatures — it says nothing about what caused them.
13
Mann disagrees with you:
Michael E. Mann, PhD, Professor in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, stated the following in his Feb. 10, 2010 article “Science Supports Climate Change Claims – A Letter from Michael Mann,” available at http://www.voicesweb.org:
“[T]he scientific case for human-caused climate change is clear.
He repeatedly says skeptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. Either he is (a) not telling the truth, (b) too blind to understand his own accusation, or c-definately blaming fossil fuels for the increase in temperature. Pick one.
21
To the red-thumber: Make a comment and show some spine. Otherwise, you are written off as a cowardly person who just likes to click on buttons. On the other hand, if you are a cowardly person who just likes to click on buttons, click away. Wouldn’t want to ruin your entertainment.
11
I bought the e-book but Amazon is delivering it to my iPhone on 1 September…. damn!
10
In a letter I wrote to the Vail Daily several years ago, I presented the skeptics arguments and data that contradicted the IPCC fear mongering about global warming. My letter was in response to a letter expressing the need to do something about global warming. That letter cited the “hockey stick” as evidence of global warming. In my letter, I referred to it as the long discredited hockey stick.
The very next day, a letter from Mann written from California, denounced me and accused me of being a liar some five or six times in that one letter. He seems to have a well developed spy network.
[The above comment makes a perfectly good point as it stands, we do not need the potential grief of your last paragraph. Sorry.] Fly
21