Michael Mann’s Assault on Honest Science

Climate Alarmists

The New York Times has published a commentary by climate scientist Michael Mann, in which he complains how certain politicians are wanting to investigate the work of climate scientists who are on the public dole. Mann accuses such politicians of trying to stifle science.

Well, Pot, meet Kettle. While Mann objects to congressional investigation into science work that he favors, he apparently has no objection to congressional investigation into science work that gets under his skin. Climate scientist Judith Curry writes, “Seven other climate scientists were the targets of a recent McCarthyite ‘witch hunt’ by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). I was one of the seven. Rep. Grijalva indicated that I was investigated because of my recent Congressional testimony summarizing peer-reviewed research indicating that the magnitude and impacts of expected warming could be less than generally believed.”

In his commentary, Mann promotes a short report published by Science magazine in June of 2015. Authored by Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, the paper allegedly demonstrates that there has been no pause in global warming during the last 18 years. Mann fails to tell his audience that plenty of scientific data contradicts that report.

See the following:

The climate warming pause goes AWOL (or not)

Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?

@NOAA’s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

Has NOAA/NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The same day that Science published that aforementioned report, the Global Warming Policy Forum published a scathing rebuttal:

The paper by Karl et al. (2015) published today in Science is an ‘express’ report and not up to the standards of a comprehensive paper. It is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.

The rebuttal cites key pitfalls of that report.

In his NYT commentary, Mann repeats his claim that global warming is all Mankind’s fault. Climate scientist S.Fred Singer challenges that claim in his commentary The Burden of Proof on Climate Change, in which he writes the following:

“The burden of proof for Anthropogenic Climate Change falls on alarmists. Climate Change (CC) has been ongoing for millions of years – long before humans existed on this planet.

Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin, and not anthropogenic.

There is no reason to believe that these natural causes have suddenly stopped; for example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and (internal) atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. (Note that these natural factors cannot be modeled precisely.)

Let’s call this the “Null Hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof is on alarmists to demonstrate that the Null Hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data; alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for Anthropogenic CC (ACC) – by detailed comparison of empirical data with GH models.”

As it turns out, when the raw empirical data is compared to the climate models, the climate models fail.

Then again, honest science permits failure, permits claims to be falsifiable. Mann and his ilk, however, don’t want such honest science, which is why they try to marginalize any climate scientist who dares to disagree with them.

Michael Mann isn’t trying to save the Earth. Instead, he is trying to save his reputation, which was tarnished when his hockey-stick graph was debunked by other climate scientists.

Tripoli Response: DoD had forces available to respond
How Evil Seduces The Good
  • Walter_Cronanty

    The most dangerous part of the climate cabal is its effort to silence those who disagree. Instead of engaging in “science” these snake oil salesmen go the fascist route and try to “outlaw” those who dare speak ill of their multi-billion dollar scam. Michael Mann and his ilk are not only anti-science, they are anti-American.

    • fustian24

      It’s really been an amazing thing to watch.

      Even the idea of consensus is simply not true. They looked at specific types of papers in specific journals. Complete cherry picking.

      And I’ve always wondered what the temperature is supposed to be? Nobody ever says that.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Yeah, I often ask an alarmist what is the optimal temperature for earth? when did we reach that temperature? why did it change?

    • Constitution First

      4.5 billion years of Climate Change and the priests of AGW claim they will stop the world from turning. Somebody is smoking drugs.
      The climate will change, adapt or perish.

  • fustian24

    You know what you call a scientific theory that doesn’t fit the data?


    • Do you know what you call a scientist who alters the data to fit his model?


      • fustian24

        I’ve always thought that climatology is like astrology but with less rigor.

      • Rdm42

        A liberal?

  • fustian24

    I always liked this quote from Harvard’s Dr. Malcolm Ross, “Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.”

  • Hank_M

    I remember something I read years ago…..“Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.” That was written by Natalie Wraga, an expert in unmasking Soviet deception methods for the U.S. State Department.

    It it any wonder the left embraces this?

  • Rdm42

    SHa. You know you aren’t allowed to question the received and revealed truth from High Priest Al Gore of the Church of Global Warming, where both warming and cooling, drought and rain, increased and decreased ice, more and less hurricanes – heck, anything at all – is proof of warming. If we go through ten years straight of cooling, it will be cited as proof of warming. The religion where they keep saying its warmer now by going back in time and adjusting past temperatures downward. Where they achieve a hockey stick by applying an adjustment mask to the data which, surprise surprise, resembles a hockey stick itself.

  • ohio granny

    “Global warming” and/or “climate change” is being pushed for one reason only. Political power and money. The world has always warmed and cooled. Otherwise how did the ice ages start or how did they end? How were the Great Lakes and mountains formed? According to these human caused climate change zealots everything I was taught in school about the forming of the Great Lakes and the mountains was wrong. Is that what they claim now????

  • SteveCrickmore075

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/ “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” Nuccitelli concluded in an August 25, 2015, commentary in the Guardian. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.

    • jim_m

      You dumbass. Just because there is not a consensus alternative doesn’t mean that you are correct. I have never heard anyone blame AGW on ocean cycles, nor have I heard it blamed on other planets.

      There is plenty of very good data showing that solar activity has a significant effect on the climate of the planets. Most of that data is collected by astronomers studying those planets. Too freaking bad that fucking morons like you believe that the one and only exception to that observational experience is the earth.

      The 97% consensus is such a tired old lie, it has been debunked dozens of times. It is bullshit data and a lie based on grossly biased and non-scientific assumptions.

      You have never argued science on this blog, you have only ever argued consensus, which is not science.

      There has been no warming on the planet for nearly 20 years. NO models predict this. NO models are able to explain why it is that CO2 continues to increase yet the planet no longer warms. NO models explain why it is that the planet was warmer in preindustrial times with lower CO2.

      That is no models except for the ones tracking solar activity.

      The fact that there may not be an agreed upon alternative is not reason to hold on to a tired old lie that by its own standards has failed to prove itself to be science. The fact that warmists have resorted in the last few years to destroying data and replacing it with their modeled data is evidence enough that AGW is a fraud. It is reaching the point that warmists need to be identified as a cult.

    • jim_m

      Warmism is as much science as Scientology. And that is probably being harsh on Scientology.

    • Sky__Captain
    • Rdm42

      We don’t have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. There is no cohesive theory of anthropogenic global warming, so it hardly matters if the ‘alternatives’ are cohesive.

    • Rdm42

      YOur last sentence is a bit of projection, as you list exactly the things Warmists regularly do> Michael Mann, for example, Altering past data when it does’t fit. Throwing out data sets that would not fit the narrative …

    • Rdm42
  • What a shock. Crampless is still selling the coolaide…

    • Sky__Captain

      Not selling, drinking.
      To intelligent scientists what he’s drinking is quite bitter. You see to get to ” prove” AGW, one must do unscientific things such as using methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics. Oh, I almost forgot changing your data to fit your theory.

      Actually, it is much more like a religion to those folks.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Will it work?

    “Kerry: Public Shaming is ‘Most
    Powerful Weapon in Many Ways’ to Enforce World Climate Agreement”

    Yeah, when John effin Kerry sells all of his [and/or his wife’s] earthly possessions, lives in a mud hut and wears sackcloth and ashes.

    Five luxury homes, 76-foot yacht, SUV, and a private jet: John Kerry models the lifestyle of a liberal who allegedly believed James Hansen’s 1988 carbon dioxide warning. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/12/five-luxury-homes-76-foot-yacht-suv-and.html