Michael Mann

The Pause is real, even Michael Mann now agrees

About that “science is settled” thing the warmists keep telling us…not so fast…seems it isn’t settled at all.

Dissent is breaking out, with even Michael Mann now co-authoring a paper confirming the pause in warming.

The “Pause” in global warming is real – not an urban myth concocted by evil ‘deniers’ – a study has found, signalling the development of a major schism within the climate alarmist camp.

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims,” the paper in Nature Climate Change says.

Though the paper’s findings are not controversial – few serious scientists dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years – they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist “consensus”, which has long sought to deny the “Pause’s” existence.

First, the study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative.

Secondly, it directly contradicts a widely-reported study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which attempted to deny the existence of the “Pause” (also known as the “hiatus”). This NOAA study was widely mocked, quickly debunked and is now the subject of a Congressional investigation by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).

What’s novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that it’s not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking: it’s the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including – bizarrely – none other than Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, who co-authored the paper.   

Read more »

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?

It’s a big question – and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I’m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Looks like ocean acidification was made up too

The supporters of global warming theory always come up with new doomsday scenarios, usually when the last one failed.

The latest one that is pushed hard is ocean acidification as a result of global warming…except it looks like it is as fraudulent and Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

James Delingpole explains:

Ocean acidification is said to be caused when excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the sea, reducing its pH levels to make it more acidic.

But, as Watts Up With That reports new evidence unearthed by an inquisitive graduate student suggests that “ocean acidification” may be a scientific fraud to rank with the great “man-made-global warming” scare.

At the centre of the scandal is NOAA, the US federal scientific agency which measures and researches changes in the oceans and atmosphere, and which maintains one of the temperature datasets used to measure “global warming.”

One of NOAA’s departments – the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) – also happens to be one of the mainstays of the alarmist narrative about “ocean acidification.”

A 2004 paper by two of PMEL’s senior oceanographers – Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine – is often cited in support of “ocean acidification” theory and is reproduced, in simplified form, at NOAA’s website.  It also formed part of testimony that Feely gave to Congress in 2010, again to the effect that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing a reduction in seawater pH.   Read more »

Uh oh, another hippy lie busted, Peak Oil is well dead now

Remember peak oil?

The hippies still cling to this shibboleth like Michael Jackson to a small boy.

But the reality is there is more oil now than ever before as we have got smarter and technology improvements give us access to previously uneconomic oil supplies. And the alarmists are upset that oil prices are falling.

Many environmentalists had assumed that if neither fear nor reason helped us to lessen our reliance on oil, then at least we could count on scarcity. But scarcity is not an economic or environmental policy. Humans have long had a habit of expecting the sky to fall. Yet from Malthus to Paul Ehrlich, predictions that the planet was on the verge of starvation have never come to pass (or at least not as broadly as expected). Nonetheless, the drop in oil prices comes at a terrible moment. Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that our only chance to halt the rising temperature of the Earth, and to prevent the calamity that rise will cause, would be to eliminate fossil-fuel emissions by the end of the century.

A plan to end U.S. fossil-fuel dependence would be an unlikely goal in any case, but, if oil remains easily accessible, it becomes politically impossible. “It is technically feasible to transition to a low-carbon economy,” Youba Sokona, the co-chair of one of the I.P.C.C.’s working groups, says. “But what is lacking are appropriate policies and institutions. The longer we wait to take action, the more it will cost to adapt and mitigate climate change.”

Read more »

Global warming coming to Canada

After the Arctic was once agin not ice free this summer, despite being 3 years overdue from being free from ice forever, the Canadians are set to enjoy some real global warming.

Brace yourself: the Old Farmer’s Almanac has revealed its predictions for Canada’s upcoming winter season, and it’s not great news.

After last winter’s seemingly never-ending wickedly cold weather, residents in much of the country can expect more of the same in the coming months.

“We’re looking at the T-Rex of winters,” Jack Burnett, editor of the Old Farmer’s Almanac, said on CTV’s Canada AM on Thursday.

“It’s going to be colder, it’s going to be snowier … it’s not pretty.”

According to the almanac, central Canada, in particular, is expected to experience winter’s nasty bite.

“From Calgary to Quebec, we’re going to be up to our neck,” Burnett said.

One of the few exceptions will be southwestern Ontario, which will be cold, but with below-normal snowfall.

Burnett said forecasts show that while Toronto and the surrounding region will experience a deep-freeze, it’s going to be drier this winter, with “fluffier snow.”

Read more »

Beaten with his own hockey schtick

Mann Made Hoax

Michael Mann is going down, exposed as a fraud and charlatan after initiating legal action for defamation against Mark Steyn.

Like many who pursue litigation to protect their reputation it has ended in tears and his reputation in tatters. Now he faces bankruptcy, beaten with his own hockey stick.

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.

Buoyed by Dr Ball’s successes, journalist and free-speech defender,Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball’s countersuit against Mann seeks “exemplary and punitive damages. ” Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn’s counterclaim, plus link.

Mann’s chief undoing in all such lawsuits is highlighted in a quote in Steyn’s latest counterclaim:

“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…”  Read more »

If tree rings are reliable gauges of temperature why don’t we use them today

Mark Steyn explains Michael Mann’s infamous and thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” in simply terms. Basically it is a fraud and junk science, but the warmists out there still cling to their beliefs despite mounting evidence to the contrary…who are the deniers now?

First, the “hockey stick” graph is so called because it divides neatly into two parts: a long flat “handle” for the millennium before 1900 followed by a 20th century “blade” that shoots straight up. The takeaway – the one that Mann, Al Gore and the IPCC marketed to such effect – is that the earth was hotter in the late 20th century than at any time in the previous millennium.

But the science underpinning the graph is also made up of two elements: actual recorded temperatures, and “proxies” – or temperatures derived from the study of tree rings. That’s because your average medieval peasant village did not have a weather station, and neither Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit nor Anders Celsius had yet been born.

So what matters is how these two elements – real temperatures and proxies – are “spliced” together. If, for example, the hockey stick simply used tree-rings for the flat handle and temperature readings for the vertical blade, it would perhaps be a bit too crude even for the Big Climate alarmists.

On the other hand, that in turn raises a more obvious question: If tree rings are such a reliable guide to temperatures in the 11th century, and the 13th century, and the 16th century, surely they’re also accurate for the 20th century. So why not just do a straight tree-ring graph of the last millennium?   Read more »

Mark Steyn on the Ship of Fools

Mark Steyn comments on the hapless Ship of Fools in his latest column.

Yes, yes, just to get the obligatory ‘of courses’ out of the way up front: of course ‘weather’ is not the same as ‘climate’; and of course the thickest iciest ice on record could well be evidence of ‘global warming’, just as 40-and-sunny and a 35-below blizzard and 12 degrees and partly cloudy with occasional showers are all apparently manifestations of ‘climate change’; and of course the global warm-mongers are entirely sincere in their belief that the massive carbon footprint of their rescue operation can be offset by the planting of wall-to-wall trees the length and breadth of Australia, Britain, America and continental Europe.

But still: you’d have to have a heart as cold and unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition ‘stuck in our own experiment’, as they put it. I confess I was hoping it might all drag on a bit longer and the cultists of the ecopalypse would find themselves drawing straws as to which of their number would be first on the roasting spit. On Douglas Mawson’s original voyage, he and his surviving comrade wound up having to eat their dogs. I’m not sure there were any on this expedition, so they’d probably have to make do with the Guardian reporters. Forced to wait a year to be rescued, Sir Douglas later recalled, ‘Several of my toes commenced to blacken and fester near the tips.’ Now there’s a man who’s serious about reducing his footprint.

But alas, eating one’s shipmates and watching one’s extremities drop off one by one is not a part of today’s high-end eco-doom tourism. Instead, the ice-locked warmists uploaded chipper selfies to YouTube, as well as a self-composed New Year singalong of such hearty un-self-awareness that it enraged even such party-line climate alarmists as Andrew Revkin, the plonkingly earnest enviro-blogger of the New York Times. A mere six weeks ago, pumping out the usual boosterism, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that, had Captain Scott picked his team as carefully as Professor Chris Turney, he would have survived. Sadly, we’ll never know — although I’ll bet Captain Oates would have been doing his ‘I am going out. I may be some time’ line about eight bars into that New Year number.   Read more »

A “reluctant and accidental public figure”

Mark Steyn documents the claims of Michael Mann, the fabricator of the climate change hockey stick graph, that he is “a reluctant and accidental public figure”. Michael Mann, the sensitive wee petal is suing Mark Steyn for defamation.

I was interested to note this recent verbal tic from Dr. Mann. From the May 8th Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia:

“I’ll often characterize myself as a reluctant and accidental public figure,” he said.

He’s right! I had no idea how often he does characterize himself as a reluctant and accidental public figure. Here he is on May 1st at the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Association:

Mann called himself “a reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change.”

And here’s the press release for his April 22nd speech at Dickinson College:

Mann will discuss the topic of human-caused climate change through the prism of his own experiences as a reluctant and accidental public figure . . .

March 28th at the College of Wooster:

He described the recent scientific history of climate change research and then how he became an “accidental public figure” . . .

And the day before in The Scientist:

I’ve become an accidental public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change.

And in the March edition of The Yale Alumni Magazine:

Now 47, bald and with flecks of gray in his goatee, he has become, as he puts it, an “accidental public figure.”

Etc. Never before has anyone worked as tirelessly as Dr. Mann to promote his accidental celebrity, or given so many interviews to insist what a shrinking violet he is, or volunteered quite so often to announce he’s an “involuntary public figure” — in the same way that he volunteered to make himself a Nobel Laureate, which also turned out to be an unfortunate accident.

Quick question: Name the other two authors of Dr. Mann’s famous “hockey stick” paper.

Golly, they’re not even accidental public figures. Sometimes accidents don’t happen.

Steve Milloy is tracking Dr. Mann’s voluntary involunteering here.

The Perils of Defamation Action

People mistakenly think that when you sue someone for defamation that the case is run like it is for criminal cases. They aren’t, in fact they are a suckers trap.

You see what happens is the plaintiff gets to say they think they have been defamed and where…after that the case is handed to the defendants to explain as fulsomely as possible why it is they think what they think about the plaintiff. The plaintiffs invariably lose, or if they do win are hopelessly destroyed by the close examination of every conceivable honest held belief as to why the defendant believes what they have said to be true.

Take  Michael Mann…the inventor of the hockey stick fraud in climate science,  and his ill-conceived defamation action against Mark Steyn and national Review:

Meet the plaintiff: Penn State climatologist Michael Mann.

Meet the defendants: writers Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Professor Mann claims to have been defamed by the defendants for attacking his work and making fun of him after embarrassing emails were released to the public in the scandal known as “Climategate.”

The professor found this sentence written by Steyn to be particularly offensive:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Pretty good, huh?

But Professor Mann found it not the least bit amusing. He demanded that Steyn’s snappy critique be removed from the NRO website and when it wasn’t, he sued.

I say, Professor Mann is not the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. I say he is the Jerry Falwell.

A few decades ago, it was the Falwell who sued Hustler magazine and its owner Larry Flynt for publishing a satirical ad claiming that Falwell was an alcoholic and the first time he had sex it was in an outhouse with his own mother.

Like Professor Mann, Rev. Falwell was not amused either. He sued Flynt for emotional distress and he actually won $150,000. But the Supreme Court overturned the award, citing Hustler’s First Amendment right to make gross fun of a public figure.

For defending his free speech rights all the way to the Supreme Court, Flynt was hailed a great First Amendment defender. An Oscar-winning film (“The People vs. Larry Flynt”) was made about his life, portraying the pornographer Flynt as a hero, and Falwell as a sanctimonious and thin-skinned loser.

And that is what I expect will be the outcome in this case, though a movie being made about it seems unlikely.

Of course on the way through the media becomes involved, stories are written, that which the plaintiff has fought to stay out of the limelight is dragged even more into the spotlight, and at the end of the day everything is published and made public.

The only other reason to pursue cases like this is to try to financially damage the defendant on the way through…but again that is fraught with risk…the defendant may well be award costs and damages of his own to pursue at his leisure…and if the case is particularly ill-conceived then the plaintiff risks being declared a vexatious litigant…especially if they have a history of foolhardy and losing actions.

Still fools like Michael Mann do charge in…