Micheal Mann vs. The truth

[Wyatt earp]

Interesting the big fat AGW cult supreme leader is on the hot seat of a climate congressional hearing..



Michael Mann Vs the Truth at Congressional Climate Hearing – Caught in Multiple Provable Falsehoods



Pokie number one

Mann told the Congressional hearing he had no association or affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute (one of the numerous ad hoc organisations formed in order to give the harassment of climate sceptics an air of scientific credibility).

Yet according to his CV he sits on the Climate Accountability Institute’s advisory board and has done since 2014.

Porkie Number Two

Mann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.

“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.

To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”

You can watch the moment where Curry smacks him down below:





Mann then proceeded indignantly to quibble that though he might have called Curry a “climate science denier” he hadn’t called her a “climate change denier”. [As if there’s any meaningful distinction between the two slurs]. But this claim – as Stephen McIntyre notes – was also a lie.

Porkie Number Three

Mann – busily trying to develop the case that climate scientists like himself are the innocent victims of vicious slurs – was asked whether he’d ever dismissed another of the expert witnesses on the panel, Roger Pielke Jr with the phrase “carnival barker”

“You’d have to provide me with the context. I don’t remember everything I have said or done,” said Mann.

Here’s one example:

View image on Twitter



Follow

Stephen McIntyre@ClimateAudit
Mann said that he didn’t remember calling @RogerPielkeJr a “carnival barker”. But https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/604921583979884544 …

1:13 PM – 29 Mar 2017

• 
  
• 
  2323 Retweets
  
  
• 
  2323 likes

And here’s Mann again using the insult – clearly a personal favourite – on Judith Curry:

View image on Twitter



Follow

Stephen McIntyre@ClimateAudit
Mann also called @curryja a “carnival barker”

1:14 PM – 29 Mar 2017

• 
  
• 
  2121 Retweets
  
  
• 
  2323 likes

 

[Muhammed]

Damn, look how many millions of our limited research dollars Mann has wasted. That money could have been used for real scientific study. He even received grant money after Wikileaks released the absolutely damning climategate emails that vindicated wistleblowers such as Steve McIntyre and Tim Ball.

It seems that most of Mann's crimes cannot be prosecuted because of the statute of limitations. But they could at least nail him for perjury.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Judith must always be a thorn in that egotistical liar.... A love/hate relationship maybe?




Mann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.

“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.

To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”




.

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

None of the deniers could find any fault with Mann's science. Hence, they're spinning and evading, madly trying to switch the topic to personal attacks. You know, the same trick they attempt on this board every time.

You're one-trick ponies, deniers. All the science contradicts your cult, hence you have to find ways to move the topic away from the science.

 

[SSDD]

Thread summary:

None of the deniers could find any fault with Mann's science. Hence, they're spinning and evading, madly trying to switch the topic to personal attacks. You know, the same trick they attempt on this board every time.

You're one-trick ponies, deniers. All the science contradicts your cult, hence you have to find ways to move the topic away from the science.

That would be because there was no science...there was scripture from the glassy eyed chanting cult's book of dogma...spoken as if it were carefully rehersed and without the first hint of uncertainty in his proclamations...spoken like a true cult leader.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thread summary:

None of the deniers could find any fault with Mann's science. Hence, they're spinning and evading, madly trying to switch the topic to personal attacks. You know, the same trick they attempt on this board every time.

You're one-trick ponies, deniers. All the science contradicts your cult, hence you have to find ways to move the topic away from the science.

Of course Judith Curry and Pielke have "found fault" in Mann's REPRESENTATIONS of what his work MEANS -- as have I. It's amply displayed in their writings and blogs. No hiding and denying like what the Mann shrimp did here.

 

[Old Rocks]

The "Hockey Stick" graph, a simple plot representing temperature over time, led to the center of the larger debate on climate change, and skewed the trajectory of at least one researcher, according to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State.

"The "Hockey Stick" graph became a central icon in the climate wars," Mann told attendees today (Feb. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The graph took on a life of its own."

Mann and his coauthors, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K Hughes, created the graph for a paper, "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a version of the graph in its report, pushing the hockey stick depiction of temperature trends to the forefront of the climate change discussion.

"There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours," said Mann. "They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique. And still the Hockey Stick remains the iconic graph."

The original paper and the IPCC report demonstrated that temperature had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels. The researchers' conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised carbon dioxide levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet.

But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.



Read more at: Iconic graph at center of climate debate

What real scientists have to say.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry Rocks man -- didn't see an ounce of any REAL science give and take there. Just historical bickering and name dropping.. What sharp critique and debate did YOU find at that link? I found none.. .

 

[Wyatt earp]

The "Hockey Stick" graph, a simple plot representing temperature over time, led to the center of the larger debate on climate change, and skewed the trajectory of at least one researcher, according to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State.

"The "Hockey Stick" graph became a central icon in the climate wars," Mann told attendees today (Feb. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The graph took on a life of its own."

Mann and his coauthors, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K Hughes, created the graph for a paper, "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a version of the graph in its report, pushing the hockey stick depiction of temperature trends to the forefront of the climate change discussion.

"There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours," said Mann. "They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique. And still the Hockey Stick remains the iconic graph."

The original paper and the IPCC report demonstrated that temperature had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels. The researchers' conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised carbon dioxide levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet.

But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.



Read more at: Iconic graph at center of climate debate

What real scientists have to say.

More about the testimony


Professor Michael Mann destroys the case for action on climate change


Mann destroys his own case
Most of the first 11 pages of Mann’s testimony concerns squabbles between activists and skeptics, mostly about the degree of past warming (about which there is a strong consensus among climate scientists). None of which is of much relevance to the public policy questions of interest to Congress.

Then he skips to the question of climate science of most importance to public policy: how accurate and reliable are climate models? Mann gives a confident answer.

“While we’re at it, let me address another favorite talking point of the critics, the claim that climate models we use to project future climate change are unreliable and untested. The reality is that the models have been tested vigorously and rigorously in numerous ways, and have passed a number of impressive tests in the past, such as James Hansen’s famous successful predictions from the 1980s and 1990s.

“Let me take the opportunity to bring your attention to one particular analysis that appears in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change. Back in 1989, legendary climate scientists Ron Stouffer (a graduate of our program at Penn State I’m proud to say) and Suki Manabe made a prediction not just of the average warming of the globe, but of the precise global pattern of that warming. That pattern matches the observed pattern of warming that has ensued remarkably well.”

He gives two citations to support this massive claim. The first is a blog post: “Hansen’s 1988 projections” by Gavin Schmidt, 15 May 2007. It discusses “Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model” by Hansen et el in Journal of Geophysical Research, 20 August 1988. But if the evidence for this prediction was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.

The second citation Mann gives is peer-reviewed: “Assessing temperature pattern projections made in 1989” by Ronald J. Stouffer and Syukuro Manabe in Nature Climate Change, March 2017. Mann materially misrepresents the findings. The paper says that limitations in their model cause …

“problems in comparing models to observations and makes the comparisons shown here qualitative in nature. It is one of the reasons why we focus our attention on the geographical distribution of surface temperature change rather than the magnitude of change in this study.”

These are the two strongest citations Mann finds to support models’ forecasts, on the basis which we are supposed to restructure the world economy

 

[mamooth]

But if the evidence for this prediction was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.

Because you don't write a paper to talk about how good your prediction was. Papers are not press releases. Original science is a requirement.

So, that was a particularly nonsensical rant. In contrast, Mann's science remains stellar, confirmed by ... get this ... many other papers that used independent science to get hockey sticks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But if the evidence for this prediction was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.

Because you don't write a paper to talk about how good your prediction was. Papers are not press releases. Original science is a requirement.

So, that was a particularly nonsensical rant. In contrast, Mann's science remains stellar, confirmed by ... get this ... many other papers that used independent science to get hockey sticks.

Mann's science remains stellar, confirmed by ... get this ...

His Nobel Prize!!!

 

[polarbear]

But if the evidence for this prediction was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.

Because you don't write a paper to talk about how good your prediction was. Papers are not press releases. Original science is a requirement.

So, that was a particularly nonsensical rant. In contrast, Mann's science remains stellar, confirmed by ... get this ... many other papers that used independent science to get hockey sticks.

Mann's science remains stellar, confirmed by ... get this ...

His Nobel Prize!!!

For his stellar performance he should get a Hollywood Oscar

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't be fooled by the folks defending Hansen's 1988 "predictions". He gave 3 nebulous scenarios for CO2. A was INCREASING rate, B was STEADY rate of increase, and C was no further increase in CO2. His prediction barely made the "Scenario C" projection....

And OF COURSE -- Hansen, Mann and the other "activists" PUSHED the maximum fear factor predictions to the media and policy makers. That was the kick-off for this circus.

 

[mamooth]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the 2016 anomaly was +0.98C, which is right where Mann's scenario B prediction is, scenario B being the closest match to actual emissions. So, Mann was spot on correct.

Nothing infuriates deniers like good science. They're not capable of any actual science, much less good science, so they think by destroying those who consistently do good science, they'll make themselves look less inept and corrupt.

 

[polarbear]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the 2016 anomaly was +0.98C, which is right where Mann's scenario B prediction is, scenario B being the closest match to actual emissions. So, Mann was spot on correct.

Nothing infuriates deniers like good science. They're not capable of any actual science, much less good science, so they think by destroying those who consistently do good science, they'll make themselves look less inept and corrupt.

No it`s not infuriating because we do know how the data was "corrected" to conform with the model prediction.
data for many years from the middle of the 20th Century and earlier have lower values in v3.2.0 than in v3.1.0.
In brief, the global average land surface air temperature trends are higher in the adjusted data than in the unadjusted data and higher in v3.2.0 than in v3.1.0.
(from .noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf)
All they did is drop the base reference line for all the preceding years to a lower level in order to get the much desired higher anomalies.

That`s not science, it`s politics right out of the democratic party playbook how to counter fact finding with a newer version of the truth so that they can cling to the original lies.
If Trump had not axed their $$$ they would soon run out of version 3.X es and be well into version 4 series if lying Hillary were the President for the next 4 years

 

[mamooth]

Extreme denier Tim Ball's take on Mann's performance.

https://archive.is/XM4zW#selection-713.0-713.491
---
My challenge to skeptics is to view the hearing as an uninformed citizen. From that perspective, I would argue that Mann was the most effective and persuasive. He was assertive, apparently provided hard evidence, had the backing of most scientists and scientific societies. He turned the minority status role the organizers gave him into the base for his victimization role. It wasn’t a debate, but he turned it into one and clearly believed, as would most uninformed observers, that he won.
---

 

[polarbear]

Extreme denier Tim Ball's take on Mann's performance.

https://archive.is/XM4zW#selection-713.0-713.491
---
My challenge to skeptics is to view the hearing as an uninformed citizen. From that perspective, I would argue that Mann was the most effective and persuasive. He was assertive, apparently provided hard evidence, had the backing of most scientists and scientific societies. He turned the minority status role the organizers gave him into the base for his victimization role. It wasn’t a debate, but he turned it into one and clearly believed, as would most uninformed observers, that he won.
---

Right, he "wins" with uninformed citizens. So does everybody else

From the top of the food chain down to the door to door salesmen who rip off people that don`t know better.

 

[Crick]

He won from an objective basis. That almost always happens when you put science up against pseudo-science; facts against bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He won from an objective basis. That almost always happens when you put science up against pseudo-science; facts against bullshit.

He won from an objective basis.

Must be why he got his Nobel Prize.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the 2016 anomaly was +0.98C, which is right where Mann's scenario B prediction is, scenario B being the closest match to actual emissions. So, Mann was spot on correct.

Nothing infuriates deniers like good science. They're not capable of any actual science, much less good science, so they think by destroying those who consistently do good science, they'll make themselves look less inept and corrupt.

That was as lucky as a kid picking the cubs winning the World Series back in a year book 1993



Mission Viejo student predicted Cubs' 2016 World Series win in 1993 high school yearbook



So many failed predictions by the AGW cult crowd, only mammoth loves to cherry pick.





.