Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[Weatherman2020]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

When weather = climate.
When the doomsdayers say it does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center

Didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
When was that again?

 

[RollingThunder]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

When weather = climate.
When the doomsdayers say it does.

LOLOLOLOL......WitheredMan provides another good example of the kind of insanely meaningless non-sequiturs these increasingly desperate denier cult trolls post when their deranged bullshit, usually generated by propaganda pushers for the fossil fuel industry (in this case the fraudulent OP), gets completely debunked. Notice that nowhere in this thread does anyone equate "weather" and "climate".....nor do any actual climate scientists anywhere.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center

Didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
When was that again?

No. Your point??? If any.

Of course, there are other Nobel Prize winners......

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’
ClimateProgress
BY NATASHA GEILING
JUL 6, 2015
(excerpts)
Sixty years ago, Nobel laureates gathered on a tiny island in Western Europe and warned the world of the dangerous effects of nuclear weapons. Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. “Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.” The declaration marked the culmination of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, a week-long gathering of 65 Nobel laureates held on Mainau Island, a small island in Lake Constance that borders Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

“Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change,” the declaration continues, highlighting the 2015 United Nation Climate Change Conference in Paris as a chance to take steps toward international climate action. “This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment,” the declaration concludes. Thirty-five of the declaration’s signatories have been awarded a Nobel Prize in a scientific field, ranging from medicine to chemistry. The 36th signatory was Kailash Satyarthi, who was awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in children’s rights.

“I see this issue as the single greatest threat to human prosperity, and I believe it is important for the best scientific evidence to be used by policy [makers] in making their decisions,” Brian Schmidt, who was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize for physics, said in a press statement. That sentiment was echoed by George Smoot, recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics, who said that “the evidence is very strong that the major portion of climate change is man made and that continuing business as usual presents great and increasing risk to humankind.”

 

[LaDexter]

Then again, since, in the past 1 million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...

we must conclude... that CO2 melted NA and froze Greenland at the same time???

LOL!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center

Didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
When was that again?

No. Your point??? If any.

Of course, there are other Nobel Prize winners......

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’
ClimateProgress
BY NATASHA GEILING
JUL 6, 2015
(excerpts)
Sixty years ago, Nobel laureates gathered on a tiny island in Western Europe and warned the world of the dangerous effects of nuclear weapons. Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. “Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.” The declaration marked the culmination of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, a week-long gathering of 65 Nobel laureates held on Mainau Island, a small island in Lake Constance that borders Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

“Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change,” the declaration continues, highlighting the 2015 United Nation Climate Change Conference in Paris as a chance to take steps toward international climate action. “This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment,” the declaration concludes. Thirty-five of the declaration’s signatories have been awarded a Nobel Prize in a scientific field, ranging from medicine to chemistry. The 36th signatory was Kailash Satyarthi, who was awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in children’s rights.

“I see this issue as the single greatest threat to human prosperity, and I believe it is important for the best scientific evidence to be used by policy [makers] in making their decisions,” Brian Schmidt, who was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize for physics, said in a press statement. That sentiment was echoed by George Smoot, recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics, who said that “the evidence is very strong that the major portion of climate change is man made and that continuing business as usual presents great and increasing risk to humankind.”

No. Your point??? If any.

Michael Mann didn't win the Nobel Prize?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then again, since, in the past 1 million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...

we must conclude... that CO2 melted NA and froze Greenland at the same time???

LOL!!!

Is Greenland close to the pole?

 

[LaDexter]

He won Hillary's "honesty in science" award for this quote

"This isn't about truth, it is about plausible deniability..."


and while you're at it, practice more "climate science" by

HIDING THAT DECLINE!!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center

Didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
When was that again?

No. Your point??? If any.

Of course, there are other Nobel Prize winners......

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’
ClimateProgress
BY NATASHA GEILING
JUL 6, 2015
(excerpts)
Sixty years ago, Nobel laureates gathered on a tiny island in Western Europe and warned the world of the dangerous effects of nuclear weapons. Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. “Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.” The declaration marked the culmination of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, a week-long gathering of 65 Nobel laureates held on Mainau Island, a small island in Lake Constance that borders Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

“Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change,” the declaration continues, highlighting the 2015 United Nation Climate Change Conference in Paris as a chance to take steps toward international climate action. “This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment,” the declaration concludes. Thirty-five of the declaration’s signatories have been awarded a Nobel Prize in a scientific field, ranging from medicine to chemistry. The 36th signatory was Kailash Satyarthi, who was awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in children’s rights.

“I see this issue as the single greatest threat to human prosperity, and I believe it is important for the best scientific evidence to be used by policy [makers] in making their decisions,” Brian Schmidt, who was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize for physics, said in a press statement. That sentiment was echoed by George Smoot, recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics, who said that “the evidence is very strong that the major portion of climate change is man made and that continuing business as usual presents great and increasing risk to humankind.”

You fool I thought it was over?
Passed the point of no return

Have We Passed the Point of No Return on Climate Change?

 

[LaDexter]

Is Greenland close to the pole?

This is what you need to know...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


As Greenland moved NW due to the angle of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic, it was all green. The Greenland ice age is under 1 million years old.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is Greenland close to the pole?

This is what you need to know...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


As Greenland moved NW due to the angle of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic, it was all green. The Greenland ice age is under 1 million years old.

Where is your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was frozen?

 

[LaDexter]

You just copied the proof that Greenland was green. The direction of the Greenland tectonic plate stems from the slant of the northern portion of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic - also explaining why Europe and Britain are warming while Greenland was cooling.

As for North America one million years ago...



Note that in this map Greenland is frozen, when, in fact, not only was it not frozen, but it was also further SE.


Last Glacial Maximum 18,000 years ago

World Map

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just copied the proof that Greenland was green. The direction of the Greenland tectonic plate stems from the slant of the northern portion of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic - also explaining why Europe and Britain are warming while Greenland was cooling.

As for North America one million years ago...



Note that in this map Greenland is frozen, when, in fact, not only was it not frozen, but it was also further SE.


Last Glacial Maximum 18,000 years ago

World Map

Cool pics.
Are you going to post your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was frozen?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I want has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW.

Your buddy, Rolling Thunder, said Michael E. Mann didn't actually win the Nobel Prize.

Is he correct?

 

[Crick]

The IPCC received a Nobel Prize and Mann - an IPCC lead author - received some sort of certificate about it. He was criticized, as I'm sure you recall, for displaying it and stating that he was a Nobel Prize winner. Sounds like semantics to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The IPCC received a Nobel Prize and Mann - an IPCC lead author - received some sort of certificate about it. He was criticized, as I'm sure you recall, for displaying it and stating that he was a Nobel Prize winner. Sounds like semantics to me.

Sounds like he lied.

 

[LaDexter]

Are you going to post your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was

Already did....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green


"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


The thickest part of the ice, up north, is where the Greenland ice age started less than a million years ago. The age of what is under that ice is PROOF that Greenland was not iced up 1 million years ago.

 

[LaDexter]

Sounds like he lied.

Sounds like Hillary explaining her cattle futures...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you going to post your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was

Already did....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green


"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


The thickest part of the ice, up north, is where the Greenland ice age started less than a million years ago. The age of what is under that ice is PROOF that Greenland was not iced up 1 million years ago.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest

Yes, Greenland was green. No mention in your link that North America was covered in ice at the same time that Greenland was green.

Were you lying when you made the claim, or just confused?

 

[LaDexter]

No mention in your link that North America was covered in ice at the same time that Greenland was green.

That's because the article is about Greenland. The North American ice age glaciers were still in Indiana as late as 10k years ago...

Google

"Around 16,000 years ago glaciers covered Indiana. "


Just precisely how, where, and why the North American ice age glacier melted is not exact science. The last eruption of Yellowstone 640k years ago clearly did some of the damage, but also likely coated the ice with dark ash. What was left in Indiana 10k years ago was likely small, loose, and almost gone. What was there 1-10 million years ago was much more serious ice age glacier.