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

[oldsoul]

How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?

No. That's your loopy strawman. It's also a dumb statement because it's meaningless, unless you define "more powerful" and "Mother Earth" precisely. That is, it's fuzzy feelgood nonsense.

Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.

You failed at thinking critically. You're relying on the logical fallacy "climate has changed naturally, therefore humans can't change climate". By that same bad logic, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, since forest fires used to always be natural.

Rest assured that all the scientists and rational people recognize how bad your logic is.

Really? "Strawman"? "Bad Logic"?

Yup! In spades, dumbshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....as you make very obvious.

What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change? How do they "know" that the change is not normal? Has earth not had this type of climate change before? Think about it, everything in climate changes, always has, what proves that the current change is caused by mankind? As far as I know there are a bunch of theories, but nothing that has been PROVEN. There are symptoms that have been proven to be linked to climate change, there have been causes that have been linked to both climate change and Mankind, but NOTHING PROVES the theory of man-made climate change. That is why it is still no more than a THEORY!

Ignorant clueless bullshit, bozo.

If you haven't seen the evidence confirming the reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and abrupt changes, then you have been deliberately closing your eyes to it because of your crackpot rightwingnut political and economic ideologies.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around, oldfart.

Here is about the ten thousandth scientific study confirming human caused global warming, numbnuts.

New evidence confirms human activities drive global warming
PhysOrg
February 22, 2016

I will put aside your lack common decentcy for a moment and ask you what should be a simple question, and please refrain from name calling and other means of trying to demean people who disagree with you.

If "Man-made Climate Change" is, indeed, a reality, what are the levels of CO2, CO, and other "greenhouse gasses" that would be acceptable? What levels should these gasses be at? Where would they be if man-kind had not "altered" them?

I anxiously await your numbers.

OK, you pose and interesting question. It is not just the numbers for the GHGs that are a problem, but the rate of change. A rapid delta v does not give the biology of this planet time to adapt. That is why we see extinction events in prior times when there were rapid changes in the GHGs, both up and down.

Now, with over 7 billion mouths to feed, our agriculture is even more vulnerable to a rapid changing climate than the natural flora and fauna. Accurately, we don't know at what point that the change will become a danger to the survival of a great many people. The insurance companies in the world have already issued warnings that we are seeing more serious and extreme weather events. And the real kicker is that what we are seeing today is not the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present, but is the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago.

Now, I am confused. How does change in GHGs 30-50 years ago affect our climate, and therefore weather, today? You state that there is an increase in severity and quantity of weather events. So where was the energy for these stored? What evidence, as in links, do you have to substantiate your claims?

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.pdf

A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet's content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet's heat content a "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming (see graph below). Moreover, in each separate ocean basin there was a close match between the pattern of rising temperatures measured at each location and depth and detailed model calculations of where the greenhouse effect warming should appear. Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun's output, could not produce these patterns. Evidently the modelers were on the right track.(56)

Very simply, most of the heat goes into the ocean. And then the oceans warm the atmosphere. That is one source of the lag. Another is that it takes time to melt permafrost and ice. And the results of that melting are more GHGs in the atmosphere, and more warming of the polar waters.

The site, by the way, is a product of the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.

Interesting. I am still not convinced though. There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

• Earth's non-constant orbit.
• Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.
• Changes in Earth's mass.
• The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).
• Sources of energy not related to the sun.
• Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence? Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth. Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause? If that is not, then what evidence is there? Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.
At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

 

[LaDexter]

A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins.

Translation - in 2005, the two and only two readings of atmospheric temps both showed no warming, and hence were FUDGED with uncorrelated "corrections" = documented here many times. The oceans also showed precisely no warming, and in 2005 ocean temps were FUDGED too.

Warmers like to call their FUDGING the "nail in the coffin of skeptics," which once again reinforces the truth that Earth is not warming, and those behind Algore's FRAUD simply FUDGE that truth away, and claim that discredits "skeptics." It doesn't. The only warming on Earth in the raw data is from the surface of growing urban areas due to Urban Heat Sink Effect. Everything else is as follows

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO net ice melt
4. NO breakout in 'cane activity
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica, Siberia, and every other location without growing urban areas

NOTHING except THE DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT ON THE SURFACE GROUND TEMPERATURE SERIES

 

[Crick]

Interesting. I am still not convinced though.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

Earth's non-constant orbit.

Milankovitch cycles are well studied, easily propagated (ie, future effects are well known) and their impact on global warming is taken fully into account.

Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. If you mean something else by ""original" increase", you will have to explain.

Changes in Earth's mass.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).

You've got the direction incorrect. The moon is moving further and further away from the Earth. It has been doing so since it formed and thus has no relation to an effect which began in the early 1900s.

Sources of energy not related to the sun.

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth.

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not.

Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause?

Of course it is "possible", but the odds of that being the case are infinitesimal.

If that is not, then what evidence is there?

Evidence? Let's see: the anthropogenic origin of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. The calculated warming produced by that amount of gas added to the atmosphere matching the observed warming. The strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. The historical correlation between CO2 and temperature (in both directions). The observed increase in the radiative imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The observed back-radiation from the night sky bearing the spectroscopic signature of CO2. If you'd like to look at some evidence, go to www.ipcc.ch and pull up "The Physical Science Basis", by the IPCC's Working Group I. There are mountains of evidence supporting that the Earth is warming and the primary cause of that warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation).

Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.

Man is not credited with global warming because no other cause has been found. Greenhouse warming is a known effect. Numerous other possibilities: changes in clouds, cosmic rays, changes in solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, etc, etc, etc have been examined and found wanting. The theory that warming is being caused by human emissions of CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases has never been falsified. It is accepted by almost 100% of the world's climate scientists. It is widely accepted theory, like many others that none of you think to question.

At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

Science has concluded that the most likely explanation for the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That conclusion is NOT based on anyone's arbitrary decisions or a lack of evidence for this specific cause. Mountains of properly done science indicate this is the case. An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

 

[LaDexter]

An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

FUDGE FRAUD and CHERRY PICKING is not "evidence."

Your BS "majority of the actual experts" cannot explain why Greenland froze while North America thawed over the past 1 million years at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving CO2 had NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER...

 

[Crick]

An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion [AGW] as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

If someone out there believes they have evidence to refute THIS STATEMENT, please come forward.

 

[LaDexter]

The EVIDENCE is that 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, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that CO2 had NOTHING to do with either event, and that "climate change" is much more continent specific than the "warmers" want people to believe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The EVIDENCE is that 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, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that CO2 had NOTHING to do with either event, and that "climate change" is much more continent specific than the "warmers" want people to believe.

The EVIDENCE is that 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

It's weird, it's almost as though they were located in different spots on the planet. DERP!

 

[LaDexter]

No, they are right next to each other. What changed? About 20-50 miles. Greenland moves NW, and NA moves SW (actually the same tangent on a sphere). Greenland got to that point about 600 miles from an Earth pole where the annual winter snow fails to fully melt, and then it starts to STACK, and it has been STACKIN ever since...

NA moved out of that "glacier manufacturing zone" except for Ellesmere Island, which is still in "ice age" today. Also helping to melt NA was the last Yellowstone eruption 640k years ago...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, they are right next to each other. What changed? About 20-50 miles. Greenland moves NW, and NA moves SW (actually the same tangent on a sphere). Greenland got to that point about 600 miles from an Earth pole where the annual winter snow fails to fully melt, and then it starts to STACK, and it has been STACKIN ever since...

NA moved out of that "glacier manufacturing zone" except for Ellesmere Island, which is still in "ice age" today. Also helping to melt NA was the last Yellowstone eruption 640k years ago...

No, they are right next to each other

Right next to each other?
North America extends all the way south down to Panama.

You don't think temps down there should be the same as up north in Alaska, do you?

 

[LaDexter]

LOL!!!

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland. You are correct that the closer you get to a pole, the colder it is. The question is what happens to land when it gets within 600 miles of an Earth pole. Today we have two data points that answer that question

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on Greenland

One million years ago, NA had glaciers entirely covering Canada and down through Indiana.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!!!

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland. You are correct that the closer you get to a pole, the colder it is. The question is what happens to land when it gets within 600 miles of an Earth pole. Today we have two data points that answer that question

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on Greenland

One million years ago, NA had glaciers entirely covering Canada and down through Indiana.

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland.

Your claim that NA and Greenland are right next to each other make you sound even dumber than usual.

Which is kind of difficult. So congrats!!!

What will you do to beat that? I'm sure we'll see soon.

 

[Old Rocks]

A fucking blog, no real scientists involved. jc is up to his usual nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL!!!

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland. You are correct that the closer you get to a pole, the colder it is. The question is what happens to land when it gets within 600 miles of an Earth pole. Today we have two data points that answer that question

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on Greenland

One million years ago, NA had glaciers entirely covering Canada and down through Indiana.

Canada was frozen over 50 million years ago?

This giant, flightless bird roamed Canada's North 50 million years ago

Meet Gastornis, a giant, flightless bird that roamed around what's now known as Nunavut, munching on nuts and seeds more than 50 million years ago. (Illustration by Marlin Peterson/University of Colorado Boulder)

1345 shares

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Google

Share

Email
Related Stories

• Tiny new hedgehog found in B.C. excites paleontologists
• Ancient carnivore ancestor was small woodland mammal
• Oldest fossil sperm ever found left by Antarctic leeches

More than 50 million years ago, Canada's Arctic was a warm, wet place, home to alligators, giant tortoises and — as it now turns out — giant, flightless birds.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yup! In spades, dumbshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....as you make very obvious.



Ignorant clueless bullshit, bozo.

If you haven't seen the evidence confirming the reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and abrupt changes, then you have been deliberately closing your eyes to it because of your crackpot rightwingnut political and economic ideologies.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around, oldfart.

Here is about the ten thousandth scientific study confirming human caused global warming, numbnuts.

New evidence confirms human activities drive global warming
PhysOrg
February 22, 2016

I will put aside your lack common decentcy for a moment and ask you what should be a simple question, and please refrain from name calling and other means of trying to demean people who disagree with you.

If "Man-made Climate Change" is, indeed, a reality, what are the levels of CO2, CO, and other "greenhouse gasses" that would be acceptable? What levels should these gasses be at? Where would they be if man-kind had not "altered" them?

I anxiously await your numbers.

OK, you pose and interesting question. It is not just the numbers for the GHGs that are a problem, but the rate of change. A rapid delta v does not give the biology of this planet time to adapt. That is why we see extinction events in prior times when there were rapid changes in the GHGs, both up and down.

Now, with over 7 billion mouths to feed, our agriculture is even more vulnerable to a rapid changing climate than the natural flora and fauna. Accurately, we don't know at what point that the change will become a danger to the survival of a great many people. The insurance companies in the world have already issued warnings that we are seeing more serious and extreme weather events. And the real kicker is that what we are seeing today is not the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present, but is the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago.

Now, I am confused. How does change in GHGs 30-50 years ago affect our climate, and therefore weather, today? You state that there is an increase in severity and quantity of weather events. So where was the energy for these stored? What evidence, as in links, do you have to substantiate your claims?

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.pdf

A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet's content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet's heat content a "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming (see graph below). Moreover, in each separate ocean basin there was a close match between the pattern of rising temperatures measured at each location and depth and detailed model calculations of where the greenhouse effect warming should appear. Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun's output, could not produce these patterns. Evidently the modelers were on the right track.(56)

Very simply, most of the heat goes into the ocean. And then the oceans warm the atmosphere. That is one source of the lag. Another is that it takes time to melt permafrost and ice. And the results of that melting are more GHGs in the atmosphere, and more warming of the polar waters.

The site, by the way, is a product of the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.

Interesting. I am still not convinced though. There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

• Earth's non-constant orbit.
• Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.
• Changes in Earth's mass.
• The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).
• Sources of energy not related to the sun.
• Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence? Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth. Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause? If that is not, then what evidence is there? Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.
At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

OK, let me address them.

Earth's non-constant orbit

Milankovic Cycles;

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Where the original increases in GHGs came from

Speaking in terms of increases and decreases for the last ice ages;

An Astronomical Perspective on Climate Change - Universe Today

Changes in the Earth's mass.

No significant changes in the Earth's mass since the Hadean.

Affects of the lunar orbit\

Lunar distance (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Moon is spiraling away from the Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) per year, as detected by the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.[9][10][11] By coincidence, the diameter of corner cubes in retroreflectors on the Moon is also 3.8 cm.[12][13]

In terms of the 150 years that we have been observing the increase in warming, the change in the Moons orbit is insignificant.

Sources of energy not related to the sun

None known at present that could even begin to account for the increase in warmth.

Other natural variable not yet known by science.

A possibility, increasingly unlikely as the scientists are investigating the rates and cause of the warming intensively, considering the consequences are unknown, and the chaotic nature of climate and weather.

Right now, we see no other influence that would account for the magnitude of the warming other than the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. I would say that science has discovered a real cause.

Here is a paper from 35 years ago that makes what the people of that day considered to be alarmist predictions. At least read the abstract, and consider the predictions were actually for the end of the 21st century. If you care to read the whole paper, it has the numbers for the forcings from CO2.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

 

[LaDexter]

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland.

Your claim that NA and Greenland are right next to each other make you sound even dumber than usual.

Indeed, you just admitted that climate change is continent specific, that "ice ages" aren't everything freezing, but specific continents freezing. If that is the case - continent specific climate change - then the atmosphere is RULED OUT AS A SUSPECT for the cause. Thanks for helping to prove that CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland.

Your claim that NA and Greenland are right next to each other make you sound even dumber than usual.

Indeed, you just admitted that climate change is continent specific, that "ice ages" aren't everything freezing, but specific continents freezing. If that is the case - continent specific climate change - then the atmosphere is RULED OUT AS A SUSPECT for the cause. Thanks for helping to prove that CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change...

Indeed, you just admitted that climate change is continent specific

No, I pointed out that North America and Greenland aren't right next to each other.
Claiming they should have the same climate has to be one of the dumber things you've said.

then the atmosphere is RULED OUT AS A SUSPECT for the cause.

I'd think the area closer to the pole is cooler, no matter what the CO2 level.
The CO2 level is not the cause of their different locations on the globe.


Thanks for helping to prove.....

that you're an idiot? I couldn't have done it without you.

 

[LaDexter]

LMAO!!!

You seem to admit Greenland moves NW and is cooling by moving NW - correct?

If so, what does CO2 have to do with that??

North America is moving SW - and warming by moving away from the pole - what does CO2 have to do with that?


If you accept that the tectonic plate movement is what drives Earth climate change by adding and subtracting land near the poles, we don't disagree, and neither did the FBI in 2009...

Two polar oceans = Earth with no ice = warm Earth parameter
Two polar continents = cool Earth parameter

Any questions...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LMAO!!!

You seem to admit Greenland moves NW and is cooling by moving NW - correct?

If so, what does CO2 have to do with that??

North America is moving SW - and warming by moving away from the pole - what does CO2 have to do with that?


If you accept that the tectonic plate movement is what drives Earth climate change by adding and subtracting land near the poles, we don't disagree, and neither did the FBI in 2009...

Two polar oceans = Earth with no ice = warm Earth parameter
Two polar continents = cool Earth parameter

Any questions...

You seem to admit Greenland moves NW and is cooling by moving NW - correct?

If that moves it closer to the pole, yes, over millions of years that, by itself, would cool Greenland compared to its former position.

If so, what does CO2 have to do with that??

CO2 does not cause continental drift.

If you accept that the tectonic plate movement is what drives Earth climate change

We're more interested in climate changes over periods shorter than millions of years.

Any questions...

Yes. Why did you claim NA and Greenland were right next to each other.
Why do you feel their "nearness" means they should have the same climate?

 

[JBond]

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…

I thought it was a click bait topic until I realized the thread title is accurate. Lol. There are some nut jobs out there. Making excuses for his failed models by advising us to watch TV is amusing, but should not be taken seriously.

 

[Crick]

Some nutjobs?

Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.