Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

It's about policy. Policy has to be based on consensus. It's true that a majority can get it wrong, but when it comes to policy, the odds are with consensus.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, with far-reaching implications for ecosystems, human health, and economies. Addressing this global challenge necessitates informed and effective policies. For lawmakers to devise such policies, a consensus among scientists is indispensable.

Scientific consensus provides a reliable foundation for lawmakers to make informed decisions on climate policy. When scientists reach an agreement on climate-related data, projections, and impacts, it offers a robust and credible basis for legislation. This consensus helps in identifying the most pressing issues, understanding the potential consequences of inaction, and evaluating the efficacy of proposed solutions. Without a unified scientific voice, lawmakers may struggle to separate fact from fiction, leading to policies that are either ineffective or misdirected.

Public support is pivotal for the successful implementation of any policy. A consensus among scientists serves as a powerful tool to communicate the urgency and importance of climate action to the public. When people perceive that the scientific community is united in its findings and recommendations, they are more likely to trust and support legislative measures. Conversely, perceived disagreement among scientists can foster doubt and skepticism, undermining public confidence in climate policies and hampering their effectiveness.

Climate change is a global problem that requires coordinated international efforts. Scientific consensus acts as a common ground upon which countries can build mutual understanding and cooperation. When scientists from around the world agree on the causes and impacts of climate change, it facilitates the negotiation of international agreements and treaties. A united scientific voice helps in setting shared goals, establishing equitable responsibilities, and ensuring that countries are held accountable for their commitments.

The complexity and uncertainty inherent in climate science can pose challenges to policy-making. Scientific consensus helps in reducing uncertainty and providing clearer guidance to lawmakers. By synthesizing a vast array of research and data, consensus reports, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), offer comprehensive assessments of climate risks and adaptation strategies. These reports aid lawmakers in navigating the complexities of climate science and formulating policies that are both adaptive and resilient.

Climate policies often involve trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection. A consensus among scientists helps lawmakers in striking the right balance by providing evidence-based insights into the long-term costs and benefits of different policy options. It enables legislators to weigh immediate economic interests against the future well-being of the planet and its inhabitants, fostering the development of sustainable and equitable climate policies.

Scientific consensus is a cornerstone for effective climate policy legislation. It equips lawmakers with the knowledge and confidence to make informed decisions, fosters public support, facilitates international cooperation, addresses uncertainty and complexity, and helps balance economic and environmental interests. In the face of a rapidly changing climate, relying on a united scientific voice is not just beneficial—it is imperative for the well-being of current and future generations.

 

Anyone, prominent in a field, as is the case with Mann, can become embroiled in controversy, but that doesn't make that person a 'charlatan'.

Mann has been the head guy for organizing committees at the National Academy of Sciences 'Frontiers of Science'. Plus, he’s lent his expertise to a bunch of their panels. He’s also been the editor for the Journal of Climate and sat on loads of advisory panels and steering groups, both in the U.S. and internationally.

By 2010, he had his name on over 90 scientific publications, and most of them were in some pretty prestigious journals. Fast forward to 2016, and he’s listed as the author of more than 200 publications!

Between 1999 and 2010, he was the main guy or shared the spotlight on five research projects funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and four more backed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) – he’s also worked on other projects funded by the NOAA, NSF, Department of Energy, United States Agency for International Development, and the Office of Naval Research.

 

Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton

Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "

 

He's a charlatan.
Michael Mann loses the Nobel Prize – again
Anthony Watts
Yesterday I was privileged to be cc’d in some communications between Steve Milloy (of junkscience.com) and UCLA. The communications dealt with yet another false claim of Michael Mann being…

 

Can you show me where Mann made this claim?

No where on Mann's website does he claim to be the recipient of the Nobel Prize, and if it were awarded to him, he surely would have mentioned it.
Dr. Mann is author of more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications, numerous op-eds and commentaries, and six books including Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy, The Tantrum that Saved the World and The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet and Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons from Earth's Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis.

Michael Mann is a highly respected figure in the field of climate science. Born in 1965, he is an American climatologist and geophysicist. He is the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. Mann has made significant contributions to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change and to isolate climate signals from noisy data.

As you are probably aware, Mann is perhaps best known for his work on the “hockey stick graph”, which showed a sharp rise in global temperatures since the industrial age. This graph provided some of the clearest evidence of the link between human emissions and global warming.

In terms of credibility, Mann’s research has been a subject of scrutiny, particularly from climate skeptics. However, he has been cleared of charges of falsifying and manipulating data by an internal investigation conducted by Pennsylvania State University. The National Research Council in 2006 concluded that Mann and his co-authors “accurately and honestly reported their underlying research and did not make claims that were stronger than the data could support”.

Mann has also been involved in legal battles to defend his work and reputation. He filed a defamation lawsuit against two conservative outlets that accused him of academic fraud5. The case has been ongoing for several years.

Michael E. Mann is a prominent and influential climate scientist. While his work has been challenged by some, it has also been validated by major scientific institutions. His contributions to our understanding of climate change are widely recognized in the scientific community.

Yes, Michael Mann has been involved in a controversy regarding a claim to have received the Nobel Prize. He was one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 20011. The IPCC, along with Al Gore, was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. As far as that prize go, Mann mentions he contributed to the work for which the recipients were awarded, which is factual. He made no claim beyond that fact.

The Nobel Committee has clarified that while Mann contributed to the work of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he did not personally receive the prize. Some climate deniers, especially on the right, have claimed that Mann has claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in a lawsuit in 2012, but this claim has been disputed. The only thing I can find on this was that it gave that impression on a book jacket, but that could have been written by an overzealous PR person at the publisher who didn't understand the precise nature of the award.

I'll have to disagree with you on Mann, and i sure as hell am not going to take anyone's word for it on an anonymous debate forum

From Wiki, awards:

Mann's dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an "outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences" at Yale University. His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's outstanding scientific publication award. In 2002 he was named by Scientific American as one of fifty "leading visionaries in science and technology”. The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate. The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors' Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.[85]

The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[86][87][88][89]

In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for "his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions."[8][85]

Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[90] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[91]

In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the "50 Most Influential" people, included in a group of "thinkers" with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog "to climate change deniers", and his book publications.[92][93] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation's National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[94][95]

On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[96] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[85]

On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[97]

He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his "exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science."[98]

On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[9]

On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[99]

On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[100]

On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[101]

In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[102]

In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award "for distinguished contributions to the public's understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change."[103]

In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[104]

It appears your entire premise is based on this allegation that Mann claimed he won a Nobel prize, though he hadn't, yet I can't find anything where he actually made this claim other than some skittish reference to it on a book jacket, which triggered climate deniers to make hay out of.

One thing is certain, your claim Mann is a 'charlatan' defies credulity.

 

You missed my point, entirely.

My point was about policy.

I hate to remind you of this, but who is funding all these climate change scientists?

Climate science research is funded by a variety of sources. Here are a few key ones:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA funds climate change research grants to improve knowledge of the health and environment effects of climate change, and provide sustainable solutions for communities to effectively manage and reduce the impacts of a changing climate.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): NOAA’s Climate Program Office provides funding opportunities for climate research. For example, in FY24, they were seeking applications for six individual competitions, with approximately $9 million available for about 90 new awards.
• U.S. Government: According to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, federal funding for climate change research increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 20143.
• The White House: The FY 2023 Budget includes $16.9 billion in discretionary funding for climate innovation

It's largely financed by tax payers, for the purpose of advising CONGRESS and lawmakers in general on 'policy'.

Now, while Mr Crichton poos poos politics, I dare say that politics is INESCAPABLE.

From a lawmaker's perspective, all that matters IS consensus. Without it, one cannot make policy.

What, you expect a lawmaker to make policy based on the words of a small contrarian few?

Yes, they could be right, but how does a policy maker know this?

He can't, all he can do is play the odds, and the odds are in consensus's favor.

A word about Crichton, while it’s important to note that while Crichton was a successful author and had a medical degree, he was not a climate scientist. His views on climate science have been controversial and are not aligned with the consensus view of the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and National Academy of Sciences, among other scientific bodies, affirm that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. Therefore, while Crichton’s works may offer an interesting perspective, they should not be considered a primary source for understanding climate science. For accurate information on climate science, it’s best to refer to peer-reviewed studies and reports from reputable scientific organizations.

But, if you were to ask, "does the funding sources (gov grants, taxpayers, etc) bias scientists to favor AGW in order to secure more funding'?

That's a valid question.

The question of whether funding sources could bias scientific research is a complex one. While it’s true that much scientific research, including climate science, is funded by government grants, it’s important to note that science has safeguards in place to detect such biases.

The peer-review process, in which other scientists in the same field evaluate and critique each other’s work, is one of these safeguards. This process helps ensure that the research is sound, the methods are appropriate, and the conclusions are supported by the evidence.

Moreover, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on a wide body of evidence from numerous independent studies. This consensus is not simply a result of a single study or a small group of studies, but rather it’s based on the cumulative evidence from thousands of studies conducted by scientists all over the world.

It’s also worth noting that allegations of bias in federally funded climate research have been made, but these allegations are often based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of how science works. The goal of scientific research is to improve our understanding of the world, and scientists are trained to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of political or other considerations.

In conclusion, while it’s always important to consider potential sources of bias in scientific research, the robustness of the scientific method and the breadth and depth of climate science research support the consensus on AGW.

 

Peer review does not guarantee it is correct. It is usually done by an expert with similar beliefs.

 

It only supports the consensus of the scientific papers. I am still looking for a survey in which the proponents of AGW asked the scientists. All I have seen so far shows a split in which the proponents of AGW are quick to condemn as not being real scientists.

 

The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus ...
Watts Up With That?
https://wattsupwiththat.com › 2012 › November › 2


Nov 2, 2012 — According to this IPCC letter, Michael Mann can honestly claim that he was awarded a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize… diploma.

Michael Mann's False Nobel Claim

National Review
https://www.nationalreview.com › corner › michael-m...


Oct 26, 2012 — This morning, I called the Nobel Committee in Norway and asked whether Michael Mann had won a Nobel Peace Prize. The answer was a pretty ...

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in ...
ClimateCite
https://climatecite.com › michael-mann-retracts-false-n...


Oct 28, 2012 — Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann's ...

Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below).





But not only has Mann opened up a can of worms in the DC courts, he’s also rendered himself liable to full misconduct investigations by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and PSU for academic misrepresentation. No wonder that as of yesterday (Saturday October 27 2o12) the university began the task of ridding itself of their crestfallen ‘hockey sticker’s’ fake claims. In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile controversy it seems the penny has finally dropped at the scandal-ridden university that what was once disregarded as mere peccadillos actually bring unwelcome legal consequences. No one is buying any of the apologists’ assertions that the affidavit slip up was a trifling one off “mistake.” Retrieval of third party archives of PSU web pages proves Mann has plied his fraudulent claims for years. So how many more times will Mann’s climate cronies seek absolution for His Phoniness?

 

I think not. It is mere laziness to mindlessly parrot "science" without understanding.
Further from the link at #1578:

". . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "

 

That's true, but the odds are better.

What, we should go with no peer review? NO consensus?

That would be far worse.

 

The argument you’ve presented seems to be based on a number of assumptions and allegations about Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist. Let’s address these points:

Misconduct Investigations: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has conducted an investigation into Michael Mann’s work and found no evidence of scientific misconduct. Penn State University also conducted an investigation and cleared Mann of any wrongdoing
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...igators-clear-climate-scientist-michael-mann/

Academic Misrepresentation: There is no concrete evidence to suggest that Mann has misrepresented his academic credentials or achievements. It’s important to note that allegations of this nature should be substantiated with credible sources.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...etitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/

Fraudulent Claims: The assertion that Mann has made fraudulent claims for years is a serious allegation. However, there is no clear evidence to support this claim. In fact, Mann’s seminal research into historic temperatures, known as the “Hockey Stick” graph, has been widely recognized and utilized in the scientific community

Penn State University Actions: The comparison between Mann’s situation and the Jerry Sandusky scandal is inappropriate and misleading. These are two very different situations involving different individuals and circumstances.


However, it’s important to remember that everyone, including scientists, can make mistakes. What matters is how these mistakes are addressed and corrected.

Your entire argument seems to be premised on your objection to his 'mistake' in claiming he shared in the honor when all he did was contribute to that honor being given to someone else.

He no longer colors the statement that way, and has since corrected the mistake. But, to deny a lifetime of achievement, which I've given in another post,, and his major contribution in the field over this, that is unfair. To denigrate this man appears to be a thing in right wing circles, and given their propensity to make hay out of straw, their propensity to scour the landscape for any morsel they can find to forward a right wing anti AGW agenda ('Sandusky', for example), and the only ones harping on this are climate deniers in search of cheap political points, I'm not impressed with your argument.

You called him a charlatan, but the evidence doesn't support that allegation.

 

The peer review is not working and there is no consensus. The assumption that the world is on the edge of disaster because of CO2 has unintended consequences. We are hurting our economy and it is effecting agriculture which is used to feed the world.

 

It was not a mistake; it was a self-aggrandizing lie.
Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann
Posted on August 13, 2015 by curryja
by Judith Curry, A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One

From climate scientists, all of whom support the general consensus on climate change:

Wallace Broecker: “The ****** guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. If anyone deserves to get hit it is ****** Mann.”

Eduardo Zorita: Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf2 Should be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.

Atte Korhola: Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

Hans von Storch: A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.

Bo Christiansen: The hockey-stick curve does not stand. It does not mean that we cancel the manmade greenhouse effect, but the causes have become more nuanced… Popularly, it can be said that the flat piece on the hockey stick is too flat. In addition, their method contains a large element of randomness. It is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.

David Rind: Concerning the hockey stick: what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. I’ve made the comment to Mike several times, but it doesn’t seem to get across.

Tom Wigley: I have just read the M&M stuff criticizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful.

From Mann’s collaborators and coauthors:

Phil Jones: Keith [Briffa] didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the thousand-year timescale. It is better we put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them in for us.

Keith Briffa: I have just read this letter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage he has produced over the last few years

Edward Cook: I will be sure not to bring this up to Mike. As you know, he thinks that CRU is out to get him in some sense. I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Raymond Bradley: I would like to disassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view. As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” …as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not.

Matti Saarnisto: In that article [Science], my group’s research material from Korttajärvi, near Jyväskylä, was used in such a way that the Medieval Warm Period was shown as a mirror image. The graph was flipped upside-down. In this email I received yesterday from one of the authors of the article, my good friend Professor Ray Bradley …says there was a large group of researchers who had been handling an extremely large amount of research material, and at some point it happened that this graph was turned upside-down. But then this happened yet another time in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake anymore. But how it is possible that this type of material is repeatedly published in these top science journals? There is a small circle going round and around, relatively few people are reviewing each other’s papers, and that is in my opinion the worrying aspect.

Rob Wilson: I want to clarify that my 2 hour lecture was, I hope, a critical look at all of the northern hemispheric reconstructions of past temperature to date. It was not focused entirely on Michael Mann’s work. The “crock of xxxx” statement was focused entirely on recent work by Michael Mann w.r.t. hypothesized missing rings in tree-ring records. Although a rather flippant statement, I stand by it and Mann is well aware of my criticisms (privately and through the peer reviewed literature) of his recent work.

Some of the harshest criticisms come from physicists; I’ve selected this one from Jonathan Jones, who I had the pleasure of meeting with last June while in the UK:

Jonathan Jones: My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science. Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year. Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that’s what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science. It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.

Two of the most surprising statements (to me) are from two young scientists associated with Skeptical Science:

Neal King: My impression is that Mann and buddies have sometimes gone out on a limb when that was unnecessary and ill-advised. Mann, for all his technical ability, is sometimes his own worst enemy. Similarly, with regard to “hiding the decline” in Climategate, I am left with the impression that the real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn’t work properly in the 1990s? Mann et al spent too much time defending what was incorrect, and allowed the totality of the argument to become “infected” by the fight.

Robert Way: I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc2 brought up some very good points about the original hockey stick. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. Mann et al stood by after their original HS and let others treat it with the confidence that they themselves couldn’t assign to it. The original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. They then let this HS be used in every way possible despite knowing the stats behind it weren’t rock solid.

This selection of quotes does not include the strongest ‘zingers’, which come from scientists that are somewhat further afield or have made public statements that are critical of the AGW consensus.

 

And if as is usual in science the consensus is dead wrong as it always has been and the powers be merely succeed in impoverishing millions while enriching a few and establishing a new model feudalism then what.

 

Peer review is all there is. You have a better idea?

There is consensus. I can back that up. Can you back up your claim?

If we do nothing, and could have done something to prevent the planet from becoming uninhabitable, that would be far worse than if we do something and it turns out nothing needs to be done.

On the former, worse case scenario is that we experience planetary disaster that was preventable.

on the latter, worse case scenario is that we just lose time and money.

So, playing the odds, the latter is the wiser option.

That is the point the right fails to grasp.

 

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making.

These are folks who disagree, and there are a number who do. This is not anything new.

None of that supports your allegation that he is a 'charlatan'

That IS the point.


My point IS that Mike Mann, given his education & accomplishments is not a charlatan.

Being wrong doesn't make you a charlatan, nor does being discredited on the 'hocky stick' or any data point, nor does and being over exuberant on a resume (especially one since corrected) make you a charlatan.

Charlatan is someone who claims to be, for example, a climate scientist but who never set foot in a university nor ever published a paper.

A Charlatan is someone who claims to be a pro Baseball player who has never put on a uniform or set foot on a baseball diamond.

You could even be a terrible pro baseball player, but if you are in the majors, you are NOT a charlatan.

You could have made the last point in the game, and you over exuberantly declare that you won the game for your team (though it's more accurate that
the team, as a whole, contributed equally) and you'd still not be a charlatan (though you will be criticized for the misleading claim).

Do you understand?

Just because Mike Mann has erred (if, indeed, that is true, but it doesn't matter for my point) that doesn't equal 'charlatan'.

This is my point, which IS that you are cavalierly tossing of a weighty smear on a man who has accomplishments, substantial accomplishments.

I can only surmise that you utterly do not know what the term means.

If we are to discuss, with a modicum of credibility, a serious subject, it is imperative not to descend into tawdry smears on accomplished men.

Disagree, that's perfectly acceptable and just present your data.

The appropriate thing to do is just refute their data. Don't stoop to ad hominems because doing so discredits YOU.

 

Wrong. Those are people who agree with him -- they just think he's a charlatan, as do I.

 

His "substantial accomplishment" was a fraud.
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption ...

Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com › book › show


Feb 1, 2010 — Here is the definitive exposé of the distorted science behind the iconic global warming graph centrally responsible for the global panic ...

 

I'm not keen on non climate scientists who are prominent AGW antagonists.

Like I said, you could be a poor pro baseball player, (if, indeed, it is true) but that doesn't make you a charlatan.

You have missed the point entirely, which is your INCORRECT use of the term 'charlatan'.

 

If they agree with him, then he cannot be a charlatan. They apparently disagree with him on the hockey stick. THat doeasn't make him a 'charlatan'.

Besides, now you are claiming that they are claiming he is a charlatan,

CAn you provide their quotes in which they claim Mann is a 'charlatan'?

Moreover, he has far more accomplishments than the 'hockey stick' which you are obsessed with.

 

Charlatan is a polite euphemism. They think he's a self-aggrandizing liar.

 

Montford is not a climate scientist, he is an AGW antagonist.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

Mann thinks that the attacks will continue, because many skeptics, such as the Greening Earth Society and the Tech Central Station Web site, obtain funds from petroleum interests. "As long as they think it works and they've got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation campaign," Mann believes, "I imagine it will go on, just as it went on for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable--in fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that there was no science" behind the health hazards of smoking.

 

Seems right to me.

char·la·tan

noun
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.

 

Well, yes. Liars gonna lie.