That doesn’t work, Mike

Let’s refresh our memory with a Michael Mann Climategate 2.0 quote.

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.

He’s responded to this on Twitter.

Michael Mann from Pennsylvania University in the US — a player in the earlier controversy — said on Twitter that the “cause” he referred to was that of “communicating science in the face of massive disinformation effort“.

Mann frequently engages in such propaganda, smearing skeptics as fossil fuel-funded  merchants-of-doubt who are trying to deceive the public.

These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.

 For someone involved in the science, this is an extraordinary position to take, and I am forced to conclude that either Mann really thinks there is some corporate conspiracy out to get him, or he is merely trying smear opponents.

Mann would have us believe that Judith Curry was starting to stray from this Noble cause (communicating science). Does this mean that Mann thinks she had suddenly become corrupted by oil money and was moving toward this “disinformation” campaign? Really, Mike?

So, what is “the cause”? Maybe the following quote from a British government adviser to Climategate scientists has something to do with it.

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.

Meanwhile, with IPCC scientists trying to make politicians look good, there are those doing real science.

DRAMATIC forecasts of global warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been exaggerated, according to a peer-reviewed study by a team of international researchers.

In the study, published today in the leading journal Science, the researchers found that while rising levels of CO2 would cause climate change, the most severe predictions – some of which were adopted by the UN’s peak climate body in its seminal 2007 report – had been significantly overstated.

The authors used a novel approach based on modelling the effects of reduced CO2 levels on climate, which they compared with proxy-records of conditions during the last glaciation, to infer the effects of doubling CO2 levels.

“Clearly that didn’t happen, and that’s why we are pretty confident that these high climate sensitivities can be ruled out,” he said.

Professor Schmittner said taking his results literally, the IPCC’s average or “expected” value of a 3C average temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 ought to be regarded as an upper limit.

Dave Griggs, a professor of sustainability at Monash University, said that while models such as the one used by Professor Schmittner and his team were “the only tool we have” to assess long-term climate variability, they were also inherently imperfect.

“We are already heading towards a doubling of CO2 concentrations, so if we’re going to get an equilibrium change of 3C that’s actually pretty serious,” Professor Griggs said.

Given that the Schmittner study relies on models, which as Prof Griggs says are only an imperfect tool, we should be cautious about these results. However, I find it interesting that a warmist in Prof Griggs has acknowledged that the models aren’t perfect. It is certainly not an extraordinary position, even for some of the more alarmist scientists, but I don’t think the public here enough of this sort of stuff.


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to That doesn’t work, Mike

  1. CB says:

    “Cause. The interests of a person or group engaged in a struggle.”

    And so the awaited half-baked explain-away has arrived: Mann is at heart a good-hearted educator, a Great Communicator, who is humbly seeking, above all else, only to educate the masses in truth, roses, and fluffy bunnies. It is a subject so close to his heart, that it is, verily, his ‘the’ cause.

    Yes, Mann has been caught many times being a liar… but THIS time, he is being truthful. Honest.
    Surely no one could be so unreasonable to not grant him the benefit of the doubt? Why, is that were not to be done, how could there ever be any debate between the warmists and the deniers? However will the differences be resolved if we can’t all just forgive and forget? Surely we can all learn from one another? Bothers! Let us not be, gasp!, unreasonable!

    Why, it would be downright super-unreasonable, indicative of a fanatical personality, perhaps even mental illness, or otherwise unforgivably evil collusion with Big Oil, to do otherwise. Surely science is itself always about correcting our mistakes, about going into the future, together. Do not be anti-science!

    And now I’m off to my afternoon cause, which is driving home. Yep, I’m always talking at work about my ‘the’ cause: we all do – its perfectly natural, it is. We all do it, just admit it.


  2. CB says:

    A hierarchy of cause-i-ness.
    1) A cause against the evil communications (of the evil anti-science people.)
    2) A cause against the evil anti-science people.
    3) A cause of protecting my true science from the evil anti-science people.
    4) A cause of promoting my true science.

    It would require an incredibly humble Mann to dedicate his life to 1). One could only imagine such a little mouse of a Mann, who so limits his Mann-ly ambitions, who is so naturally a good-hearted Mann.

    Should a cause be defined as something like: “Cause. The interests of a person or group engaged in a STRUGGLE.”, then 2) or 3) should most closely match reality. Given his statements that the deniers are all evil liars seeking to destroy all of science simply for the peanuts Big Oil pays them, one would have to be exceptionally stupid to take him at his word. His clearly has been doing 3), but now expects all to accept that the force driving him has been 1).

    His dishonest behavior points, of course, to 4), since it pre-dated everything else.

    Bleh. This is taking the ‘Demand of Assumption of Integrity & Honesty’ to new heights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s