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.