Articles Tagged "Mann Made Climate Change"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Tuesday, October 23rd 2012, 10:37 AM EDT
History was made at the third and final presidential debate at Lynn University on Monday night. President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, sparred over American policy in Libya and Iran. They traded generalities on trade with China and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and made brief mentions of renewable technology and "energy independence."
But as noted by several debate watchers, climate change was never mentioned -- not by the candidates, and not by the debate moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Given the absence of the topic at the two preceding meetings between Obama and Romney, the close of Monday night's event marked the first time in roughly a generation that climate change has failed to receive an airing at any of the presidential debates.
Nearly 25 years after NASA scientist James Hansen famously told Congress that the science behind the greenhouse effect was clear -- and after similarly long-lived efforts to raise awareness of global warming and to force the topic into the national dialog -- the meaning behind Monday's milestone is likely to be hotly debated. To some, it is a sign that climate change has become a niche issue -- and is now being treated like any other special interest. To others, the candidates are merely playing the political odds in an election in which Americans are highly focused on jobs and other more immediate concerns.
But in the hours immediately following the debate, activists and climate scientists simply expressed a mixture of anger and disillusionment.
Shhhhhh - Climate Silance!
Tuesday, October 16th 2012, 5:28 PM EDT
Claims global warming stopped 15 years ago are based on "cherry-picked" data and don't account for natural fluctuations in climate, according to climate scientists responding to an article that appeared Saturday (Oct. 13) in the British newspaper, The Daily Mail.
The article cites combined global land and sea-temperature data compiled by British climate researchers, claiming that between August 1997 and August 2012, " there was no discernable rise in aggregate global temperatures."
The implication, writes the article's author David Rose, is that computer models, including those used by UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed and have made overly dire predictions.
The article appears to be based on an update to a global temperature dataset called HadCRUT4, which is compiled by the U.K.'s national weather service, known as The Met Office, and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
Source Link: msnbc.msn.com
Friday, October 5th 2012, 10:16 AM EDT
A picture of a disgruntled, suited gentleman snapping a hockey stick over his knee decorated the screen in a Texas A&M lecture hall Thursday night. Though one hockey stick had been broken, dozens more lay in wait behind the politician.
Michael E. Mann, from the department of meteorology and geosciences at Penn State University, took the podium to share with the approximately 250 listeners his research on climate change, and to promote and sign his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.
Mann used the political cartoon to emphasize his research that the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible, regardless of those who try to refute it.
Mann said the hockey stick has come to represent the drastic change in climate since the 1950s. Early on, he said, a relatively flat line — the handle of the hockey stick — prevailed when temperatures were relatively mild. Over the past 50 years, a steep increase in temperatures has turned climate graphs from flat, or steadily increasing lines, into hockey sticks.
“Over the past 10 years, many people have reconstructed the evidence that had already been published,” Mann said. “Now we've got a hockey league rather than just a hockey stick.”
Source Link: theeagle.com
Tuesday, August 28th 2012, 5:38 PM EDT
Marc Morano discusses Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ hyperbole and his threats to sue Mark Steyn for calling him a climate fraud.
Morano: Mann's fellow UN IPCC colleague, Ed Zorita, has publicly called for Mann to be banned from IPCC process based on the revelations that came out of Climategate & questioning Mann's ethics...The Hockey Stick was called 'statistical rubbish'...The proxy data, the peer reviewed studies -- have demolished any claims that Mann's Hockey Stick has of being accurate science.
Click source for MUST SEE VIDEO LINK
Monday, August 27th 2012, 6:38 PM EDT
Today I'm launching a fund and I wonder whether anyone would like to contribute. Please, I implore you all, PLEASE chip in to help finance Professor Michael Mann's suit for defamation against sinister, right-wing Canadian climate-change denier Mark Steyn and the fascist-denialist organ for which Steyn writes, National Review Online!
I don't think Mann is going to win his case, not for one fraction of a millisecond. That's why I think it's so important that we give him all the financial encouragement we can at this sensitive early stage. There's a danger that Mann may yet take advice from his lawyers, realise that there's about as much chance of his defending the integrity of his ludicrous, comedy "Hockey Stick" curve as there is of George Galloway winning the Random Stranger I'd Feel Most Safe Sharing A Bed With While Completely Fast Asleep award (as annually voted by the readers of Mumsnet) – and pull out.
This must not be allowed to happen.
From obscure beginnings and with little discernible talent, Michael Mann has risen to become arguably the best loved comedy figure in the entire field of climate science, like Fatty Arbuckle, Pee Wee Herman and Coco the Clown rolled into one.
Friday, August 24th 2012, 5:57 AM EDT
Climategate figure and Penn State Professor Michael Mann is threatening to sue National Review for a critical article of Mann and his now infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures claiming to show unprecedented 20th century warming.
See: National Review Responds to Michael Mann's lawsuit threat: 'Get Lost!' & Michael Mann lawsuit: 'Does Mann really want to litigate hockey stick in a court of law? Does he in fact want to dig into any of his unscientific behavior in a venue in which he will be under oath...''
Mann's lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O'Connor issued the following statement on August 23, 2012.
Excerpt: “The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann's research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann's conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct.” (For the complete statement see here.)
Friday, August 24th 2012, 5:35 AM EDT
Climate Fraud: In an attempt to defend his role in the greatest scam of modern times, Climate-gate's poster child threatens to defend his tarnished reputation in court. First, hide the decline, then hide the deceit.
'Get lost" was National Review editor Rich Lowry's appropriate response to a threatened lawsuit by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.
NR printed a post by the great Mark Steyn, who graces these pages as well, calling Mann's famous hockey-stick graph "fraudulent." That it is indeed a fraud has been documented by many, including us.
Mann was at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal in 2009, when emails were unearthed from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. In one email sent to Mann and others, CRU director Philip Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:
"I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline (in global temperatures)," the email read.
Thursday, August 23rd 2012, 7:41 AM EDT
So, as you might have heard, Michael Mann of Climategate infamy is threatening to sue us.
Mann is upset — very, very upset — with this Mark Steyn Corner post, which had the temerity to call Mann’s hockey stick “fraudulent.” The Steyn post was mild compared with other things that have been said about the notorious hockey stick, and, in fact, it fell considerably short of an item about Mann published elsewhere that Steyn quoted in his post.
So why threaten to sue us? I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was savagely witty and stung poor Michael.
Possessing not an ounce of Steyn’s wit or eloquence, poor Michael didn’t try to engage him in a debate. He sent a laughably threatening letter and proceeded to write pathetically lame chest-thumping posts on his Facebook page. (Is it too much to ask that world-renowned climate scientists spend less time on Facebook?)
All of this is transparent nonsense, as our letter of response outlines.
In common polemical usage, “fraudulent” doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.
Wednesday, July 25th 2012, 1:33 PM EDT
Media war of words erupts in anticipation of another global warming courtroom battle. We take time to see how latest events connected to Climategate’s controversial scientist Michael Mann stack up alongside Mann’s legal shoot out versus Dr. Tim Ball.
Last week Pennsylvania State University (PSU) popped back up on the notoriety radar thanks to lingering fallout over their jailed child sex felon, football coach Jerry Sandusky. PSU’s other alleged bad boy, climatologist Michael Mann, came out with all legal guns blazing after popular right-wing writer, Mark Steyn and the National Review wrote of the parallels in the “whitewashes” PSU investigations performed separately on Sandusky and Mann. The recent and hard-hitting Freeh Report is damning of PSU’s hierarchy.
With talk of more lawsuits flying, observers are now wondering how an earlier Michael Mann face off with Tim Ball is shaping up one year on. Readers may recall that Ball’s whimsy that Mann belongs in “the State Pen., not Penn. State” triggered the first of what now may become a series of desperate SLAAP lawsuits.
You might imagine plenty must have transpired by now up there in the British Columbia Supreme Court. But you would be wrong. Mann’s zeal for pressing home his action against his fellow climatologist appears to have waned. Some observers are even of the opinion that Mann is delaying the inevitable until Ball slaps one home between the pipes.
Thursday, June 28th 2012, 3:30 AM EDT
Last month I received a worried telephone call from a government official in California. An Orange County government agency was holding a water summit, just days away, and one of the speakers was throwing a last-minute hissy fit about a fellow speaker scheduled for his panel. According to the official, the speaker throwing the hissy fit, Climategate central figure Michael Mann, was expressing indignation that the other speaker allegedly did not have the scientific credentials to share a stage with him. The official worried that Mann would back out of his speaking appearance, after Orange County had extensively advertised Mann’s appearance there, if they did not remove the scientist to whom Mann objected. As cameraman Larry exclaimed after a Phil Connors hissy fit in the movie Groundhog Day, “Prima Donna!”
The government official was hoping for some good scientific give and take on the panel. Accordingly, he asked me if I could identify highly qualified scientists who could give a different perspective on global warming than alarmist Mann, and at the same time match Mann’s inflated view of his own credentials.
The Michael Mann hissy fit, I advised the government official, likely had little to do with the other speaker’s credentials. From my own experience with Mann and other politically driven global warming alarmists, they will go to great lengths to avoid appearing on the public stage in a format that requires them to debate or defend their alarmist assertions in the presence of scientists who actually focus on facts rather than scare tactics. I nevertheless gave the government official a list of highly qualified skeptical scientists and wished him good luck with his upcoming conference. “Don’t be surprised, however, if Mann refuses to take the stage with any of these scientists, or anybody else who will ask him challenging questions on the panel,” I predicted. “I know that scientists are supposed to encourage and celebrate critical thinking and open debate, but alarmists like Mann are scientists in only the loosest sense of the term.”