JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Curry, Christy, Pielke and Mann testify

Fantastic to finally see real scientists get a voice in a considered, official forum. This should have happened 20 years ago. I expect only climate-tragics will watch a 2 hour dry Congressional testimony, but it is so very rare that both sides of the debate get questioned in the same forum and almost never that skeptical scientists outnumber the unskeptical ones. Michael Mann has little more than namecalling, unscientific social speculation, allusions about “motivations” and political labels. Improbably, Mann the media-climate-celebrity tries to make out he is the victim of bullying and silencing. At 1:10 Mann twists, exaggerates and abuses like a Greenpeace activist and Congressman Lamar Smith pulls him up…

Judith Curry talks about why she changed her mind starting at 20 minutes, and why she resigned.

“… I realized the premature consensus was harming the progress of science”

“Scientists who demonize opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics for enforcing a premature theory for political purpose.”

“…there is enormous pressure for scientists to conform to the so-called consensus…”

John Christy starts at 9:32

…the traditional scientific method has not been followed…

Discusses the missing hot spot, and trend predictions that the testable claim that we know has failed.

Michael Mann starts at 29 minutes

essentially: “consensus” “consensus” “consensus”

Complains that the balance of the panel is wrong. Makes no comment about the scientific method (someone should explain it to him).

“…wild fires are burning cattle alive…” [because that never happened before].

“Anti-science forces have launched … the contrarian myth de jour…. three warmest ever years… aided by contrarian bloggers….   the process of real science plays out in the scientific literature… it’s time to put aside the anti-science….

Pielke starts at 35 minutes:

Talks about the investigations against him, and how harmful they were to his ability to investigate…

… the pathological politicization of science…

Questions from Lamar Smith start at 39 minutes

Asks Curry about uncertainties — she lists the greatest uncertainty relate to the feedbacks related to clouds and water vapor (the hot spot); how the ocean transports heat and carbon; the long term ocean oscillations; the effects of the sun on climate.

To John Christy, why are both the satellites and surface temperature measurements so far below the model predictions — the models are too sensitive to greenhouse gases, the models tend to shrink clouds and let more sunlight in to heat earth…

Questions from Ms Johnson 44 minutes:

Mann goes on at length complaining about fossil fueled activists trying to silence scientists…as if his view hasn’t had constant and easy non-stop access to the media, and as if that was worse than the establishment sacking, evicting, name-calling, bullying and RICO investigations. Talks about Lysenko… (projection…).

Julie Kelly at National Review describes this moment …astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag. It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.

At some point Michael Mann goes on at length saying that he hasn’t called Judith Curry a denier, and she smacks it down with “it’s in your written testimony. Let me quote you… “. I’m not sure where that minute is

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (168 votes cast)
Curry, Christy, Pielke and Mann testify, 8.9 out of 10 based on 168 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y5t2plrs

281 comments to Curry, Christy, Pielke and Mann testify

  • #
    Timo Soren

    No matter where you lie on the political spectrum, if you have even slightly doubted CAGW, then you should be applauding with wild abandon the win for science.
    It is a final affirmative action statement that the continued demand that skeptics be silenced has ended.

    And the perfect stooge for CAGW was Mann.

    I can not express in enough words with meaning that I am ecstatic.
    https://media.giphy.com/media/6yZOzxWDKK5m8/giphy.gif

    734

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      “I’m not going to surrender and have to kiss the ground in front of Scpetics, or be taunted by the common people.

      Even though ClimateGate really did come to this university, and I’m fighting a Skeptic not of Consensus “science” born, I’ll fight to the end. I’ll put up my shield and battle you.

      Come on, let’s go at it, Skeptics, and damn the first man who cries, ‘Stop! Enough!’”

      - “MacBeth”, Act 5, Scene 8

      173

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Yesterday afternoon was the nearest I have ever been to a heart attack. BBC Radio 4 was on the car radio and I was listening to a fawning reporter interviewing Michael Mann.

      I concede he can talk well, no ums, no hesitations, just complete and utter BS, lies half truths and a lot of smearing ‘deniers’. The BBC reporter treated him like he was precious royalty. I guess what scared me is if you knew, or cared, little or nothing about supposed climate change, then you would probably find Mann quite convincing.

      610

      • #
        Mikky

        I heard that as well, with a similar reaction, clearly the BBC are totally in the camp of the priesthood, the presenter played his role in the propaganda, name dropping Rossby waves (heck, this must a serious science show), calling him “Mike” and giving his title at the end with deliberate emphasis: Distinguished Professor of …

        The politicisation of science was mentioned, and the BBC nailed itself firmly on one side.

        372

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          The BBC seemed to have nailed its colours firmly to its mast… I guess it will be happy to go down when the whole CAGW armada sinks too…but screaming its love for the Big Lie as it sinks beneath the waves.

          I think if you assume the average reading age of the bulk of the population is about 16 years old, if they get too “Science-y” they will lose most of their audience. Which is why they stick to the emotion. However, enough people who perhaps aren’t that smart also know BS when they smell it, so ironically, the main propaganda outlets are now closer to trying to influence the white collar set.

          The irony is this – the white collar mob can pass as many laws as they want, if the bulk of the population who aren’t white collar or don’t care couldn’t care about CAGW, the NWO crowd have a problem – either pass draconian laws and risk open revolt in the streets, or shut down power stations and when the economy crumbles risk open revolt in the streets.

          The NWO crowd aren’t really very bright, either that or they just want an excuse to create open conflict with the worlds population so they can take them on and slaughter lot of people under the new Green Religious War of Attrition of NWO vs The People Worldwide.

          My thought would also be that don’t underestimate the NWO – they have tested things in SA and you can see how tightly they control the ideologue nhilists in state parliament, now with Victoria its happening too. SA was the test, the SA sheeple never blinked, so now they will start doing in Oz wide…..

          Unfortunately, it seems the New Green Religious War has started in Oz….

          221

        • #
          Raven

          . . calling him “Mike” and giving his title at the end with deliberate emphasis: Distinguished Professor of …

          Yes, using “distinguished” could be construed as pandering but what I don’t get is that’s exactly how Mann introduced himself to the panel in Jo’s above video at the 29 minute mark.

          I mean . . if someone else introduces you, that person may use the term “distinguished”, but certainly not if you introduce yourself.
          What utter hubris.

          180

          • #
            Owen Morgan

            I suspect the problem is that every academic in the United States, these days, is a “Professor”. According to academic friends of mine, the same trend is happening in the UK. At Oxford and Cambridge, it used to be considered a bit self-aggrandising for someone with a PhD to call himself or herself “Doctor”. Now, though, anyone with a faculty position can use the title “Professor”.

            I assume Michael Mann is a “Distinguished Professor” to lift his limitless ego above the zillions of ordinary professors who proliferate like rabbits in the American system. In time, every professor will demand to be a “distinguished professor” and they’ll be dreaming up ever more inflated titles for the self-appointed elite, while the quality of scholarship continues to plumb the depths.

            70

      • #
        Gerry, England

        The trick is to really convince yourself that what you are saying is true. If you ask two people to tell you what they did for the weekend – one lying and one being truthful – the truth will flow easily and can withstand questions. The liar will be more hesitant because they don’t have real events to fall back on. If you can fully imagine yourself doing what you say you did then you can be far more convincing.

        121

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Agreed. P Science may be turning the corner.

      100

    • #

      The only thing that would have made it better is if Curry, Christy and Pielke could have questioned Mann directly.

      290

      • #
        What Class?

        That would have made sense. The process was barrackers throwing Dorothy Dixers to their player. There was no way that that fiasco could have come to a meaningful conclusion, although it verily exposed Witch Doctor Mann to the world. Then again, ninety nine point nine percent of the population would put themselves through that when ‘I Love Lucy’ reruns might be on.

        40

  • #
    Ross

    “At some point Michael Mann goes on at length saying that he hasn’t called Judith Curry a denier, and she smacks it down with “it’s in your written testimony. Let me quote you… “. I’m not sure where that minute is… ”

    This is the best bit because it sums Micky Mann so well, without bringing any science into it. He is so busy lying and trying cover his butt he doesn’t even know/remember what he has written or said.

    875

    • #
      john karajas

      He has put out so many lies the poor thing can’t be expected to remember every one of them.

      493

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        There is an old saying something like this.
        If you lie you have to remember all the lies. But if you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

        561

        • #
          redress

          And now with the passing of this bill,

          http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/03/us-house-of-reps-passes-honest-science-act-requires-the-truth-from-climate-cult-people.html

          Mann, and all the other dissemblers, will have to put up or shut up.

          342

          • #
            el gordo

            Excellent news, AGW is not reproducible, the hypothesis is falsified.

            This must have an impact on Australia’s political culture.

            243

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I wouldn’t bet on it. It appears to me that your senior politicians are just as deluded as Mann, and all of the other dissemblers.

              440

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘I wouldn’t bet on it. ‘

                The odds are long but if the Administration employs Erl Happ, Christy, Curry and Pielke, it should have a universal impact.

                90

            • #
              GD

              This must have an impact on Australia’s political culture.

              After watching the Libs’ Josh Frydenberg on the Bolt Report last night, I wouldn’t be so sure. Our so-called ‘environment and energy minister’ laughed off the loss of 750 jobs at the Hazelwood power station, promoting instead Australia’s Paris agreement to cut emissions.

              A sickening display of ignorance and hubris.

              230

              • #
                Ross

                Did I hear it correctly last night –it will cost $0.5 BILLION to remove Hazelwood ( they used a much fancier word, than remove, which I can’t remember)?
                That seems an extraordinary amount of money –how much is an HELE station ?

                91

              • #
                David Maddison

                In a Luddite display civilisation destroying madness they are going to turn the open cut coal mine into a lake.

                See http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/s/w/e/q/image.related.articleLeadwide.620×349.grsh68.png/1475293285027.jpg

                31

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                David Maddison – its not a luddite act…..

                Joseph Stalin turned churches in Russia into grain storehouses in order to mock religion, and to make a public point and a show of strength ( mind you, in Russia not long ago, religion returned big time, even though it had been greatly supressed under Communism).

                All this is a RELIGIOUS WAR – people can stick their heads in the sand, but it is what it is.

                As a Christian I may be perceived as having an axe to grind – I don’t, I just call it out for what it is so people can understand.

                The conflict as I see it is the occult, pagan, eugenics-loving UN-fawning “Gaia” worshippers vs The Rest of Humanity.

                Its ugly, but it is what it is. You need to see it like this to make sense of it.

                PS – as a general comment to all readers here – just so we are crystal clear , in no way am I urging nor attempting to influence conflict with govt under any circumstances. I am just calling out what over time appears to be the hidden agendas and forces behind this nihilistic Green Religion that has taken hold of and blinded the powers that be.

                People need to be aware of the religious aspect of this green lunacy, it appears lunatic in behaviour, but its very coldly calculating. Because religion ( Christianity in particular ) has been mocked for so long, a vacuum of sorts has been created, and in that vacuum , evil has taken the place of the Gospel. IMHO humans consider themselves way to clever, the Evil One ( the Devil ) has sold people the lie, just like in the garden of Eden, the lie of humans being smarter than our Creator ….. its an ages old fight, you’d have thought people might have learned by now….hubris will open the door to delusion and easy deception and manipulation.

                231

              • #
                Glen Michel

                The only thing about Frydenberg is Frydenberg. Self-serving and attention seeking;salve for the ego and desire for relevance. I would say more but would fall afoul of certain laws.

                60

              • #
                Greebo

                Now I get it! Dan’s closed Hazelwood so he gets to turn on the DeSal plant. He has to fill the mine with water from somewhere, right?

                61

              • #
                el gordo

                Thanks for that Bolt report clip GD, its sickening to see the depth of ignorance displayed by Josh but fortunately we have the opportunity to throw him out at the next election.

                Andrew Bolt is terrific.

                82

          • #
            ColA

            The First place that act needs to be applied is the temperature records NOAA, GISS, BoM etc. etc.

            20

        • #
          Just Thinkin'

          There was an old German Proverb that I saw, years ago, written on a desk calendar.

          I’ve NEVER forgotten it.

          “It takes a good many spadesful of earth to bury the truth.”

          Ain’t that so?

          110

        • #
          Kim

          or – “Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” – Sir Walter Scott.

          00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Mann is a textbook example of a crybully. For those unfamiliar with the term just think Cartman in South Park. If you never watched South Park … let me tell you a story about Manbearpig :)

      10

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The basic science, as I think experts would explain it, is that the absorption of ground origin IR by CO2 at or near the surface doesn’t occur.

    IF this absorption did actually occur, then the other issues I have previously discussed would need to be considered.

    As I understand it, the absorption or IR and consequent processes would only operate high in the atmosphere or at the poles.

    The BASIC PHYSICAL MECHANISM is not applicable to the situation of Man Made Global Warming by CO2.

    The basic science is enough to wipe the slate clean.

    KK

    166

    • #

      CO2 absorbance spectra includes some IR. Why would it not absorb IR originating from the ground?

      916

      • #

        “CO2 absorbance spectra includes some IR. Why would it not absorb IR originating from the ground?”

        Did you mean absorbance or absorptance for IR-EMR! In the 14-16 micron band, what would allow emission of flux from the surface, if the atmosphere has the same radiance?

        95

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        What temperature range does this “absorbance” operate in?

        60

        • #

          Absorbance is restricted to photometric terms involving ‘candlepower’. :-) Absorptance is a radiometric term at all frequencies involving W/m².
          I know picky, picky, picky! Needed for this concerted scam.

          84

        • #
          Gymmie

          CO2 absorbs 4.26, 7.2, and 15 MM, and 15MM is in the IR range. Now, H2O also absorbs 15 MM, so most of that freq. is absorbed

          50

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          At #3 above I referred to other issues that might be pursued if the basic issue of the irrelevance of the so called Greenhouse Effect is challenged.

          G.A. has done that. In response I submit the following:

          This comment is relevant to what’s happening with the science because CO2 is the excuse used by all and sundry for their behaviour / beliefs.
          I hope I have shown that Human Origin CO2 is irrelevant to the Greenhouse Effect, if that effect exists.

          We must never lose sight of the basic issue; the claim that human origin CO2 causes global warming.

          In my posts previously there has been a focus on looking at the claims by warmers and assuming they were correct ( i.e. IR absorption by CO2 at just above ground level) and then walking through some of the implications.

          See my post IF. IF the greenhouse effect is real.
          http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/#comment-1762105

          The Warmers do not measure things but refer to complex equations from text books which most often are describing laboratory conditions and not nature, the S-B equation is a case in point: it requires careful “priming” for use in the real world.
          All the evidence points to the fact that no such priming has been done nor is there any awareness that it is required.

          The problem with the system we are examining is that it is almost impossible to actually measure things to the level where equations can confirm or deny a claimed mechanism. There are too many extraneous factors and unknowns and isolating the relevant factors is near impossible.

          The term “greenhouse effect” is not a scientific term because it has too many ifs, buts and maybes, but it is useful in sending us to examine or look at roughly the right area of interest.

          Back radiation may exist but we are concerned here with quantifying effects and by any logical analysis the virtue of such returning radiation in the depths of the night in cold places must be very low or almost negligible if such actually occurs.

          If the UV – C02 – IR absorption effects operate at very low temperatures a very basic analysis in quantification involves the following:

          1. Hi virtue energy, UV, comes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by ground ocean etc and degraded.

          2. The original degraded UV is re-emitted from ground, ocean or whatever surface it originally hit, as low virtue IR and other wavelengths. This is the low virtue energy supposedly absorbed by greenhouse gases.

          3. At our surface the average temperature is approximately 288 degrees K . If CO2 is already at or above the specific temperature involved in the IR Spectrum, it may not be able to absorb any more low virtue energy from the ground, such energy would then continue on towards space.

          4. The problem for warmers is that water absorbs in the same range as CO2, in part, and also we must proportion the effect to account for the quantities of natural CO2 and human origin CO2. Looking at total absorption of re-radiated IR from ground;

          a. Water is 96%

          b. Total CO2 is 3%, and of this, approximately 4% maybe of human Origin. So, human Origin absorption, if it actually occurred, is 3 x 4 over 100 which comes out at 0.1 2% of the total effective greenhouse effect.

          Summarising greenhouse effect ( IR absorption)

          1. Water = 96%

          2. Natural origin CO2 = 2.88%

          3. Human Origin CO2 = 0 .1 2%

          We can use this to examine a warmer claim.

          If this greenhouse effect is actually working, and I’m not sure it is, then for example consider the global warming since the 1850.

          Temperatures have risen by about 0.6 degrees C so that we can ascribe 0.6 x 0.12 % of 0.6 C deg which equals 0.00072 C deg as humanity’s share of this. Really?

          I hope that my summation of the human input is reasonable; if it is it certainly points to some serious issues with decision making by the worlds self appointed intelligentsia.

          KK

          75

          • #

            “The Warmers do not measure things but refer to complex equations from text books which most often are describing laboratory conditions and not nature, the S-B equation is a case in point: it requires careful “priming” for use in the real world.
            All the evidence points to the fact that no such priming has been done nor is there any awareness that it is required.”

            This has been going on since the 1960s. Then known as “quantum nonsense”.
            Quantum theory is a valuable way of thinking (POV), and has lead to many valuable insights into the physical. These are mostly in the domain of nuclear decay and solid lattice defects (doping of semiconductor material). That ‘nonsense’ while useful, is indescribably complex, and only a few of what may be, ever become demonstratively physical! Quantum mechanics is but a small increment to the learning of classical mechanics; such is never a replacement where it does not apply (Earth’s atmosphere)!
            The academic procedure is to actually teach that the (formula) mathematical\arithmetic alphabet soup description is the whole of science, rather than shorthand for the fantasy of ‘may have physical probability greater than zero’!
            Because it is a theory of probabilities it cannot be falsified except where the summation of all probabilities exceeds unity.
            The concept of the some maximum possible thermal EMR flux being generated in opposing directions certainly sums probability to much greater than unity.
            All the best! -will-

            53

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Infrared radiation resonates in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometre bands. The ground does not resonate at any of those wavelengths. With the possible exception of an army of ants marching by, in lockstep.

        190

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Thank you Rereke,

          Very elegantly stated.

          Just hope those poor ants don’t get caught in the “back radiation” that comes out to play about midnight.

          KK

          104

        • #

          “Infrared radiation resonates in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometre bands. The ground does not resonate at any of those wavelengths. With the possible exception of an army of ants marching by, in lockstep.

          Gas CO2 molecules resonates in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron bands. A black-body, should you choose to find one, does not resonate. An army of ants marching by, in lockstep, like water, resonates at 2.45 GHz.
          Watch them blow up in your microwave oven!

          74

        • #

          “Infrared radiation resonates in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometre bands. The ground does not resonate at any of those wavelengths. With the possible exception of an army of ants marching by, in lockstep.

          Gas CO2 molecules resonate in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron bands. A black-body, should you choose to find one, does not resonate. An army of ants marching by, in lockstep, like water, resonates at 2.45 GHz.
          Watch them blow up in your microwave oven!

          35

        • #
          Stephen Richards

          Resonance is something that happens in a cavity, isn’t it? InfraRed lies in a range of energy hnu from Near to far infrared. CO² has 2 degrees of freedom that permits the absorption of energy at 15µ and an other.

          50

          • #

            15 microns resonates with the bending moment of the CO2 molecule. The bending amplitude is continuous with temperature not quantized, as is claimed by the Clowns.

            34

          • #

            Michale Mann and his funding… downloaded from Penn State but no longer available…

            Michael Mann’s funding (1996-2010):
            NSF: $3,854,410
            NOAA: $1,151,887
            DOE, ONR, USAID, U-VA and others: $1,403,403
            Total: $6,409,700.

            Dr. Mann wrote: “My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.”

            60

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        A pyrgeometer measures IR radiance, not energy flux**. If the pyrgeometer and the (black body) ground are the same temperature, the radiances are equal and opposite in any fully absorbed GHG band, so net IR flux in the 15 micron CO2 band is exactly zero.

        The intermediate energy transfer is initially convective but becomes radiative above the Tropopause. The 15 micron CO2 IR flux to Space is from perhaps 20 km when self-absoption ceases

        **They have the same units (W/m^2) expressed for a flat emitter.

        64

        • #

          “**They have the same units (W/m^2) expressed for a flat emitter.”

          Ah, the required detail!! Radiance is expressed as (W/m^2)/sr, making radiance a vector property! Flat emitter flux is projective into a hemisphere, requiring a multiplier of Pi for surface flux.

          54

    • #
      Peter C

      The absorption length for the existing concentration of CO2 is around 25 meters i.e. the distance to reduce the intensity by 1/e.

      http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

      25m is fairly close to the ground.

      61

      • #

        Peter C March 31, 2017 at 4:59 pm ·

        “The absorption length for the existing concentration of CO2 is around 25 meters i.e. the distance to reduce the intensity by 1/e.”

        Who did the measuring? For the 14-16 micron band, in June 1978 I measured 1.6 meters for 37% transmission of 300Hz modulation, Sea level sea state 3. verified 15% transmission at 3.1 meters. 25 meters would be about correct for a 2 Km altitude ASL. At 45° latitude the surface westerlies have a higher temperature than the sea so the only 14-16 micron flux is 20mW/m² toward the ocean! :-)

        104

        • #
          Peter C

          OK,

          Clive Best quotes a paper but I could not access it. I prefer your measurements any way. Co2 absorbs IR very close to the ground!

          40

          • #

            “Clive Best quotes a paper but I could not access it. I prefer your measurements any way. Co2 absorbs IR very close to the ground!”

            Peter,
            In a vacuum the concept of two way opposing flux makes no numeric change in result, now called “net flux”. (the only flux!)
            In this physical world with a translucent atmosphere the difference is profound. In either case from any matter inherent thermal field strength is proportional to own T^4, but flux is always limited by any opposing field strength at each frequency. If there is no ‘difference’ in field strength there is “no flux” generated in either direction.
            In the 14-16 micron band the radiance of near surface atmospheric CO2 severely limits surface emission so CO2 cannot absorb what is not emitted. The only exit flux To space in that band ‘originates’ in the tropopause at a local constant temperature. where the ‘optical depth’ is 2 km. Radiatively this has not measurably changed since atmospheric CO2 levels reached 180ppmv!
            All the best! -will-

            ‘radiance’ effect has hot

            64

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              The only flux.

              Nett flux.

              14

              • #

                “The only flux. Nett flux.”

                Please try to demonstrate even one example of spontaneous thermal EMR flux being generated in a direction of higher EMR potential, ‘spectral radiance’. Such would strictly violate the second law of thermodynamics as per R. Clausius, “Stuff don’ spontaneously go uphill”! Before you try the ‘entropy Schick” view the image of Rudy C and decide if you wish to challenge such! I do not!!

                24

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                On that Will, we are in total agreement:

                stuff doesn’t go uphill.

                13

            • #
              ghl

              Will
              If I point my IR thermometer int my fridge, it registers a temperature below room temperature. ???

              50

              • #
                ghl

                Will
                Thank you for your post about the modulated beam experiment, it is exactly this sort of real world experiment that is relatively easily duplicated that will destroy AGW theory.
                How do you measure such a narrow band ? (14 to 16 micron)

                24

              • #

                ghl April 1, 2017 at 8:33 am

                “Will If I point my IR thermometer int my fridge, it registers a temperature below room temperature ???”
                Indeed. That thermometer sensor is radiating some EMR in the direction of your fridge The amount radiated is strictly limited by the lower fridge ‘radiance’ (field strength) From that amount of flux the BB temperature required for that opposing ‘radiance’ is easily calculated.

                ghl April 1, 2017 at 10:22 am

                “Will, Thank you for your post about the modulated beam experiment, it is exactly this sort of real world experiment that is relatively easily duplicated that will destroy AGW theory.”

                Yes and Jimmy Hanson knew all about it before he started the scam.

                “How do you measure such a narrow band ? (14 to 16 micron)”

                Optical hi-pass filter on the source, lo-pas filter on the receiver\demodulator. The measurement is limited to the wavelengths betwixt!

                34

          • #
            turnedoutnice

            No it doesn’t. Any fully self-absorbed GHG band is a virtual emitter/absorber at its interface with a black body condensed matter surface. For the same temperature, there is zero net IR emission OR absorption.

            [Explanation: Planck, Bose and Einstein's radiative physics only applies to a vacuum - the energy is stored in the intervening gap. As the atmosphere is not a vacuum, no gap means no energy storage. Goody made a fundamental mistake and taught this imaginary gap to Atmospheric Scientists,so they had to come up with imaginary energy flux to offset 40% extra radiative flux. That in turn depends on incorrect cloud aerosol physics and gives imaginary positive feedback in hind-casting. It's a clever scam.]

            24

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              TON,

              that reads well but I’m not able to get it.

              Are you responding to one of Will’s comments.

              Your last bit seems to be saying that energy can’t be in two places at once and shouldn’t be accounted for in both places.

              10

              • #
                turnedoutnice

                It’s more complex than that. Planck, Bose and Einstein’s theory is based on the radiative energy, EM described by Maxwell’s Equations, or photons, a subset, that exists in the gap between two radiative emitters in equilibrium in a vacuum; correct physics. However in terms of spectral radiant exitance, the energy stored in the zero gap between a solid (or liquid) radiant emitter and a GHG containing gas at the same temperature must also be zero.

                You see this in the modelling: from Manabe onwards. To minimise the negative convection, which Hansen admitted in 2000 does not exist, or the Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation flux invented at the UKMO by the late husband of Julia Slingo, its recently retired Chief Scientist, there has been a desperate attempt to minimise the temperature drop between surface and adjacent gas. Hansen has admitted that NASA tried to find it experimentally but failed, so model it. The reality is that it is by definition zero because there is no net emitted radiative or absorbed radiative flux

                So it isn’t the case that there is energy in both places, just that at equilibrium there is no net radiative energy transfer. The energy transfer to Space is initially convective: it converts to radiative flux at whatever altitude a particular IR band ceases to be self-absorbed. For the Atmospheric Window this is at sea level. For CO2 it’s at ~20 km. Because there is no spectral radiative heating in between, the IPCC/GISS pseudoscience is a massive fraud.

                At the heart of that [snip] is a failure to understand that radiometers do not measure real energy flux. The Russian pyrgeometer outputs net energy flux, set by the difference of spectral emissivities and absorptivities: they the Indians and Chinese are publicly scornful of the IPCC, and so am I!

                55

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Thanks TON,
                That’s helpful, I think a lot of my uncertainty about this has come from people debating the “works” of global warming experts who have been projecting weird science and pseudo models into the atmosphere.

                I must confess I have never read any of the works put out by the U.N. or any of the so called climate scientists. It is so obviously uneducated, uninformed raving that I could gain nothing from that exercise.

                The important thing, as you state, is that the so called GHG CO2 effect operates at 20,000 m. and acts as the medium by which heat/energy is removed from where it is most needed and dumped in space.

                KK

                23

            • #

              “[Explanation: Planck, Bose and Einstein's radiative physics only applies to a vacuum - the energy is stored in the intervening gap. As the atmosphere is not a vacuum, no gap means no energy storage. Goody made a fundamental mistake and taught this imaginary gap to Atmospheric Scientists,so they had to come up with imaginary energy flux to offset 40% extra radiative flux. That in turn depends on incorrect cloud aerosol physics and gives imaginary positive feedback in hind-casting. It's a clever scam.]”

              Thank you (I think Andrew).
              EMR Flux is but one type of (power in motion transfer) but is never heat, requiring mass! This can also be described as four-space power density, not some time accumulation of power called ‘energy’. Even thermal EMR, need not change sensible heat,at either end of the transfer. On Earth, via any flowering plants, insolation is directly converted to ‘action’ (construction of fiber), plus lotsa latent heat of evaporation, keeping things kinda cool.

              “the energy is stored in the intervening gap.”

              Can you please explain how ‘power density in four-space can be ‘energy stored’ in proper time? :-)
              Keep up the good work. All the best! -will-

              13

              • #
                turnedoutnice

                1. There is a ga between two emitters at radiative equilibrium in a vacuum.

                2. The Prevost Law states there is equal and opposite radiative energy flux between the two emitter/absorbers.

                3. Planck’s genius was to quantify those energy fluxes by Maxwell’s equations assuming equilibrium with vectorised emission/absorption.

                4. Condensed matter – GHG gas means no gap**: hence that energy storage is by definition zero: QED.

                **To be formally proved; currently I am working on a horn antenna theory with the energy storage being for any frequency a zero loss resonant oscillation of the quantised oscillator. Extending this to a partially absorbed frequency is a bit of a bear trap, but I will deal with that as well – the difference of black body and GHG spectral radiance being emitted to be absorbed in the atmosphere and Space.

                03

              • #

                turnedoutnice April 3, 2017 at 7:48 pm

                “1. There is a ga between two emitters at radiative equilibrium in a vacuum.”

                gap?? With different temperatures there is but one emitter of ‘flux’ and one absorber of ‘flux’. Both surfaces can have “radiance”. When the difference in “radiance” is zero, there is zero flux generated. No opposing flux as ever been observed at any frequency. This can only be ‘photon fantasy! It is the flux that comprises the projective ‘power density’ in the volume between the surfaces. Such EMR is but a power transfer never energy transfer.

                “2. The Prevost Law states there is equal and opposite radiative energy flux between the two emitter/absorbers.”

                Prevost’s Theory of Exchanges has been thoroughly falsified along with ‘luminous aether’, Ever since Maxwell demonstrated that EMR flux is not heat, which requires mass. EMR flux is always power normalized by area.(power in motion). Such is never accumulated as energy. What can be observed is power accumulated by mass, as sensible heat with a work\action function less than Planck’s constant (h). Absorption re-thermalization of EMR flux requires a new 377 ohm space impedance in the direction of lower radiance.

                “3. Planck’s genius was to quantify those energy fluxes by Maxwell’s equations assuming equilibrium with vectorised emission/absorption.”

                Not at all! Planck’s genius was discovering ‘his’ constant (h) which is not a unit of energy but of ‘action’ (that amount of energy delivered within a fixed time interval). One cycle of EMR flux power delivered within that whole interval of one cycle. And that is a constant for all frequencies!!! The number of his (h) possible at each frequency increases with increasing temperature but not uniformly.

                “4. Condensed matter – GHG gas means no gap**: hence that energy storage is by definition zero: QED.”

                Perhaps! I would enjoy learning more!
                The universe may have lot of stored power in its huge volume, (energy). Problem, by the time you locate any cubic meter of space. That accumulated power no longer is there. Such is automagically else where\when!

                “**To be formally proved; currently I am working on a horn antenna theory with the energy storage being for any frequency a zero loss resonant oscillation of the quantised oscillator. Extending this to a partially absorbed frequency is a bit of a bear trap, but I will deal with that as well – the difference of black body and GHG spectral radiance being emitted to be absorbed in the atmosphere and Space.”

                It is far easier to demonstrate the absence of flux at equal opposing radiance. 20W thermally protected argon ion laser with beam expander. Works fine until placing a corner cube reflector in front of the expander. Laser shuts down from overheat in 2 seconds! Why?

                22

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Thank you Will and T O N,

                for an interesting exchange.

                I must confess that I didn’t completely follow all of it but it seems obvious that both of you are way ahead of me and to my credit I think that I am well ahead of the IPCCCCC.

                Yours in science.

                KK

                11

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                KinkyKeith April 4, 2017 at 11:20 pm

                “Thank you Will and T O N, for an interesting exchange.”

                Have you seen current photos of retired David Letterman? Full white beard, but same mischievous smirk! All kids would love this Santa, but also learn to be good!

                00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        That’s the length when it’s actively absorbing, but does it absorb at temperatures typically found at ground level.

        Will?

        40

        • #

          “That’s the length when it’s actively absorbing, but does it absorb at temperatures typically found at ground level.”

          Keith,
          Absorb what??? For translucent atmospheric path the IR static EMR flux “through” the path cannot be differentiated from that “from” the path! In order to measure the through, as reduced by absorption and scattering, we used a chopper to provide a synchronous amplitude modulation, 300 Hz to 2kHz. Demodulate that signal at a zero path length reference. Increase the distance and ‘measure’ the atmospheres low pass filter effect. This is ‘the’ measurement the Air Force required to evaluate “atmospheric seeing” at various wavelength intervals, and weather conditions. The field measurements were never about the absorption of flux, only the attenuation of a “modulated IR signal”. Keep up the good work.
          All the best! -will-

          54

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Will,

            At Uni, between 1964 and 1970 I did a Metallurgy degree which included Physics 1 and 11 but not Physics 111.

            Please have mercy.

            KK

            At moments like this I like to remember what my wife once said to me:

            “tout de ma vie je voudrai la chante avec toi”.

            And we did.

            This green label Glennfiddich seems to be working.

            40

            • #

              “Will, At Uni, between 1964 and 1970 I did a Metallurgy degree which included Physics 1 and 11 but not Physics 111. Please have mercy.”

              Keith,
              You are doing much better than most. I did BSEE from 60-64, after 3 years as Navy electronics technician. I did lotsa years at Texas Instruments where the PhD folk were desperately trying to get the latest semi-conductor nonsense to actually work. Great mentors, if yourself were doing the heavy lifting!! I have had much more than my share of interesting\wonderful!

              “At moments like this I like to remember what my wife once said to me: “tout de ma vie je voudrai la chante avec toi”. And we did.

              You also seem very lucky!!.

              “This green label Glennfiddich seems to be working.”

              I hear that if you take a wee bit of that in the bottle, to Tasmania, they ‘may’ trade you for a dram of heaven.

              30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Will,

                I balked at the AUD$118 bottle but a week later found the green label at $78.

                It’s different, I had tried the Glenff when you mentioned it before.

                And yes, Bessame Muchos, I was … don’t know whether lucky is the right word but I feel extraordinarily blessed by fate in that regard.

                All the best from Newcastle to Carolina?

                KK

                40

              • #

                “And yes, Bessame Muchos, I was … don’t know whether lucky is the right word but I feel extraordinarily blessed by fate in that regard.”

                Best regards to your lady, that seems to keep you ‘up-rite’ on both ends!

                10

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      None actually deny the GHG effect, which is total physical BS in the first place. Even Curry is a luke-warmist, but at least this is somewhat a start of admission science has been deliberately falsified.

      80

  • #
    Scott

    Looks like we might be starting to bounce of the low point in human stupidity

    261

  • #
    Bruce

    Thank you Jo, for another dose of serenity.

    174

  • #
    PeterS

    Typical of what happens when someone tells untruths – they can’t recall the details. If one sticks to the truth it’s easy to recall them and so won’t get caught out.

    191

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Michael Mann and fellow travelers are scum.

    From Peter Dykstra on March 7, 2017 –blogs.scientificamerican
    Ellen Goodman, the Pulitzer-winning former Boston Globe columnist, wrote in 2007, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

    https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/james-hansen

    Coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet…the dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is that they are working for ‘clean coal’. The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” [James Hansen]

    Using phrases such as Holocaust deniers and Death trains has not been a good strategy by the “climate scientists” and the media types. Calling legitimate reseaches names is a sign the duffuses do not have the actual science to gain acceptance of the CO2 causes global warming story.

    563

  • #
    Keith L

    I listened to a few snippets.
    Mann said that it was very depressing that Curry would disagree with such-and-such committee.
    He is all politics and no science.
    And he is oblivious to the fact.

    362

    • #
      Greebo

      all politics and no science

      Doesn’t that describe the whole scam?

      100

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Perhaps Mann comes from the view that the powerful (as defined politically) define what the facts are.

      This view was prevalent in society prior to the renaissance, and made a comeback in the late 20th century.

      10

  • #
    Mark

    ‘It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.’
    Yes, but it is not at all unusual. Often the act is good enough that observers will believe it, especially if they have a vested interest in doing so. This is how cults work.

    332

  • #

    Here’s a link to the excerpt of fluster-Mann d*nying that he called Dr. Curry a “d*nier” – and her response: “It’s in your written testimony”

    https://youtu.be/DPUMztYMuis

    282

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Hillary,
      Well found, and at 17 seconds, great.
      Thanks again,
      And Cheers,
      Dave B

      70

  • #
    Peter C

    At 1:11 Michael Mann struggles to explain the scientific method. He defines it as some sort of robust debate or contest of ideas. At no point does he suggest that the scientific method might involve comparing theoretical predictions with reality!

    At 1:15 Micheal Mann is asked by Mr Higgins whether is associated or affiliated with either the Union of Concerned Scientists or a group called The Climate Accountabilty Insitute. Mann denies that he is associated or affiliated. Higgins then brings up the website of the Climate Accountabilty Insitute which lists Mann as a member of their council of advisors (along with some other alarmist nutjobs like Naomi Orekes and our own Christine Milne).
    http://climateaccountability.org/about.html

    180

  • #
    TdeF

    Liar. Liar. Mann on fire.

    203

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Ahhh…. it is so good to see the Mann woven web beginning to tangle around his grand pretense.

    242

  • #
    DMA

    To me the amazing and disturbing part was the uniformity of the democrat committee members questions and responses. Do they really believe that stuff? The one guy giving the ratio of scientists on the consensus side as 17852:1 or some such number to a single significant digit was beyond ridiculous. I do hope this is observed by some of the believers with somewhat open minds. It certainly should start some on the road to seeking the truth.

    252

  • #
    TdeF

    All great deceits begin with a very unlikely remote plausibility like an increase in CO2 causing rapid, runaway warming. Now after thirty years and anyone can see there is no disaster, people are starting to doubt, but having heard all their adult lives that this was the truth and people who denied the truth were heretics, they are reluctant to believe anything else.

    Really, what is there to believe? Sea rises? You can go to the ocean and check that for yourself. Terrible storms? No more than usual. Endless drought? Where? Extinct species? None that come to mind.

    What is left. Only the hatred for deniers, so labelled by the high priests, the profiteers of doom.

    Consider Al Gore.

    “TAXPAYERS face a $150,000 bill to fund a “resilience” conference starring anti-coal campaigner Al Gore while hundreds of workers lose their jobs with Friday’s closure of Hazelwood power station.”

    Why should the taxpayers of VIctoria be paying a billionaire $150,000 to speak?
    More than double the average yearly salary? On any subject at all? Whose money is that?

    It is typical of the massive waste of our money. The government has no money, only what they take from us and spend it on billionaires to indulge themselves.

    421

  • #
    manalive

    I loved the way Dr Curry burst out laughing as Mann denied on oath calling her a ‘denier’ in his written testimony, here it is on page 7:

    Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry ….

    300

    • #
      Eddie

      Apparently Dr Mann has been done another injustice. When he said he had not called JC a denier he apparently (?) meant (implicitly) a climate change denier, whereas the reference in his written testimony is to a climate science denier. Considering the vast uncertainties inherent in climate science I think Dr Curry may be forgiven for such nuance getting lost in the noise.

      20

  • #
    Amber

    Clear to see the elected officials bias but perhaps some
    reflection on the fact supposed deniers aren’t really denier’s .
    They just value the scientific method and are not afraid to say
    things like they know what they don’t know is work in progress .
    Three of the scientists demonstrated some class but Mann deserves credit for showing up .

    I can’t imagine they went out for drinks after although they really should bury the hatchet
    and stick with science. Mann trash talking fellow esteemed scientists is rich but he has been doing it
    as Climategate made clear .

    150

  • #
    TedM

    By Jo’s definition I must be a climate tragic. The side effect was a bucket of regurgitated food during Michael Mann’s testimony. I won’t say what I really think about this individual, just to save Jo from having to snip, snip, snip………… However just in case the following comment avoids the snip; I’m not sure if this guy has a severe mental problem, or a massive integrity deficit, but one of them has to be the case, listening to him was simply nauseuas.

    190

  • #
    Rick Will

    At the risk of demeaning car salesmen, Michael Mann would have made a good car salesman. He is blissfully unaware of his lack of knowledge and substance. He has that rude and rare capacity to just blunder forth without thought or consideration. Listening to him was as sickening as sticking my finger down my throat.

    It was pleasing to see Judith Curry more relaxed and so considered in her responses. I liked the moment when Christy deferred to Curry on the Brooks question of heating causing more land ice buildup therefor causing sea levels to fall (1:09).

    Seeing Shorten and Turnbull together in the thick of the flood and debris in Northern Queensland underlines the appeal of CAGW for politicians. They need a call to action to be relevant in the ever shorter news cycles. How could either of this pair support the view that Judith Curry presents – we do not know but certainly not dangerous and we need to gather more data and need better tools to interpret it. There is no UGENCY or immediate problem to solve so nothing for polies to latch onto.

    181

    • #
      Eugene WR Gallun

      Rick Will

      Amusingly I must disagree. The Green political agenda is an immediate (and dire) problem. Polies need to latch onto that and oppose it. The voters will reward them.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      200

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Mann says he has been unfairly targeted and vilified for his “hockey stick” which he insisted to the committee was perfectly sound.

    70

    • #
      Bushkid

      Wow, that’s pure delusion. If, after all this time and all the exposure of its faults, he still insists the hockey stick is sound, well, polite words fail me. Sadly, I lack the lexicicological (my husband is a linguist, he tells me I can make up words if I want to) dexterity to politely describe my feelings about the mann.

      120

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    Thank you for this post. I watched the whole video. Fascinating.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    60

  • #
  • #
    Analitik

    Meanwhile down under, the Federal government will provide a Commonwealth concession loan of up to $110 million to speed up the construction of a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta as part of the deal with the Xenophon party to pass its company tax cuts.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/31/xenophon-strikes-deal-pass-company-tax-cuts

    Awesome. Just another $1.1 billion to get it happening
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-04/solar-thermal-power-station-solastor-plan-port-augusta/7476968

    Or maybe it’s only another $540 million
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-12/port-augusta-solar-project-needs-100-million-to-shine/7837292

    I actually hope it gets built (maybe Mike Cannon-Brookes, the co-founder and co-CEO of Atlassian, can help fund it) so that the general public can finally understand how inneffectual and what a colossal waste of money these white elephants are.

    160

    • #

      When it was new, The now dynamited coal fired Northern Power Plant was two by 260MW Units, so a Nameplate of 520MW.

      This new proposal for a CSP will see a 100MW Unit.

      Power delivered from Northern when new was just under 4,000GWH per year.

      Power delivered by this Concentrating Solar Plant is, umm, 250GWH

      So, this new CSP will generate 6.25% of the power that a coal fired plant would generate,

      The blurb at the ABC article quotes this:

      “[As for the] proposal for a 100 megawatt plant with 10 hours’ storage, we would need to build 10 of those to replace one large east coast coal-fired power station.”

      You will need 68 of them to deliver the same power as what is currently being generated at Bayswater.

      Oh yeah!

      This is definitely the way of the future.

      Tony.

      371

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Closing Hayward was insane, instead of fixing it..too late now..Yep Tony, the insanity rules.

        110

      • #
        Dennis

        Maybe this is one explanation as to why the Abbott government planned a back to basics public education system and they pointed out that Labor’s Gonski education grants were a waste of taxpayer’s monies?

        20

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      I could be wrong but ex liberal Michael Kroger ? Has a finger in the bird fryer planned for port Augusta.

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        Maybe he has but isn’t this what astute investors do with their money, invest in good opportunities to obtain a decent return on their investment?

        Renewables are not stand alone winners but consider the subsidies from government/taxpayers and penalising of power station competitors, wealth creation is assured.

        20

      • #
        Analitik

        John Hewson – see 1st link in my original post

        10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The usual lie about capacity being used. IF it can achieve 100MW collection it can only do that for 8 hours a day, because that is when the sun is high enough for operation, so that 100MW becomes 33MWh in continuous operation. That matches the Spanish experience (Gemasola) where 50MW nominal became 13-17MWh in practice.
      Fortunately there is a workaround provided they have a good gas supply. Fire up the burners before dawn and warm up the molten salts so you can extend output for a number of hours. All “continuous” solar heat stations use this technique, as it also works on cloudy days. Ivanpah in the USA use so much gas that they had to have the law changed so they weren’t classified as a gas-fired plant.

      The other minor problem is that the cost to produce is around $272 per MWh. Even in S.A. that is expensive.

      90

  • #
    mothcatcher

    Hi, Jo

    Sat through the whole thing and was very disappointed. Very much doubt that any minds were changed. It was a mistake to put Mann up against three sceptics. He will probably get the sympathy vote. Better to have had another couple of warmists there, who might well have disagreed with him more effectively (though it’s possible many would not want to appear alongside him, such is his tarnished reputation). He acquitted himself pretty well all told and though he said plenty that could have been challenged and indeed should have been challenged, it wasn’t.

    The sceptics were okay but far too polite, probably in deference to the stiff format of the proceedings and the genial chairmanship of Lamar Smith. I used to think that UK House of Commons fact-finding committees were pretty dire, for much the same reasons, but this was certainly far worse. No idea what it’s like in Oz! Have you ever been a witness in a court case? I have. You are listening to what’s going on, and you know what happened, because you were there. But the counsel questioning you just won’t ask the right questions, and you are cut off if you try to explain beyond ‘yes’ or ‘no’! So you leave the witness box knowing that the court will end up with entirely the wrong end of the stick. That’s what it seeemed like to me. It was a pantomime – ‘planted’ questions on both sides were addressed not to the antagonist, but to the guy who agreed with you. Even PMQs is better.

    80

  • #
    Egor the One

    How come ‘Mick the Hockey Stick Mann’ is not in ‘Hannibal Lecter’ restraints ?

    111

    • #
      PeterS

      I agree but that would mean people like SA Premier Weatherill would have to be doubly restrained for his comments over the past week.

      90

      • #
        Egor the One

        Don’t forget Despot Dan , and our BSer in Chief, ‘the esteemed one’!

        80

        • #
          Greebo

          For preference, I’d like to see Dan in the stocks, somewhere near the past it’s prime fruit section of the Queen Vic Market.

          20

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    OT , anyone else notice the new Adds on TV for the benefits of Australian coal .

    30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      No,
      but I certainly hope that the cost of the adds are coming out of the ABCs budget in the interest of “balanced” reporting.

      KK

      70

    • #
      redress

      Yes Robert, saw one on SBS a week ago, but didnt notice who was the promoter.

      30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      No, the only new ADD I have noticed is 360 Energy showing a graphic of Adelaide at night as a quarter after quarter blacks out. You are invited to call them to discuss (blackout proofing your home).

      10

  • #
    richard

    Interesting they talk about scientists on the fringe.

    Seems to me that these scientists are the ones that have pushed science forwards.

    70

  • #
    pat

    FakeNewsMSM is barely covering this.
    those that are are full of praise for Mann & scorn for everyone else, so i’ll give them a pass:

    31 Mar: Breitbart: James Delingpole: Michael Mann Vs the Truth at Congressional Climate Hearing
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/31/delingpole-michael-mann-vs-the-truth-at-congressional-climate-hearing/

    29 Mar: Financial Postt: Terence Corcoran: Trump is playing Galileo in the global climate change divide, and Canada will pay the price
    Enforcement of the consensus view is right out of the 17th century. Michael Mann, a climate scientist who appeared before a congressional committee Wednesday, said earlier that, essentially, people who disagree with the consensus should abandon their opinion. “It is hard to believe that here, in the 21st century, powerful political forces are working so hard to return us to the Dark Ages, to reject the Enlightenment and everything we have learned,” he said. “It is shocking and frightening. What we are witnessing is an attack on the very foundation that modern civilization is based upon.”…

    Scientific American reproduced a column that accused the House of Representatives Republicans of introducing “alt-science” into the climate debate. What is needed, apparently, is a new ***papal decree that there can be no debate…

    When President Trump issued his executive order this week to rescind parts of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and revamp the Environmental Protection Agency, the reaction among the climate clergy was immediate…
    Nobody said much in Ottawa, even though Trump’s executive order laid down another challenge to Canada’s environmental bureaucracy, the Trudeau government’s carbon price plan and the legion of nuncios from the profit-seeking corporate division of the climate-industrial complex…
    Another big little item stands out for Canada. The order says it “disbands the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gasses.”…

    If the IWG disappears, how will Canada establish its social cost of capital, which at last report was allegedly somewhere between $40 and $125 a tonne today and climbing to between $75 and $228 by 2050? That’s the official “monetary measure” of the damage expected from climate change as determined by the U.S. model.
    Without the U.S. model to work from, Canada will be lost for fake data…
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-trump-is-playing-galileo-in-the-global-climate-change-divide-and-canada-will-pay-the-price

    ***Vatican says Trump risks losing climate change leadership to China
    Sydney Morning Herald – 12 hours ago

    92

  • #
    pat

    31 Mar: CNN: John D. Sutter: Analysis: Donald Trump is an international pariah on climate change
    To see just how far afield this pro-coal and apparently anti-clean-energy rhetoric really is, take a look at a few comments below from other heads of state and government officials. These comments come from news reports, government websites and other official sources. Most were collected in a July 2016 Sierra Club report, which was updated in November, just before the US election:
    (FIRST EXAMPLE – LOL)
    Russia: ‘One of the gravest challenges’
    Climate change has become one of the gravest challenges humanity is facing. … Caused by global warming, hurricanes, droughts, floods and other anomalies are the source of economic damage.
    – President Vladimir Putin (Source: The New York Times, 2015)…
    FOLLOWED BY QATAR, CHINA, SAUDI ARABIA, NORTH KOREA, MALDIVES, LAOS ETC
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/world/sutter-trump-climate-pariah/

    CNN/SUTTER – THIS IS FOR YOU:

    30 Mar: Guardian: Andrew Simms: The curious disappearance of climate change, from Brexit to Berlin
    The word climate does not appear once in the letter triggering the UK’s departure from Europe. But it’s not just in London that the issue seems to be slipping from the political stage
    The word climate does not appear once in the letter triggering the UK’s departure from Europe…
    But the UK, with its particular set of circumstances, is not the only country seeing the curious disappearance of climate change from the political agenda.

    The French capital, Paris, put its name on the latest global climate agreement. It was hailed as a diplomatic triumph which France basked in. Yet, at the country’s lengthy first presidential debate between five candidates, just a single passing remark from one candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, on climate change was reported…

    It was a similar story in the recent Dutch parliamentary elections where identity politics dominated…
    Germany’s federal election is due this autumn with no sign that the story will be different there…

    Political explanations for the absence of climate change may be easy to construct: the general public aren’t talking about it so neither are politicians…

    There is no climate fairy. The problem won’t disappear by leaving it to someone else, or pretending it doesn’t exist. But bring it centre stage and you may find magical solutions to other dilemmas.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/30/the-curious-disappearance-of-climate-change-from-brexit-to-berlin

    71

  • #
    RAH

    Mann’s continued appeal to authority was a clear indication of how hot his seat is getting. When the 97% claim that Mann kept repeating as if it was not debunked long ago is exactly the time I started paying attention to all the claims of that time of human caused global warming. Anyone with much life experience knows that it is nearly impossible to get that high a percentage of a large number of people to agree on anything. Even things the majority believe to be fundamental truths will be disputed by a larger percentage than that given a large enough sampling. I’m not sure you could get 97% of the people in this country to agree that water feels wet. And yet here we had a claim that 97% of scientists agree that man is causing a warming climate even as the local weather forecaster is lucky to be correct in his/her forecast for local weather 50% if the time? It all strongly smelled of psy ops propaganda and this former SF soldier understands that well enough.

    Anyway, that 97% claim is what drove this layman to start to try and learn and understand the science so that eventually I could reach my own conclusion on the veracity of the claim or at least separate the facts from the fiction and the posers from the true researchers. But of course it involved far more than trying to understand the science of the metrics, analysis, and interpretations. It involved personalities, educational institutions and their departments, NGOs, and of course governments and funding and “green energy” and so much more. And eventually the realization that climate science as it is presented to the public in most sources and forums is not about science at all, but is a battlefield in the constant war to determine the political/social/economic fate of peoples and nations. And the hearing was merely a little skirmish on one battle field of the much larger war with every players opinions and roles predetermined and nothing new learned by anyone nor anyone persuaded to change their views on the science because that hearing was not about science, it was about politics, as anyone that has not just fallen off the turnip truck would expect in a political forum.

    BTW Jo this was not the first time. I suspect you may have forgotten about the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness hearing called by Chairman Sen. Ted Cruz Dec 8th, 2015 at which Judith Curry, John Christy, William Happer, along with Mark Steyn testified. It was quite contentious at times.

    112

    • #
      Cookster

      Why does Mann still get taken seriously? He has been debunked so many times on so many levels he has no credibility left. Until people like Mann are driven out of science the global warming gravy train will continue on.

      110

      • #
        Glen Michel

        What do you have to do to be called “distinguished Professor”. Then of course address yourself as one.What a dick

        90

        • #
          RAH

          A University, usually the one their at, presents the title. Mann has brought a lot of outside money into Penn State so put two and two together.

          50

        • #
          RAH

          A University, usually the one their at, presents the title. Mann has brought a lot of outside money into Penn State so put two and two together.

          40

          • #
            Glen Michel

            For a moment I was thinking he was the smartest person that ever lived. What a despicable pig.

            31

        • #
          Raven

          Yeah . . but let’s look on the bright side.
          At least he’s dropped the “Nobel Laureate” routine.

          00

  • #
    RAH

    Here
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/31/delingpole-michael-mann-vs-the-truth-at-congressional-climate-hearing/
    as shown by Delingpole are four irrefutable lies Mann told Congress with the hard evidence in his own tweets and other sources to prove it. Good thing the ignorant and arrogant putz wasn’t under oath.

    90

  • #
    graphicconception

    I used to be a climate denier but now I find I am a “climate-tragic”! You can go off people, you know!

    For me, the very beginning set the tone. congressman Lamar Smith introduced everyone and stated their qualifications. Then we had a quick introduction from each of the panel members. I noticed the stark contrast between John Christy, who showed that the models did not match the data, and Michael Mann who repeated his list of titles and qualifications in a (failed) attempt to make you believe in the argument from authority view he was about to present.

    As for some of his later slurs, I don’t know how the other members managed to hold their tongues. I could not have done it.

    120

  • #
    Cookster

    Judith Curry is my hero. Her position so simply articulated and critically she makes it plain she was firmly in the alarmist camp until the climategate emails betrayed the corruption of climate science to the world. And yet there were several subsequent enquiries to climategate that whitewashed this disgrace costing the world potentially trillions. All the inquiries did was to confirm the corruption revealed in the climategate emails that Curry spoke of.

    I stopped watching when it was Michael Mann’s turn. I know all I need to know about this character. In my opinion Mann should be behind bars for his anti science hockey stick disgrace that started it all and as Judith mentioned real scientists don’t call people names who disagree with them (Andy Pitman of UNSW I’m also looking at you).

    141

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Unfortunately I don’t have time to go through the whole video until much later today. But just Jo’s summary of it has me laughing at Michael Mann. Doesn’t this Mann (pun intended) ever take a good look at himself? Has he no bathroom mirror?

    What is it that makes someone cling to the sinking Titanic with every ounce of his strength and determination as it goes down while all around him people are reaching out to grab his hand and throwing life preservers to save him and all he has to do is let go of the sinking ship and grab just one helping hand? But no, he will go down with the ship before admitting to even the slightest mistake.

    A man’s behavior under criticism speaks volumes about his character.

    130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Well… After watching as much of this as I could stand here is what I think. And I apologize in advance for being a contrarian, Jo, because I don’t see this the way you apparently do. And I’ll also acknowledge that you may be right and I’m wrong.

      If you want to talk about science and climate change theory all you need to say (if you can) in a hearing like this one is, here, by location, is where it is now x degrees warmer than it was, say 20 or 30 years ago and state why that temperature difference is significant. If you can say that you have given advocate and denier alike the challenge that constitutes science to go look at the data and see if in fact the temperature is x degrees warmer that the benchmark year and question the assumption of what degree of difference it takes to be “significant” for public policy.

      No one to date that I know of can say that and no one can say what temperature difference would be significant, signaling unnatural temperature increase.

      And no one actually attempted to say that and no one on the committee apparently even noticed that no one said those two things so the whole exercise is just so much political bull…

      Partisanship was on display in spades, Michael Mann spent his time defending himself and of course everyone who watches this will make some conclusion based on absolutely no evidence other than the graphs presented by Pielke, which show that there is a problem in climate modeling but say nothing about whether man made climate change is occurring or not. This whole issue, if it’s a matter of science, demands that we speak about evidence, not politics, that we speak about methods of investigation and observation. And those things are absent from the debate, absent from this hearing and absent apparently from the minds of people who would nevertheless impose public policy on an entire nation of over 300,000,000 human beings, policy that would carry much of the rest of the world along with it.

      Does it not ever cross these people’s mind that they are arguing the wrong thing? Apparently not because every time I have asked someone who came along supporting the global warming hypothesis, “Where is it now warmer than in the past and by how much?” I get a deafening silence in return.

      I can no longer even pretend that activity like this hearing has any value. I don’t know exactly what Donald Trump thinks about the climate change issue but I can see that he doesn’t trust what the EPA has been dishing out masquerading as science.

      One thing caused me to start laughing and that was Michael Mann’s reference to 97%. The rest of it may help some people understand how bad off the debate is but unfortunately, as Jo said, “I expect only climate-tragics will watch a 2 hour dry Congressional testimony…” so those most needing to see how bad off the whole thing has become will never watch this.

      It’s a travesty of no small size to me.

      31

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I posted a link to this page on my Facebook page just in case it can attract someone to watch and then do some critical thinking. I do not expect a single “like”. We shall see.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I have had one like on facebook and that was from a reader of Jo Nova. So I’m 2 strikes down by default and another day without another like will make it 3 and I’m out.

          00

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        While the point you make is valid, it’s not the only indicator that is required. Everybody has specific interests and experiences in life, and so everybody learns what signals to look for, for trickery or betrayal.

        You’re point is yours, Judith’s point is that there are too many things unknown, or known poorly to make any predictions or policy on. John Christy’s point is that the models don’t match measured temperatures, and so the model (upon which the policy is based) is junk not valid.

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Greg,

          You’re right. I can’t argue with that. Everyone has a point of view including me. But unless an actual problem has been demonstrated, what are we talking about here? It’s a political problem, not a science problem.

          It’s really a solution with no problem to apply it to. And no actual problem has ever been demonstrated. And if you can show me that I’m wrong on that point I promise I’ll listen, I haven’t closed my mind. But with every new thing that comes along my position given above is reinforced, not changed. The question to me remains, “Where is your empirical evidence?” And 97% doesn’t cut it.

          I have repeatedly beaten this one drum on this site for a long time — climate change nee global warming is a political disease. Even Jo pushes the politics of it as in this congressional hearing. More and more of her topics deal with the politics than with the science. Or have I been asleep for several years?

          So I speak my mind and call things as I see them. :-)

          20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            No response yet on Facebook, which is designed to encourage trivial level commentary and debate and though I’ve not been on FB very long, that’s all I see.

            10

          • #

            “I have repeatedly beaten this one drum on this site for a long time — climate change nee global warming is a political disease. Even Jo pushes the politics of it as in this congressional hearing”

            Roy,
            It is indeed, all politics but is presented by ‘some’ as science.
            This claim of science need be destroyed by those interested in ‘science’. The method of destruction is by insisting that those ‘some’ demonstrate that they have any concept of science rather than only political greed! ;-)

            22

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Will,

              I can only ask,

              How many times on how many different forums must the science be destroyed before it dies?

              I only ask because it was pretty obvious that the hearing we all waded through didn’t do it. Michael Mann stole the show with all the right appeal to authority and accompanying hystrionics that the public falls for every time.

              10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                I agree wholeheartedly Roy.

                The strange speech of Judith and John Christy disappointed.

                I believe that ” science ” can clearly put the case that CO2, man-made or otherwise, just cannot heat the Earth.

                If it is guilty of anything, it is that the Greenhouse mechanism, operating at a height of 20 km is cooling our planet.

                There is some wisdom, passed down through the Dakota Indians which may point to the real problem. I’ll see if I can find it.

                KK

                12

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Roy

            Does it not ever cross these people’s mind that they are arguing the wrong thing? Apparently not because every time I have asked someone who came along supporting the global warming hypothesis, “Where is it now warmer than in the past and by how much?” I get a deafening silence in return.

            I was simply commenting on your “arguing the wrong thing” comment. There are many wrong things about the CAGW, they acknowledged it themselves by changing the name to Climate Change.

            It isn’t catastrophic, it isn’t caused by humans (though its assumed possible that humans could influence it [but it has not been demonstrated]), it is global and been happening since the Little Ice Age, and who could possibly be surprised that when coming out of an ice age that it would be warmer now than then?

            CAGW, GW, CC, IPCC, Carbon Tax; are all purely political in nature. No science in any of it.

            02

        • #

          “Judith’s point is that there are too many things unknown, or known poorly to make any predictions”

          To be more accurate; The amount actually known by humans of how Earth’s atmosphere operates, is indistinguishable from zero.

          03

  • #
  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Trust is important

    painful to watch when Mann starts to speak but can’t help noticing how much he reminds me of his clone Gavin Schmidt :o

    80

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    More for weekend unthread but it seems presstitutes are close to working out the rise of populism such as Brexit and Trump and it’s place here in oz , they still don’t get it but they are getting close .
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-31/pauline-hanson-one-nation-david-marr-stan-grant-politics/8406364

    61

    • #
      scaper...

      One Nation wants to make Australia, Australian again.

      70

      • #
        Glen Michel

        I know it sounds inane and somewhat jingoistic but I totally agree.It is time this nation kicked into gear with some strategy.Getting some practical sense and drive into the polity would be a start. Pauline means well.

        60

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Today one of Aldi’s specials was a 3.6kW pure sine wave generator. Someome reported on Facebook that they had been sold out in Sydney soon after the stores opened.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      Also Butane Camp Stove on sale. I’m not rushing out to buy either but I do plan to research them and buy them and other “off-grid” solutions that work well without spending a small fortune. I do believe things will get hairy one day – it’s only a matter of time.

      92

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Have pretty much all that stuff including 300 plus watt of solar for charging batteries and a big inverter 3000 watt .
      Living off grid whenever we go camping we can pull up stumps wherever we want , only food to worry about and water eventually .

      10

  • #
    BobH

    I suffered through most of the discussion before my patience wore out and I hit the red button. All discussion on the fact or extent of climate change and future predictions is a waste of download. The only real issue is the competence of the science. The failure to understand natural causes like the Milankovich Cycles and their absence from the models got only a scant mention. If we could get a replay of a similar debate over the causes of Cholera (refer the Pump Handle debacle) we would have heard something pretty similar – focus on the hole rather than the doughnut.
    Of course taking our historic journey all the way back to the flat Earthers, the gallows or the dungeons would have settled all things.
    Science is not about point scoring, funding or politics. We should banish a key number of scientists from each persuasion to a locked area until a 100% agreement is reached. I want to have an absolute agreement that CO2 has an influence on the Greenhouse effect and by how much.
    I feel the discussion was a waste of the precious few years I have left in my life

    30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Apart from Milankovitch Cycles the main short term influence on temperature is variations in solar output.

      The sun has now entered a dormant phase and the world is likely now cooling. Unlike supposed warming which would be good if it were actually happening, cooling is bad and people will die.

      91

    • #

      100% Agreement in science is really reached, if not impossible. We have some 200 known variables that influence temperature and perhaps another 200 that we don,t know anything about.
      So to argue that both sides need to come to a 100% agreement is impossible, even without the politics.
      Science is never settled.

      10

    • #

      “The only real issue is the competence of the science.”

      Indeed! there is no need to invent ‘conspiracy’ or even ‘complicity’ when ‘ignorance’, the opposite of competence, is so obvious!

      13

  • #
    Mark M

    Republican Don Beyer is a believer in the cult of Doomsday Global Warming.

    Rep. Beyer gets his ‘science’ from Dr. Mann: “ As Michael E Mann & I discussed, the human race & the planet Earth are at stake!

    https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/847210677202825216

    Here is a factcheck of the science quoted by Rep. Beyer at the hearing:

    0.00sec: “I was trying to think – - why can’t we all just get along.
    And I realised: it’s because the stakes are so high.
    If the vast majority of scientists are correct about the human impact of (doomsday) global warming, you have 55,000,000 million people in Bangladesh that will be displaced.
    Or many countries including the Maldives that disappear from the planet.”

    Factcheck:
    ‘We need development’: Maldives switches focus from climate threat to mass tourism (the guardian.com)
    ~
    0.19sec: “I was just in India with Congresswoman Etsy, and they talked about how [doomsday global warming] there already is changing agricultural patterns and their ability to feed 1.3 billion people.”

    Factcheck:
    . “Why farmers in Punjab are dumping potatoes on the street” (dailynewsanalysisindia.com)
    . India’s foodgrain production is estimated to rise by 9 per cent to an all-time high of 135.03 million tonnes in the kharif season (summer sown) of 2016-17 on record output of rice and pulses following a good monsoon. (financial express.com)
    ~
    0.37: “Or, on a more trivial measure – not for them – the outdoor industries are in a panic about what it’s doing to climbing and skiing and hunting and fishing and many other things.”

    Factcheck:
    . Skiers and snowboarders are inundating resorts, paying higher lift prices (latimes.com)
    . ‘Largest’ recorded chum salmon run: 2 million fish overload nets, burden boats (cbcnews.com)
    . The cod are coming back to Newfoundland — and they’re eating the shrimp that had taken over (nationalpostcanada.com)
    ~
    1.06sec, Mann: “As we can see from that comparison, the various surface and lower atmosphere temperature datasets all agree pretty well on the warming over the past few decades, and so, we can get into discussions about what’s happening in the mid and upper troposphere, but at the surface there is a pretty clear consistency amongst the records, and the records are consistent with the models, and that has been demonstrated in numerous publications.”

    Factcheck, surface temperatures/hotspot:
    . “There’s an over-emphasis on the surface air temperature.” – Prof Matt England (theguardian.com)
    . “” There is far too much focus on surface temperatures.” NASA (washington post.com)
    . The hotspot, see jonova: “New satellite analysis fails to find the hot spot, agrees with millions of weather balloons” and many other posts: http://joannenova.com.au/page/2/?s=the+missing+hotspot

    .. The “models’: “The IPCC: “In a nod to skeptics who argue temperatures haven’t significantly warmed since 1998, the researchers said that climate models aren’t so good at explaining short-term fluctuations in the temperature and that “natural variability” may be part of what’s being observed.
    The pace of temperature increases slowed to about 0.05 of a degree per decade from 1998 through 2012 from 0.12 degrees per decade for the longer period spanning from 1951 to 2012.

    The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012.
    And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.” (bloomberg.com)

    52

  • #
    David Maddison

    Even if a warmist finally believes in climate reality, I don’t think I will ever forgive them for what they have done.

    At some point, ignorance is inexcusable.

    131

  • #
    David Maddison

    It’s sickening listening to Mann and his lies and I can’t believe he brings up the 97% consensus myth again. And in any case, when was science ever done by consensus? That’s for the Dark Ages.

    121

  • #
    pat

    31 Mar: CNS News: Patrick Goodenough: Former UN Secretary General Says Trump Will ‘Fail’–Faces ‘Reality Therapy’
    Speaking Tuesday at the Forum for the Future of Agriculture, an annual event held in Brussels, Annan was answering a moderator’s questions about Trump’s executive order reversing the Obama administration’s environmental regulations.
    British journalist and BBC “HARDtalk” presenter Stephen Sackur asked Annan whether it matters that the leader of the world’s most powerful economy is saying he does not care about the Paris climate change agreement or the world’s ***rhetoric on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but is going to do what is in America’s best short-term interest – “let the fossil fuel economy rip.”
    “It does matter,” Annan replied. “He’s setting the wrong example, but I hope the rest of the world will not follow him.”
    Even China’s government was now taking the environment seriously – under pressure from the Chinese people who want clean air – and “the same thing will happen” in the U.S., he said, where California has already signaled a pushback against the president’s climate stance…

    “He will go through reality therapy, and it’s already begun,” he added to applause.
    “You just hope reality therapy isn’t too damaging for the rest of us, you know,” said Sackur. “I hope it works pretty darn quick.”…

    Every now and then, Annan continued, “a sheriff rides into town. He’s going to clean everything up, he’s going to do it his way – and then discovers there’s a real world out there…
    Meanwhile Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party organ, slammed Trump in an editorial Thursday for his “energy independence” executive order…

    (Kofi Annan) is a member of the board of the United Nations Foundation, a group set up in 1998 with a $1 billion donation by CNN founder Ted Turner, with priorities including building public support for the U.N.
    Annan also chairs The Elders, a group of “independent global leaders” founded by the late Nelson Mandela, whose other members include former President Jimmy Carter and former Irish President Mary Robinson.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/ex-un-chief-kofi-annan-trump-will-fail-faces-reality-therapy

    30 Mar: Global Times Editorial: Trump must be urged to save climate deal
    China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels…
    Washington is supposed to take the lead in the global fight against climate change, but the Trump administration could be the first to ditch the agreement, which is disappointing…
    Many Western media have criticized Trump’s decision, but their calls sound somewhat feeble.
    Some Western media now pin their hopes on China to fill the vacuum left by Washington in the fight against climate change. But no matter how hard Beijing tries, it won’t be able to take on all the responsibilities that Washington refuses to take.
    China will remain the world’s biggest developing country for a long time. How can it be expected to sacrifice its own development space for those developed Western powerhouses?
    Western opinion should continue to pressure the Trump administration on climate change. Washington’s political selfishness must be discouraged…
    COMMENT: RPT: A slight correction:
    The sentence: China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels.
    would more correctly read:
    China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels, suggesting to start a reduction after peaking in 2035.
    Just a small detail.
    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1040255.shtml

    31

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks again Pat.
      There’s an interesting obfuscation in this (partial) quote:
      “Even China’s government was now taking the environment seriously – under pressure from the Chinese people who want clean air – and “the same thing will … “.

      I’m sure we all wish China well with its aim to reduce pollution and have clean air, but that has nothing to do with CO2. But I’m sure Annan knows this,
      .
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      30

    • #
      Mark M

      Even China’s government was now taking the environment seriously – under pressure from the Chinese people
      who want clean air
      …”

      Everyone knows how democratic the Chinese government is, and how they listen to the their people.

      I think I mentioned Tiananmen Square only once, but I got away with it.

      10

  • #
    Dennis

    “… I realized the premature consensus was harming the progress of science”

    This reminded me about the children’s story about The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf too many times and the people stopped taking notice.

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    I am in shock, last night on ABC Lateline the presenter commented that renewables cannot provide grid base power.

    120

    • #
      Greebo

      It’s the re-education camp for him/her/zie/whatever.

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      “cannot provide grid base power”

      Nor can they provide grid frequency stability.

      Without that stability, within +/- about 1 or 2Hz, the grid MUST shut down to avoid irreversible damage, not just to the grid, but also to much of the domestic and commercial electrical equipment being used on the grid.

      93

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      ‘Instant Death’ for this person.
      Geoffw

      20

    • #
      TdeF

      Duh! So the sun does not shine on command and the wind does not blow when you need power, say when making breakfast. Only an ABC presenter would think this was a significant observation. Bleeding obvious.

      The real revelation is that wind is 10x as expensive as fossil fuel, requires tens of thousands of windmills and transmission lines, vastly more than any coal based power station and we cannot afford wind power. The fact that it often does not even work would only occur to an ABC commentator after years of thought. As for being free and eternal. Wind might be, but windmills are not.

      31

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Nah,not Jeremy.Surely not. Reality.It’s just an illusion .

      21

  • #
    TdeF

    Now the figure is $1,500 Billion a year to prevent CO2 induced ‘Climate Change’.

    It would be interesting to ask how much the Climate has been changed by the annual expenditure of this vast sum and particularly in the US? Has CO2 growth been slowed? Is there any impact at all? Isn’t that the $20Trillion question?

    Silly question really as CO2 rates of growth appear totally disconnected from any human activity. So why are they bothering?

    91

    • #
      Greebo

      Why are they bothering? Create a big enough money stream and it’s easy to divert a bit ( a lot ) of it into your own pocket without anyone even noticing.

      90

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        That’s it.Precisely;
        After all what does it matter if electricity prises go 5 bob a week if you are ‘alright Jack’
        GeoffW

        40

    • #
      Dennis

      They will do and say whatever it takes to keep the gravy train running.

      80

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Good point TdeF, I remember Co2 reaching the 400 mark several years ago. What is the level today and how reliable is the data? Could we start a thread on Co2 levels v temps over say last couple of decades? (Just to ‘brush up’ my memory)
      GeoffW

      61

    • #
      PeterS

      Well if we look at the CO2 levels recently it appears we have not slowed down the increase one iota. So if one makes the totally objective and logical point in order to reduce let alone slow down the rise in CO2 we will have to spend something of the order of many quadrillionths of dollars. That of course is no guarantee it will do anything especially given mankind only produces some 4% of the CO2 that is pumped into the atmosphere. Of course spending that much money would set off a complete collapse of our economies all over the world and make the Great Depression look like heaven on earth. I wonder when will the public wake up and realise the whole anti-CO2 scare is a hoax and a scam. Perhaps only when our economy collapses and people start scratching their heads wondering what was all the point given the economic situation while the rate of CO2 rising has not budged. Actually it would be more productive if governments all over the world just burned what they are spending on climate change each year to produce heat for people who require warmth during extremely cold days. That at least would make some albeit infinitesimally small contribution to mankind.

      42

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Thanks Peter, ‘chasing’ Co2 emmissions as the culprit is simply futile. We can improve the world in so many other ways with the resources wasted on the Co2 ideology.
        GeoffW

        20

        • #
          PeterS

          I agree there are so many ways but if they refuse to do so then I would rather they spend the money on a much better killer asteroid detection and avoidance system than trying to alter the climate. After all that is much more likely to happen and at the moment we only have one planet on which to live.

          20

  • #
    pat

    WaPo gets only “THE CONSENSUS” to follow-up:

    29 Mar: WaPo: Chelsea Harvey: These scientists want to create ‘red teams’ to challenge climate research. Congress is listening
    Prominent scientists operating ***outside the scientific consensus on climate change urged Congress on Wednesday to fund “red teams” to investigate “natural” causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations’ climate science panel…

    But using them to challenge accepted climate science is “a completely ridiculous proposition,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    The National Academy of Sciences already provides independent scientific advice to the government, he said, and it has consistently supported the scientific consensus that climate change is largely driven by human activity.
    “The scientific community, in its various forms and in professional journals, has a very well-established, time-tested and by-and-large quite effective process for evaluating alternative hypotheses about any body of science — and that’s called independent peer review,” he told The Washington Post.
    “The notion that we would need to create an entirely different new approach, in particular for the specific question around global warming is unfounded and ridiculous and simply intended to promote the notion of a lack of consensus about the core findings, which in fact is a false notion.”

    Indeed, studies have consistently found that the vast majority of scientists agree that the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change…

    But climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, called as a witness at Wednesday’s hearing by the committee’s Democratic minority, said such bias claims are “hogwash.” Policymakers who suggest a need for alternative views on climate change are cherry-picking the science they choose to trust, Mann said.
    “These folks start out with their ideology and then work backwards to decide which science they like and which they don’t,” he said in an emailed comment to The Washington Post. “But that’s not how scientific research works. It’s not a buffet where you get to selectively pick and choose what to believe. It’s not about belief. It’s about evidence.”…

    Frumhoff: “That’s exactly why you have independent scientists on a scientific panel,” he said. “To provide that independent scientific — not political, but scientific — evaluation of the science that’s relevant to policy-making. That’s why science advisory boards are established for various federal agencies. That science needs to be independent of politics.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/these-climate-doubters-want-to-create-a-red-team-to-challenge-climate-science/?utm_term=.d87e1abd4d88

    21

  • #
    watermelonsonacid

    Anyone watching, with at least a few brain cells, should have clearly seen who the unprofessional and obsessive twerp was in that testimony hearing. A great watch!

    70

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    As the hearing ground on, I found myself increasingly watching the feminine legs in the background between Drs Curry and Christy. These are the ones with the cross-pattern stockings that get fiddled with now and then.
    Alas, though, they could never be mine because of the authority in that sign noting “Reserved for Witnesses.”
    Geoff

    30

  • #
    watermelonsonacid

    I get the feeling the likes of Mann largely rely on the huge throngs of rent-a-mob young hipster groupies to keep the momentum of climate angst/anger/derangement going. One only has to drop into The Guardian comments section to get a reading of the level of climate-doom hysteria apparent in that demographic.

    60

  • #
    Streetcred

    “Scientists who demonize opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics for enforcing a premature theory for political purpose.”

    It’s not just CAGW ‘scientists’ … it is thick throughout academia! That’s where they have honed their skills.

    50

  • #
    pat

    31 Mar: NoTricksZone: Breaking: In New Study Leading Warmist Scientists Determine Sun Plays Major Role – Warming Delayed by Decades!By P Gosselin http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/31/breaking-leading-warmist-scientists-in-new-study-determine-sun-plays-major-role-warming-delayed-by-decades/#sthash.A9kVqDfV.dpbs

    31 Mar: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: Study: ‘Weaker Sun Could Reduce Global Temperatures By Half A Degree’
    For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree. —Swiss National Science Foundation, 27 March 2017 (LINK)…PLUS OTHER STORIES
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/03/31/study-weaker-sun-could-reduce-global-temperatures-by-half-a-degree/

    61

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      The Sun – significant?
      Nah. Couldn’t be true. Especially from a warmist.
      I suppose “But it’s only for a few decades” gives rhem some job security.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        It’s a bit more cunning than that. I can see what they are thinking.

        Good models which actually fit the temperature history are predicting a drop of 0.5C after the pause.
        So the warmists are preparing an argument to explain the drop. While CO2 caused the warming, the drop in solar intensity will cause the cooling to come, so we need to keep building windmills! For our children and our children’s children. etc.

        20

        • #
          tom0mason

          “For our children and our children’s children. etc.”

          Indeed for we could not have them seeing further by standing on the shoulders giants, when all that will be on offer is to sit at the lap of scientific midgets. :(

          10

  • #
    bobl

    It was Mann’s trotting out of the fake Gravity equivalence that had me yelling at the computer. Studies on gravity yields a model F=mg that can consistently reproduce the observations. If I drop an object (in a vacuum) near the surface of planet earth I will consistently see an acceleration of g (9.8 metre per second squared). Do the experiment and it works EVERY TIME to many decimal points. Now look at the climate models – intermodel agreement isn’t even to 1 digit and their agreement to objective measurements represents half of that 1 digit.

    The state of climate science more accurately represents the time when scientists thought the acceleration was relative to weight, that a feather would fall SLOWER than a rock. This is where climate science is now, they don’t understand the mechanism so they have a bad model of it that sort of works, sometimes like comparing two falling objects but only if the objects have the same air resistance.. You could be forgiven for thinking that feathers fall slower than rocks – because they do – not because of gravity but because of air resistance, this is where we are – Climate science hasn’t discovered their “air resistance” yet. Curry was the best at expressing this – noone knows, too many unknowns, too much error/noise.

    I really wish Curry had addressed the fake gravity argument.

    72

    • #
      TdeF

      To be pedantic, acceleration is directly related to weight. F=ma. I think you mean (terminal) velocity. The real comparison is a cannon ball and an equivalent weight of feathers, not one feather. I expect that compressed in a tight skin, 1kg of feathers would fall at the same speed as a cannon ball.

      Also Mann does have a degree in Physics and qualification in mathematics. How and why he decided to get into climate and start counting tree rings is a puzzle and he achieved world wide fame so easily, he must think he is a genius when in fact he was simply convenient.

      The question is now that he has the facts, that he has put up this wall of disinformation and frankly, abuse. I think that speaks more to his addiction to fame and need for income, a fame and income built on extremely shaky and discredited science. He also talks over people, ignores questions and talks so long he hopes the questioner just loses interest. To be publicly called a hypocrite though would be a novel experience, well deserved.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        I means Mann should not be underestimated. He talks quickly and diverts. He would love Curry with a geology background to tackle him on basic physics and make her look silly in his pet subject. He strikes me as someone who is supremely confident he can bluff and bluster and even filibuster from a losing position and get away with it. Judith Curry takes her time, constructs her statements carefully and Mann eventually contradicts himself, as he did. Mann’s technique also does not work with the class of people in the room and all that recording equipment.

        Tony Abbott was another who took his time and phrased his replies after much thought. The story was the Malcolm Turnbull, like Rudd before him could out talk Abbott. If you want to listen to minutes of meaningless waffle and even the invention of new words.

        41

      • #
        Rud Istvan

        Mann tried for years for a pH.D in Physics at Yale. Failed. Switched to Paleoclimate and got his very late pH.D in geography.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Really? That’s interesting. So he didn’t make the grade in physics and took 9 years for a PhD after his first degree?

          Wiki shows A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). All a bit odd especially the Mphil in Physics and MPhil in Geology in the same year?
          It takes a special sort of ego to claim to map the climate history of the planet from a single tree and a special sort of physicist to project the data into the future. Still, he says on opening that he is distinguished, which is a very odd thing for someone to say about themselves.

          00

          • #

            “is distinguished.”
            Dr. Mann has many distinguishing features. Most obvious is the smirk, and the obvious contempt he expresses for any he considers of lower class. Most everyone else!

            13

        • #
          Eddie

          Used to wonder in the 80s about what our Geography majoring college friends would find to do for a living when they graduated. Needn’t have worried.

          10

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    I have just listened to the entire hearing. I have not read all the comments above and no doubt I will be repeating some, but I just have to write this. There were two issues that really hit me. First, the dichotomy between the Republican and Democrat Senators. The Republicans made it clear that their understanding was basic and sought answers from the four experts before them.. The Democrats knew it all: the temperature was rising and it was all man’s fault, the seas were warming and acidifying, both at the same time (!), the ice caps were melting and seas were rising, crops were failing and storms were getting worse! Second, what a piece of work Michael Mann is! This the first time I have listened to him give evidence and it was a revelation. Much of their time he criticized the other three “deniers” (his word) and he even verballed the Chaairman Smith. Incredible!

    132

    • #
      TdeF

      This the problem. It is political science in every way. Labor/Green/Democrat vs Liberal/National in Australia.
      Now that is as likely to be a split based on real science based as a moon made from Green Cheese or a herd of flying pigs.

      One side is big government, give us control and all your money and we will probably save you from a terrible enemy/fate/disaster.

      The other side is, you’re kidding. There is no problem. Stop the taxes.

      Of course one side is completely wrong and you can guess who from the name calling, abuse, denigration of the side which has the facts. After all, there is no observable problem after thirty years of this.

      Still it is interesting to see Mann clearly presume he has the Democrats in his pocket and claim some Republicans actually support him. The panel questions confirm this absurd split on what is allegedly science, even though it is just politics. This is not a search for the truth. Everyone knows the truth! It is about power and money and after 16 years of Democrats in the last 20, the Republicans are going to destroy this fantasy. So the Democrats are trying to start a cold war with Russia. Again. Without their bogey man, they cannot get people to hand over power.

      What is unusual about Trump, is that his bogey man is the Democrat party, not some fantastic story about Russia or North Korea or Iran or China. There are major problems there, but the swamp, the real threat to Democracy is in Washington.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        Like Washington, the threat to democracy in Australia is also Canberra and those three other public service bastions, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin who collectively control the country through the senate with only 1/10th of the total population and nearly half the senate.
        One seat in the House of Representatives and the Greens are shutting our power stations, throttling free speech and handing all our cash overseas and stopping our exports. I suppose they intend to take over when the people are destitute and the revolution starts?

        The other major threat to democracy is the politically rampant ABC/SBS, the publicly funded and irresponsible media giant which has given up pretending to be unbiased but is exempted from the media laws which would stop any private company having their control of public opinion.

        The ABC/SBS gobbles cash and acts as a government in waiting and free from accountability and is moving everyone to Sydney where they can enjoy themselves on fabulous salaries with even better superannuation and lovely harbour views. At the very least, the ABC needs to be answerable to the same media laws which control every other media company. It might be safer to sell the lot. Public service media is as big a disaster as public service science, still investigating Climate Change with hundreds of scientists who dare not speak out.

        We need Tony Abbott back. He was the only one who made sense, but he was hated by their ABC.

        101

        • #
          Geoffrey Williams

          Great blogging TdeF, once again you have spoken with truth and clarity. Our very democracy is withering before us and the people of this nation are oblivious to it!
          GeoffW.

          81

      • #
        TdeF

        An amazing 98.3% of Washington D.C voted for Hillary Clinton. They are hunting down the 1.7%. Easy. Look for people who are not public servants or on Social Security? While this is known fact, it was reported that 95% of journalists donated to the Clinton campaign, but I cannot say where I read this. It seems high but plausible.

        81

        • #
          PeterS

          That sound amazingly fishy to me – 98.3%?? In science we sometimes due use a method whereby outliers are removed as they are not trustworthy. But then I suppose the current system of electoral votes works well since despite the extremely high proportion of pro-Clinton supporters in that state and CA Trump still won by a landslide.

          10

          • #
            TdeF

            Good point. That was the amazing election result I read at the time. I do not know the voter rollout.
            So a little research and final results show Hilary Clinton was 90.9% and Donald Trump 4.1%. 5.1% for others.

            11

            • #
              TdeF

              The votes in other pro Clinton states were more like 60/40. A big margin but not in the 90% of Washington.
              New York, 58.8% to 37.5%
              Illinois 55.4% to 39.4%
              California 62% to 32%
              As the most populous state, California allows the Clinton camp to claim the popular vote.

              Still, nothing comes close to the Clinton vote in Washington, DC. In the District, of 478,688 registered voters, 287,403 cast ballots, for a 60 percent turnout, roughly the same turnout as in 2012. Washington DC has 658,893 people so an incredible 72% are of voting age.

              10

              • #
                PeterPetrum

                It may be too late now, but it is worthwhile looking at an election map that shows the counties in the US, not the states. Trump won something in the mid 90%s of the counties in the US. Even in California, most of the counties were Trump majorities. It was only in the metropolitan areas, such as LA, NY, SF, Seattle, Boston and Washington that Clinton won “bigley” (as Trump would say) where the huge Democrat voting populations won the state vote for Clinton.

                40

              • #

                Idett may be too late now, but it is worthwhile looking at an election map that shows the counties in the US, not the states.

                00

              • #

                -How did that happen? How dey do dat?

                “It may be too late now, but it is worthwhile looking at an election map that shows the counties in the US, not the states.”

                It is the founders wonderful invention of the “Electoral College” to decide presidency (the king) without the tyranny of democracy.
                Local folk that you trust ride to Philadelphia with their bats to decide the presidency. After the free for all, only two remain standing. The winner is declared “president”, while the last standing opponent is declared “vice president”. Such clarity, such simplicity, with no needed “political parties”. I doubt that the SUPREMES will change that much

                03

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                an incredible 72% are of voting age.

                It is not really “incredible” if you have ever been there. No sane person would raise a kid in that swamp.

                00

    • #
      Mickey Reno

      Listening to the “questions” from the committee members is painful, especially the Democrats. They have their talking points down, and they ALL directed their questions to Mann, but not until profuse praising and butt licking had been performed. Particularly odious are the speeches of the ranking Democrat, I think her name is Ms. Bonafaci or something like that.

      The best moment of the hearing is near the end when Dr. Christy says in rebuke to Mann, the way we KNOW that we understand a system is by making successful predictions. He slams dunks all of Mann’s 100% hubris and says climate models do not make accurate predictions.

      A minor nit / correction. This hearing is by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives. These are Representatives, not Senators.

      10

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      he even verballed the Chaairman Smith. Incredible!

      Which also goes to the state of mind of the alarmists. Elections have consequences. Mann and the alarmists are still acting like they are running the show.

      Politicians are idiots. But idiots with ego. It may make you feel better to insult them and belittle them. But they have the power of those purse strings, and are known to use them like a club.

      00

  • #
    pat

    subscription reqd to read all.
    this story has been developing and the bottom line would seem to be that the globalists’ plan for massive carbon trading in China is on the rocks:

    31 Mar: Carbon Pulse: ANALYSIS: Offset freeze, potential exclusion send shivers through China’s carbon market
    China’s decision to freeze its carbon offset pipeline, combined with steadfast talks about potentially drastic changes to the national ETS design just months ahead of launch, are breeding unease at the companies trying to build the country’s burgeoning emissions trading industry.

    17 Mar: Carbon Pulse: In blow to developers, China confirms freeze to carbon offset pipeline
    China has halted the processing of its offset pipeline, regulators said this week, confirming what many developers had suspected while addressing the uncertainty that has both plagued the market over the past few months and created a bottleneck of hundreds of carbon-cutting projects.

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      America and the UK are not going to buy Carbon Credits, so why bother. There is always hope with Australia and Malcolm Turnbull though, but they are their carbon money river through the RET laws, LGCs for windmills and STCs for solar panels. No need for an ETS.

      40

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Pat, I just hope that this stuff happens . . Good story.
      GeoffW

      20

      • #
        pat

        Geoffrey Williams -

        fingers crossed. it’s all the carbon cowboys have left and it seems to be over. not doing well elsewhere either:

        23 Mar: SwissInfo: Swiss system of carbon trading faulted
        More than a decade ago, the Swiss government began exploring carbon trading to address climate change. But on Thursday, the Federal Audit Office (FDC) said the Swiss carbon trading system does not encourage companies to reduce their emissions, and that setting goals is a more effective measure…
        In Switzerland, the C02 tax has since 2008 been the main instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But companies that generate a lot of them can be exempted…
        The auditors found, however, that a large number of emission allowances were available free of charge, to prevent companies from relocating their production. Half of the 55 companies that participated since 2013 have so far not had to buy emission rights.
        https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-change_swiss-system-of-carbon-trading-faulted/43054560

        40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          The Swiss are smart in that they have the Canton system where regions can effectively compete for businesses to come to their region. Perhaps they offer inducements. Perhaps they offer to pay the carbon tax on behalf of the business?

          20

    • #
      PeterS

      With electricity prices going through the roof here with much more to come I wonder when will the public start paying attention it’s not only hurting them it’s not actually going to alter the world’s temperature at all – zero; zilch, nadda. Then they have to ask the question who is benefiting from this scam? Then watch the fun start when the culprits try to duck and cover.

      50

  • #
    What Class?

    Witch Doctor Mann admits he was attacked for his hockey stick but pretends he’s still not wrong. Thee pink lady from Oregon is cheering for Mann! And shouting green propaganda. The dark pink lady gives him Dorothy Dixers about how bad it feels to be attacked while the others talk about the science. This is a giggle. He quotes Trenberth! He equates CC with gravity. Ho. This is anything but a hearing about the science method.

    50

  • #
    gerald the mole

    Re BBC, I understand that a few years ago the BBC made a corporate decision to support man made global warming. No wonder they treated Mann like a demi god.

    50

  • #
    What Class?

    All the women in the background are ‘eyes down’ to their mobile phones.

    40

  • #
    ROM

    Just thinking!

    The CAGW alarmists have Mann, Hansen, Gore, Cook, Jones of the CRU, [ Rt ] Karl, Obama’s Holdren, Schellenhuber in Germany who with Holdren would make Pol Pot look relatively benign if they were let loose on the world with their anti human ideology left intact .
    Plus a number of other very high profile climate science alarmists who all claim to be practicing some form of pseudo climate science, a form of science that seems to be unknown to any honest practicing scientist and to mankind, both past, present and no doubt, future as well, as a “science” even at the lowest abysmal level of possible believability.

    The skeptics have as their very high profile representatives ??.

    Skeptics are just a collective mass of “deniers”. in the eyes of the “climate fanatics” who when push comes to shove find it very hard to both find an overall central group of figures that might act as the publicly recognised authoritative Skeptic figures to abuse and fulminate against with flying spit and fury.

    “Fanatics” in this case being defined by Winston Churchill as “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”.
    .

    When you hit an amorphous mass such as the climate skeptics / deniers with something such as some very seriously lying climate alarmist propaganda, the skeptic mass just gives a bit and moves around a bit and eventually drifts and reverts back to something approximating its original conformation which is to generally scrag the claims of further dire catastrophes about to fall upon mankind due to his sinfulness against the climate, with hoots of derisive laughter, to the near insane fury of the alarmists.

    The alarmists now have so much ideologically invested in a few very high profile individuals such as Gore and Mann, Hansen and Cook of SkS and Jones, Karl, Holdren, Schellenhuber and etc that when those charlatans get taken down as is happening more and more often today, then the whole alarmist ideologically based belief in CAGW takes a very big psychological and very real, very hard hit in the very heart of its ideologically blinkered and increasingly personality based cult like beliefs as is now seen on the ABC and other MSM outlets.

    Cults of course almost invariably have a single very strong and ruthless leader that imposes his /her usually quite evil will and beliefs onto the cult’s membership.

    When I see science shysters such as Mann digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself with his infamous ability to promote himself almost to the point of mimicking the mighty Oojah Bird that he is in danger of flying up his own orifice and thereby disappear forever from the annals, of men.
    Which will also probably be the fate of Gore and Mann and Karl , Cook , Santer and a number of other climate alarmists who have played very fast and loose with the science and with other scientist’s interests for close to a couple of decades past.

    If some of those climate science charlatans are finally exposed to the harsh glare of the public’s and the political’s gaze and the public’s belief in their integrity as scientists is also destroyed, then with them going down, so will the belief in climate catastrophism also go down as the central and controlling scientific figures of the whole CAGW ideology have their integrity as scientists destroyed,.
    That then destroys the very foundations of the whole of the ideologically based CAGW meme which relies almost totally upon “believing the science” as we are repeatedly harangued to do by the climate alarmist cabal.

    60

  • #
    Eddie

    Did Mann get more airtime than everyone else or did it just seem that way? It certainly didn’t do him any favours.
    Letting Mann talk was quite telling. Why did the alarmist side choose him to speak for them ? Iconic or the [[snip] sacrifice] thrown to the lions while others make their escape?

    00

    • #
      Eddie

      Yes thanks. Sacrifice is much more agreeable & in keeping with the adopted victim persona.

      00

    • #

      “Iconic or the [[snip] sacrifice] thrown to the lions while others make their escape?”

      What do the lions have to say, about Mann, except thank you; leaner would be better!

      01

  • #
    feral_nerd

    Off-topic, perhaps, but am I the only one who thinks Judith Curry is kind of hot?

    10

  • #
    pat

    1 Apr: UK Independent: from WaPo: Leaked draft of Donald Trump’s plan for environmental agency shows even deeper cuts
    Agency will now only focus on ‘core legal requirements’ and cut out all voluntary activities surrounding scientific research, climate change and education
    by Juliet Eilperin, Steven Mufson, Chris Mooney
    The spending plan, obtained by The Washington Post, offers the most detailed vision to date of how the 31 percent budget cut to the EPA ordered up by President Donald Trump’s Office of Management and Budget would diminish the agency.
    The 21 March plan calls for even deeper reductions in staffing than earlier drafts. It maintains funding given to states to administer waste treatment and drinking water. But as a result, the budget for the rest of EPA is slashed 43 percent.
    The Trump administration says the EPA cuts reflect a philosophy of limiting federal government and devolving authority to the states, localities and, in some cases, corporations…

    In a memorandum at the front of the 21 March document, the EPA’s acting chief financial officer, David A. Bloom, said the agency would now “centre on our core legal requirements,” eliminating voluntary activities on scientific research, climate change and education, and leaving other activities to state and local governments…
    Because of the sweeping cuts to scientific programmes, the administrator’s own Science Advisory Board budget would be cut 84 percent. As the document explains, it would not need much money as a result of “an anticipated lower number of peer reviews.”
    Reductions in research funds will curtail programmes on climate change, water quality, and chemical safety, and “safe and sustainable water resources,” the document said…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-epa-cuts-climate-change-environmental-protections-worse-a7661661.html

    30

  • #

    If the U.S. Republicans and Trump hold their courage things will change. The US budget is over 3.5 Trillion US dollars. The 8 “Ivy League” Colleges get $27 Billion in Federal funds. Reports are that $78 Billion for “Climate Change” is in agencies outside the EPA and Dept of Energy.
    US taxpayers support huge numbers of Mann’s fellow alarmists.
    Trump and the Conservative Republicans are about to defund the UN too.
    The Times they are a-changin’ friends. If their courage holds.

    10

  • #
    Ivor Surveyor

    I have no doubt that after the debate, those that believe in the theory of catastrophic global warming will continue to believe. Likewise, the skeptics will continue to be skeptical. I must say that I was most impressed with the chairman.
    The important point is that American Politicians are prepared to entertain the idea of debate. In today’s post-modernist world, the concept of a free exchange of opinion is bizarre. The authoritarian mind of the Greens and the left in general allows off only one orthodoxy viewpoint, that of the current exegesis of Marxist theology.
    I award the Judith Curry, Christy and Pielke team a win on points.

    10

    • #
      Frank

      Quite a Trumped up witness panel , 3 to 1 , even the chairman was openly biased against mainstream science.

      02

      • #

        Frank, and remind me when it bothered you that panels were stacked 6:0 in favour of believers?

        50

        • #
          Frank

          Great admission there Jo, so you’re fine with affirmative stacking as a tool to get to the alternative truth ?

          00

          • #

            Frank — pathetically avoiding answering and we both know why. You only complain about “stacking” panels when it goes against you. Me I just want the most informed people there. It was generous of them to ask Mann to come, since he had only logical fallacies and doesn’t know what the scientific method is, he doesn’t even qualify as a scientist. But I would invite him. I think he helps skeptics every time he talks.

            BTW The US panel was perfectly representative — both Pielke and Mann agree with the IPCC. So that’s 50% and fits because half of climate scientists don’t agree with the IPCC 95% certainty.

            10

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          The panel was stacked 4:0 in favor of believers. All Christy, Curry and Pielke Jr believe in AGW – they just do not agree on the level of impact of the A in AGW. There were none there that dismiss the premise. Frank is wrong.

          00

  • #
    Wayne Job

    The world as we know it at the moment has a chance to escape the clutches and evil of agenda21. Pres Trump just wants freedom from control freaks just like Mann, the UN like the league of nations before it needs to be disbanded. Pres Trump like Kennedy before him is in much danger, that he has his own security,is a blessing. The poor bugger has a lot to do just to take the country back to square one, this global warming BS is being dealt with along with all the billions of waste in EPA and other agencies. Obama must be the biggest puppet Pres ever, USA at the moment and a small glimmer in England is our only chance of beating this monstrosity that is the biggest threat to our world since WW11. I am old it will not be my problem, but I have a daughter and grandchildren so I care.

    30

    • #

      “I am old it will not be my problem, but I have a daughter and grandchildren so I care.”

      What have you yourself done, with your wisdom, to prepare both daughter or grandchildren, as to what is needed to effectively oppose what you clearly recognize as this scam? No words of what others should do. What have you done?

      13

  • #
    Carbon500

    I watched the whole meeting yesterday, I’ve thought about it, and certain impressions remain.
    Much time was wasted by allowing some of the politicians to say how much they believed in it all – the usual climatic hogwash being trotted out (no pun intended!) prior to questioning the panel – “Trust me, Dr Mann, I’m so in tune with what you say”. Yeah, right…..
    Some important questions weren’t asked – everybody believes that ‘climate’ is changing – but what do they all mean by ‘climate’, exactly?
    John Christy pointed that ‘extremes’ such as hot days, floods and so forth hadn’t increased – then up pops Michael Mann with the latest paper contradicting this (so he claims). This wasn’t challenged or commented upon. If people who study meteorology can’t agree on this, then how can we trust pronouncements on CO2?
    ‘Ocean acidification’ was allowed to pass without further discussion or challenge, which surprised me. What is meant by this, exactly? Yes, I’m familiar with how the pH system works, and also how the ’30% more acid’ scam works – but I’ve got a biological science background. Something like this should be clarified. A minor pH change doesn’t mean that the oceans are turning to acid!
    Michael Mann has a great career as a politician. No disrespect to the good politicians, but like the ‘duffers’ Mann seems to be incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question.
    Overall, a lot of opportunities were missed. I got the feeling that the politicians were in some cases doffing their proverbial hats far too much to the scientists. People who aren’t in science can often ask the trickiest questions – as we saw in some cases. Overall, I think that Judith Curry and John Christy are right – we need more observations.
    No-one asked whether any studies had been done on CO2 and water interactions in say, a cloud chamber of some sort – proper science, reproducible – and not assumptions and conclusions based on computer mathematics. And why didn’t anyone challenge the ‘hockey stick’?

    30

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Mann seems to be incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question.

      If straight answers to straight questions is what you want, this exemplary exchange between Senator Cruz and sierra Club Pres, Aaron Mair, should impress you greatly!

      10

      • #
        Carbon500

        Allen Ford – thank you, yes, what an ‘apparatchik’ Mr Mair is!
        Toe the party line at all costs.
        Do any of the warming brigade think for themselves, or argue their case with numbers? It’s always ‘trust the science’, or the eternal ’97%’!

        10

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Carbon500 – you miss the purpose of those dog and pony shows. They are not meant to get to the truth. They are photo ops (with sound bytes) for the constituents. As such, if the guests are given ANY chance to speak, it is to make the representatives look good to the voters – nothing else. If Mann said tomorrow that he had seen unicorns, you can bet Johnson and the other democrats would swear they existed and they had seen them as well.

      00

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    Mann is an egotistical gasbag!

    11

  • #

    It was disappointing that no one mentioned that CO2 has been much higher for nearly all of earth’s history and no one mentioned that water vapor is by far the most important (if not the only significant) ‘greenhouse gas’.

    31

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Yes Dan, and there are plenty of graphs that depict this.

      The whole thing is bizarre.

      I only watched brief snips but Judith and John were for some reason very warmerish as if working to a script.

      10

  • #
    Richard

    It appears as though the Good Doctor was unmanned.

    10

  • #
    richard

    Mann said that temp coverage of the earth is well covered.

    Not by ground stations.

    The WMO flag up that practically the whole of Africa has to be estimated.

    00

  • #
    richard

    WMO-

    it’s pretty bad-

    WMO is committed to further enhancing weather
    and climate services and related research. But
    in addition to promoting scientific progress,
    WMO recognizes the need to build operational
    climate services that support climate resilience
    and adaptation. Some 70 countries around the
    world do not have the capabilities they need
    to generate and apply climate information and
    forecasts with the required timeliness and
    quality of service.

    00

  • #