Michael Mann claim: “It’s already raised sea levels, making coastal flooding more common and problematic.”
Climate Depot response: Wrong again Prof. Mann. See: NOAA: Average global sea level rising at rate of only 1.7-1.8 mm/yr – ‘A measly 5.6 inches by 2100’
UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level
World Leading Ocean Expert Calls Sea Level Rise Claims ‘Anti-Scientific Nonsense’
Scientists, studies & data agree: ‘Global warming’ not fueling acceleration in sea level rise –
Climatologist’s sea-level rise study disputes climate-disaster predictions – In many cases, ‘half of the sea-level rise is really from land sinking’ –
Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: “If you look at the total global sea level from about 1850 until the present time it’s been rising at a fairly constant rate, rather slow—about 7 inches a century…. It’s about 1 to 2 mm a year so if you’re 50 years old you experienced a sea level rise about 3 ½ inches and you probably didn’t even notice it,”
Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”
Michael Mann claim: “It’s already doubled the area burned by wildfires in the past few decades.”
Climate Depot response: Short term trends do not make climate trends. See: ‘Less fire today than centuries ago’ – Scientists, studies counter claim that wildfires due to ‘climate change’ – Book Excerpt
The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s new best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
“There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”…
“The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.” Researchers from the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid found that “climate change” is not to blame for increased forest fires in the Mediterranean basin.”…
“In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees. In 2014, forestry professor David B. South of Auburn University testified to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “data suggest that extremely large megafires were four-times more common before 1940,” adding that “we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.” As he explained, “To attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific.”
Wildfires are not worse — despite media hype about ‘global warming’
Fires far worse last century: Claim global warming causing wildfires goes up in — flames
Michael Mann claim: “My own research, in fact, shows that state-of-the-art climate models, if anything, are underestimating the impact climate change is having on extreme weather events.”
Climate Depot response: The scientific fact is that your heralded “state-of-the-art climate models could “show” any outcome you wish to create. Mann admitted in 2017: “Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”
Prominent scientists have exposed your climate model con. See: Page 113: In 2007, top UN IPCC scientist Jim Renwick admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” Renwick conceded.
Page 110: Predictions Are Suddenly “Evidence,” Models are Now “Data” – And yet, such is the climate establishment’s attachment to their computer
models that they have begun to refer to their predictions as “evidence” and “data.” Scientists affiliated with the federal Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee claimed in 2011, “We find evidence from nine climate models that intensity and duration of cold extremes may occasionally, or in some
cases quite often, persist at end-of-20th-century levels late into the 21st century in many regions.” And Seth Wenger of the University of Georgia has said that “the most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years. That would make Boise pretty unpleasant. None of us
want to believe that.” But Wenger added, “I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data.”
Models Do Not Equal Evidence: The assertion that models are now “evidence” raised the ire of former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. “The use of the term ‘evidence’ with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves,” Pielke explained.
Page 114: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Vincent Gray of New Zealand, the author of more than one hundred scientific publications and an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, declared in that IPCC claims were “dangerous unscientific nonsense”16 because, “All the [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,’” Gray noted.
Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed software engineers. “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society,” Tennekes wrote in 2007.
The late atmospheric scientist Augie Auer ridiculed climate model predictions, comparing them to video games: “Most of these climate predictions or models, they are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3. They’re really not justified in what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not right.” And atmospheric physicist James Peden compared the climate models to children’s toys, calling them “computerized tinker toys with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.”
New Santer Climate Study Claim: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%! Climatologist debunks: ‘Climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming’
Michael Mann claim: “Unlike Moore, I’m actually a climate scientist.”
Climate Depot response: We will all genuflect to you and never question you now that you have declared “I’m actually a climate scientist.” Dr. Moore is PhD ecologist and a first rate scientist. But what scientific discipline is required to study climate? The answer: It has been estimated 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: ‘There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies’ & Science magazine confused about who is a ‘prominent climate scientist’ — ‘there is no specific climate discipline’
Climatologist Dr. John Christy (even Mann has to admit is a real ‘climate scientist’) refutes Mann’s claims.
Excerpt from: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,”:
Climatologist John Christy testified before Congress in 2012, “There is a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they’ve happened in the past before CO2 levels rose.” As Christy pointed out, “There are innumerable types of events that can be defined as extreme events—so for the enterprising individual (unencumbered by the scientific method), weather statistics can supply an unlimited, target-rich environment in which to discover a ‘useful’ extreme event.”
Christy explained why the extreme weather claims are unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is ‘anything may happen.’ In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.”
Michael Mann claim: “But even if I weren’t, these findings are readily apparent in even a cursory reading of the National Climate Assessment. That’s the major climate report Trump’s own administration released last year, and it goes into detail about how climate change is already hurting American communities from coast to coast.”
Climate Depot response: Yes, even a cursory reading of The National Climate Assessment reveals it is a pre-determined report written by environmental activists and overseen by President Obama’s former UN Paris climate pact negotiator. Science! Climate Depot’s Morano: “The National Climate Assessement is a political report masquerading as science. The media is hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science. The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is! Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe.”
See: Fed climate con job : Obama’s UN Paris negotiator & green activists helped prepare dire federal climate report
A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown. Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100…Light also spent five years as senior fellow and director of international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, which was founded and now led by longtime Democratic insider John Podesta. The center is also financed by liberal billionaires such as Mr. Soros and Mr. Steyer. …
“The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is,” said Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
Morano described two of the authors — Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe and Donald J. Wuebbles of the University of Illinois — as “longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists.” “These are not ‘Trump’s own scientists’ as the media likes to claim,” Mr. Morano said.
“The key authors are in fact left-wing environmental activists with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for American Progress, and the Obama Administration. And they cited outlier studies funded by Steyer and [Michael] Bloomberg.”
Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg
Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: The claim of economic damage from climate change is based on a 15 degree F temp increase that is double the “most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report.” The “sole editor” of this claim in the report was an alumni of the Center for American Progress, which is also funded by Tom Styer.”
Climate analyst Paul Homewood: ‘Cherry picks’ a few bad weather events…extrapolates using the most scary scenarios’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels on the report: ‘Systematically flawed’ – Report ‘should be shelved’
Trump v. Trump?!: Dr. Ken Haapala: ‘The global warming chorus immediately seized on the new USGCRP report claiming the Trump administration is contradicting President Trump’s claims about global warming. Amusingly, some of the chorus interviewed people who worked on the USGCRP, who were political appointees under the Obama Administration.’
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “The science must be addressed head-on. If POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to peddle tripe I wish he would tell us what they are.”
Dr. John Dunn: “Two years into the Trump administration it is sad to see this 400-page pile of crap.”
The new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change: MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen wrote of the National Academy of Sciences: “Regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”
Michael Mann claim: “CO2 is classified as a deadly toxin at high concentrations. I’d challenge Moore to prove he believes what he’s saying by trying to survive on carbon dioxide.”
Climate Depot response: Page 47 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: Professor Happer and NASA moonwalker and geologist Harrison H. Schmitt pointed out in the May 8, 2013, Wall Street Journal, “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”
Corrupting the Language “Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind . . . CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning.” —Princeton professor William Happer to Congress
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has mocked claims that carbon dioxide is dangerous. “CO2 , it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher),” he said in 2017.
Michael Mann claim: “William Happer is also the man chosen by Trump to potentially lead a panel to conduct an ‘adversarial’ review of climate science. Happer is a former physics professor who was caught in a sting in 2015 agreeing to take money from unknown oil and gas interests in exchange for writing a report full of climate denial.”
Climate Depot response: Former New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin explained this so-called Greenpeace “sting.” “Happer’s been a frequent target of environmental groups and scientists focused on slowing climate change. Greenpeace staff, pretending in 2015 emails to represent a Beirut company focused in part on energy, tricked him into agreeing to write reports on the virtues of carbon dioxide. His replies directed hoaxers to pay fees to a non-profit group he had launched with others to convey the upside of the greenhouse effect. “My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love,” Happer wrote.
It was an attempt by in — Revkin’s words — Greenpeace “hoaxers” to entrap Dr. Happer, who was clearly not seeking money to promote his well established scientific views on carbon dioxide.
As for racking up money in exchange for promoting climate fears, Mann has that angle covered.
Climategate’s Michael Mann Racks Up Millions in Climate Stimulus Funds: – ‘More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State’s Michael Mann…Mann came by his grants via National Science Foundation, which received $3 billion in stimulus money…He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million to investigate the role of ‘env. temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases.’…Both grants say they were ‘funded under American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.’
Report: Michael Mann has received ‘almost $6 million for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years’: ‘Note also the generally escalating grant amounts in recent years. A lot of that is from the government’s National Science Foundation and NOAA teats’
Michael Mann claim: “As to the quality of Happer’s climate science, well that’s hard to speak to because he doesn’t actually do any climate science, and never has.”
Climate Depot response: Mann is massively incorrect on this key point. Claiming Dr. Happer “doesn’t actually do any climate science, and never has” is an outrageous distortion of science and Mann should retract this claim.
Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl responds to such charges about Dr. Will Happer: “When it comes to the main physical effect that is supposed to drive “climate change”, he’s not only an expert. He’s one of the world’s leading experts.”
By their (the media & climate activists) definition, this scam is nearly universally accepted as “science” by these scammers. If you’re an expert in the climate hysteria who is approved by other experts in the climate hysteria, you usually accept that the climate hysteria is rational. Otherwise you wouldn’t be an expert over the climate hysteria. Instead, the real question is whether a rational society should nurture and pay “experts” in the climate hysteria – “experts” in a discipline where the big answer is decided from the beginning and it’s a scientifically ludicrous one.
We also learn:
CNN: “Happer, who is not a climate expert, specialized in atomic physics and the study of optics at Princeton.”
Motl: “Is Happer a climate expert? How should we interpret the negative sentence above? You know, as some “climate experts” don’t know, the global warming is supposed to be caused by the greenhouse effect which is physically the absorption of the infrared radiation by the air. Is Happer an expert in that? Well, search
Google Scholar for “w happer” infrared
Unsurprisingly, he has written numerous articles that are “mainly” about the infrared absorption bands and Google Scholar finds over 1,000 articles that contain his name as well as “infrared”. So when it comes to the main physical effect that is supposed to drive “climate change”, he’s not only an expert. He’s one of the world’s leading experts. CNN and doomsaying crackpots in general surely find this fact inconvenient but this inconvenience doesn’t make it less true.” [Climate Depot Note: Motl later added: “The whole alleged threat – the greenhouse effect – is a straightforward homework exercise in the exact same subfield of optics (absorption of radiation) in which Happer is a top ten expert in the world.” – Motl called the attacks on Happer’s climate expertise “ludicrous terminological sophistry.” Motl explained: “E.g. here is a peer-reviewed paper on turbulence in the atmosphere which is really atmospheric physics and by content, the very same field.]
Michael Mann claim: “What he has done, though, is say insane (and offensive) things, like comparing the treatment of carbon dioxide to the ‘demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.’ That’s the quality of advice Trump is seeking.”
Climate Depot response: Dr. Happer’s point on CO2 was well taken. Other prominent scientists agree:
Page 54 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
Question to Giegengack: Is carbon dioxide the control knob?
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, who has authored two hundred peer-reviewed studies and spent much of his academic career in the doing field research on the history of climate on almost every continent, explained: “I don’t see anything in the long term geologic record to support that conclusion. CO2 is one of many, many, many variables that influence the Earth’s temperature. There may be variables we don’t know about, that we haven’t yet discovered.”
Question: Are you afraid of rising CO2 concentrations?
Giegengack: “No, no I’m not. CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed.”
Giegengack explained to me that “natural processes close to the earth’s surface move CO2 around in quantities that dwarf the amount that we are generating.” “The record that shows how much higher CO2 has been in the past under circumstances when life on earth as we know it continued to thrive,” he explained. “I haven’t been impressed by the kinds of climate change that I have observed in my lifetime,” he added.
Michael Mann claim: “It’s one thing for Fox’s primary audience, with their failing faculties and dulled critical thinking skills, to be suckered in by their constant barrage of alternative facts and persuasive fictions. It’s quite another for the supposed leader of the free world, who has a thousand scientists at his disposal, to embrace such obviously unscientific claims with such conviction.”
Climate Depot response: Prof. Mann is a great example of someone who promotes “dulled critical thinking skills.” Mann has tried to “sucker” the public for years on his “alternative facts and persuasive fictions.”
Here are a few examples of the “dulled” thoughts of Prof. Mann from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
Page 167: Penn State Professor Michael Mann was even more explicit. “We can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real
time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” Mann said at a Democrat platform draft hearing in 2016.
Page 197: The UN IPCC’s Michael Mann, a Penn State professor embroiled in the Climategate scandal, couldn’t restrain himself from engaging in climate porn after Harvey hit Texas. “We’re starting to talk about conditions that will literally force us to relocate the major coastal cities of the world, to relocate the better part of the billion people.”
Page 220: Penn State Professor Michael Mann weighed in with a 2036 deadline. “There is an urgency to acting unlike anything we’ve seen before,”
Mann explained.31 Media outlets reported Mann’s made a huge media splash with his prediction, noting “Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036.”
Page 238: Even before the elections, climate activist and Penn State professor Michael Mann warned that Trump was a “threat to the planet,” whose
future “could quite literally lie in the balance.”
Page 148: UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita, for example, publicly declared that his colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones, who had both been implicated
in Climategate, “should be barred from the IPCC process…. They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how petty and punitive the global warming science had become: “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.” Zorita was making reference to Climategate emails in which IPCC scientists had discussed how to suppress data and scientific studies that did not agree with the UN IPCC line. He noted how scientists who deviated from the UN IPCC’s position were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.” Zorita was a contributing author to the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. He has published more than seventy peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Michael Mann reveals he is no rocket man scientist as his claims rebutted by data – Mann claims that ‘climate change was behind this summer’s extreme weather’
Oh No! Not again! Warmist Michael Mann on UN climate summit: ‘Paris is probably the last chance’
Michael Mann: ‘Paris is probably the last chance to bring the necessary emission reductions on the way – we had begun 15 years ago, the required transformation of the energy system would gently can proceed.’
Reality Check: Every UN Climate Summit Hailed as ‘Last Chance’ To Stop ‘Global Warming’ Before It’s Too Late – Previous ‘last chance’ deadlines turned out to be — well — not the ‘last chance’ after all.
Also see: Warmist Michael Mann pushing ‘global warming’ blizzard connection
Mann has also claimed: “Reducing global carbon emissions should be understood as an extremely well-advised planetary insurance policy. Indeed, Americans take out fire insurance on their homes for levels of risk that pale in comparison to those associated with dangerous and irreversible climate change.”
Climate Depot Response to Mann:“Would anyone purchase fire insurance on their home with a huge up-front premium but virtually no payout if their home burned down? Only those who answer YES to such an “insurance” policy would like the “climate” regulations “deal” offered by Congress, the EPA, and the UN. If we actually did face a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the U.S. Congress or the United Nations to save us, we would all be DOOMED. The UN’s Paris climate agreement and EPA regulations can’t control the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has noted, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate, if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
Michael Mann claim: “Fortunately, some in his party appear to now recognize that outright denial of human-caused climate change has no place in honest political discourse and they seem to be embracing a pivot to the more worthy debate over what we do to address it. Let us encourage this shift and allow climate change deniers to become increasingly isolated as the fringe, irrelevant relic that they are.”
Climate Depot response: On the contrary, the global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of ‘climate cause deniers.’ They deny the hundreds of causes and variables of climate change and pretend CO2 is the ‘control knob’ overriding all the others and that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their claims.
# # #