Professor: Letter writer misleads readers about climate change

By Signal Contributor

Last update: Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

Bob Comer’s letter to the editor in The Signal (“Chill out, climate change worriers,” April 7, 2017) was little more than a regurgitation of shopworn climate-denier talking points.

Take his silly dismissal of human-caused climate change: “Of course climate changes! Always has” This is the top-ranked climate change denial myth at SkepticalScience.com.

Natural factors (volcanic eruptions and small but measurable changes in the brightness of the sun) were actually working to cool the planet slightly over the past half century.

The substantial warming that has taken place in recent decades occurred in spite of natural changes, not because of them.

Given his penchant for parroting myths, it is ironic that Mr. Comer dismisses the “hockey stick” temperature curve my co-authors and I published in the late 1990s as a “myth.”

As I recount the book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (November 2013 ISBN: 9780231152556) the unprecedented nature of recent warming over the past millennium has been attacked by climate change deniers owing to the simple, undeniable message it conveys about the dramatic impact human activity is having on Earth’s climate.

The highest scientific body in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate,” New York Times, June 22, 2006).

The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that recent warmth is likely unprecedented over an even longer timeframe.

Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods perpetuated by individuals like Mr. Comer, should consult scientist-run websites like skepticalscience.com or books on the topic like my own “Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change.”

Let’s get past the fake debate about whether climate change is real and on to the worthy debate over what to do about it.

Click here to post a comment

Professor: Letter writer misleads readers about climate change

Bob Comer’s letter to the editor in The Signal (“Chill out, climate change worriers,” April 7, 2017) was little more than a regurgitation of shopworn climate-denier talking points.

Take his silly dismissal of human-caused climate change: “Of course climate changes! Always has” This is the top-ranked climate change denial myth at SkepticalScience.com.

Natural factors (volcanic eruptions and small but measurable changes in the brightness of the sun) were actually working to cool the planet slightly over the past half century.

The substantial warming that has taken place in recent decades occurred in spite of natural changes, not because of them.

Given his penchant for parroting myths, it is ironic that Mr. Comer dismisses the “hockey stick” temperature curve my co-authors and I published in the late 1990s as a “myth.”

As I recount the book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (November 2013 ISBN: 9780231152556) the unprecedented nature of recent warming over the past millennium has been attacked by climate change deniers owing to the simple, undeniable message it conveys about the dramatic impact human activity is having on Earth’s climate.

The highest scientific body in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate,” New York Times, June 22, 2006).

The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that recent warmth is likely unprecedented over an even longer timeframe.

Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods perpetuated by individuals like Mr. Comer, should consult scientist-run websites like skepticalscience.com or books on the topic like my own “Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change.”

Let’s get past the fake debate about whether climate change is real and on to the worthy debate over what to do about it.

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

  • lois eisenberg

    “Let’s get past the fake debate about whether climate change is real and on to the worthy debate over what to do about it.” BINGO !!

    • Frank Rizzo

      Michael E. Mann has a history of lying and using falsified data to come up with incorrect conclusions.

      It makes sense you agree with him

      • jack dale

        The hockey stick has been replicated scores of times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data bases.

        • Keith Antonysen

          Exactly Jack, if deniers took the trouble to research the hockey stick, they would find Dr Mann’s comments to be truthful. Just suggesting somebody is lying without evidence is an insult, but provides no proof.
          The Dunning-Kruger effect is very much alive now we have fake news.

          • Gary Bierend

            “Disgrace to the Profession”

          • jack dale

            Steyn most certainly is.

          • John Samuel

            Poor Steyn. How much money do you think he will lose?

          • Gary Bierend

            I don’t suspect Steyn will lose any; he’s likely to prevail, and then I suspect he can go after Mann for legal expenses, perhaps even damages.

            Mann, on the other hand, has already lost in the court of public opinion, that loss is incalculable.

          • John Samuel

            Can you see land from your fantasy island? Bless.

            Mann keeps receiving awards.

          • Gary Bierend

            Like minded AGW alarmists give their hero awards? Wow, that’s really newsworthy!

            If I were you, I’d double check any award Mann claims to have received, he is not what he claims to be.

          • John Samuel

            Crank denier admits scientists know more than he does.

            An unlikely headline, I’m sure you’ll agree.

          • Gary Bierend

            I’m curious, do you alarmists ever actually read anything that runs contrary to your deeply held beliefs?

          • John Samuel

            Where are the deniers’ scientific papers?

            Which demented conspiracy theory blog is your favourite? You like Steyn. But is he the top of the steaming pile?

          • Gary Bierend

            It was a simple question, why can’t you simply answer it?

          • John Samuel

            I did answer it. I read science. No science contradicts AGW.

            You read silly blogs.

            Your turn. Which conspiracy theory blog is your favourite?

          • Gary Bierend

            That’s not an answer, that’s a talking point.

            I really don’t have time for your particular brand of zealotry, you and your fellow travelers talking points and mantras are wearing thin.

            I do wish you a great day however, and encourage you to go outside, I hear it’s unseasonably warm, well, everywhere.

          • Ron Bischof

            But he reads science, Gary! 😀

            Science is a methodology, so this troll’s assertion is a risible non sequitur.

            This column from an actual scientist is explanatory:

            “Science is a process, a way of finding things out, not a collection of results. Science is how we obtain new knowledge – and re-check what we think we know already.”

            https://signalscv.com/2017/04/07/bruce-hamilton-science-matters/

          • John Samuel

            Where are those deniers’ scientific papers?

            Oh dreary dear.

          • Gary Bierend

            This is why I’ve blocked them. The fact that Mann falsely claimed to have won and or shared in a Nobel Prize should make anyone suspect…but not the Fan-Boys! They continue to defend and admire a proven fraud. I’ve blocked them and moved on.

            “I read science!” Laugh out loud funny.

          • Ron Bischof

            Were are your papers, heretic? You didn’t expect a kind of Climate Inquisition? 😀

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY

          • Gary Bierend

            Genius! Have you heard that in his original complaint Mann actually claimed “defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient”? He had to change that of course because,

            a. that’s not a thing, and
            b. he’s not a Nobel Prize recipient.

            This is the clown that these guys are defending.

          • Ron Bischof

            Yes! And I had to chuckle at Mann’s absurdly pompous ego and subsequent retraction.

            It makes the slavish devotion of these trolling lickspittles all the more amusing!

          • John Samuel

            Steyn gives clowns a bad name.

          • John Samuel

            Nope. Just a lie propagated by wingnuts. Try again.

          • Ron Bischof

            Assertions aren’t facts.

            “In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors…” – Page 6 (Para. 17):

            http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

            “Can someone affiliated with an organization (like the EU or the IPCC) which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize claim to have received the honor?

            Individual persons connected to or working for a Nobel Prize awarded organization can not in any way describe him or herself personally as a Nobel Laureate.”

            http://www.nobelprize.org/faq/questions_in_category.php?id=7#85

            Shouldn’t you run along now and troll less capable folks?

          • John Samuel

            Where are those deniers’ scientific papers?

            Oh dear.

          • Brian Baker

            STILL avoiding those pesky questions, bud?

            Here they are again:

            Are you denying that the climate of this planet has been changing for billions of years?

            Are you claiming that mankind can actually STOP the climate from changing?

            Tick tock.

            I think there’s only one “denier” here. The person who’s denying actual facts over weird theories.

            Those questions await, bud.

          • John Samuel

            Man is changing the climate more quickly than at any time in the last 65M years. Do keep up.

            Man made the problem. Man can fix it.

            Try again.

          • Brian Baker

            So you’re saying mankind can actually STOP THE CLIMATE FROM CHANGING?

            I don’t have to say anything more. That is absolutely one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen anyone actually say.

          • John Samuel

            Did you major in willful stupidity?

            Man is changing it more quickly than nature did. We can stop doing that.

            Duh.

          • Brian Baker

            On that basis, you’ve converted me. I’m now on your side.

            So… once we save the planet, what’s next? I think the tides at Malibu are too low. We need to change that, too. And how about grass? I think it’s too green. We need to fix it!

          • lois eisenberg

            “Man is changing the climate more quickly than at any time in the last 65M years. Do keep up.”

            “Man made the problem. Man can fix it.”

            “Try again.” BINGO !!

          • John Samuel

            Caps and cartoons. You are shooting blanks. Try science. You might like it.

          • Bart_R

            I didn’t know Canadian Mark Steyn in high school, but you likely knew people like him: a stoner in so much trouble with the administration (and sometimes the authorities) that he was shipped out of the country to a private British school by his well-to-do parents.. and even that he dropped out of, working as a ‘disc jockey’ on the underground party circuit, with inexplicably large amounts of ready cash after he was disowned.

            Michael Mann, on the other hand, was the most accomplished undergraduate student of his generation, with a list of academic awards earned entirely on his own merits in the most difficult subjects at the toughest schools in America.

            Steyn’s connections to fringe acts got him a gig as a music reviewer, then regular column as a music critic, which he parleyed into a hatefest of shock jock work. Skipping out of the UK ahead of threatened defamation actions there, Steyn became a US citizen relatively late in life. You can thank Steyn’s foul mouth for his presence in America.

            Mann, who might have become a remarkable Sheldon-Cooper-style theoretical physicist, could not at the time find work in his field due Congress budget cuts to the theoretical sciences. The practical to commerce, logistics, farming, travel and military field of climate science, however, was plush with cash and welcomed America’s finest scholar of his day. You can thank Congress for Michael Mann’s involvement in the hockey stick.

            Why would you expect such a reprobate as Steyn, whom courts have already twice ruled is likely to lose this case, will win, or has any victory in the ‘court of public opinion’ beyond the narrow audience of people who will swallow any propaganda, so long as it aligns with their own fears and hatred?

            Oh. Nevermind. Answered my own question.

          • Gary Bierend

            Ah, character assassination, the last resort of a desperate sycophant.

            Has anyone else noticed that not a single one of the Mann-Boys has addressed the FACT that Mann lied about being a Nobel Laureate? I guess they prefer to “swallow any propaganda, so long as it aligns with their own fears and hatred.”

            Another Mann sycophant? BLOCK!

          • Bart_R

            Insult, ask questions, block, run away. TCM.

            Steyn’s biography is public, and Steyn himself has readily confirmed its details with, if anything, pride.

            The question of whether or not the lead author of a panel that won a Nobel prize is a Nobel Laureate is a fine bit of sophism.

            The head of the Nobel committee suggested after the fact that Mann and his fellow panelists were not Laureates, but then the Nobel committee did not take the prize money away from Mann and his fellow panelists. At the time Mann made the claim, a reasonable one until this doubletalk from the Nobel committee head, the claim was not a lie. Dr. Mann has since moderated his claims to reflect the new reality.

            So, the question of who is a liar now reverts to you: did you know these facts, and choose to ignore them, or did you merely irresponsibly libel Dr. Mann’s reputation because you chose not to confirm the facts?

            Oh. Wait. You ran away like a fossil dine-and-dasher, so can’t see the question.

          • Ron Bischof

            The libel case filed by Professor Mann is a character contest?

            Non sequitur, sir.

          • Bart_R

            Yes, you have followed my reply with a non sequitur.

            READ HARDER.

            My statement on the probity of winning or losing was entirely based on two previous rulings of the likelihood of Dr. Mann’s success.

            My statement regarding why someone might disregard facts to form an on its face unlikely conclusion was based on character.

            Did you need anything else broken down into smaller pieces for you?

          • Ron Bischof

            Reading is a trivial task for me, thanks. To demonstrate my acuity, you wrote “probity” where probability would be correct.

            Your argument is about character in reference to a libel case. Professor Mann must prove libel in a court of law and that’s entirely unrelated to, say, Steyn’s academic activities of decades past. You made no legal argument except passing reference to other cases, despite your assertion just now.

            Here’s a primer for you:

            https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

            If you’re rational, this should preclude you from chanting Climate Inquisition boogymen in your future posts.

      • microlith

        Yeah? Go on and show how he’s lied and used falsified data.

  • Frank Rizzo

    You are perpetuating the “debate” by using strawman terms like Climate Deniers. By starting your argument with childish name calling it truly diminishes your argument.

    But lets not forget the NSF research grant you received to do the Hockey Stick study was specifically biased to only seek evidence for man-made climate change — rather than investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.

    I have worked as an astrophysicist studying solar radiation and it’s affects on climate. You don’t even consider things like Milankovitch cycles among other things in your school studies. You also filed to mention the many many time it has been found the data you relied on for your conclusions were “adjusted” to suit your conclusions.

    You are an alarmist. Your only have motivated self-interest (more grants $$$), not facts.

    • microlith

      But that’s what they are! They deny humanity’s involvement in the change of our climate, and do so with willful ignorance.

      You may be an astrophysicist, but that doesn’t qualify you to speak on climatology. The “solar radiation” argument has already been approached and debunked.

      Your only have motivated self-interest (more grants $$$), not facts.

      Yeah, and those poor oil companies are totally innocent with their funding of denialists and their arguments. Like Lamar Smith and his witch hunts.

      • Graham Thompson

        He’s not an astrophysicist, otherwise he’d know that they do factor in milankovitch cycles.

      • Frank Rizzo

        No one says humans have no impact. The claim that we are the main impact is in question. And no facts have ever been brought forth that consider all things that affect climate. For instance, that big ball of fire in the sky. Small variations have huge consequences here on Earth. They look at one piece of the pie and draw a conclusion for the whole pie. Faulty Science.

        The idea that solar radiation has no impact is ridiculous. I am not saying I have all the answers. But there is a reason every climate model has been wrong, in fact not even close.

        And lastly, I am saying lets do what we can to help. But stop with the misinformation.

        • microlith

          No one says humans have no impact. The claim that we are the main impact is in question.

          So quibbling, like the deniers did at Smith’s disgraceful, anti-science circus act. Willful denial of data that’s held up under multiple examinations.

          Faulty Science.

          Ironic.

          The idea that solar radiation has no impact is ridiculous. I am not
          saying I have all the answers. But there is a reason every climate
          model has been wrong, in fact not even close.

          Yet more irony. No one has claimed solar radiation has no impact. What they have claimed is that it doesn’t account for the changes being observed. Not only do you not have any answers, but you make egregious claims that I doubt you can support in the slightest.

          And lastly, I am not saying lets do what we can to help. But stop with the misinformation.

          But any time proposals come up for how to help, they’re attacked. And, again, the irony of you demanding people “stop with the misinformation” while you sit here projectile-vomiting it.

          • Frank Rizzo

            “No one has claimed solar radiation has no impact. ”

            “The “solar radiation” argument has already been approached and debunked.”

            You can believe what you want. Like in 2004 saying the ice caps will be gone in 7 years. Oops. All you’e doing is showing everybody that your IQ, if it were channeled into electricity, might be able to toast a piece of bread. Lightly

          • jack dale

            No one in 2004 said the ice caps would be gone in 7 years.

          • Gary Bierend

            Right you are, it was 2007. Google:
            “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ bbc”

          • jack dale

            “google” = intellectual laziness at its best.

            What Al Gore really said in his Nobel speech in December 2007:

            “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”

          • Gary Bierend

            Your smugness is amusing.

            Posting links on this forum oftentimes places a post in limbo. I offered you a path to enlightenment so you would not continue to beclown yourself by spreading false statements, but your intellectual laziness forbids you from seeking any information that doesn’t fit your narrative.

            Sad.

          • Chris Golledge

            Who do you think said that?

        • Heffer

          “No one says humans have no impact. The claim that we are the main impact is in question.”

          But not enough of a question to get you to actually investigate? Just enough of a question to get you to bloviate in comments on news articles.

          “I am not saying I have all the answers.”

          That’s a good idea. You don’t even have the questions.

        • Edward MacGuire

          “very climate model has been wrong, in fact not even close”

          Climate models are not only becoming more accurate, the models are converging. I don’t know of any model that does not validate the long established science (Arrhenius, Tyndall) of the effect of CO2 and CH4 on planetary temperatures.

          Name one climate model which shows that increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm will have no affect on climate. There is no such model because there is no science supporting the notion.

    • jack dale

      If you have studied Milankovitch cycles, you would know that they would have us in a cooling cycle.

      From the Stanford Solar Center

      During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

      A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

  • Frank Rizzo

    Read Mark Steyn’s book titled “A Disgrace to the Profession”, which is largely comprised of quotes from scientists around the world who have criticized Mann’s hockey stick graph and the negative effect of alarmism on the field of climate science.

    • jmac

      Why? Steyn does not appear to have a college education or any background in climate science.

    • jack dale

      Classic contextomy.

      • Gary Bierend

        How so?

        • jack dale

          Quoted mined and out of context.

          • Gary Bierend

            I know what the word means, I’m asking for an example. You must have read the book, please cite an example.

          • jack dale
          • Gary Bierend

            Sentence #1 of Laden’s piece: “There is a new attack by an anti-science and anti-environment talking head on a well respected climate scientist and his work.”

            Why yes, he sounds quite objective.

            By the way, there were more than three people represented in the book. If you had read it, you’d find the evidence overwhelming, but apparently you didn’t.

          • jack dale

            I have no intention of supporting the yellow journalism of Steyn. You are we;come to do so.

          • Gary Bierend

            What a coincidence, I have no intention of promoting a guy that lies about winning a Nobel Prize, sues people to stifle their right to free speech and is otherwise wholly discredited.

            However, you are free to do so.

          • jack dale

            Libel is not free speech.

            Your talking points are spurious.

          • Gary Bierend

            The truth is not libel. It’s amazing that you believe a guy that would lie about being a Nobel Laureate. You can’t make this stuff up.

          • John Samuel

            Will Steyn be bankrupted?

          • Gary Bierend

            Not likely, in fact, Steyn’s likely to prevail. Mann filed his suit in an attempt to bully Steyn, he didn’t expect a fight. That’s why Mann is delaying as much as possible. It’s comical to watch a bully like Mann trying to delay a after school meeting at the flagpole that he suggested!

            Mann is a fraud and a bully.

          • John Samuel

            “Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud, and none of those investigations having found Plaintiff’s [Mann’s] work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false. Reference to Plaintiff, as a fraud is a misstatement of fact.”

            DC Superior Court ruling Mann’s defamation suit against National Review and CEI, July 2013

  • Frank Rizzo

    Mann has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails.

    • Graham Thompson

      Was that one of the six investigations that found no evidence of any wrong-doing?

    • John Samuel

      You lost Climategate. Remember?

  • Brian Baker

    There’s no question that our planetary climate goes through cycles; the issue is
    whether or not it’s anthropogenic, and THAT’S the case the hysterics haven’t
    made.

    Explain the Carboniferous Period; explain the transition during the last mere 10,000 years (a blink in geological time) from sheet ice covering much of N. America and woolly mammoths and saber-tooth cats roaming wild here in LA as part of the local fauna. Too many of them drive SUVs?

    The climate has been changing for about 4 billion years, and will continue to do so until there’s no more atmosphere. There’s nothing anyone can do to stop it.

    The zealots are bowing at the altar of Gaia, just as the Catholic Church imposed it’s earth-centric views of the Universe as a form of “science” in the days of Copernicus.

    • jack dale

      No denies that natural cycles played a role in climate change. Dumping 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the past 250 years messed up those natural cycles.

    • Chris Golledge

      Please look up the history of science behind the anthropogenic origin of the recent climate change, starting with Fourier’s work in the 1820s. Then explain in detail what you know about gas spectroscopy that has escaped every physicist since Tyndall. For you to be right, 200 years of thermodynamics has to be wrong.

    • Brian Baker

      Jeez, you guys crack me up!

      I can’t bother wasting time on people who simply continually regurgitate the same old drivel over and over again.

      You may continue to bow down to Gaia!

      Chicken Little rules!
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8dab5c012e704f869f977170b04155a8b445fa2518e7b5e2a706cb612c229368.jpg

      • John Samuel

        Dunning-Kruger rules,

        • Brian Baker
          • John Samuel

            There are three key conditions that are needed for a scientific concept to become a ‘paradigm’, like plate tectonics or evolution.
            ……. Coherence – Consilience – and – Consensus ……
            Coherence – a theory that coherently explains the multiple observed lines of empirical evidence across multiple aspects of the climate system.
            Consilience – the predicted and projected changes being confirmed across multiple scientific disciplines observing the multiple aspects of the climate system.
            Consensus – agreement amongst scientific researchers from many different academic disciplines that the first two C’s are correct, and that no alternate theory can adequately explain this.
            AGW is now an over-arching concept (a paradigm) that frames how science deals with specific phenomena in the behaviour of certain earth systems.
            Concepts become scientific theories by the accumulation of evidence that can only be explained in one way.
            Any other idea would need to explain at least as much evidence in a different way.
            Which would include the huge mass of evidence from the geological record.
            To falsify the “climate paradigm”, so-called climate sceptics need to find enough evidence that does not fit the paradigm, publish it in peer-reviewed research papers in the professional literature, and propose a new paradigm that fits all the old and new evidence.
            So-called climate sceptics don’t even bother to try doing that.

          • Brian Baker

            Sound and fury signifying nothing… a tempest in a teacup.

            Unfortunately, you fascists can’t overcome the simple fact that much more radical climate change has been the planetary norm as long as there’s been a climate. Billions of years.

            Nor can you overcome the simple fact that there’s absolutely nothing that a puny systemic element like mankind can ever do to stop it from happening into perpetuity.

            That’s just a fact, Jack.

          • John Samuel

            I do like a good fact free bluster. I hope you feel better now.

            Where are the deniers’ scientific papers?

          • Brian Baker

            HAhahahahaha!

            I see…. So, you’re saying the climate HASN’T been changing? And that it WON’T continue to do so?

            Ooooooooookay….

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4719469ff3207d066f376703929d3debdc56240011fd4ae4490e074ebc1126d9.jpg

          • John Samuel

            I see logic is another one of your signal failings.

            Just to remind the resident thicky that because all cows have four legs does not mean all four legged animals are cows.

            Which conspiracy theory blog is your favourite?

          • Brian Baker

            Classic! Avoidance, misdirection, and obfuscation.

            Can’t answer the simple issues of actual facts, can you?

            C’mon, bud, cowboy up. Are you saying that the climate hasn’t been perpetually changing for billions of years? Are you saying that mankind can actually STOP it from doing so?

            Tick tock.

          • John Samuel

            Classic! Avoidance, misdirection, and obfuscation.

            So many deniers of science. So much projection.

            Man is changing the climate more quickly than at any time in the last 65M years. Do keep up.

          • Brian Baker

            STILL haven’t answered the questions.

            Let’s try again.

            Has the climate been changing for billions of years?

            Are you claiming that mankind can actually STOP it from doing so?

          • John Samuel

            Thicky.

            Man is changing the climate more quickly than at any time in the last 65M years. Do keep up.

          • Brian Baker

            ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

            Or are you illiterate?

          • John Samuel

            Thicky.

            Thanks for the caps of wingnuttery.

          • Bart_R

            Why is it you get to frame the terms of the discussion?

            The real discussion is this: do you pay what you owe?

            According to Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, and noted California economist and winner of the Sveriges Riksbank prize, Lin Ostrom, you do not.

            Adam Smith in 1776’s Wealth of Nations set out that tenants must pay scarcity rents to land owners for fruits of their lands, or the economy would suffer perverse rewards for waste and inefficiency, begetting misery.

            Ostrom showed that if scarcity is accompanied by excludability and rivalrous use, then the state must privatize property to meet Smith’s condition.

            Rubino et al (2013) showed by isotope analyses that 100% of the bottleneck of CO2 in the air for the last 1000 years is due fossil wastes.

            David Archer of the University of Chicago demonstrated that the bleed-out rate of fossil CO2 back down to natural levels is thousands of human lifespans.

            That bottleneck proves scarcity; the bleed-out rate proves rivalry. British Columbia’s Revenue Neutral Tax Act excludes people from buying fossil unless they also pay the fossil fee. Ostrom’s conditions have been met.

            Government has de facto nationalized the fossil waste disposal powers of your land — weathering and sequestering of CO2 — and robs you of the revenues of scarcity rents due you from fossil waste dumpers.

            Do you collect — and pay — what you owe?

  • Bill Reynolds

    Wondering what is the perfect climate for Planet Earth?

    • jack dale

      Economists have long known that different regions of the world respond differently to changing temperatures, but the reasons have been unclear. Now, new research suggests there is an optimal temperature for economic productivity: 13°C, or about 55°F

      http://www*sciencemag*org/news/sifter/optimal-temperature-economic-growth-13%C2%B0c

    • TheEnergyGuy

      Keeping the average global climate of The Holocene Epoch would be best, but we are warming well above that.

    • tonylurker

      Well, our agriculture and cities were developed based on the climate we’ve have for the past few thousand years. A change in climate and a change in sea levels will drastically alter what food grows well where and where we will be able to live. Adapting to these changes will require significant effort (and money).

    • John Samuel

      A stable one.

  • Gil Mertz

    Didn’t Jerry Brown just declare that the drought emergency in California is over or is Brown just another victim of the regurgitation of shopworn climate-denier talking points?

    • TheEnergyGuy

      Most of CA just had the drought emergency lifted. It was declared back in 2014. Four counties remain in a drought emergency. Let’s see how long we go until the next big drought.

  • Brian Baker

    What’s interesting to me is how utterly panicked these “climate change” mandarins seem to be. Could it be they see their little empire threatened in the Age of Trump?

    Here we have one little Letter to the Editor, written by a guy who’s a complete unknown — Bob Comer — published in a small local newspaper (The Signal, beloved as it is), and we have the infamous Michael Mann himself writing a column dedicated to disputing him?

    And then Mann’s apparent Greek Chorus of minions, none of whom are local according to their Discus profiles, pitching in to try to prop him up? People who seem to have nothing better to do than write propaganda pieces which they sprinkle throughout the internet like dandelion fluff?

    This is hilarious!

    • Brian Baker

      Yes, indeed.

      Thank you, Mann, for proving your panic. It’s absolutely delightful!
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65bddd71a9af3e135151b261f0194ef6957529fc3913cd475b0353d797298bab.jpg

    • Keith Antonysen

      Brian, having ridiculed climate science you no doubt have absolute proof that it is all wrong.
      Take Baffin Isand’s Barnes Ice Sheet, in 2.5 million years it has only reached the state it is currently a few times. It makes a nonsense of paleoclimate comments made by non-scientists such as yourself. Phytoplankton blooms found in the Arctic under ice are only possible through the ice being thin. The maximum extent of sea ice just measured is lower than the minimum extent of sea ice measured in 1980. Jet streams are changing as is Ocean circulation. Oceans have been warming evidenced by data taken from a number of sources.
      A very simple experiment to show how CO2 retains warmth:

      Experimentation which can be replicated is the hallmark of science.

      On Saturday 8th April 2017 experiments were conducted in an open air situation to display the greenhouse effect.

      The main experiment used as equipment a radiator, a thermometer, 5×2 litre bottles, and a hose to transfer CO2 created from two of the bottles. CO2 was created by mixing 2 table spoons of bi-carbonate of soda with 1/2 cup of vinegar. Two capped bottles one containing CO2 and the other plain air were placed equidistant from the radiator (about a 1/2 metre away); while the third bottle containing ice was placed about a centre meter equidistant behind the two other bottles. The bottles holding air and CO2 had probes connecting them to a sophisticated thermometer.

      The radiator represented Earth bouncing back infrared radiation, the bottles displayed two different atmospheres, and the bottle with ice represented outer space. The aim of the experiment was to demonstrate how CO2 retains warmth (energy). Warmth is pulled towards ice (outer space) when the concentration of CO2 (greenhouse gas) is lower. In the experiment conducted the bottle with CO2 was consistently 3C warmer than the bottle with air.

      • Ron Bischof

        “A very simple experiment to show how CO2 retains warmth…”

        Your little Science Fair project does amuse. Are the basic GHG properties of CO2 in dispute by anyone here? No.

        While I admire the persistent zealotry of you and your gang of fellow travelers pursing climate heretics, you’ll find little traction here for specious argumentation that serves no useful purpose.

        We’re all familiar with the online antics employed as you camp followers trail in the wake of the “Great Man”.

        • John Samuel

          Oh dear. No scientific body anywhere on the planet agrees with you. I guess gullibility is a virtue in your town.

          • Ron Bischof

            Au contraire, we are adept at recognizing roving gangs of adolescently repetitive remora-like trolls.

            Soon you’ll carry your “favourite” and bizarrely disconnected antics elsewhere and members of this community will remain.

            Bon voyage!

          • John Samuel

            Where are the deniers’ scientific papers?

            Back to your nutty blogs.

      • Brian Baker

        Dude, I don’t have to “absolutely prove” anything!

        You fan-boys don’t get it, do you? If you knew anything about REAL science, you’d know it’s up to YOU to prove your theory!

        But here’s your well-earned award anyway.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e590297be9322e1283f6b9e371fe0a9f4462c2294098a34336f5ab8b9f643b18.jpg

        • John Samuel

          The caps of wingnuttery.

          • Brian Baker

            Sorry, bud, but THAT’S how REAL science works. YOU proposed the theory. Now it’s up to YOU to “absolutely” prove it.

            Want some brie with your whine?

          • John Samuel

            Real science is in scientific journals. Oh dear. Own goal.

          • Brian Baker

            You’re definitely a legend in your own mind. Sadly, there’s no “absolute proof” in ANY of your “scientific journals”. Dude! You don’t even know the diff between “theory” and “proof”!

            Sad.

          • John Samuel

            There is no proof of any physical science. There is no proof of gravity. But you’re thick enough to jump out of a window.

            The scientists are right. You are not even wrong.

          • Brian Baker

            Flouting your ignorance on a grand scale. Of course there’s proof of physical phenomena. But again, it’s YOUR fellow fascist who talked about “absolute proof”. Just look further up.

            In the meantime, why are you STILL avoiding the simple questions on the table? Here they are again:

            Do you deny that the planet’s climate has been changing for billions of years?

            Are you claiming that mankind can actually STOP the climate from changing.

            Answer the questions, kid.

          • John Samuel

            You can prove gravity? Lovely. 🙂

            Well take that, Dr Newton and Dr Einstein!

            Where are the deniers’ papers?

            Man is changing the climate more quickly than at any time in the last 65M years. Do keep up.

          • Brian Baker

            Well, now that you’ve admitted that you think mankind can actually stop the climate from changing, you’ve converted me to your cause.

            I’ve actually started a list of suggestions for the next projects after the climate’s stopped changing. I think the Malibu tides are too low. Let’s fix that!

            Also, grass….. WAY too green! We need to mellow that out. Also, we need to stop earthquakes. They’re pretty pesky out here in California.

          • John Samuel

            Sounds like you’ve admitted man has changed it. Oh dear.

            Where are the deniers’ papers?

          • Brian Baker

            Oh, that’s interesting.

            You’re going back after the fact and editing and changing your comments AFTER I’ve responded to them.

            Jeez. On top of being a climate fascist, you have no ethics or credibility, either. I wonder why that doesn’t surprise me.

            That was purely rhetorical, of course. Seems like a very Mann-like thing to do.

            I think we’re done. Cheats and liars are beneath contempt. I don’t waste time on them.

          • Bart_R

            Let me help you with your questions, as you seem to have skidded off the road a bit.

            Science holds exact fit inferred from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission possible but no more than possible until new observation lead to amended or new fit.

            That’s known as Regulae Philosophandi, with commentary by Albert Einstein, originally written over 300 years ago by Isaac Newton. It’s the well-reasoned and thoroughly developed definition of how science identifies truth, what is or is not a scientific proof, and what is or is not scientific debate. Now, you can talk about anything you like, and you can say anything about it you want, but if what you say is outside of Regulae Philosophandi, it isn’t science. There is in science no grander scale than this one statement.

            Until the early 1950’s it was commonplace for scientists, and people following their views, to claim climate never or almost never changes. There was little observational evidence to go on, so it was usually said that climate remained steady for geological spans of time.

            In the 1940’s and 1950’s, H. H. Lamb conducted the most extensive survey of climate proxy and instrumental data he could, and through those observations was able to apply known universal principles of physics that said the work done by a forcing on a climate system would change the state of the climate. Published as a chapter in the book Climate in 1959, Lamb’s wide-ranging (but by no means complete) inferences showed that climate is always changing as forcings influence it — the first time this was shown scientifically — and that human causes could be such forcings.

            If you’re claiming climate has always changed, then you’re either being irrational, or basing your claim on Lamb’s work; the same work that proved human-caused climate change six decades ago.

            Can mankind stop climate from changing, kid?

            When a drunk driver gets into a car crash and wipes out a family, no sane person goes around saying, “Yeah, but that family might have all had heart attacks and died at that same moment, anyway, so why blame the drunk?”

            Mankind has taken the wheel, and is operating climate drunkenly, blindly, and to obvious bad effect. Nature stopped driving the climate when fossil waste dumpers started.

          • jack dale

            Proof is for booze and mathematics. Sciences uses evidence; which is pretty strongly in favour of AGW.

          • Brian Baker

            Bud, maybe you’d better point that out to one of your fellow climate-wacks. I was quoting your bud Keith Antonysen, just above.

            You clowns can’t even keep your stories straight!

          • Keith Antonysen

            A non-scientist, saying how science works is very funny.
            To say something is wrong in a meaningful way you need proof.
            Physics and Chemistry uphold climate science as do many other science disciplines. To suggest you know better than every major science body shows the Dunning-Kruger effect.

            Examples showing climate change:
            Great Barrier Reef?
            Leadbeater possum?
            Loss of kelp forests?
            Glaciers regressing?
            Phytoplankton blooms under ice in Arctic?
            Rainbombs?
            Ocean temperature?

  • charles maurice detallyrand

    Thank you Professor Mann.

    • lois eisenberg

      “Thank you Professor Mann” DITTO !!

  • lois eisenberg

    To regress to the Liar-in-Chief’s Puppets Sean Spicer in particular:
    Sean Spicer the worst press secretary of all time “draws backlash by comparing
    Hitler and Assad causing an uproar with his Hitler Gaffe ESPECIALLY ON PASSOVER and forgetting the first rule of politics “NEVER COMPARE ANYTHING TO HITLER”

  • Ron Bischof

    Rather than accepting an appeal from authority, I recommend readers peruse the topics on the Skeptical Science web site Professor Mann references twice to determine for themselves if it’s an objective source for discussion of AGW.

    I’ve done so in the past and just now. In my opinion, it appears designed to persuade lay persons on politics and policies tangentially related to climate change science.

    Therefore, I’m skeptical of anyone that references it as an authoritative scientific source.

    If anyone participating in this comment section is actually *qualified* to evaluate scientific data, best practice is to access published peer-reviewed source material.

    Also, it is an error in logic to assume human self-interest as detailed in Public Choice Theory doesn’t affect citations of science as it invariably continues onto public policy discussions.

    The polemics posted by those outside our community is of little practical use to non-experts as they make rational cost/benefit economic decisions.

    • John Samuel

      No scientific body on the planet agrees with you. Not a one.

      The all agree with Mann. Every single one.

      • Ron Bischof

        Argumentum ad populum and non-responsive to my post.

        • John Samuel

          Almost all published scientists say you’re wrong.

          Try again.

          • Ron Bischof

            No need. You’ve demonstrated a repeated inability to be on topic.

            You’re welcome to carry on nonsensically without my participation.

          • John Samuel

            Try harder.

            If you’ve decided to cease fact free trolling then that’s a victory.

  • Gary Bierend

    SkepticalScience is a joke. Look at their team, the guy in charge (Cook) has a degree in psychology, and there’s not a meteorologist in the bunch.

    As for Mann, the guy is a joke. He claimed to be a Nobel Laureate until people pointed out that it was an outright lie, then he quietly stopped.

    His hockey stick has been repeatedly debunked as well. That he is reduced to responding to a small town paper’s LTE is evidence of just how inconsequential he has become.

    Read “A Disgrace to the Profession” to see what actual scientists think of Mann and his nonsense.

    • jack dale

      Cook has a degree in Physics.

      The hockey sticks has been replicated scores of times by different researchers using different data sets.

      • Gary Bierend

        According to SkepticalScience: Cook has a PhD in cognitive psychology and a Bachelors in physics. One can only wonder what his AA is in.

        I notice you didn’t dispute the fact that they have no climate scientists on their team.

        • jack dale

          OK – and Mark Steyn’s credentials?

          • Gary Bierend

            Nobody said Steyn was an expert, but the phony Nobel Laureate Mann suggests readers consult “scientist-run websites” like SkepticalScience, which is run by a guy with a PhD in cognitive psychology and a Bachelors in physics.

            Speaking of physics, your guy Laden mentioned three professors in his article. According to Laden, the third one, “Jonathan Jones, at Oxford, the third quoted scientist, is a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.” “Maybe Jonathan Jones, as a non-climate scientist who is also a climate science denier, is an appropriate person to quote in Steyn’s book.”

            So, when it suits your’s (and Mann’s) purposes a guy with a Bachelors in physics is scientist enough to speak with authority on climate change, but when it doesn’t serve your purpose, they’re not.

            Thanks, I got it.

          • cunudiun

            If you want to make it a question of “speak[ing] with authority about climate change,” try this on for size:

            Abstract

            The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

            http://journals DOT sagepub DOT com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958

          • Gary Bierend

            How onegets from: “…1 in 17,352, rejected AGW.” to this: “Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.” is only explained by zealotry. But please, carry on, I find it quite entertaining.

          • cunudiun

            Try dividing 1 by 17,352, multiplying the result by 100 to convert it to a percentage and then subtracting from 100%. I would do the long division here for you, but it’s a little difficult keeping the columns aligned in this space.

          • Gary Bierend

            I’m not questioning the math. For the sake of the discussion, let’s stipulate that the math is correct. I questioning (and laughing at) the methodology.

            How is it that unless a given paper specifically rejects AGW, it must automatically endorse AGW? This is not a binary proposition.

            It’s intellectual fraud.

          • cunudiun

            But that’s not how the research was conducted. It was 99.99% of the papers that took a position on AGW.

          • Gary Bierend

            Your abstract says nothing of the sort. I stand by my original assessment.

        • Constant Gardener

          Not sure why Jack didn’t bother to correct you, but SS lists a number of climate scientists and doctoral students working on their doctorates in various fields of climate science. See e.g. the second and third entries on the “Team” page, among several others. Since you pretend to some expertise regarding the SS contributors, I’m surprised you’ve not read Gavin Cawley’s recent paper, “On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide.”

          Also, worth pointing out that meteorologists aren’t climate scientists.

          • Gary Bierend

            These are the second and third entries you refer to:

            PeterJ
            Peter is a doctoral student at George Mason University. He has a Masters of Science in Environmental Science and Policy, with a concentration in Earth Surface Processes and Environmental Geochemistry. His current research focus is how climate change in the past, present, and future may impact marine ecosystems, and how past changes in those ecosystems can inform our understanding of past climatic changes. He is also interested in the communication of science.

            Klaus Flemløse
            I am master of science in mathematics and statiscis from University of Århus, Denmark. I have worked in the financial sector as an actuary in insurance, reinsurance, supervision and life insurance and teached math/stat at the university and in the gymnasium and has retired end of may 2013. Primary interest birdwatching, climate science incl sea level and tide analysis.

            “PeterJ” claims to be a doctoral student, but we have no idea what it is in. If he’s anything like Cook, it will be in Philosophy.

            As for Klaus’s bio, well, Mat and “statiscis” is important, but they are not meteorology.

          • Constant Gardener

            On my page, the second is MarkR and third is Robert Way. Just having refreshed the page, it shuffled the bios. That doesn’t matter, of course, since I bothered to read them all, and either you didn’t or you lied about what you found there. It remains true that there are both publishing climate scientists and doctoral candidates actively researching climate science comprising the team.

          • Gary Bierend

            Here are a couple of my favorite SkepticalScience scientists:

            jg
            John Garrett is a technical illustrator residing in Wildomar, California, USA. In my personal time, I volunteer for a variety of groups including Skeptical Science, the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, and the Temecula Valley Astronomers. As an astronomy enthusiast, I’ve published photos in Astronomy Magazine and am involved in establishing astronomy clubs in local middle schools. I’m also a member of the International Dark-sky Association.

            Ari Jokimäki
            Ari lives in Finland and has a BSc in computer engineering. He has been studying climate science as a hobbyist and runs his own blog (AGW Observer). In Skeptical Science Ari translates articles to Finnish, hosts New Research From Last Week series, and writes other articles every now and then.

            Rob Painting
            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

            BaerbelW
            Bärbel Winkler lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo and a conservation group for many years. Over time and while learning more and more about it, Bärbel became increasingly aware and concerned about climate change and what it will mean for generations to come. As a means to turn her concerns regarding climate change into something productive, Bärbel joined the Skeptical Science team in 2010 and started translating selected content into German. Since 2013 she has been coordinating the translation efforts for all languages and also contributes a blog-post every once in a while

            The list goes on. Skeptical Science is a joke, whether there are a couple of real scientists on the list or not. But you are welcome to put your faith in hobbyists and housewives.

          • Constant Gardener

            Why do you continue to ignore the multiple climate scientists and doctoral candidates who write for SS who put the absolute lie to your claim there are no climate scientists writing there? This is your version of “Squirrel!!”?

          • Gary Bierend

            Where did I say there were no climate scientists at SkepticalScience? Here’s my post on the subject:

            “SkepticalScience is a joke. Look at their team, the guy in charge (Cook) has a degree in psychology, and there’s not a meteorologist in the bunch.”

            You are a liar, and you don’t even have the courage to spread your lies under your real name, so you’re a coward to boot. Not surprising you would be one of Mann’s followers.

          • Constant Gardener

            Ah, and now we discover that, at the end of your charade, you realize that meteorologists aren’t climate scientists. It is to laugh. The emptiness of deniers, ladies and gentlemen.

          • Gary Bierend

            And you remain a liar, just like Mann. Such is the shady character of AGW alarmists.

          • Constant Gardener

            So, you have nothing, then? Again? As always?

          • Gary Bierend

            I would think exposing you as a liar and a coward was enough for one night. You must be a real glutton for punishment, whoever you are. I’m curious, is it shame that keeps you from posting under your real name, or do you do it as some sort of kinky homage to Mann, the phony Nobel Laureate?

            I also had to laugh at your last “as always” comment. How long have you been posting here, 3 hours? You Mann-Fan-Boys are hysterical.

          • Constant Gardener

            Deflect!! Either you think that only meteorologists are qualified to act as science journalists, or you have been caught out as a vacuous denier. Which would be worse?

          • Gary Bierend

            We’re done here.

          • Constant Gardener

            Oh noes! Insipid denier foolishly denies SS’s deeply resourced reporting, on the basis that SS’s commentary is not conducted by qualified experts, despite the fact that it’s conducted by a significant number of climate experts. And then, it flees.

          • Gary Bierend

            Not surprising that a fanboy would be impressed with hobbyists and housewives. Tell me, does living in that echo chamber give you tinnitus?

            OK, now we’re done. Blocked.

          • cunudiun

            You didn’t expose him as a liar at all. Rather you showed yourself to be one with your lame attack on Mann. Obviously you have nothing execpt regurgiated talking points and confirmation bias.

          • Gary Bierend

            Your fellow traveler said something about me that was not true. That is what is known as a lie, that makes him a liar.

            Your hero Mann claimed to be a Nobel Laureate. That is what is known as a lie, that makes him a liar.

            Perhaps if you were to broaden your information sources, you might find you’ve been backing the wrong horse all along.

          • Constant Gardener

            Apparently, Gary is down to pretending that his initial assertion that SS is a “joke” is solely because of Cook’s PhD and the lack of meteorologists on the team. We’re supposed to believe he knew (he did not know) there were a number of practicing climate scientists, and actively researching doctoral candidates, who write many of the site’s posts – all of which link to source material so anyone can check whether SS has faithfully reported on the topic. But SS is still a joke because, dammit, you need to have meteorologists!
            Meteorologists of GTFO!

            Does MIT’s climate program have meteerologists? EAPS graduate students pursue degrees through programs in geology, geochemistry and geobiology; geophysics; atmospheres, oceans, and climate; planetary science; and the MIT/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) Joint Program in Oceanography. No meteorology? Damn MIT is a joke!

            How about Caltech? You got meteorology Caltech?, Caltech has only Atmospheric chemistry and air pollution, Environmental chemistry and technology, Dynamics of climate, Biogeochemistry and climates of the past, Environmental microbiology, and Landscape evolution. Joke!

  • Gil Mertz

    Yes Lois, let’s get past such fake debates as the evidence-free obsession with Trump and the Russians and let’s make America great again!

  • Brian Baker

    Hey, looks like the SCV is famous! As of right now, 59 comments, most of them from out-of-town nimrods nobody’s ever heard of! Today we’re Troll Central! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b6d8489bbfbe921cdc76aa272e56c1dc0c9dbac8f3576ceed7d54acd1d17649.jpg
    Cooooool…

    • jack dale

      Welcome to World Wide Web.

      • Brian Baker

        “World Wide Web”. How quaint! Did you just get back from the ’90s? How’s the De Lorean running?

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/03548195f4c9ee8ff889ea4e284174422e1c5a393f9905635646c3d789388370.jpg

        • jack dale

          Let’s see. The website URL starts https, as in hyper text transfer protocol.

          The World Wide Web, or just “the Web,” as ordinary people call it, is a subset of the Internet. The Web consists of pages that can be accessed using a Web browser. The Internet is the actual network of networks where all the information resides. Things like Telnet, FTP, Internet gaming, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), and e-mail are all part of the Internet, but are not part of the World Wide Web. The Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the method used to transfer Web pages to your computer.

          • Brian Baker

            See? You’re not as dense as you seem, after all.

            “‘the Web,’ as ordinary people call it…”
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d9378a95aa1cae8aff6f61053794fb5f323a8e7a95f64af8b381b7476311fa6.jpg

          • Gary Bierend

            Brian, these guys all want to take you down the same rabbit hole. The fact that they follow and defend a phony Nobel Laureate says all you need to know about them. I’m blocking them like I would any other pest.

            Looks like they are getting deleted like the spam they are.

          • Brian Baker

            But Gary, it’s so much fun smearing their noses in the dirt!

            And such a target-rich environment, too.

          • John Samuel

            Where are those deniers’ scientific papers?

            Whoops.

          • Gary Bierend

            I’m hip. I have bigger fish to fry at the moment, Mann-Fan-Boys are pretty low on my list of priorities.

          • John Samuel

            Trumpleforeskin is high up the alt-right’s priorities.

    • Bart_R

      When I worked in Compton, at the then Nissan North America HQ, I was warned that people from SCV were exclusionary isolationists. It was never my experience working with people from there, but I guess the isolationists aren’t really likely to meet outsiders, except when their freeways collapse and first responders dig them out.

  • lois eisenberg

    To all the new posters John, Jack, Graham, Keith, Rik thank you for taking the deniers
    to task . Bravo to one and all ! Please keep contributing your opinions .
    You are all sorely needed !!
    These deniers are so absorbed in their own inane rhetoric that it is very easy to see how narrowed minded they are.

  • Ron Bischof

    I’ve made no assertions about climate change and am under no obligation to disprove anything.

    Apply basic logic while you wait.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

    You’re welcome.

    • Bart_R

      I didn’t notice the poster saying you were under any obligation in his quick requests.

      However, your claims do rather place you under some strong obligations per Carl Sagan’s mantra, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

      In my opinion, it appears designed to persuade lay persons on politics and policies tangentially related to climate change science.

      While anyone is free to hold an opinion, this opinion is particularly defamatory, has not had any examples cited to bolster it, and implies much clearly at odds with easily attainable facts. Therefore, you have an unmet burden of proof.

      Therefore, I’m skeptical of anyone that references it as an authoritative scientific source.

      Dr. Mann has published some 200 peer-reviewed papers, what you below refer to as best practice. Nor did he allude to SkS as an authoritative scientific source, though I’ve noted in the past that SkS has a policy of responding to any errors in the authenticity of its source material or biases of conclusions it draws as you allege, with corrections and amendments.

      I’m skeptical of your claims, on the growing evidence of your claims’ inconsistency with fact.

      If anyone participating in this comment section is actually *qualified* to evaluate scientific data, best practice is to access published peer-reviewed source material.

      Oh. Hey. Dr. Mann is eminently qualified in evaluating scientific data, as demonstrated by a list of awards from bodies whose principle concern is scientific data, and repeated reproduction of Dr. Mann’s results by independent analysts, with remarkable failure to demonstrate actual error in his work based on data and logic.

      Would he meet your criteria?

      Also, it is an error in logic to assume human self-interest as detailed in Public Choice Theory doesn’t affect citations of science as it invariably continues onto public policy discussions.

      Oh hey. PCT. Haven’t heard that old chestnut in a while. IIRC, it was a big deal for about a minute when WHAM! was popular. It even won the Nobel of Economics for one of its proponents.. who lied and said he was a Nobel Laureate.

      Mostly, it’s fallen to just a way to slam people as an insider insult, and serious economists prefer Game Theory for utility and nuance.

      The polemics posted by those outside our community is of little practical use to non-experts as they make their own rational cost/benefit economic decisions.

      May I freely translate? Facts posted by anyone we tribally label ‘outsiders’ question-beggingly by virtue that they post such facts, will be ignored because they make us feel bad about ourselves and weaken our excuses for failing to face our responsibilities.

      • Ron Bischof

        “I didn’t notice the poster saying you were under any obligation in his quick requests.”

        Correct. You did not.

        You’re welcome to read my link on logic as well.

        Additionally, I draw your attention to the court document and Nobel Committee URLs I posted regarding Professor Mann’s Nobel assertions.

        Note that Mann isn’t participating in comments here. You and your fellow camp followers are.

        I’ll detail how your behavioral pathology likely functions.

        Pseudointellectuals like yourself, who have a low probability of actually analyzing and interpreting source data from climate studies, utilize search terms on the Disqus platform.

        Then you swarm forums with ad hominems and rote cut and paste factoids to ideologically attack proxy “denier” opponents, without regard to specific responses they’ve actually written. The objective of this tendentious sophistry is to evoke an emotional response so you can declare you delivered a beat down on ignorant rubes. Lather, rinse, repeat.

        This behavior is ideological zealotry that has zero to do with the process of science. It persuades no one and is an act of public onanism.

        You’re bound for disappointment here. Why don’t you move on, hoping you’ll encounter forum participants that are less capable of dispassionate intellectual rigor?

        • Gary Bierend

          Excellent summation Ron, I almost wish I hadn’t blocked whichever redshirt you responded to!

  • lois eisenberg

    “Humanity must take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”

    “The saddest aspect of this tragic story is that we have so many means currently available to reduce fossil fuel consumption and make America energy-independent by using alternative sources of energy — including wind, solar and geothermal — and reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by planting more trees. “

  • Gary Bierend

    Mann: “Let’s get past the fake debate about whether climate change is real and on to the worthy debate over what to do about it.”

    Oh, let’s not talk about all that fake stuff, tell what it’s like to be a Nobel Laureate!

    What amazing hubris.

    • Ron Bischof

      That’s the crux of the issue, is it not? Not science, but “what to do about it”, i.e., political “solutions” to “save the planet”.

      This is the self-interest that I referenced in a prior post. If we listen, statists and bureaucrats in supranational institutions will tell us what the end game is.

      This is why our local worthy, Cher Gilmore, beats the drum for a “carbon” tax, a tax on all economic activity, in every repetitive FUD column published. It’s the one consistent feature in her Op-Eds.

      More:

      Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC:

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind” she said “that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

      Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III:

      “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

      “Science”, eh?

      • Gary Bierend

        I decided to see if the good doctor had written this letter exclusively for The Signal. I took snippets from it, (e.g. “The highest scientific body in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed my research” as well as others) along with “mann”, and found that he has been responding to his critics with the same basic template for a couple of years. The bulk of the letter is a cut and paste job.

        Arrogant, yet unoriginal.

        • Ron Bischof

          Indeed. As we’ve seen with the drive-thru pack of jackals, it’s a small coterie of pugnacious and vocal zealots focused on policy, not science.

          The goal is to drive the reasonable and objective out of the debate and fill the vacuum. The intensity is designed to intimidate and silence.

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor