Decision looms in Michael Mann / Tim Ball “hockey stick” lawsuit

After six years of tedious litigation, a court in Vancouver, British Columbia appears set to hand down a ruling involving one of the most controversial claims ever made in support of human-induced global warming.

The case pits two climatologists – Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Tim Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg – in a dispute rooted in data Mann used in creating his famous, or infamous, “hockey stick” graph. In 1999, Mann was the lead author of a paper that used an assortment of statistical techniques to reconstruct variations in atmospheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The graph made the Medieval Warm Period all but disappear and showed a sharp spike in temperatures at the end of the 20th century that resembled the blade of a hockey stick.

Mann was one of eight lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment published in 2001. A graph based on Mann’s work was highlighted throughout the IPCC report. It received widespread publicity and was touted by climate alarmists as further evidence of manmade global warming. Indeed, Mann’s hockey stick took on a life of its own and was repeatedly cited by the IPCC and numerous governments as justifying collective action to combat climate change. The hockey stick has also been cited in innumerable peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

“Secret Science”

Astounded by the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period — a time generally considered to have been warmer than the present — a growing chorus of critics demanded to see the underlying data on which the hockey-stick graph was based. Mann and his co-authors refused to release the data, even though their paper had been funded by U.S. taxpayers. The episode raised allegations that climate alarmists were engaging in “secret science.”

One of those critics was Tim Ball. In a 2011 interview, he quipped that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” Mann sued Ball for defamation in British Columbia under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism.

As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann.

Ball believes that Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data by the court-ordered deadline has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):

We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Mann’s Suit Against Mark Steyn

Once the BC Supreme Court has ruled in his suit against Ball, Mann will have another legal battle on his hands. Mann filed a SLAPP lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against writer and commentator Mark Steyn after the latter wrote in a 2011 National Review Online article that Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Judith Curry, a recently retired climatologist at Georgia Tech, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae brief critical of Mann’s scientific methods.

For his part, Ball has produced his own graph showing temperature variability over the past 1,000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age can be seen on the graph. The graph also shows the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age, albeit to levels below what was experienced during the Medieval Warm Period. Unlike Mann, Ball has published the data on which his graph is based.

Categories

About the Author: Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

  • adam_s_0625

    I really hope Mann loses both cases, his funding, his teaching position, his reputation, and all his friends …. and his dog. His perversion of the scientific is method requires nothing less than total intolerance.

    • oriorda

      Mann’s nauseating smirk irritates the hell out of me. He’s a third rate mind hiding behind a fourth rate mentality.

    • Ian5

      “His perversion of the scientific is method…”

      >> How has Dr. Mann perverted the scientific method? What credible evidence do you have?

      • checker99

        His efforts to to silence his critics using courts rather than have a discourse. Are you following along or just playing dumb?

      • adam_s_0625

        My, my. Do we not read? Mann was asked multiple times to share his data and analysis code to validate his research. He declined to share. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        M&M demolished Mann’s statistical analysis anyway via reverse engineering. That he did not acknowledge their valid conclusions is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        Mann’s tree-ring data showed a temp decline after 1960. Not the result he wanted. So he truncated the declining data and concatenated temp sensor data, which showed the rising temp he desired. He published this WITHOUT noting what he had done. THIS is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        To top it off, the IPCC no longer includes the hockey stick graph in its documents.

        Are you honestly going to attempt to defend such a person?

      • J T

        We got another moron here.

        • robmanzoni

          “…We got another moron here…”
          There’s another explanation:
          I’ve just realised, after much wondering about the attitude, stance and argumentative approach, that Ian5 is probably none other than Michael Mann himself…!

          • Ian5

            Calling people names is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded.

            • robmanzoni

              “…Calling people names is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded..”

              Hi Michael… You go on believing this, if it makes you feel better. It does nothing for your cause, though, since you’ve been the name-caller in chief; and debate-preventer; and peer-review corrupter.

              • Ian5

                “..debate-preventer; and peer-review corrupter.”

                You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Instead of citing extreme conspiracy rubbish from Heller and other disinformation websites, why not inform yourself on the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  • KC135TopBoom

    We as US taxpayers should SLAPP Michael Mann for withholding OUR intellectual property. We paid for it, it is our data, not his.
    Mann filed his SLAPP lawsuit against Mark Steyn? Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.
    I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data (Mann ignored both in developing taxpayer’s ‘hockey stick’).

    • Ian5

      “Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.”

      >> Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None.

      “I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data”

      >> I’d like to see them too. Dr. Ball hasn’t published any peer-reviewed climate science in over 25 years.

      • Frederick Colbourne

        George Marshall told Dwight Eisenhower that he would not let Ike see action because Ike had never even commanded a platoon.

        Does that mean Ike should not have been Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe?

        Your remark about Tim Ball is just as much a non-sequitur.

        • Ian5

          Think about it a little…comparing Ball to Eisenhower is an empty comparison…comical really. Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature. He hasn’t published anything in years. Why should he be considered an authority on the current state of climate science?

          • adam_s_0625

            Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying. As a matter of fact, it frees them from the pressures put on them by managers, peers, and grant orgs.

            • Ian5

              “Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying“.

              >> Of course it doesn`t. Neither does it negate the conclusions of the the scientific literature on climate change that have accumulated over the past 25 years, the vast majority of which continues to reinforce that GHGs from human activity are warming the planet`s climate system; the evidence is unequivocal. Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              • Next to none of it deals with causation, because it can’t be established.

                • Ian5

                  Misleading statement. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence studied by thousands of scientists from many jurisdictions and agencies around the world that indicate that global warming is unequivocal.

          • oriorda

            ‘Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature’… YOU’VE lost the plot here. Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see. He makes NO predictions using modelling techniques he keeps secret. You ABSOLUTELY cannot make those claims for Mann.. If Clausius stepped out of his grave today, knowing nothing of the invented ‘science’ called ‘climate science’, he could destroy Mann’s house of cards in 5 minutes. The Laws of Physics completely refute the bedrock claims that underpin the entire shambolic structure called ‘climate science’.

            • Ian5

              “Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see.“

              A little rich don`t you think? Moreover Dr. Ball`s positions on climate science and those of the silly “Friends of Science“ are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

              • rhjames

                Keep in mind that the positions taken by the above societies don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their members.

                • Ian5

                  Yet these they reflect the findings of scientists from a range of different disciplines, from multiple countries and jurisdictions, and government and non-government sectors. Conspiracies are the stuff of Alex Jones and other extremists.

                  • oriorda

                    This is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a scientific discourse. There are deep, fundamental flaws in the global warming agenda. The conspiracy is in fact the other way round, there is a conspiracy to deny any opposition to the agenda – see Climategate emails where this is spelled out clearly – see UN statements that ‘unless we show disasters, nobody will listen to us’.

                  • Lima6

                    More name-calling.

              • oriorda

                You need to look at the facts, not the purveyors you mention. Don’t forget, Galileo was opposed by every single institution yet he was right. The Earth DOES go round the Sun: his DATA proved it. All the bodies you mention take it as fact that the data they obtain from Goddard and Hadley/CRU (the only 2 sources they all use as source data) is correct and they put that into their models. But.. the data has been fiddled to remove past warming events, thus making any current warming – however small – appear disproportionately large. This fundamental problem is then exacerbated by hopelessly biased model which are designed to produce apocalyptic warming 100 years hence, even though they are universally unable to reproduce reality… run ANY model using the start data of, say, 10 years ago and compare the output month by month to what we know ACTUALLY happened and you will see they all fail spectacularly. The reason they do this: they are ALL feeding at the grants/subsidies trough and need to show future disasters or all their funding will disappear. Ball and others simply point out all the discrepancies in the data, the fallacy that the models are reliable, and the problems with the basic laws of physics arising from the theory that man-made CO2 has led to significant temperature rises which will only get worse: there is no scientific basis for this claim, it is just a politically expedient claim that generates huge funding for any body willing to take the shilling. Read sepp.org and wattsupwiththat.com for detailed analysis of all this. We’re not making this up!

                • LTJ

                  References to Galileo in the context of climate science are nearly as frequent as they are absurd: https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

                  • oriorda

                    Your response displays profound ignorance on a world class gold medal level. Are you totally unaware that the initial claim of a ‘97% consensus in favour of man-made global warming’ is itself an utterly discredited claim? This has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that it is remarkable it keeps getting trotted out. Given that the 97% figure is complete bunk, why would anyone bother to comment on the remaining 3%? It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer doesn’t matter because there are no angels.

                    You don’t seem to get the basic point about Galileo, which is as relevant today as it was when he was first condemned for his data. It is this: consensus is not a valid concept in proper science for deciding the validity of any particular proposition. What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us. There are far more important issues on which to spend our money.

                    • LTJ

                      “What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw
                      unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us.”

                      Please do explain your logical theory and provide the data that supports it. I’m all ears.

                    • oriorda

                      Now you’re just being silly.

                      You want me to provide a theory for something that isn’t happening? This is not how it works.

                      As an example, there’s also no theory for why you can’t observe angels dancing on the head of a pin. (hint: There is definitely a pin, but there are no angels.)

                      If you do want to study the science seriously, a good place to start would be Professor Fred Singer’s book ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years’. It’s a rattling good read.

                      The central point is there is no reliable data to show temperature excursions are abnormal, therefore there is no issue. You don’t need a theory for this. It’s how things are.

                      The only abnormal excursions are either the result of fiddled data (for example the farcical Mann hockey stick), OR cherry picked data from locations that will inevitably show temperature rises (such as those close to towns) OR the projections from innumerable climate models, all of which fail the most basic credibility test: start each model one year in the past and run them against the actual data which was measured over the year. They all fail to track reality reliably. You shouldn’t be surprised at this: climate is an enormously complex system which we hardly understand at all.

                      ‘Climate alarmism’ isn’t a science-based phenomenon, it is driven by political and social agendas, by people who want to create a new economic system and redistribute wealth to the second and third worlds. There’s nothing wrong with having such ambitions. Maybe capitalism is indeed crap and has failed the poor. Just don’t cloak the argument with fake science. If the agenda makes sense it will stand on its own feet.

                      Of course all those currently feeding at the deep troughs of money that is funding ‘climate research’ will lose their golden eggs, but there are plenty of far more useful things for society to spend its money on. I could do with a new car, as one example.

                    • LTJ

                      I’m being silly?

                      All you’ve got is conspiracy theories and the bizarre notion that a reduction in climate research funding will buy you a new car.

                    • oriorda

                      Your profound ignorance disbars you from further consideration. You are even unable to distinguish a joke when you see one.

                    • LTJ

                      Unfortunately, your own ignorance is far from profound. It is as common as muck, and as dimwitted as your “jokes”.

                      You are thicker than a tar-flavored Frosty.

                      How you can be literate enough to type your drivel and yet stupid enough to believe it is one of life’s eternal mysteries.

                    • oriorda

                      I can’t help but notice your avatar is a bloodsucking mosquito. It seems somehow appropriate.

                      The sad thing from society’s viewpoint is that it is zealots such as yourself who have so far allowed to be wasted hundreds of billions of our precious taxpayer money on a madcap theory of man-made global warming which is devoid of rationality. Bloodsucking indeed.

                      Your certainty makes one think of religious zealotry, and in this case it is equally unfounded in logic, scientific rigour and an appreciation of irony.

                      The simple, inescapable fact is the ONLY significant increase in global temperatures outside the bounds of natural variability is the result of models which are preposterously inadequate, or of cherry picked data, or of faulty statistical forecasting. Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.

                      No temperature excursions = no global warming = no problem

                      Let’s spend our money on useful endeavours, like cures for dreadful diseases, better schooling, proper medical care for everybody, reduction in poverty.

                    • LTJ

                      “Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.”

                      Not if you care about scientific accuracy. As the wiki on this very dataset points out:

                      “Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”

              • Lima6

                Arguments from authority are worthless. If you have the necessary facts and data to prove a hypothesis, you win. If not, you lose. Mann has neither of those things on his side and he has demonstrated his contempt for the scientific process (and his legitimate critics) by refusing to release his data.

              • Lets Do It Ourselves

                NOAA. NASA. HADCRUT. A recent peer reviewed paper proves that they have repeatedly manipulated the data. Their credibility is on a par with Mann and Hansen.

                • Ian5

                  What “recent peer reviewed paper” would that be? Surely you don’t mean the PDF of D’Aleo’s WordPress blog post that Breitbart’s Delingpole and other misinformers have been promoting as peer-reviewed science? Not peer-reviewed, nor does it “prove” anything.

                  • What’s been proven about man made CO2 and global warming/ climate change/ whatever it gets labelled next when the data fails to conform to the theory?

                • Hard to say-it’s a race to the bottom!

              • Aquinasthegoat

                “NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union”. Each and every one a politically driven organization whose “data” has been soundly refuted time and again by real scientists.

                • Ian5

                  Untrue statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. That every reputable scientific organization is somehow conspiring to manipulate climate data and scientific findings isn’t plausible.

                  • Aquinasthegoat

                    Not conspiracy, just pure politics.

                  • Starting to sound like “Blah blah blah blah blah blah”. TROLL

                    • Ian5

                      Your own self assessment perhaps. Repetition of talking points and childish name-calling.

                  • Beirish65

                    Wow. You really are drunk with blindness and you just don’t care about losing the wealth that you’ve established in your life or your family’s wealth because you will lose it if you continue to go along with this hoax. These government agencies have come out in the last 10 to 15 years with Data that was misrepresented in underminded the actual study of global warming because there was zero global warming and it was global cooling. If you use half of the temperature gage is around the world and warmer climate you can make anything look like it’s heating up around the world. But if you use the average of all the temperature gauges around the world we have been cooling not warming.

                    • LTJ
                    • Beirish65

                      You will just believe anything won’t you? The New York Times ha ha they are the biggest piece of crap lying newspaper. Have you ever heard of the New World Order or the Bilderberg Group? Have you read Agenda 21? I feel sorry for people like you that actually believe in Al Gore’s global warming theory. It is a theory and that is all it is just like the big bang theory. I have a question for you how long have we been taking temperature readings around the planet?

                    • LTJ

                      Hey, if you have any alternative sources that contradict the data, pull ’em out.

                      I’m sure we’d all like a laugh.

                    • Beirish65

                      Apparently you can’t answer any of my questions that I asked you.

                    • LTJ

                      And apparently you’ve got nothing but absurd conspiracy theories yet again.

                    • Beirish65

                      You still can’t answer my questions because your knowledgebase is limited.

                    • Beirish65

                      Apparently you’ve never been in the library before or open up a search engine and look for these topics because they do exist. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories because it is all facts not fiction. Your ignorance is bliss.

                    • LTJ

                      So let me get this straight – you’re trying to tell ME how to use a search engine after you’ve posted three useless irrelevant links?

                    • Beirish65

                      Ignorance is bliss.

                    • LTJ
                    • Beirish65

                      BS.

                    • Beirish65

                      Climate Depot: Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check

                      Sub-prime Science Expose’: “The claims of the promoters of the man-made climate fears is failing.”

                    • Beirish65

                      The three research papers that debunk your false narrative were true because you had them removed from this site. Apparently your to young and your wheel house has zero knowledge of the New World Order, George Soros, the Bilderberg Group. Agenda 21 and so on.

                    • LTJ

                      LMAO

                      I have no power to remove anything from this site. If anything was removed, it is because the moderators do not tolerate deranged conspiracy theories about the New World Order, etc.

                    • Beirish65

                      hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/extreme-temperatures-wheres-global.html

                    • Beirish65
                    • Beirish65

                      newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57680&s=LURQEd

                    • LTJ

                      Neither of your links go to anything pertinent.

                • All heavily infiltrated by #BigGreen.

              • TROLL

              • Beirish65

                Still blinded by all those government agencies I wonder why because you think government agencies have the end-all and be-all of everything and they are just the fact finding people of the world and they are gods because when they say something it’s the God honest truth. BS they are bought and paid for by governments around the world to continue the hoax of global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. This government tax is to steal wealth from every nation so that the billionaire elites can line there pockets such as George Soros the face end up at master of the New World order.

          • Lima6

            Such arrogance. Einstein also went for years without publishing any papers. Should that fact be used to impugn or discount his understanding of physics? My God, you really are hopeless.

          • Lets Do It Ourselves

            I’ve had a couple of conversations with Ball. He has seen enough climate change and studied enough history to know that climate change, sometimes catastrophic, has always been a feature of life on this planet. He has absolutely nothing to gain by questioning the alarmism.

          • He kicked Mann’s ass from here to Christmas in BC Supreme Court. Go home troll, the game’s over. http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/.

            • Ian5

              Hilarious that you would cite the disinformation site principia-scientific. Oops there’s Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard again. No climate science credentials whatsoever.

          • Beirish65

            You’re not a scientist and we have to listen to you and you’re spewing your nonsense.

      • adam_s_0625

        “What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None”

        So, what you’re saying is we should blindly trust people with credentials who lie to us versus a layman who researches the subject and tells us the truth. Got it.

        • Ian5

          Nope. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that you should think twice before blindly trusting people – particularly political pundits – on scientific matters when they have no scientific credentials whatsoever.

          • adam_s_0625

            But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything he said? And trusting people, just because they have certain credentials, is a recipe for disaster. The DATA, not a reputation, not credentials, are what matters. This observation somehow slipped by you.

            • Ian5

              “But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything [Mark Steyn] said?“

              >> Then you`d be in the company of a small handful of well-known contrarions with extreme views and be supporting a position that is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

              • ppiaseck

                That Hockey stick was discredited long ago, 2002 or 03, by Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick DR, Richard Muller, a professor of physics at University of California at Berkeley, He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. wrote an article about it, and he is a believer in human induced climate change. below are parts of it

                But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
                But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
                Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
                If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
                A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

              • Scott Campbell

                A small handful? Are you frigging retarded? How about 31,247 American scientists who are quite open about their disbelief and signed onto the NPCC report? How about the 65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support that idiot mann? How about all of the scientists who have testified before congress clearly stating , and backing up with data, that ACC is a scam? You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON

                • Ian5

                  Name-calling…the preferred strategy of propagandists and the poorly educated.

                  • Lima6

                    And “well-known contrarians with extreme views” is not name-calling? How about the grotesque Holocaust smear (“deniers”) so many of your climate change pals are so fond of hurling at scientists who disagree with your dogma? Have a look in the mirror, pal.

                    • Ian5

                      Sorry you are offended, I didn’t use the term “denier” in the above comment so go complain to someone else.

                      No, referring to a 3rd party as a “contrarian with extreme views is not the same as responding childishly to a commenter with words like moron,

                • Beirish65

                  Scott you are correct he is a moron.

                  • Ian5

                    Why not explain why you disagree with my view and the position of virtually every reputable US and international scientific organization and academy instead of resorting to childish name-calling?

                    • Beirish65

                      Being called a moron is not name-calling it is a fact. If I wanted to name call you I would say something totally different but being called a moron is factual.

                    • Ian5

                      As I stated up-thread, name calling is a strategy typically used by propagandists, the poorly educated and those harbouring feelings of inadequacy.

                    • Beirish65

                      Your ignorance is bliss.

                    • Ian5

                      Says the frequenter of the silly Infowars conspiracy site and other rubbish sources customized for the gullible.

                    • Beirish65

                      This website has nothing to do with the infowars this website is called CFACT. Ian I feel sorry for people like you so gullible. Ask Al gore how much he’s making on the hoax of global warming, carbon omissions and climate change? Have you notice how big his house is and how big his jet is that he flies around the world? Follow the money Ian. I am not suggesting that we do not become good stewards of our environment, of our relationships between human beings and our stewardships of life. But what I am suggesting is that this money making system for the billionaire elites that run the world such as George Soros a.k.a. puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order.

                    • Beirish65

                      Where do you obtain your information?

                    • Beirish65

                      By the way I wasn’t name-calling I asked Tecca question and he couldn’t answer my questions. Because he’s not honest about his knowledge base. And you’re the propagandist my friend not me. You’re the one it’s poorly educated not me and I don’t feel inadequate it all I feel just fine thank you very much. I feel sorry for people that actually believe in gores BS hooks on global warming him, climate change and or carbon emissions.

                • Ian5

                  “How about 31,247 American scientists”

                  >> A reference to Art Robinson’s silly long-debunked Oregon Petition Project. Go look it up.

                  “…the NPCC report?

                  >> Do you mean the Heartland Institute’s ridiculous NIPCC report? Heartland Institute…not a scientific organization. Lobbyist for the tobacco industry…. Its report does not even purport to summarize the scientific literature. Why would you believe such rubbish.

                  “65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support [Mann]”

                  >> Hopeless rubbish, you just made that up.

                  “You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON”

                  >> Name-calling is a strategy typical of propagandists, bullies and the poorly educated.

              • Peter Oneil

                Nasa believed that there were canals on Mars, until 1998. The canals were first proposed in 1789. before 1950 there was a cosensus that Martians were trying to signal earth. Experts, what does tht even mean.
                (93) Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity – YouTube

                • Ian5

                  Provides link to silly video posted by well-known misinformer Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). He has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Why do you think he is credible? Would you trust your heart condition to a plumber?

                  • robmanzoni

                    And alGore has climate credentials…?
                    Yet you’re happy to accept his disgustingly dishonest narrative

                    • Ian5

                      Deflection…the article isn’t about Al Gore. You pointed to Heller’s silly rubbish and I’m calling you on it. Heller’s views are extreme and diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

                    • Beirish65

                      All those government organizations are given taxpayer money to continue the hoax of Al gores global warming. You can’t even think for a second outside the box that these organizations actually could be taking money and promoting an absolute hoax? Of course not because you’re so ignorant, uneducated and uninformed .

                    • Ian5

                      “…promoting an absolute hoax”.

                      >> Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
                      You can’t refute any of it.

                    • Beirish65

                      NASA is bought and paid for by government a.k.a. taxpayers money. Can refute all of it because it’s all lies and you want to talk about misleading that you. I will bet you could not be fair minded and actually look and research and study and find out that this whole thing that Gore has started is one big HOAX. Why don’t you follow the money that is made and ask yourself how? Why? Who?

              • Lets Do It Ourselves

                The organizations you cited have been proven to have manipulated the data. Repeatedly.

                • Ian5

                  Untrue, unsubstantiated statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. If your ridiculous statement were true, then cite some organizations that you feel are trustworthy and tell us why.

                • Beirish65

                  Absolutely true.

              • Beirish65

                NASA, NOAA, British astronomy data center, Environmental Canada, IPCC and other government agencies are bought and paid for with taxpayers money to do exactly what the New World Order tells them to do. George Soros the puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order tells them exactly how to tax everybody around the world to steal the wealth of the world because they don’t have enough money already.

                • Ian5

                  Ridiculous conspiracy fluff that is promoted by multiple disinformation sites. No evidence whatsoever. Remarkable how many people fall for this rubbish.

                  • Beirish65

                    Your ridiculous and you need to stop your ignorance and being so uneducated that you believe everything that you hear from the IPCC and every other government organization that’s full of crap. You’re so ignorant and you’re so blinded that you’d rather be taxed of all your wealth then realize that they’re playing an absolute hoax and lies with regards to global warming, climate change and carbon emissions.

              • “Appeal to Authority” is a logical fallacy. Like Michael Crichton said “The claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels”.

                • Ian5

                  Incorrect talking point. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

                  • Beirish65

                    Just because Ian says so that’s what we’re supposed to believe try again Ian. Your ignorance is so bliss that most people on this website don’t even listen to what you’re saying because you’re a fool and your arrogant and ignorant.

              • adam_s_0625

                It is well known that the leadership within these orgs is dominated by progressives. That missives from these orgs (generated ONLY by those leaders) is pro-alarmist is not surprising. The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50. I imagine every other org shuddered and prevented such votes from being taken. So much for your appeal to authority. A tactic of losers.

                • Ian5

                  “The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50.”

                  >> No, your ridiculous statement is a complete myth. The last survey of the American Meteorological Society was conducted in 2016. The survey concluded that “Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change – as defined by AMS – is happening, with almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.”
                  https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

                  The AMS has a very strong position statement on Climate Change that readers can access here:
                  https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

                  • adam_s_0625

                    Wow. So we’re supposed to put a lot of faith in a poll where less than a third of the members responded, was performed by an institution well known for its alarmist leanings, and did not guarantee the anonymity of responders. Right, like that’s going to produce believable results.

            • Ian5

              I suggest you look beyond data. Data are not the same as information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

              • Lima6

                Right. So fundamental physical facts (i.e., data) don’t matter in a scientific debate about matters that involve atmospheric physics??

                I suppose you think that the “wisdom” and “information” of people like Al Gore supersede all that nonsense about data.

                But as Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” (Especially facts like the unexplained 20-year warming pause we’re currently experiencing.)

                • Ian5

                  Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a stronger greenhouse effect that is warming the planet.

                  Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                  • Immortal600

                    “Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2
                    concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution”

                    You can’t show that is true. All you can do is link to sites that hype the scare tactics of increased CO2. THEY can’t substantiate your statement either.

                    Why do you bother to troll here? You aren’t a scientist and are convincing no one with your garbage (or is it rubbish). Do you think you are saving the world?

                    • Ian5

                      Humans have indeed increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Over 25% in the past 60 years. Unequivocal; why not inform yourself: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

                    • Immortal600

                      You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. Your graph is meaningless. Why not take your head out of the sand and realize that you don’t have a clue? I have offered a link to an atmospheric physicist that shows what you believe is bogus. What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?

                    • Ian5

                      “You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. ”

                      >> Your statement is false. The Keeling curve presents direct evidence of rising atmospheric CO2; measurements have been taken continuously since 1958. You cannot refute it.

                      Ed Berry’s views on climate change are extreme…it is not his research area and besides he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science since the 1980s as he freely admits: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/publications/ . There is ideology not science all over his website.

                      Please educate yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Immortal600

                      You haven’t refuted Ed berry’s views. All you have done is regurgitated garbage from Patrick Moore. What kind of expert is he? Ed Berry addresses every one of his criticisms and Moore can’t refute it. You’ve been to his site and YOU can’t refute Dr. Berry. He simply doesn’t align with your naive understanding of climate science. He uses the scientific method. You and your ilk don’t. It IS that simple!

                    • robmanzoni

                      “…What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?…”

                      This is the problem of trying to persuade a scientific ignoramus, using logic and facts – his brain is so full of indoctrinated rubbish that there’s no space for facts. Or even for doubt.
                      Like you, I’ve offered easily-understood evidence, but he keeps bouncing back with comments about absent credentials… Weirdly (or perhaps not) he sees no irony in accepting AlGore’s nonsense, despite his clear “lack of credentials”.

                      I know he can’t be persuaded to reason honestly; and I’m not trying to convince him… The only reason I bother to respond is for the others who might be reading these comments. I hope that some percentage of readers take the trouble to do a bit of research of their own, rather than accept the current narrative that we’re all ‘climate sinners’ and deserve to die because we’re “polluting” our atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
                      They will ignore the hugely beneficial effects of higher CO2 levels… the widespread rebound in plant growth everywhere, as we emerge from the CO2 famine of the last thousand years.

                      The loony Warmists haven’t the capacity to understand that CO2 can only be considered a pollutant when water vapour is considered the same way.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      1.The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2
                      2.The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels
                      3.The NASA temperature record is complete garbage
                      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasasurfacetemp1981-1999-20141.gif

                    • Ian5

                      Another link to disinformation professional Steve Goddard (his real name is Tony Heller), Steve and Tony have no climate science credentials whatsoever. He hasn’t published a single journal article, not one.

                    • Helix22

                      how can you explain the satellite data?

                    • Ian5
                    • Helix22

                      that’s not satellite

                    • Ian5

                      Here you go… RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems: http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html
                      And some helpful context and summary: http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html

                    • Helix22

                      Figures 4 and 7 show no indications of runaway warming with 3x amplification from water vapor. Global warming is a hoax.

                    • Ian5

                      “Global warming is a hoax”

                      >> Instead of spreading disinformation and other shallow rubbish why not educate yourself:
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Helix22

                      i think it’s you that needs to. it’s a scam.

                    • Beirish65

                      The climate change, global warming and or carbon emissions that Gore is spewing is a hoax. This is why Gore is a multimillionaire and would like to continue stealing your wealth.

                    • Beirish65

                      NASA never takes information and dilutes it or gives us disinformation!

                    • Beirish65

                      NASA never tells a lie!

                    • Wake

                      Let us ask you again – what credentials do you have?

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      More bullshit.Why do you only show the chart going back to 1960?
                      Because if you go further back the CO2 levels were higher and it makes your chart look stupid and insignificant,that’s why.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

                    • Ian5

                      Why is it bullshit? It is the well-known Keeling curve — direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 that have been taken uninterrupted since the late 50s. The graph you provided reflect CO2 levels derived from ice-core data — the graph does not include increases from the past century. The two are entirely consistent. Have a look a these graphs that put the two series together over a range of timescales:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

                      As you can see, current CO2 levels of 406 ppm have not been a feature of the planet for over 800,000 years, perhaps much longer:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      Again,CO2 levels have been far higher than that.
                      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/image277.gif

                    • Ian5

                      And your point is what? That there is no cause for concern or need for action?

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      The planet does what it does and we are not the cause and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
                      What is your solution?
                      Kill off all humans?
                      You are a dumbass if you think there is anything we can do about it.

                    • robmanzoni

                      Yes

                    • LTJ

                      He’s thinks that if it was good enough for the dinosaurs, it’s good enough for us. In fact, he’s willing to bet on it – I cash in when these clowns play poker on-line.

                    • LTJ

                      And the dinosaurs enjoyed it – are you certain we will?

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      Doesn’t matter, the Earth is going to do what it’s going to do regardless of how we feel about it.

                    • LTJ

                      True, but irrelevant to the fact that we continue to annually take millions of tons of carbon sequestered deep in the earth and inject it into the active biological carbon cycle. The Earth will survive our arrogant and ignorant tampering.

                      Our grandchildren may not.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      What a load of crap.You are just regurgitated and repeating nonsense you heard through the propaganda machine.
                      You sound like all the other climate alarmists.You all sound like brainwashed parrots.
                      We can’t predict the future so there is no way we can stop the countless amounts of NATURAL disasters that can happen.All we can do is deal with them when they happen.Like we are doing with hurricane Harvey now.
                      If you think we should put all our resources into stopping CO2 which is NOT A POLLUTANT and then all will be fine for our grandchildren,then you are truly an idiot.
                      There are always dangers in our world and CO2 certainly isn’t one of them.

                    • LTJ

                      Superstorms like Harvey depend upon a warming world.

                      In case you care to understand what I’m talking about: https://paulbeckwith.net/2017/09/01/science-of-superstorms-after-harvey-whats-next/

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      More complete bull.
                      Tropical storms,droughts and hurricanes have all been decreasing.
                      http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/31/extreme-weather-expert-world-is-presently-in-an-era-of-unusually-low-weather-disasters/

                      And people dying from extreme weather events has also declined massively.
                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png

                    • LTJ

                      Your chart has little to nothing to do with weather patterns, and much to do with advances in medicine , transportation, and rescue technologies and methods.

                      This U.S.-centric map might be what you meant to post: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      I posted two charts.One of extreme weather reduction and one of deaths from extreme weather.The death reduction is because of less disasters AND improvements in technology and the use of fossil fuels.

                    • LTJ

                      You linked to one dubious chart and posted another. The timelines of each are generally unrelated, and the datasets used to compile them are not provided and the claimed sources are at best vaguely referenced.

                      It’s far from science: https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      Every chart you don’t like is ‘far from science”.
                      Then you send me an article from Reuters.LOL Leftist garbage.
                      Those charts that I posted are right from NOAA.
                      You don’t even understand how real science works.
                      Here is how.
                      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8MWqemXoAEwrpq.jpg

                    • LTJ

                      Those charts you posted were directly from ClimateDepot. There was no source directly attributed.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      CLIMATE DEPOT got them from NOAA if you actually read it and looked at the references.

                    • LTJ

                      I made my statement because I read it and could find no such reference. You repeat your unsubstantiated claim because you cannot provide it.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      The charts have the sources right on them.
                      You are about as perceptive as you are intellectual.

                    • LTJ

                      Still playing the fool?

                      There is no cited dataset from NOAA, only the claim. The chart is the author’s, not linked to NOAA.

                      The same is true of the 2nd chart. He claims the data is from Munich/RE, but does not specify any study or publicly-accessible record. The link provided under references is to a press release that does not contain the chart nor any reference to the data attributed, an article entitled: Natural catastrophe review for the first half of 2017

                      During my time in university, such sloppiness earned students a failing grade. How does Professor Pielke keep his job?

                    • LTJ

                      Came across this today.

                      Thought you might be interested in learning of the danger posed by CO2 apart from the warming effect: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-mathematics-sixth-mass-extinction.html

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      And even more studies have come out saying that all the models were and are wrong.
                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

                    • LTJ

                      You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. It had little to do with climate change, it was about acidification of the oceans. Knee-jerk reactions have no place in rational debate.

                      And BTW, your article is unavailable without subscription – but even in the accessible first paragraph it does not dispute climate change, only the rate at which it is progressing.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      I skimmed it because it’s garbage.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhMRpIRby8A&t=768s

                    • LTJ

                      ROTFLMAO

                      healthrangerstore.com vs. Scientific American?

                      BTW, ocean levels and acidification are unrelated. I’m suspecting you’ve only ‘skimmed’ the article because you didn’t understand a word.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      For your information Mike Adams is a scientist.
                      Scientific American just writes whatever bullshit they are told and do no research of their own just like you.

                    • LTJ

                      Scientist? Never.

                      His primary success has been as a spam artist – and taking advantage of the suckers born every minute: https://healthwyze.org/reports/616-special-report-the-legend-of-mike-adams-and-the-reality

                    • Steven Woodcock

                      It’s definitely good for the plants.

                    • Wake

                      And so?

                    • Ian5

                      Yet another link to another disinformation site…and the author is commenting on a topic in which he has no credentials.

                    • gold&silverismoney
                    • Ian5

                      What are you referring to? The graphics are based on Petit et al. Excellent work, published in Nature. What don’t you understand about it?
                      http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/climate-and-atmospheric-history-of-the-past-420-000-years-from-the-vostok-ice-core-antarctica-38.pdf

                    • robmanzoni

                      “…the author is commenting on a topic in which he has no credentials…”

                      This is a repetitious mantra of yours.

                      One doesn’t need “qualifications” in climate science to recognise fraud when it’s there… and it’s there “in spades”.

                      But calling Anthony Watts ‘unqualified in climate science’ exposes you as someone who’s not done the same level of research which you so demand of others on this list…

                      By your “strict” standards, Al Gore’s two docudramas and many, many public scarefests should be irrelevant (as indeed they are) because, as a person with “no credentials in the topic”, he’s not qualified to have- or voice an opinion.
                      We don’t see your condemnation of this well-known fraudster and public-funds thief. Why are you so openly selective, if you expect anyone to take you seriously?

                      AlGore’s multiple weather-specific (i.e. scientific) errors in the first glossy book were at least a source of much eye-watering mirth to all who understand the science, although concerned readers have a more serious reason to cry over his book’s wide, uncritical acceptance by scientifically-ignorant school boards. Luckily, in the UK (where some level of reason and honesty still exists), his book was strongly denounced by a court, due to it’s serious errors, mis-statements and fraudulent scare-tactics.
                      But those who believe the AGW nonsense are unfazed by this criticism, because, like AlGore himself, they are unhindered by the strict principles of the scientific method; and the concept of conscience and ethics is as foreign as scientific the understanding which they not only lack – but about which they (and you, seemingly) are totally incurious…

                      Rather than denounce (as you predictably do) people like Anthony Watts and Tony Heller (and Will Happer) as ‘disinformation brokers’, you should first try to understand what they are saying.
                      I know this is difficult for you, but if you start from scratch and learn some physics, biology, chemistry and maths (and statistics), you’ll become entranced at the amount of wondrous information and knowledge there is in even a rudimentary understanding of how the universe works.
                      And, armed with this new knowledge and understanding, you might well be a bit embarrassed at your (past) naïvety and acceptance of nonsense, dished up as fact.
                      The past is nothing to be ashamed-of, if the sense of shame comes from new knowledge, which exposes the naïvety.

                      It means you’re finally growing up…

                    • Ian5

                      “…naïvety and acceptance of nonsense”….”One doesn’t need “qualifications” in climate science to recognise fraud when it’s there… and it’s there “in spades”.

                      >> Yet you haven’t provided any evidence, just links to a few silly and well-known disinformation sites. The scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is unequivocal. It’s a position shard by virtually every American and international scientific institution and academy. Who have you got? heartland institute?

                  • Joe Geshel

                    There is scientific data that disputes your claim. Getting the whole picture is better than half. Water vapor contributes to the green house effect. CO2 is not the only cause. Facts are stubborn, I agree.

                    • LTJ

                      I saw no one anywhere claiming that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, nor that water vapour is not a factor in the equation.

                      I also haven’t seen this contraindicating data that you claim exists. I’m doubting you’ve seen it either – and if you have, I’m betting you’ve let someone marginally smarter misunderstand it for you.

                    • Joe Geshel

                      There you go, attack the person but never offer support for your position. Tsk tsk

                    • LTJ

                      I shredded each and every one of your unsubstantiated straw-man claims, and all you’ve got is “Tsk tsk”?

                    • Wake

                      Inasmuch as you don’t have any real knowledge in the science of climatology I suggest you simply don’t try to say that you haven’t seen any contraindications of anything other than your own intelligence.

                    • Wake

                      CO2 is a trace gas that has virtually no effect. There is 100 times the H2O in the atmosphere ON THE AVERAGE. Around cities where most of the CO2 is generated we discover that it is ten times that because cities HAVE to have water and hence are built on major waterways, large lakes or oceans.

                  • bmatkin

                    Sorry Ian that’s garbage. Nasa has been caught fudging the numbers so their credibility is zero. You didn’t know that because you only get your info from “approved” religious sources.
                    Plants thrive in 1000 PPM conditions and they could not have got there if the world did not have those conditions in the past.
                    Nay sayers to this concept are not scientists but shills. The evidence of greening the world is overwhelming while the evidence of a rise of 2 degrees C is sketchy at best.
                    I’ll go with the plants, not the political scientists who shill this garbage for grants and gov. salaries.
                    You think the oil companies are bad for funding scientists? How about the “pure as the driven snow” gov. scientists, greens, globalists, wind power executives, Musk etc. No conflict of interest with those sods is there?

                    • Ian5

                      “Sorry Ian that’s garbage.”

                      >> Nope, Humans have indeed increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Inform yourself:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

                      “Nasa has been caught fudging the numbers so their credibility is zero.”

                      >> According to who? This is a silly talking point promoted by disinformation professionals. You can’t provide a single scrap of evidence that NASA is ‘fudging the numbers’.

                      ” Plants thrive in 1000 PPM conditions and they could not have got there if the world did not have those conditions in the past.”

                      >> The climate, ecology and biology of the planet was much different then. The current level of atmospheric CO2 (over 400 ppm) hasn’t been a feature of our planet for at least 800,000 years long before human civilization began to develop.

                    • bmatkin

                      Yes, 400 PPM so what? And how do you know what it was in the past? When did accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 begin, indeed, they are not that accurate now. We’re talking sterile lab quality work. Remember this is Parts per million, and it is measure on in a couple of places on earth.
                      Further, you have no idea what the “normal” atmospheric CO2 is supposed to be any more than you know what the average world temperature is supposed to be. The earth is not and never has been in stasis.
                      Nasa and other groups have consistently juggled previous temperature down and current temperatures up. Again, 1/10 of one degree C is not even measurable outside a lab. This is average and rounding numbers from various sources. The land based temp. do not coincide with the satellite temps.
                      You last points are garbage. You have no idea what a million years of climate has been. Dendrology and Ice Cores, and other proxies are not that accurate, which is what the Mann argument is all about.
                      Your entire premise is contradicted by history. There is the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Egyptian warm period etc. There were also mini ice ages.
                      We have mega proof of that with painting of the Thames river frozen over etc.
                      Mann’s science is garbage and global warming, which isn’t happening, is a construct of the left in an attempt to tax the first world nations for wealth redistribution to third world nations. Actually, tax wealthy nations so the cronies, cadres and elites can sponge off everyone else
                      This scam is a religion and you sir, are an acolyte, a disciple.
                      Me, I believe in plants, not lab coats on a mission to find more grants or promote an ideology.

                  • Beirish65

                    BS. NASA is a fraud. You need to educate yourself. That article so misleading it’s sickening. I’ve got some land in Florida for you did you want to buy it to? Ignorance is bliss.

                    • Ian5

                      Yet my statement and the position of NASA that “Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution” is based on actual evidence:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

                      By contrast you have provided nothing to substantiate your outrageous and emotional revelations.

                    • Beirish65

                      So what! CO2 is not and will not be the only cause or effect of your so called climate change, carbon emissions and global warming. If this planet, earth, does not have enough CO2 plant, plankton and alge along with animals, mammals and humanity will die.

                    • Ian5

                      “If this planet, earth, does not have enough CO2 plant, plankton and alge along with animals, mammals and humanity will die.”

                      >> Irrelevant comment. The planet’s plankton, plant and alge [sic] are in not at risk of not having “enough CO2”. CO2 is rising at unprecedented rates and current levels have not been a feature of the planet for at least 800,000 years. Please educate yourself:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

                  • Beirish65

                    CO2 does not and is not the single most effects on your so called climate change. Also if the earth doesn’t have enough CO2 plants on land and plankton and alge in the ocean along with animals, mammals and humans will die.

                  • Wake

                    The increase in CO2 is a measured fact. The supposed results of that increase are pure unadulterated BS. Nothing but good has come from the increases in CO2. And NO negatives are attached to it. The one line of absorption not totally covered by atmospheric water was saturated at about 300 ppm. No additional CO2 would find any energy to absorb.

              • Andre Den Tandt

                Let’s say that you have knowledge, understanding and wisdom in spades. How do you quantify that, as science requires?

              • Lets Do It Ourselves

                In other words, Al Gore’s to be precise, sometimes the facts are not enough?
                And sometimes they are. Not one of the alarmist predictions has come to pass. That’s fact enough, even for a layman.

                • Ian5

                  Try a little harder; this quote might help:

                  “Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom.” Clifford Stoll

                  • bmatkin

                    I’m assuming Clifford Stoll has twenty-two Phds in everything from philosophy to climate science? No? Then why quote him?
                    According to you credentialed scientists are as infallible as god.

                    • Ian5

                      “According to you credentialed scientists are as infallible as god.”

                      Definitely not; you just made that uo. The point that was being made up-thread is that the extreme positions of commentators like Tony Heller and Mark Steyn should be given little to no weight in discussions about climate science. Neither has any climate science credentials whatsoever.

                    • bmatkin

                      So, you’re reaffirming my suggestion that you accept the tenets of the priests in the lab coats that spew your dogma and discredit anyone else.
                      Thanks for restating the point that you live in a world of group speak where differing ideas and opinions are not welcome.
                      The construct where your lab coated priests are the only ones that are allowed to interpret your bible and your revelations come from people like Michael Mann who was caught outright lying and cheating on facts. Perhaps the climategate emails are no never mind.

                    • Ian5

                      No. Scientists are people and not infallible. It would be foolish to blindly accept the stat3ments or advice of a single scientist. What I am asking is why would one accept the position or advice on a scientific matter of a non-scientist on a matter in which they have no background or credentials whatsoever? Faced with a serious medical condition, would you rely on the advice of a public relations professional over a surgeon or oncologist?

                    • bmatkin

                      “Faced with a serious medical condition, would you rely on the advice of a
                      public relations professional over a surgeon or oncologist?”
                      Depends if they were offering leeches, big pharma or real careful medicines and procedures.
                      I would listen to someone who has gone through the problem before or had a relative with the problem and did research and weight their advice only slightly less than the professional.
                      I know of many procedures that are pure quackery including prescribing “Ritalin” to young boys.
                      As for Mark Steyn, he has done a lot of compilation of research and has been advised by many legitimate scientists, so yes, I would listen to what he says and then check it out for myself.
                      By the way, my field is biology, particularly dendrology and until I retired, I practiced that art for about 30 years. As a result I have a great interest in Mann’s reconstruction of Briffa’s work. It is garbage. Mann switch from tree rings to thermometers for the entire 20th century and that is a no no in science. He will eventually pay.

                    • Wake

                      One would think that the emails flailing back and forth among the three involved in Mann’s research project would have been enough to condemn every word he ever published.

                    • Random_Commentator

                      Not infallible? There is a huge gulf between infallibility and intentionally deleting or altering the data to fit your “gut” world view! Comparing conclusions reached with grossly false data to conclusions reached by an oncologist is so ridiculous that I wish I had the wit of Mark Steyn to lambaste you with. Mann’s hockey stick left out the medieval warm period and the “Little Ice Age” between ~1600 and 1850, not to mention the total falsification of the 20th century data.
                      Mark Steyn, unlike the other defendants being sued for defamation of character, is not a scientist and is being sued because of his comments calling Mann’s work fraudulent after his exposure as a liar and data manipulator through leaked emails. I’m guessing that Mr. Steyn was incensed that a good portion of the world’s governments had been duped into spending billions by this falsified and alarmist drivel that was produced at US taxpayer expense.
                      If Michael Mann is so sure of his hockey stick, why hasn’t he released the data upon which it was built? President Trump called global warming a hoax, took anything related to it off the White House website and muzzled the EPA; why hasn’t Mann sued him for defamation? Could it be the RICO lawsuit the feds could file against him and his co-conspirators?
                      Mann was cleared of any malfeasance by a Penn St. administrative panel earlier this year, but those lily-livered snakes cleared Jerry Sandusky too. Mann should be stripped of his PhD, charged with his fellow climate change liars with RICO and jailed. Then the Kyoto agreements and the Paris Accord can be revisited by the rest of the world, this time viewed as the huge boondoggles they are. Of course, the United States of America will let the world do what it wants as we rejected both “Treaties”.

                    • Ian5

                      Such fluff…and no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your silly claims. Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Beirish65

                      Misleading information because NASA is bought and paid for by taxpayers money to write a false narrative.

                    • Ian5

                      “NASA is bought and paid for by taxpayers money to write a false narrative.”

                      >> Intentionally misleading talking point. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate this ridiculous statement.

                    • Beirish65

                      You’re irrelevant and so is every statement that you make regarding climate change, carbon emissions and global warming. You are an absolute joke this whole thing is ridiculous.

                    • Ian5

                      Making silly, ignorant and unsubstantiated statements doesn’t make them true. Please educate yourself and then come back and tell us what you’ve learned:
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Beirish65

                      You’re ignorant, uneducated and uninformed in NASA is a lying piece of crap.

                    • Ian5

                      More conspiracy rubbish. NASA’s position has been consistent over decades through multiple republican and democratic administrations. Its position is also consistent with the positions of the National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. Who have you got substantiating your ridiculous position?

                    • LTJ

                      …because Soros now controls NASA? There is no American government?

                      Please do tell us more about this vast worldwide conspiracy of yours. This thread was getting far too serious, and I could use a little light entertainment.

                    • Beirish65

                      George Soros leader and puppet master of the New World Order is not a conspiracy. I’ll make it easy for you go to Amazon and put in the search engine, of Amazon, the words New World Order and see how many books pop up about it. Ignorance is bliss.

                    • LTJ
                    • Beirish65

                      Instead of watching TV or listening to your favorite liberal socialist show open up a book and read. Ignorance is bliss

                    • LTJ

                      Why did you delete your previous reply? It was far more entertaining, and no more stupid than what you’ve replaced it with:

                      Beirish65

                      12 hours ago

                      George Soros leader and puppet master of the New World Order is not a conspiracy. I’ll make it easy for you go to Amazon and put in the
                      search engine, of Amazon, the words New World Order and see how many books pop up about it. Ignorance is bliss.

                    • Beirish65

                      Snowflake ❄️ You could not have made my point any clear because your ignorance is bliss.

                    • Beirish65

                      Ridiculous and it’s not worth talking to you because you’re so blinded by what you think is the truth. The New World Order It’s not a conspiracy it is a fact. George Soros is not a conspiracy he is a fact of evil. Follow the money if you can handle it because I don’t think you can handle the truth because it would disturb your entire educational background. If we want roc it’s not a conspiracy it is a fact. George Soros is not a conspiracy he’s a fact of evil. Follow the money if you can handle it because I don’t think you can handle the truth because it would disturb your entire educational background. It Rock your entire being to find out the truth about this country and the And how our political system is rigged to steal wealth from uneducated people like you through global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. How come our Gore has a multimillion dollar house and a multi million dollar bank account and has a plane and gas guzzling automobiles and he talks about global warming him like it’s a major problem? If it was such a major problem then why does he have all the things that he has? Follow the money. Follow the money.

                    • LTJ

                      Yes, YES!!! More, please.

                    • Beirish65

                      Ignorance is bliss

                    • LTJ

                      …nor much of a track record for honest and unbiased journalism.

                    • Wake

                      There is NO SUCH THING as “climate science”. This is a self identified science. Tell us what university offers higher education in climate science and who has obtained such a degree.

                    • Wake

                      Again let me repeat – there IS no such thing as a “climate scientist”. This is entirely self identified and hence ANYONE can claim those non-existent credentials.

                  • Latimer Alder

                    Cliff Stoll wrote one very good book which I enjoyed immensely.

                    But it was not about climate.

              • model94

                We have Nostradamus here guys

                • robmanzoni

                  “…We have Nostradamus here guys…”
                  No – it’s Michael Mann himself. Just wasting our time…

              • adam_s_0625

                Data is the information from which knowledge, understanding, and wisdom arise. If you have contempt for data, then you have contempt for science. But we already knew that.

                • Ian5

                  You misunderstand the point. I have no contempt for data. Only that without knowledge, understanding and wisdom, data is often used and abused.

                  • adam_s_0625

                    You can say that again. The adjustments made by NASA GISS are attrocious!

              • Latimer Alder

                ‘Data are not the same as information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.’

                Maybe not.

                But they are the underpinning of all true science. And it is that realisation that distnguishes the scientist from the theologian.

                Your appeal to ‘look beyond data’ is an appeal to a faith or religious belief, not to science. I hope you recognise it as such.

              • Wake
                • LTJ

                  …and by ‘peer reviewers’, he means cheerleaders.

            • model94

              Exactly right. In my mind “climate science credentials” are a big negative. It requires (excuse me) political whoring to make a living at it

            • LTJ

              And what if I’m I’m a magical rainbow-colored unicorn who’s calling you on your claim?

              • adam_s_0625

                Please, Mr. Unicorn, do point us to a single experiment that proves the correlation between CO2 and warming of the biosphere. Hint: you cannot … because it does not exist. What you have is circumstantial evidence that could be caused by AGW or natural causes. You do not have definitive proof of how much is AGW and how much is natural. All you have is a political agenda that looks at science through magical, rainbow-colored glasses and cries, “Wolf!!”

                Best to leave the deep end of the intellectual pool. You’re in WAY over your head.

                • LTJ

                  The high school science that you failed is merely “circumstantial evidence”?

                  Many, many studies have been undertaken; the issue here is finding an explanation simple enough for even you to follow.

                  Will this do? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

                  BTW, kudos on the subtly admitting that your claim of being a scientist was a brilliantly ridiculous ruse.

                  • adam_s_0625

                    Not even close. Attempting to trot out a theoretical explanation for an as yet unproven theory and assuming it’s undeniable is just what we would expect from those pushing a political agenda. There has been NO experiment conducted on the effect of CO2 on the Earth’s biosphere. All of the variables cannot even be said to be known, the signs of certain variables are still being debated, and the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 has a ridiculous error margin. The models do not agree with observation. And there is no credible explanation for the noticeable rise in temp 191x-194x (when CO2 was flat), the pause in temp 194x-197x (when CO2 began to rise), and the current pause in temp (200x-present, with noticeable rise in CO2, and acknowledged by many recognized alarmists). No, you’re the type that has Feynman rolling in his grave. We’re done here.

                    • LTJ

                      You’re done because you know you’ve answered with more unsubstantiated drivel. There is no lack of theoretical explanations for the few real issues you’ve mentioned – many of which have acheived concensus.

                      But not all your issues are real: your “current pause” claim is a blatant and dangerous lie. Each of the last three years surpassed the previous annual high temperature records – the last two, year-over-year by a wide margin.

                    • Immortal600

                      You’ve been schooled, fool. Too dumb to realize it, too !!

                    • LTJ

                      Thanks for that insightful contribution. Clearly, I must ponder your well-structured argument for a millisecond or two.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sorry if the truth hurts. LOL

          • Jeremy Poynton

            Mann’s paper has been discounted and battered by many within the profession. Suggest you get Steyn’s book which deals with this; also talk to Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit, who, whilst not a climate scientist is a tip top statistician – he’s pulled his paper to pieces on numerous grounds.

            • Ian5

              Why would you suggest Steyn’s book? Mr. Steyn has no scientific credentials whatsoever. Likewise former mining executive Steve McIntyre – no climate science background whatsoever.

              • Steven Woodcock

                Neither does Algore, and you probably have multiple copies of both of his books.

                • Ian5

                  Silly deflection. The article is about Mann’s suit against Mark Steyn; it’s not about Al Gore.

          • Lima6

            I don’t blindly trust anyone, scientist or otherwise. But Mann is a proven liar (see his now-retracted claim to have been a “Nobel Laureate,” among other things) and a well-known prevaricator (see “Mike’s Nature trick”). It’s difficult to understand how or why anyone in the climate science community places any confidence in Mann at this point.

          • Mann has been debunked by top scientists. That’s enough for this layman.

            • Ian5

              Untrue statement. His conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature. Why not inform yourself of the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              • Steven Woodcock

                If you’re saying his work is sound, why did he refuse to release his data?

                • Ian5

                  Yet another silly myth manufactured by disinformation professionals.

                  • Steven Woodcock

                    I’m sorry, are you claiming he DID release his information?

                    SWEET! Please point me at it.

                    • Ian5

                      Hi Steven, here you go: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php

                      Scroll down to bottom…the page also includea links to data that inform his research on “Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia”

                    • Steven Woodcock

                      I asked for NEW information, not regurgitated old information using the same discredited temperature “adjustments”.

                      If that’s what he’s relying on,he should probably just admit guilt now.

                    • Ian5

                      Discredited? By who? And why is it that his findings are consistent with the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy?

                    • Steven Woodcock

                      Discredited by any real scientist showing how his data has been manipulated. I know true believers won’t be swayed of course, which is more the pity.

                      Argument from authority is just argument from ignorance. That’s taking the side of the Catholic Church against Galileo.

                    • Ian5

                      “Argument from authority is just argument from ignorance.”

                      Incorrect comparison. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an “authority” outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

                      Dr. Ball`s positions on climate change and those of the silly “Friends of Science” are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. On what basis do you reject this position?

                    • Steven Woodcock

                      No,that’s exactly spot on. You just don’t like the facts that the “supposed 97%” (it’s really more like 5%) are falling back to that as a defense.

                      What do you think about this little gem? Just this week as it happens:

                      https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html

                      I assume you’re in the process of slamming those those researchers as evil oil-funded stooges?

                      (Wait…didn’t Algore make most of his money of late from the oil barons over in the Middle East?

                    • Ian5

                      “it’s really more like 5%”

                      >> A made up number based on no evidence whatsoever. Unsubstantiated rubbish. You are good at that.

                      “What do you think about this little gem? ”

                      >> A single article in an obscure and shortly-to-be-discontinued journal doesn’t undermine decades and decades of climate science and mountains of evidence generated by multiple, independent lines of science. And Marohasy is a well-known contrarian. Doesn’t change a thing.

                    • Steven Woodcock

                      Wow…phys.org is a “shortly to be discontinued” journal?

                      Fascinating. I guess your bible is HuffPo and NPR then, if phys.org isn’t to your liking.

                      Okay. Go in peace, namaste, etc.

              • robmanzoni

                “…His [Mann’s] conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature…”
                That’s because the “current scientific literature” is riddled with Mann’s fraudulent papers; and with those of his equally-dishonest peers.

                • Ian5

                  “Both Mann and Nature are deserving of the strongest condemnation for this”

                  According to what authority and on what basis? You and Tony Heller? Please stop intentionally misleading readers with your silly, misinformed conspiracy theories that have no factual basis whatsoever.

                  • robmanzoni

                    “…According to what authority and on what basis?…”
                    Hi Michael…
                    The fact that you ask such an obviously ignorant question shows your true trollish intentions – to force a dialogue with those who see through you; and who’ve witnessed your effective bullying of peers like Briffa into complying not with the scientific method – but with what YOU want the data to show.
                    Well, I won’t waste any more time with you. We know who you are; and I won’t take your disgusting bait…

                    • Ian5

                      You made an outrageous statement that you are unwilling to substantiate. I am calling you on it.

        • prometheus11

          Exactly right. He should Mann up and confess that his hockey stick is more political schtick than science. We’ll forgive him if he does. Otherwise he’ll probably be denounced as a witch and burnt at the stake if he doesn’t.

          • stephen duval

            How about adding a little science to the discussion.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

            1) Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.

            2) Greenland ice core data shows stable temperature for 10,000 years varying between 14-16C. The alarmist scare is based upon the thermometer temperature record that covers only 150 years or part of the current warm period that is unremarkable relative to the last 10,000 years.

            3) Water vapor accounts for 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 for 19%. Man made CO2 emissions account for 1-2% of CO2 emissions.

            4) The greenhouse effect of CO2 is exponentially reducing. From 0 to 20 ppm it is 1.5C. From 380 to 400 ppm, it is less than .05C.

            5) From 1960 to today, CO2 ppm has increased steadily. From 1960 to 1980 temp decreased, from 1980 – 2000 temp increased, from 2000 – today temp has been stable.

            6) Temperature predictions made by the global climate models are wrong and getting worse with every passing year.

            7) Sea level increased 8 inches in the 19th and 20th century. It is likely to do the same in the 21st. Even if the Arctic melts, it is only 2% of the ice and it wont increase sea level because it is floating. Antarctica with 90% of the global ice is adding 8 inches of ice per year. During WW2 some airplanes crash landed in Greenland, recently they were found under 268 feet of ice.

            8) 150 years ago at 280 ppm CO2, we were dangerously close to a mass extinction (plants start to die at 180 ppm). The increase in CO2 to 400 ppm has led to increased food production and the greening of the planet.

            • prometheus11

              Thank you for the science exercise. But the political forces pushing climate change are not interested in what you have to say. They’re simply using cooked up scientific data to hoodwink governments tino going along. Cutting CO2 emissions will not lower temperatures but that is not the intention. Oh sure, the Union of Concerned Scientist and other climate changers are spewing out the best models EPA money can buy. But, if the scandal at East Anglia U. taught us anything, it taught us that the political forces behind climate change and global warming don’t give a damn about truth or falsehood. They have one obsession. That is to massively reduce global population by 6 billion people. This is the objective of the current household that rules the British Empire. To drive my point home, I refer to the Copenhagen Conference on CO2. After it failed to get other nations to go along with cutting fossil fuel production, British Queen Elizabeth and her representatives began to intensify their efforts to broaden the message on the need to cut carbon emissions. This explains how and why Hans Schellnhuber, Knights Commander of the British Empire, became the advisor to Pope Francis on Climate Change. Schellnhuber wrote the draft on Climate Change that ended up in the Pope’s Encyclical, Laudato Si. Until very recently, Schellnhuber’s website represented his crazy views on the need to drastically reduce global population levels. Among his statements he said ” the carrying capacity of the planet is 1 billion people.” When he was confronted with this statement, he denied he said it. But it was posted on his website until he took it down. This guy has been a mouthpiece for action on cutting population for a long time. Cutting CO2 emissions by shutting down fossil fuels is just another way to reach the intended objective.. Before you tell me there is no such thing any longer as the British Empire, reflect for a moment on Obama’s alternative energy agenda. And then Clinton’s announcement of ending all US coal production if elected. Who influenced their decisions?
              Is it coincidence that Obama’s and Clinton’s policies on energy were the same? And they matched the objectives of the British Empire? She and Obama may not know why they were doing it, but they were adopting the energy policies that met the objectives of the British Imperial system.
              Confronted with this fraud, you, me, and millions of others, some of whom practice real science, are in full rejection mode. Right? Reams of Scientific data that prove Climate Change is not man made, have been recorded and reported on. But because the British are absolutely determined to achieve their objectives, regardless of the reams of realistic scientific data, it means nothing to them. What they intend to do in the next 20 to 100 years, is to massively reduce population to the often stated 1 billion people That’s what they intend and they will not stop until they are stopped! This is the real issue, not who has the correct data. It is a fight for civilization and it has to be fought and won by destroying the British Empire. And also by increasing the energy flux density of the Biosphere through producing higher forms of energy with 4th generation nuclear fission plants while creating a crash program to build commercial fusion.

              • stephen duval

                There is a lot that you write that I could agree with.

                Especially the anti human Green movement’s desire to reduce the population by about 6 billion people.

                However, the source of the anti human ideology is the Green/Left rather than the British Empire which may have been a force to be reckoned with before WW2, but not now.

                • prometheus11

                  The hat salesman who walked into the oval office after FDR died was in the grips of Wall Street bankers. The likes of which were responsible for funding Hitler’s rise to power. Wall is and has always been an outpost of the British Empire. After WWII the Empire identified itself as the Commonwealth of nations. While no longer a landed aristocracy, the British Imperial financial system functions much like the Roman Empire that came before it. The Anglo-Dutch imperial system was folded into what became the British Empire after the defeat of France in the seven years war. It is the same financial system of usury that rules international financial markets and cartels today. It has an American side to it that functions from Wall Street bankng. Individuals such as George Soros function as operatives for the British Foreign Office. Soros’s Open Society for instance is used to destabilize governments that have been targeted by the British for regime change. Soros pumped billions in the coup in Ukraine to destabilize Russia. The British have prized Russia as the crown jewel from which to dominate the world. Yes there is a long history to it and mastering it helps one to understand the nature of our chief enemy, the British Empire.

                  • getitright

                    “Soros pumped billions in the coup in Ukraine to destabilize Russia.”

                    How’s that working for him?

                  • Wake

                    Socialists like you certainly are funny. No matter what happens in the world you can find a “corporation” to blame it on. YOU drive a car. You buy gasoline. The government makes 10 times as much per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do but you somehow believe that the oil companies are working against “a green earth”. When it is drawn out in front of you that electric cars actually generate MORE CO2 than gasoline cars do you STILL don’t believe it and tell us that Tesla is the wave of the future. But the fact that Tesla is a corporation doesn’t register on your extremely slow thinking process. You are so incredibly stupid you don’t even know what Wall St. is or how it works but since people are making money off of it it MUST be evil right? All you need is the floppy shoes and the red nose to complete your costume.

                • prometheus11

                  cont’d….the green movement began with the export of Prince Philip’s WWF to America in 1962. The boomer generation was deliberately drugged up by CIA MK-ULTRA. LSD proliferation on the college campuses was accomplished in part by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters bus tour from college campus to college campus handing out free LSD laced cool-aid. Timothy Leary and other counter-culture Gurus were also instrumental in brain-washing an entire generation to tune in, drop acid and drop out of society. The British and their collaborators in the US who were associated with CIA funded Congress for Cultural Freedom, lit a match that set a generation on fire.
                  On the music side, Frankfurt School mind-bender and Tavistock collaborator, Theodore Adorno, was chiefly responsible for the Radio Music Project that originated “Rock Music.” To produce the sound he was looking for, Adorno studied African tribal music. He came up with a drum beat sound that would produce in the listener, the infantile emotion of a child “bed rocker.” Hence the name, “Rock Music.” This is all documented. In fact Adorno brags about it.
                  Look, the reason the post WWII boomer generation was targeted for paradigm culture change, was to break the bond between the boomers and the generations that preceded them. Because the generations that lived during WWII were committed to and identified with scientific and technological progress. They were production oriented. They had just won a world war by outproducing Germany 4 to 1 in logistics. Under Truman the British were able to chip away at the WWII production based system. For that, British monetarist Maynard Keynes was brought in to advise Truman. Monetary emission substituted capital intensive production. Within 10 years after WWII it blew up in their faces! The British knew they had to rip the boomers from their parents. They realized that if they were going to transform the US they would have to capture a generation to do it.
                  A new belief was manufacture. One that was anti-science and oriented around protecting the environment. You could say that the brain washing of the boomers into adopting the Rock-Drugs-Sex anti-science counter culture as their own was introduced on the Ed Sullivan Show by the British bank known as The Beatles. Do you find this preposterous? Then you don’t know about the history of the British Tavistock Institute. Look there and also at the beginnings of the WWF. Look into Adorno and the Frankfurt School. MK-ULTRA and Margaret Mead’s husband, Gregory Bateson who was part of that operation. Look into the Congress for Cultural Freedom. I’ll stop here. You have work to do

                  • stephen duval

                    You lost me there.

                • Wake

                  stephen – that is the largest danger of the global warming True Believers. They would have power generation cut off for the entire world. They believe man to be a cancer on the Earth and that murdering tens of millions of Chinese and Indians nothing more than a better life for themselves. This was PRECISELY the language that Margaret Sanger used to found Planned Parenthood and this is the same drive behind the “environmentalists” that are trying to press for the USA to remain in the Paris Accord – which said that ONLY the USA had to do anything until after 2020. Of course the rest of the world was for shutting down the US economy so that they could accelerate their own.

                  • Ian5

                    Noting that Stephen’s silly, misinformed position on climate change is diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy including NASA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and the American Geophysical Union.

                    • Charles Tery

                      Explain Gina McCarthy Senate hearing in Jan 16 17 2014. After lengthy obfuscation she admitted there has been no temp increase over the past decade. After her embarrassment the SPA, MISS and NASA fabricated the Temperature Anomaly. The Temp Anomaly has not been defined. Those agencies refuse to explain why they went from Global Mean Tempetature to the Temp Anomaly. Cleary there is no science to support the Temp Anomaly.

            • LTJ

              The “Friends of Science” are anything but.

              Perhaps you’d consider the actuarial approach recommended here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/

              ,,though I’m guessing you’ll just add Scientic American magazine to your vast list of conspirators.

              • stephen duval

                All you did was refer to an article that did not address any of the scientific facts that I referred to.

                This is not a scientific argument.

                Show that what I am saying is false or irrelevant. Otherwise you are just making an argument to authority. Doesn’t work in science.

                • LTJ

                  You have no science on your side – you have only a string of unsubstantiated claims from gawd-knows-where and a youtube clip of an electrical engineer speaking at a climate change denial conference.

                  https://www.desmogblog.com/steve-goreham

                  • stephen duval

                    “You have no science on your side” – unsubstantiated claim

                    “you have only a string of unsubstantiated claims from gawd-knows-where” – you have not disputed even one of them

                    “youtube clip of an electrical engineer speaking at a climate change denial conference” – more ad hominem attacks that are irrelevant in a scientific discussion

                    http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

                    DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”.

                    Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming.

                    • LTJ

                      My statement that you have no science is substantiated by the fact that all of your idiocy is (wait for it) completely without substantiation!

                      Try providing your sources for your laundry list of bullshit – and using better ones than “popular technology” to quote about Desmogblog, because PT is just another in the circle-jerk of denialist sites that constantly reference each other rather than scientific sources or facts. Here’s a hint: The misfit computer geeks writing and editing at PT aren’t scientists and using a search engine isn’t scientific research.

                      BTW, the facts about John Lefebvre are here: https://www.creators.com/read/jacob-sullum/02/07/netellers-open-and-honest-conspiracy

                      Facts do matter. Your slander doesn’t, because whether Lefebvre’s fortune came from gambling is immaterial to the fact that your boy Steve Goreham has no credentials whatsoever that qualify him to speak on the topic of climate change.

                    • stephen duval

                      You seem determined to avoid a discussion of science. I asked you to pick one of my 8 statements to dispute. All you do is name call.

                      Lets start with number 1.Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.

                      Have you noticed that the temp in the summer is 90F and in the winter 30F. That is an annual swing of 60 degrees. Do you dispute that?

                      It is religious dogma for alarmists that ” the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years”. Do you dispute that?

                      If you do not dispute either of these statements then you must accept my first statement as true.

                    • LTJ

                      You continue to insist that you are ‘sciencing’ when you are clearly unfamiliar with the concept. Science requires verifiable data. It requires parameters. You have provided neither in your sweeping claims.

                      At which point on the planet does the temperature swing about 60°F? Where on the planet is the temperature 90°F in the summer and 30°F in the winter? Why does it matter in a discussion of the impact of global warming?

                      And the globe is warming, by more than the “religious dogma for alarmists” you describe. It approached .99°C last year:

                      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3

                    • stephen duval

                      Is it possible for you to discuss something without name calling?

                      My first claim is:
                      “1.Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.”

                      You quoted the Guardian newspaper for an increase of .99C. I believe that you may have made a typo and that should be .94C.

                      I was referencing the alarmist Bible, the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers p5
                      “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming
                      of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012”
                      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

                      The IPCC is claiming a crisis based upon an increase of .85C (1.5F) over a period of 132 years.

                      You inquired about the location for temperature swings.

                      http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Record-Setting-Weather.html has some interesting data.

                      For Alabama, the record high temp is 112F and low is -27F a difference of 139F.
                      For Colorado, the record high temp is 118F and low is -61F a difference of 179F.
                      For Maine, the record high temp is 105F and low is -48F a difference of 153F.

                      Browning Montana experienced a change in temp from 44F to -56F, a difference of 100F in 24 hours
                      Granville ND experienced a change in temp from -33F to 50F, a difference of 83F in 12 hours

                      You asked “Why does it matter in a discussion of the impact of global warming?”

                      The purpose is to put a change of .85C (1.5F) over 132 years in context. Daily swings in temperature of 15F are common and annual swings in temperature of 60F are common. Changes in temp over 24 hours of 83F and 100F have been recorded.

                      It matters because this temperature observation (.85C over 132 years) is used to justify trillions of dollars of investment. If we do not have a climate crisis, this money could be used to provide clean drinking water and sewage treatment for billions of people.

                    • LTJ

                      You poor, delicate hypocritical little snowflake.

                      That is the last name I shall call you.

                      This is a collosal waste of time. You are unable to ever consider facts that disturb your conspiracy-driven world view. You cannot simply admit that the world has continued to warm since 2012. You contradict the facts presented without justification or a reference provided for your own claim once again (.94°C vs .99°C – really?).

                      And you make absurdly bizarre claims about TRILLIONS of dollars. And ridiculous assumptions that the few billion actually devoted to the cause last year would have been re-deployed in the third world if had not been spent in the interest of saving our own asses from our own developing crisis,

                    • Latimer Alder

                      ‘the world has continued to warm since 2012’

                      Maybe so.

                      But so what?

                      Is a warmer, greener world a better place than a colder, greyer one? Or not?

                      Please show your working.

                    • Charles Tery

                      As of January 2014 according to Gina McCarthy. There has been no temp increase over the past decade. That statement proves Michael Mann ‘s Global Warming Hiatus.

                    • stephen duval

                      “You poor, delicate hypocritical little snowflake. “ You must have learned your debating skills at Yale.

                      “You contradict the facts presented without justification or a reference provided for your own claim once again (.94°C vs .99°C – really?). “

                      Obviously you also learned to read at Yale. The first sentence of YOUR reference is “With the first six months of 2017 in the books, average global surface temperatures so far this year are 0.94°C above the 1950–1980 average, according to NASA. “ Maybe you can explain how you read that as a .99C increase.

                      Your reference: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3

                      My claim is not .94C. My claim is .85C over 132 years taken from IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, the Bible of the Greens.

                      “would have been re-deployed in the third world if it had not been spent in the interest of saving our own asses from our own developing crisis. “

                      If you are going to waste billions, never mind the trillions required to prevent Globull Warming, you might as well do something useful, as in save lives by improving drinking water and sewage treatment in the third world.

                      It would only take a few tens of millions to prevent 1 million African women and children dying from malaria every year if religious zealots in the Green movement were willing to admit that Saint Rachel Carson was just another purveyor of junk science and lift the ban on DDT.

                      But Green narcissist only think about themselves.

                      But maybe the Greens are not just selfish. Maybe they are also genocidal. After all their anti human religion regards humanity as a plague spreading across the surface of the world. And the “carrying capacity” of the Earth is only 1 billion. Something has to be done about the other 6 billion inhabitants of the world.

                      Just think, if you had been born 500 years ago, you would be sacrificing virgins to appease the weather gods rather than shutting down nuclear energy and coal plants.

                    • LTJ

                      ROTFL!

                      I do enjoy it when you double-down on your mistakes. You wouldn’t care to get together for a poker game, would you?

                      The 2017 reference has next-to-nothing to do with the 2016 reference, and even less to do with 2012. Do try to keep up.

                      BTW, I didn’t learn to read at Yale – but then again, I only spent a day there. Here in Canada, we learn to read starting in kindergarten, and are pretty much expected to have it mastered before leaving grade school. So sorry to hear about the deficiencies in education in your country.

                      Although it does explain the bizarre and illogical leaps you make with all your other assumptions…

                    • Wake

                      I will ask you again – what are your credentials to make ANY comments regarding science?

                    • Wake

                      Sorry but according to Dr. Roy Spenser, the head of the NASA weather satellite project launched in 1979, there hasn’t been any warming that is outside of the normal chaotic weather patterns. And the average temperature since 1979 has remained static. Obviously you are going to quote either NASA or papers written using the counterfeited NASA temperature records. But it has been proven that NASA “fixed” the temperature records and any papers written using that data are worthless.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      This paper establishes not just the fact that NASA has changed the raw data which is the worst thing a scientist can do but has done it in such a manner that even officials from the EPA peer reviewed this paper and agree with the findings.

                    • Latimer Alder

                      ‘ It requires parameters’

                      An example of where/how ‘it requires parameters’ would help my understanding.

                    • Wake

                      He so obviously is uneducated I have to wonder. He is unaware that a parameter is nothing more than a single part of a set.

                    • Latimer Alder

                      Even in little temperate UK I’ve measured a swing of over 60F between winter and summer temperatures.

                    • LTJ

                      So what’s the latitude, Latimer?

                      BTW, that’s an example of a parameter for you. Others to consider: altitude, longitude, period, median vs average vs extreme, the equipment used and its positioning – basically all the factors involved in making your results reproducible.

                    • Latimer Alder

                      Ah .So a parameter is just another piece of data.

                      Why didn’t you say so? Does ‘parameter’ sound better? More tekkie?

                      In case you’re interested, I measured the minimum of -16C at Lat 56N, and the max of 34C at 51N. That’s a 50C (90F) range. All within our small island temperate maritime island.

                      I really cannot persuade myself that civilisation wil come to an end if teh average were to increase by 2C and the range therefore change to -14C to +36C

                      Can you?

                      Please show your working.

                    • LTJ

                      A parameter is not just another piece of data. Parameters are the specifics that allow others to verify the data you provide.

                      I fear the examiners at your old university are ashamed of you.

                    • Latimer Alder

                      Your fear is unfounded. Sleep easy on their behalf.

                      Toodle pip.

                    • Wake

                      As a simple question – if you don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s clear to anyone with an education – why are you posting?

                    • LTJ

                      …and why do I warrant so much of your attention whenever I do?

                    • Latimer Alder

                      Reproducible? I doubt it. These were not measurements of a controlled experiment but of the weather itself. I don’t think weather is exactly reproducible.

                      Unless you have a weather maker?

                      If so, please can you arrange for my humble home at 51N, 1W to get the climate of the Loire Valley that we were promised 40 years ago.

                      I have been eagerly awaiting ‘global warming’ to have brought us this climatic improvement ever since.

                      But sadly without effect so far.

                    • LTJ

                      So it seems you “science” like our friend Stephen here – which is to say, not at all.

                      And like so many of the denialist ilk, you believed Al Gore and the sensationalist press, and have been disappointed. And for some reason you want to blame that on real scientists, rather than on the folks who wildly exaggerated their findings.

                    • Latimer Alder

                      I fear the examiners at my old University disagree with you. They managed to award me not just one but two degrees in a ‘hard’ science… and unless chemistry has drastically changed in the last 30-odd years I imagine that those degrees are still pretty much valid today.

                      And FWIW my specialist subject was in computer modelling high-atmosphere reaction kinetics as as part of the ozone hole panic. Sadly my model was shown to be wrong ..as the actual data did not match predictions..a lesson it seems today’s ‘climate modellers’ are eventually learning too.

                      As to Al Gore, I doubt if that failed theologian could point to the Loire Valley on a map..no doubt – like so any of our transatlantic friends – thinking it somewhere beyond Cooba.

                      The predictions in question were made much nearer to home..by the climate alarmist/modellers from the UK Met Office. I will be seeing a few at a lecture ext week and will pass on your thoughts that they are not ‘real’ scientists.

                      Stay tooned (as I believe the expression is) for their gratitude-filled replies.

                    • Wake

                      Let me guess – you don’t know a thing about weather? TODAY in the San Francisco bay area the temperature swing from morning until 4 pm will be from 36 degrees to 80 degrees.

                      Give some more of your deep knowledge obtained from the Guardian.

                    • Wake

                      I could go through a great deal of effort to explain how the ground temperature monitoring since the end of the civil war has been deeply flawed. Moreover we could discuss how NASA was using ground temperature data from several sites around the world where there WERE NO GROUND STATIONS. But this is rather pointless. The True Believers here have their Church of the Global Warming and intend on staying their course.

                      Dr. Roy Spencer who was NASA director for the weather satellite program that started in 1979 make the point – there has been NO WARMING other than the normal chaotic weather patterns since the satellites were launched.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      It’s odd that you dismiss DeSmogBlog as a “smear site” while linking to Popular Technology.

                    • stephen duval

                      Why is that odd. At least Popular Technology is honest even if it targets a less educated market. DeSmogBlog is pure propaganda.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      If you think that Popular Technology is an honest broker and not the politically-overdetermined bottom feeder it so obviously is, then you lack basic critical thinking skills.

                    • stephen duval

                      I really dont read Popular Technology so I have no opinion on your assessment. DeSmogBlog on the other hand is definitely propaganda.

                    • Wake

                      All of these references show that climate change is a hoax.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      https://cyclintom.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/climate-change-for-scientists/

                      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

                      As for honest temperture monitoring: If you look at
                      http://www.surfacestations.org/ you will discover almost no monitoring sites that didn’t have large errors.

                      http://principia-scientific.org/another-new-paper-slays-co2-greenhouse-gas-thought-experiment/

                      I could go on but the True Believers here can’t understand these papers so going into finer detail isn’t going to achieve anything.

                    • Wake

                      I designed and programmed the digital portion of the automation of the Polymerase Chain Reaction chemistry that we used to identify the HIV virus that was in the world’s blood banking system. This gave Dr. Kary Mullis a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Later I expanded it to be a 16 axis instrument for analyzing DNA. The Project Leader, Dr. Michael McCown became lecturer in chemistry in a major university. I later designed both gas and liquid chromatography instrument requiring full knowledge of spectroscopy. I programmed the poison gas detector used by the military to discover those weapons of mass destruction that so many liberals claimed didn’t exist. I designed and programmed communications boards used in the initial International Space Station. I designed and programmed instruments used to detect various forms of cancer. Automated syringe pumps and many other things requiring advanced knowledge of many sciences. You could take my word that the idea of AGW is a hoax but I’m sure you won’t because it’s something that you want to believe is true.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      While I am sure that your personal achievements in the physical sciences are quite solid, you have demonstrated no knowledge or competence whatsoever on the subject at hand, which is based on atmospheric physics. Your citation below of numerous science-denial sites below, including notably Tony Heller, further underscores this fact.

                    • Wake

                      You are free to discount my abilities all you like. Though I am curious as to why you don’t cite any of your own from which point to judge. Tony Heller has a Bachelors of Science in geology and a Masters in Engineering which most likely puts him miles above you in scientific knowledge and the ability to research things correctly. So if you have any equal training in scientific method by all means let us know.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Tony Heller is a liar, incompetent when it comes to climate science, and a mentally unbalanced conspiracy theorist. He is so off the deep end that he has been banned from WUWT.

                      Engineering is not a degree that automatically conveys competence or fluency in the natural sciences. For one thing, engineers are often flummoxed by the concept of scientific uncertainty.

                    • Wake

                      NO education automatically gives you competency in anything. That is why 80% of all college graduate never work in their major. But I have followed Heller’s work and he is more than competent.

                      We haven’t heard from you what your field of competency is in. As for “conspiracy” – that is a FACT and not a fiction.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      That is a published and peer reviewed paper that SHOWS that NASA doctored raw data. The peer reviewers were from THE EPA and agree with the findings.

                      So I suggest you go crawl back into the hole you came from and take your own incompetence with you.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      “I have followed Heller’s work and he is more than competent”

                      —Simply, LOL.

                      The is not peer-reviewed paper. It was never published in a peer-reviewed publications. And having a bunch of non-experts agree with its conclusions is not how peer review works. Wallace, d’Aleo, and Idso are all fringe figures and science-deniers. The citations in the paper are all to the work of skeptics and AGW deniers, some of which wasn’t peer reviewed, others of which have been refuted.

                    • Wake

                      Still waiting for your credentials. You show one point – you are oblivious to the fact that MOST scientific papers are not peer reviewed. Now where was it that you gain all this scientific expertise that you’ve so far failed to demonstrate?

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      I never claimed to be an expert, though my claim to science literacy comes from having taken some atmospheric physics in college and following the issue of climate in the journals for the last 30 years. But I do listen to those who are, and I generally find that people who are actually engaged in first-hand research are more reliable than people who like Heller who cherry-pick, conspiracy theorize, and make assertions about “fraudulent data” based on utterly ignorant misconceptions about how leading science agencies collect, process, and analyze data.

                    • Wake

                      So you don’t know anything about spectroscopy but think that a class you took 30 years ago qualifies you to identify fact from fiction.

                      You believe in peer review and I JUST gave you a paper that was peer reviewed by EPA scientists that AGREED that NASA had counterfeited the raw temperature records. But Heller is a wild-eyed cherry picker for saying nothing more than that paper written by mathematicians, without a bone to pick, did.

                      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

                      That isn’t “cherry picked”. It is an article written by an IR Astronomer who said that he was forced to keep his mouth shut to keep his job.

                      I think that there is something wrong with you. You admit you know nothing about this and are plainly a True Believer in the Church of Global Warming. Your religious experiences are of no value so please don’t go on about them as if you could convert people that have worked in science for decades.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      You keep circling back to Tony Heller.

                      It’s hilarious.

                    • Wake

                      No, actually I keep circling back to someone that is incompetent to judge the intelligence of anyone else.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      It is true. Tony Heller is incompetent to judge the intelligence of anyone else.

                    • Wake

                      Well tell you what – lets see what happens to Michael Mann since you’re such a great believer in the Church of Global Warming.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Why? Is he on trial or under indictment or in danger of losing his job?

                      I get the impression that you view the greenhouse effect as a fraud.

                    • Wake

                      Firstly you don’t seem to understand what it would do to a so-called scientist’s reputation to be shown to have committed scientific fraud. He was ordered to show his data by the court and he did not. When the court reconvenes he will be found at the very least guilty of contempt of court. And very likely ordered by the court again to make his data available to the public.

                      You get the impression? I have shown that NASA has committed fraud, that the chart that Michael Mann made called the hockey stick did not show either the Medieval Warm Period or even the little ice age. Both of these things were a blatant attempt to imply that the temperature on this planet is not controlled by the Sun but by components of the atmosphere that are here in such dramatically low amounts that they could have no effect since the energy in their spectroscopic absorption ranges has been in saturation from before any warming events. If there even IS a warming event and not just recovery from the little ice age.

                      Greenland’s glaciers have not retreated to the levels they were at before the little ice age. And present satellite measurements show that ice is being deposited on Greenland’s glaciers at a faster rate than it is melting off of the base which is at a lower altitude.

                      Perhaps you are perfectly willing to bow at the altar of the Church of Global Warming but no one that knows science would be.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Mann’s data is publicly available online and always has been. It is ridiculous to claim that he did not show or that he withheld his data. There will be no contempt of court ruling.

                      You failed in your attempt to show that NASA has committed fraud.

                      There have been at least 3 dozen paleoclimate reconstructions by scholars all around the world. Every one of them is a hockey stick. The claim that Mann “did not show” the MWP or LIA is nonsense.

                      The issue is that neither the MWP nor LIA was synchronously warmer than temperatures today.

                      Your attempt to disprove the greenhouse effect is rather hilarious.
                      Do you dispute the existence of greenhouse gases (or that CO2 is one of them), as Dr. Ball does?

                    • Wake

                      It always amazes me that those who know the least are those who scream the loudest: http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

                      I know spectroscopy and CO2 only contributed to a small amount of warming up to levels of about 250 parts per million. This put the single absorption line that isn’t totally covered by H2O into total saturation meaning NO increases in CO2 would have any measurable effects.

                      Moreover, because of the density of the atmosphere in the troposphere virtually ALL heat transport is accomplished not via radiation but from conduction and convection. This means that CO2 is no different from any other gas. In fact since CO2 has a lower specific heat it actually is a coolant rather than a heater.

                    • jmac

                      Sensible people ignore Steve Goddard.

                      There is also the fact that Tony Heller (Steve Goddard is his internet name) routinely presents US temperature data as if it is a stand-in for global temperature data. This is not only dishonest; it is dumb .

                      Who Is Tony Heller? https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

                    • LTJ
                    • LTJ

                      “You could take my word that the idea of AGW is a hoax but I’m sure you won’t because it’s something that you want to believe is true.”

                      What an absurd assumption. And what arrogance. You could present verifiable facts and data with references to their sources and try to convince us that you know something we do not. Instead you spam the thread with long-discredited drivel from denialist sites.

                  • Charles Tery

                    You don’t have any Science, dropping links is not Science.

                    • LTJ

                      Providing your sources might not be science, strictly speaking, but it is good form for those engaged in an intelligent debate.

                  • Wake

                    Exactly WHAT science do you have on “your side”? What credentials do you have as a scientist? Only True Believers in the Church of Global Warming repeat idiotic ideas like you and your kind do. The IPCC report was based upon a NASA report that claimed that 600 papers all claimed positive climate change. After those papers were made public the authors of 400 of those papers were aghast and publicly claimed that their papers were either taken completely out of context or outright lied about. And that they DID NOT support man-made climate change. Of those “97% of ALL scientists support AGW” is included the American Medical Association and the Boy Scouts of America. Now there is a perfect example of the sort of “scientists” compose that 97%. And what does LTJ do? He tells us that the Oregon Petition is meaningless. That must be because he has such vast and well know credentials as a scientist himself.

                • Charles Tery

                  How does CO2 @ 400 ppm hold any sway over the climate?

              • Wake

                If I understand you correctly you are citing an article in a popular magazine written by a woman with a degree in Theater Arts?

                You might think for one second about the Oregon Petition which has over 31,000 signatures including over 9,000 PhD’s including at least three Nobel laureates one of whom is Edward Teller – arguably the smartest man in the world since the death of Einstein – all of whom DENY that there is man-made global warming. Of these people includes past directors of NASA climate projects.

                But you woman reporter with a degree in Theater Arts most surely trumps them.

                BTW – the IPCC report was backed by a NASA report from only 600 scientists. Since that report was made public fully 400 of that 600 have claimed that their papers were taken out of context or completely misrepresented and that they DO NOT believe in AGW.

                What we need more of is you people claiming knowledge through the use of articles from Popular Science. It demonstrates a real search for knowledge.

                • LTJ

                  Claims that a man retired 40 years and dead for 14 supports your nonsense is rather difficult to verify.

                  • Wake

                    Then by all means DON’T accept Edward Teller. Try and explain away the other 31,486 signatures, 9,028 PhD’s including the head of NASA’s weather satellite program, Dr. Roy Spenser. And by the way, what do you have to say about the study showing that NASA has counterfeited the temperature data that has been peer reviewed by top members of the EPA? https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                    Perhaps you can join the boy scouts since they are PART of that 97% of “all scientists” who agree that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Another group that NASA provides as part of that 97% is the American Medical Association. I must say that those are certainly two groups with a lot of climate science to support NASA with.

                    It is no wonder that you provide a picture of a mosquito with your postings. Blood suckers normally hang together.

              • Charles Tery

                Scientific American refuses to answer questions regarding AGW. That makes Scientific American a propaganda spreader. You can’t use S.A. links since S.A. refuses to answer those questions.

                • Wake

                  As I noted elsewhere – if they accept supposedly scientific articles from the pens of non-scientists who are because of their ineptitude with science open to all sorts of errors, they are neither Scientific nor American unless they publish disclaimers up front. Surely most scientific studies are too complex for a non-scientist to understand (for instance – many explanations of calculus use the name of a mathematician who invented a particular pattern. This would mean absolutely nothing to a non-mathematics specialist) and so it behooves a popular magazine to write more carefully explained abstracts so that their audience understands it. But if you write articles on very controversial subjects you have to be EXTREMELY accurate and that article absolutely was not.

                  • LTJ

                    …yet it seems you are unable to dispute the contents of the article in question, and instead are reduced to innuendo and questioning the credentials of the author.

            • Ceist Celt

              So when are you going to ‘add a little science to the discussion’?
              All you’ve added so far are some laughable unsupported junk-science claims you probably got from some blog

              • stephen duval

                Typical global warming alarmist. All name calling, no facts.

                Please pick one and tell me why you disagree with it. Then we can have a debate about the science without any name calling required.

              • Wake

                Where is your science? What is your credential for talking about it?

            • Charles Tery

              That 1.4 temp increase over a 100 years is within the margin of error.

              • Wake

                Considering that we don’t have a good hold on long term patterns of weather, you are pretty close to correct. You most certainly aren’t proving anything if like Dr. Michael Mann you purposely leave out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which would show that our present warming trend is far less deviant than the past.

          • JimB

            Ah, yes. “Mike’s Nature trick”. Time to revive those emails.

            • Latimer Alder

              Climategate…the gift that gives on giving!

          • Latimer Alder

            Sorry. Burning at the stake is prohibited under climate change legislation.

            But it’s OK for theologian Al and thespian Leo to burn ginormous quantities of fossil fuels touring the world to tell us little people how BAD we are and how we must mend our ways.

            The stench of establishment hypocrisy is nauseating.

          • Postkey

            “What the science says…
            Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.”

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

            • Wake

              The “warmest in the last 1,000 years” means little since we have warmer periods than present every 1,000 years. The one’s we have documentation of are the Mycenaean, the Roman and the Medieval. Not only did our present start right on schedule but it was LONG before man had the population or capacity to effect anything.

        • Beirish65

          Amen. True true

      • Beirish65

        Ian is so uneducated, uninformed and ignorant that he’ll believe anything these global warming, carbon emission and climate change scientist have to say even if the skies falling tomorrow! When did you graduate high school? How old are you?

        • Ian5

          “Did you know that if you do not agree with climate change, carbon emissions or global warming you will not be funded as a scientist anymore?”

          >> Silly rubbish talking point of the misinformation industry.

          • Beirish65

            How old are you? When did you graduate from high school?

          • Beirish65

            You are uneducated, uninformed and ignorant. It is not misinformation in the industry my friend facts are facts and fiction is fiction. About 10 years ago I studied and researched for eight months global warming, climate change and carbon emissions. I found 75 different scientists and reasons why the Al gore philosophy is a complete hoax and BS. But if I go to try and find those 75 reasons today they’ve been eliminated from the Internet because they were true and factual. If you want to get taxed and lose all your wealth just because you think that there is global warming, carbon emissions and climate change then you should do that but if I don’t believe it and there’s facts that support what I believe then I shouldn’t have to pay for the bullshit.

            • Fun_eral

              Being called a moron is not name-calling it is a fact. If I wanted to name call you I would say something totally different but being called a moron is factual.

          • Beirish65

            How old are you? When did you graduate from high school?

      • Concerned

        What constitutes “climate science credentials” that are important to this discussion — a weatherman or a solar scientist? The question is NOT if there is global warming, the question is: “does the burning of fossil fuels (by man) that release CO2 to the atmosphere cause significant additional global warming?” The start of this discussion was simply asking for Michael Mann’s data and how this data was used to support his conclusions (hockey stick). All basic requirements of science are to use the scientific method, which includes a given hypothesis, data, and analysis of the data to verify if it supports or does not support that hypothesis. Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. If one piece of data is contrary to the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is wrong and needs to be refined and start over. Nearly all valid data (including data by NOAA and NASA) disprove the >100 models that are being used to drive policy!
        Therefore, it is entirely acceptable for any person who studies science to request the data generated by other scientists so that we can understand how it was generated and how those scientists decided that it supports the original hypothesis — manmade CO2 causes significant global warming. It should not matter if it is Michael Mann’s data or Tim Balls data; all should be made available to the general public, particularly if that data is being used to drive huge tax-payer’s outlay (admitted to be in the $T’s and as high as $100T this century!).

      • model94

        He has credentials enough to call out corruption. We all do.

      • robmanzoni

        “…I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data”…”

        This statements makes you seem incredibly ignorant.

        The historical data for the MWP and LittleIceAge are everywhere to be found; and Prof Ball presented this to the court. He doesn’t claim (as Mann does) that it’s his own research, but he rightly points out that the science of weather and climate has multiple examples proving that these climatic periods existed, including historical records, artworks, geological data, tree-ring evidence, and ice-core data (from Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica).

        The deliberate alterations (by NASA, NOAA, Mann & Co, etc) of the historical climate records is an open fact; and can be researched, as Tony Heller did:

        Learn some science. It will open your eyes… and make life much more interesting

        • Ian5

          You can’t be serious. Tony Heller (also calls himself Steven Goddard) is a well known disinformation professional and has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Hasn’t published a single scientific article on climate science. Absolutely nothing. Why do you invest your trust in such an unqualified person?

          • robmanzoni

            “…Why do you invest your trust in such an unqualified person?…”

            ..because I’ve seen the evidence from the “qualified” Michael Mann; and his Hockey Stick obliterates real, recorded weather events from the record; and the “unqualified” Mr Heller has seen through the multiple, criminal fraud of Mann, NOAA, NASA and the IPCC.

            Perhaps if you actually looked at the evidence, YOU might start doubting the truthfulness of the absurd claims or the Warmists – that’s assuming, of course, that you’d understand what you were looking at – not a guaranteed thing, from what I’ve seen of your attitude.

            Perhaps you’ve not noticed that there’s been no temperature increase since around 1997?
            While you’re studying this, you’ll notice that NOAA’s Mr Karl has fiddled the books, so to speak; and that both NOAA and NASA have cunningly changed history, by slowly altering the past measurements to create the illusion of warming, to fit their fraudulent narrative.

            As for Tony Heller’s being a “well-known disinformation professional”, I suggest that you look honestly (if that’s possible) at his career and what he’s achieved in the world of mission-critical engineering.
            He’s eminently qualified to study data for signs of accuracy, honesty or otherwise.

            Then watch Freeman Dyson’s comments on the scam…

      • Helix22
      • JimB

        Ian: But Mann has all the credentials, right? When he and the warmistas entered the realm of public policy they put themselves n the public arena. If it is too hot in the kitchen…

      • Terrence Dowd

        Little ice age data? they were ice skating on the Thames 1800’s

      • Michael

        Apparently you are not familiar with the “peer-review” process Mann incorporated. Pal-review would be a more appropriate term.

        • Ian5

          A silly, unsubstantiated claim that favours your weak, narrow ideology over scientific enquiry.

      • Wake

        There is NO SUCH THING as “climate credentials”. There is no such study. These “climate scientists” are all self identified. Climate science isn’t chemistry, astronomy, geophysics, geology, physics and so on and so forth but ALL of them. No one scientist can know much about it save by using data documented by NASA and NOAA who have already been caught with their pants down counterfeiting data.

        • Ian5

          “…using data documented by NASA and NOAA who have already been caught with their pants down counterfeiting data”

          >> Complete rubbish. You can’t substantiate your outrageous statement

          “Climate science isn’t chemistry, astronomy, geophysics, geology, physics and so on and so forth but ALL of them.”

          >> Climate science is typically considered a branch of atmospheric sciences and a field of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. It draws upon the science, evidence and expertise from multiple disciplines. The scientific evidence for warming of the planet’s climate system is unequivocal.

          • Wake

            https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/

            This shows the change that NASA made to their RAW datasets. There is nothing worse than changing raw data.

            I don’t know where you get the idea that “climate science” is some sort of specialty. Tell us all – what universities offer and PhD program in “climate science”?

            • Ian5

              Providing a link to Tony Heller’s (aka Steve Goddard) silly disinformation blog substantiates nothing.

              Climatologists work in multiple disciplines including mathematics, atmospheric physics, meteorology, oceanography, physical chemistry, biology and ecology.

              • Wake

                https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                Of course you’re free to disagree with the findings of statisticians and I’m sure you will. You are also free to disagree with seven other PhDs most of whom worked for the EPA. That’s what True Believers in the Church of Man-made Global Warming do.

                By the way – what are your credentials? As for mine I’ve worked in science since I got back from Vietnam. My first job was at Physics International working in extreme high energy nuclear physics. I worked on the base station for the first west coast Internet. IBM’s supercomputer at this time could handle 3 simultaneous users, ours 100.. I could go on but the point is – where have you gotten any knowledge at all?

    • G White

      IP belongs to the University, but there is no record of any patent or other IP being filed, so I have no idea how he can not share the data. Sharing data once published is part of the agreement that all scientists make when they get a grant.

  • buddman

    I hope this lyin Jerkoff loses and has to pay all court costs and the plaintiffS attorneys I hope also that mark styne sues the crap out of this phoney Ahole

  • Bruce

    The part I find interesting is all scientific data published is subjected to rigorous peer review. This is the modus operandi for all, legitimate science. Obviously Michael Mann believes he has no peers. However, I have yet to see him on the rolls for a Nobel Prize in science. Just another Al Gore fakir, because only through magic could such data be obtained.

  • Jeremy Poynton

    Sadly, the source of this is John Sullivan at Principia Scientifica, who has previous on uttering nonsense about the Ball v Mann case. Whilst I would love this to be true, Mann’s lawyer has already said it is nonsense, so don’t hold your breath.

  • Denis Ables

    Why won’t Mann release his data and his process? After all, it can’t be very unique since his followers invariably claim that his numbers have been confirmed by dozens of other peer-reviewed studies. Perhaps, at least, some of these supposed confirming studies are willing to release their work papers. (I haven’t seen any referenced. The one I know about, done by McIntire, used many more trees and could not come up with Mann’s numbers.) Once it boils down to statistical machinations with data, McIntyre is the expert, not Mann.

    How did Mann conclude that the Medieval Warming period was not global and not as warm as it is now? (He also managed to shrink the LIA temperature bandwidth, making subsequent temperature increases appear even larger.

    Why should anybody believe Mann when anyone (even me, an outsider, no climatologist, and no data technician) can refer to peer-reviewed studies and other data which easily show that the MWP was a global event and and that the MWP was very likely warmer than it is now? This obviously refutes Mann’s claim (which rightfully deserve no respect since Mann refuses to reveal his process and data.)

    First of all the data from 6,000 boreholes demonstrate that the MWP was a global event. The boreholes were taken around the globe and not constrained to just areas where ice core data is used. Joanne Nova’s website has an educational discussion on the borehole data.

    Next, google the Greenland gisp2 temperature study. It shows, among other things, that Greenland was definitely warmer during the MWP than it is now. In Alaska we have a different process, mostly plain old observation. The receding Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000 year old shattered forest still in its original position. A similar phenomenon in the Alps has exposed a 4,000 year old forest. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near either of those sites since. Clearly Alaska was warmer than now during the MWP.

    There are also hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. Most, if not all the MWP studies are also cataloged by co2science.org. A subset of these studies directly address temperature. The studies can all be accessed by region at co2science.org. Pick out half a dozen regions remote from one another and from the northern hemisphere (Greenland, Alaska, Europe). Almost every one will show the studied site(s) to have been warmer during the MWP than it is now.

    All these studies and observations confirm the borehole data, and the reverse also holds, the borehole data confirms the studies. The exposed Alaskan forest is another type of confirmation. There are also antique vineyards found in Europe at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today.

    Now, suppose, it turns out, that a few of the numerous MWP studies show no temperature increase. So what? The preponderance of data indicates a global event. After all, co2 has been rising since before 1850, and there have been subsequent GLOBAL conflicts showing no warming (as opposed to merely site conflicts in the case of the MWP), and there has also been no additional GLOBAL warming following the 1997/1998 el Nino, at least not until until the 2015/16 el Nino). This would seem to imply that our current global warming has only been “synchronous” for the two decades from 1975 to 1998).

    Why are the alarmists even talking about what happened before 1975? Our current warming (such as it is) obviously began, by definition, at the first bottom (the low temperature) experienced during the LIA, so before the mid 1600s. co2 increase began, at the earliest, around 1830. That would indicate two centuries of NATURAL warming before co2 began increasing. Does anybody really believe that this NATURAL warming shut down the instant co2 (a trace gas) began increasing? After all it’s average ANNUAL increase during that period was about 2ppmv per YEAR.
    That infitesmal increase would have not been picked up by our thermometers for at lest several decades, if not a century or two. After all, co2 is now at its highest and there’s been no additional warming for the past two decades.

    We know the folks depicted in ClimateGate stated that they “had to get rid of the MWP”. Why? Perhaps because their models, since these depend on increasing co2, could not explain away that NATURAL event.

  • Lets Do It Ourselves

    Ian5
    “Data is not information…etc.”

    You’re quoting Cliff Stoll??? who’s been wrong almost as often as Al Gore??

  • Robert Mahar

    I’d like to know where this “data ” from hundreds of years comes from. Obviously big heat or cold events would be recorded in different ways but not on a consistent Record

  • Joe Geshel

    Mann’s refusal to produce his data is plainly unscientific. He hides it because he has something to hide. If his data is bonafide he wins. If it is faulty he loses face. Guess which one it is!

  • drewphillips

    Point 1. Mann did not refuse to produce all his data – that was a lie.
    Point 2. Ball has no personal research/study of his own regarding either the LIA or MWP.
    Point 3. No less than 36 more recent paleo reconstructions confirm the “blade” of Mann’s original hockey stick.
    Point 4. It is Ball who is a proven liar when it comes to his own credentials.

  • Ian5

    But you haven’t provided any facts, just ridiculous unsubstantiated statements that illustrate your poor understanding of climate research and how it is resourced.

    • Beirish65

      How is it resourced?

  • KellyManning

    Historical Geograper (not a climatologist) Tim Ball’s own analysis of mandatory journal’s kept by HBC Ship Captains, Traders and Factors revealed that climate in the north has warmed since the HBC Nonsuch and Eaglet first sailed into Hudson’s bay, before Fahrenheit invented the 1st standardised scale thermometer.

    Despite his own work, and events such as the HBC Baychimo being trapped in Ice and abandoned, Ball found it profitable to accept Fossil Fuel Fundind and deny Climate Change.

    The HBC tried to find a way through the northern Canadian ice for centuries, without success.

    Now the north opens for safe transit by non ice-strengthend ships like clock work, every August and into September.

    The Northern Route along the Russian Coast is nearly open as I write this, while the McClure Parry passage is nearly completely ice free as well. Both those routes will be marine traffic side shows when the Pole melts ice free 3 months a year, within the lifetime of my children.

    http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-record-low-third-straight-year

  • robmanzoni

    Hey, guys…
    I’ve just realised, after much wondering about the attitude, stance and argumentative approach, that Ian5 is probably none other than Michael Mann himself…!

  • Helix22

    How can Mann possibly be allowed to withhold the data? Makes NO sense. Can someone please explain?

  • Helix22
    • Ian5

      A single article in an obscure and shortly-to-be-discontinued journal doesn’t undermine decades and decades of climate science and mountains of evidence generated by multiple, independent lines of science. And Marohasy is a well-known contrarian. Irrelevant really.

      • Helix22

        you’re brainwashed. look at the DATA.

      • Helix22

        There is NO sign of runaway warming with 3x amplification from water vapor. If you double the CO2, there is about a 0.6 to 1 deg C rise. This all the data shows — about a 0.6 deg C rise since the 1970’s. Some of this rise is probably due to natural causes. You’d have to double CO2 again to get at best another 0.6 deg C, but we’d have to wait another 50 years to establish that. Anyone who relies on numerical models to predict global temperatures is either stupid or crazy.

        • Ian5

          “Anyone who relies on numerical models to predict global temperatures is either stupid or crazy.”

          Yet your extreme position is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. Fantasy world you live in.

          • Helix22

            So what? NONE of these model “predictions” have matched the actual future data over the past 35 years. The IPCC keeps “modifying” it’s future model “predictions”.

  • Helix22

    can someone explain why this does not show much warming?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  • Helix22
  • Joe Geshel

    A vast number of “studies” were poorly constructed and cannot be replicated. The conclusions drawn far exceed any rationale.
    Peer reviewed now means ” have my best friend take a look”. Tsk tsk!

  • Joe Geshel

    Way back at the beginning of this debate, Mann and others immediately withheld from McIntyre and others the data used to draw their conclusions. A scientist worthy of the name would have done the opposite. He hid something because he had something to hide! This fact permeates Mann’s credibility forever. Now you know!

  • G White

    As a scientist funded by numerous government agencies, there is an absolute mandate for data sharing once data is published, unless a company has been formed and IP has been filed for. Not sure how Mann can prevent data sharing? No IP has been filed. That much is clear. Once published, no more IP protection, unless he filed it before publishing, but there is no record of his having filed with the USPTO? Copyrights do not count. You still need to share the data. Everyone knows this, so what gives?

  • WWT

    How is this court going to rule against Michael Mann and global warming when the Canadian government has basically said global warming is real? We may just be waiting forever for this decision.

  • high treason

    Michael Mann has been evasive with emails and information for years. Science is supposed to be open and pure. If there is nothing to hide, why doesn’t he hand over the emails? Why doesn’t he reveal his codes for the statistical analysis that led to the Hockey stick?

    Considering the ramifications in terms of climate policy-TRILLIONS invested or wasted and the very future of our energy based civilization itself, you would think that it would be prudent to have this information, especially as it was paid for by the taxpayers, who will also be ultimately made to pay for “climate action.” Pretty insane to gamble our entire civilization on trust alone.

    We should be getting very suspicious about this hiding of crucial information. Only those with something to hide will be so evasive.

    Even more alarming is the way Mann is trying to crush free speech with a SLAPP action. Those who fear some painful truth getting out do this sort of thing. Perhaps Mann needs to be sued for his attempts to gag free speech.

    Personally, I would love to see the day that the climate lies are exposed for the horrendous fraud they are and those that have perpetrated the lies and those (eg the UN) that back the lies by refusing to debate the issue are punished according to the extent of the damage caused. Now, lets see- TRILLIONS going to the UN and attempt to destroy our energy based civilization along with BILLIONS of lives. Time to devise some punishments that suit the crime. Guy Fawkes was “only” trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament and met a very grisly demise as a result.The crimes against all of humanity in the case of the climate scam are vastly worse than Guy Fawkes’ crime.

  • david smith

    The bigger issue here is that even if C02 is rising, is it hurting? I argue not because C02 was very low to begin with and we’re actually seeing the planet green due to its increase.
    Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has stated that C02 is helping our planet:

    “All life is carbon-based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere,” Mr. Moore said in his executive summary. “As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.”

  • 9.8m/ss

    under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

    SLAPP isn’t a “procedure.” It’s a way for powerful people (corporations are people, remember?) use the courts to suppress public comment in during the public comment phase of a regulatory process. It’s not related to any suit involving Mann. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ball is for hire in SLAPP suits, but I haven’t heard of any with Ball or Steyn.

  • Ceist Celt

    From Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie (who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)

    Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

    No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

    Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

    Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

    In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

    Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

    If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

    O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

    The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

    So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

    Roger D. McConchie
    Lawyer

    https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1466774033378794:0

    https://www.irwinlaw.com/titles/canadian-libel-and-slander-actions

  • Charles Tery

    Michael Mann is a Propagandist. His climate change position is so weak, that he will not allow questions counter to his position. That is not how Science works. If you can’t debate your position then your position lacks any Scientific Merit.