# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/301 "2011-09-03T00:07:54Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > CO2 is a greenhouse gas. > CO2 levels are increasing. > Therefore global warming should occur. Absolutely true. Also, the isotope ratio of C12/C14 tells us that the increasing CO2 is from burning fossil carbon, the effect of doubling CO2 is an extra 3.7 W/m[sup]2[/sup], and a simple grey-body calculation implies that extra 3.7 W should result in an extra 1.5 deg. C average temperature. This response to a CO2 doubling is frequently reported as the “climate sensitivity”. However, most climate models add amplifying feedbacks to calculate climate sensitivities of 2-4 deg. C per doubling, with a few going even higher than that. > [@phaemon](#): > > It is wrong to say that there has been cooling since 1998. The period 1999 to 2010 was significantly warmer than the period 1987 to 1998 (which was significantly warmer than the period 1976 to 1987), therefore the trend is a warming one not cooling. This would be true even if every single year since 1998 was cooler than that particular year. Well this is a matter of language use. Let’s be clear, if you cherry-pick any two dates on the temperature record and do a least-squares straight-line fit to the data over that period, the trend this gives you _over that period_ is perfectly correct. So it IS correct to say there has technically, factually been cooling since 1998, but it’s a real reach to claim that the _long term_ trend has changed on the basis of this. That is in essence what **Waldo Pepper** has been asking in this thread - what would we have to see in the temperature record before we COULD conclude that the long term trend had altered? Unfortunately the answer is basically “flat or declining temperatures for several decades”\* if all we’re looking at is surface temperature\*. Something that would be clearly be unprecedented in the existing temperature record, which itself contains notable flat spots and periods of decline. > [@brazil84](#): > > As a point of information, this is a common misconception. The core issue in the dispute is over water vapor feedback. Water vapour is certainly a greenhouse gas and it’s entirely reasonable to predict that a raised air temperature and sea surface temperature will increase the concentration of water in the atmosphere. There is a question of _how much_ water vapour will increase - most models have assumed the [relative humidity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity) will stay constant and then worked off the temperature increase. IIRC the actual measurements show a reduction in relative humidity, which implies the water vapour feedback has probably been overestimated, but the measurements are pretty tentative anyway at the moment. Neverthess, personally I’d be surprised if there _isn’t_ a substantial positive water vapour feedback. Rather more uncertainty IMO lies with clouds and this is acknowledged in the IPCC reports. Clouds increase albedo, but they also reflect heat back to Earth. Cloud altitude has an effect and also cloud distribution. Even if clouds technically have a warming effect and cloudiness increases, if the distribution changes in favour of high latitudes as well it would result in a negative feedback, and the same is true if everything reverses. At the moment we don’t really know the sign or magnitude of cloud effects. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/302 "2011-09-03T00:40:31Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Seems to me that the starting point in disproving global warming would be to figure out exactly what predictions the hypothesis is making. The prediction is basically a long-term warming trend, about 0.2 deg C per decade on average. I’m fairly sure this prediction will turn out to be pessimistic but that won’t disprove global warming - it would only show that the IPCC has overestimated climate sensitivity, which I personally believe is the case. My take on the whole thing is that the majority of the economic activity on face of the planet - the mining and logging and drilling and mechanised agriculture and fishing and transport and building and the rest of it - is mostly for the benefit of a billion-odd people in the developed world. Us and our underappreciated lives of relative opulent luxury. We’re looking at another 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians aspiring to enjoy the same standard of living in a few dacades, and another 3.5 billion in the rest of the world some time after that, and who can blame them? The thing is, their path to prosperity _can’t_ be the same as our path. Not without cutting the last tree down and trawling the last bluefin tuna out of the sea, which nobody wants to see happen. So figuring out how to do economic activity sustainably, wasting as little resources as possible, using renewable/nuclear/ low carbon fossil fuel energy, is vitally important whether climate sensitivity is high or low. Even if it’s low, I don’t care to run the experiment of _tripling_ CO2, or quadrupling it, and just seeing what happens. I have no patience for impractical Greens who feel the rightness of their cause justifies overstating the certainty and exaggerating the danger in order to effect policy. I also have no patience for unrealistic free marketeers thinking we’re not facing any kind of problem here. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/303 "2011-09-03T01:01:33Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Neverthess, personally I’d be surprised if there _isn’t_ a substantial positive water vapour feedback. I would be surprised. Feel free to make arguments to the contrary, but I’m pretty confident that you take a complex system which has been reasonably stable for a long time and push on it, the smart money is that it will push back. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/304 "2011-09-03T01:18:51Z")
> [@matt](#): > > The prediction is basically a long-term warming trend, about 0.2 deg C per decade on average. Over what time period? > [@](#): > > I’m fairly sure this prediction will turn out to be pessimistic but that won’t disprove global warming - it would only show that the IPCC has overestimated climate sensitivity, which I personally believe is the case. I would say that for all practical purposes, “global warming” – as the phrase is commonly understood – will have been disproved. Keep in mind the fundamental issue is whether mankind needs to go through the trouble of dramatically cutting CO2 emissions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/305 "2011-09-03T02:46:02Z")
Well, not much change there, but it is hopeful to see examples elsewhere of skeptics that do learn that mankind needs to go through that inconvenience to prevent real trouble later. [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/18/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/18/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert/) > [@](#): > > Admiral David Titley, the US Navy’s Chief Oceanographer, told a TEDx Pentagon audience his story last year, and I posted the video. > > > [@](#): > > > > I was defeated by facts. > > > > … > > > > In the months following my acceptance of the conclusions in the IPCC report, I’ve had a change in my emotional climate. I go back and forth between disappointment and hope—sadness over seeing Republicans who once believed in the threat of climate change (such as Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty) suddenly turn into skeptics; optimism about efforts by such groups as Republicans for Environmental Protection and Citizens Climate Lobby to sound the alarm about the need to combat climate pollution. I struggle with the urge to give in to cynicism and bitterness, to write off the American right for its refusal to recognize scientific facts. Thankfully, there’s a stronger urge—an urge to keep working until the American right recognizes that a healthy planet is required to have the life and liberty that allows us to pursue happiness. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/306 "2011-09-03T05:37:20Z")
Why are you so studiously avoiding answering our simple questions Gigobuster? :rolleyes: This is the fifth time I’ve had to ask. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/307 "2011-09-03T07:23:17Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Feel free to make arguments to the contrary, but I’m pretty confident that you take a complex system which has been reasonably stable for a long time and push on it, the smart money is that it will push back. Among climate feedbacks which are known, some are positive feedbacks. Among these the most famous is glacier albedo: ice forms on a cool Earth, reflecting sunlight and thus making it even cooler. How does today’s ice cover compare with that of earlier interglacials? If it soon will indeed be the least ice-cover in almost a million years, would that be a significant fact? And if examining the glaciation cycles of the last million years does not put to rest the claim that “smart money” is on stability, I’d ask Dopers to examine a larger period: the past billion years or more. “Stability” is not the word that comes to mind when contemplating Earth’s climate history at any time scale. One fact arguing against optimism is that the heat input from the Sun has never been higher than it is during our own era. Despite this, the Earth is much cooler today than it was at some points in the long-distant past. Viewed differently this means that the present life-friendly temperatures are not a “stable” outcome despite the Sun’s own warming, but rather may be the fortunate outcome of the positive cooling feedbacks in the Quaternary Age of Glaciation (whose onset is, AFAIK, unexplained). BTW, **brazil84** , I noticed no response from you (besides an ambiguous claim of confusion) about increasing ocean acidity. Too inconvenient of a fact? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/308 "2011-09-03T11:20:29Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Among these the most famous is glacier albedo: ice forms on a cool Earth, reflecting sunlight and thus making it even cooler. First, can you show me solid evidence that this (alleged) positive feedback actually takes place in the Earth’s climate system? And if the evidence is a computer simulation, I would need solid evidence that the computer simulation has been tested and validated. i.e. proof that the computer simulation has made actual predictions which later turned out to be accurate and were very unlikely to have been the result of chance. Second, are you saying that positive feedbacks are somewhat common compared to negative feedbacks? Again I would want evidence. > [@](#): > > How does today’s ice cover compare with that of earlier interglacials? I don’t know. > [@](#): > > If it soon will indeed be the least ice-cover in almost a million years, would that be a significant fact? To me it would, in terms of the global warming debate. > [@](#): > > “Stability” is not the word that comes to mind when contemplating Earth’s climate history at any time scale. Well according the commonly cited graph [here](http://worldview3.50webs.com/6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg), global surface temperatures have stayed within a ten degree range over the last 500 million years. Agreed? > [@](#): > > BTW, **brazil84** , I noticed no response from you (besides an ambiguous claim of confusion) about increasing ocean acidity. Too inconvenient of a fact? Here’s what I said in response: > [@brazil84](#): > > As with warming, I would want to see the actual arguments and evidence. And if the conclusion is based on a computer simulation, I would need solid evidence that the computer simulation has been tested and validated. i.e. proof that the computer simulation has made actual predictions which later turned out to be accurate and were very unlikely to have been the result of chance. It doesn’t seem to me to be a claim of confusion so much as a request for the evidence underlying this “fact.” ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/309 "2011-09-03T12:58:28Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > It doesn’t seem to me to be a claim of confusion so much as a request for the evidence underlying this “fact.” I claim no special expertise. Simple Googling will take you quickly to [reports like this one](http://www.ocean-acidification.net/OAdocs/SPM-lorezv2.pdf) or [scientific analyses like this one](http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.full). I’m in no position to comment on the science, but would be happy to listen to informed contrary views. Personally, I find understanding science to be an interesting pastime regardless of conclusions. Without mentioning names, others seem agenda-driven, happy to pick and choose which areas of science are interesting and which they prefer to pretend not to understand. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/310 "2011-09-03T13:10:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Simple Googling All the claims I have seen about the supposed dangers of increased CO2 levels have not stood up to scrutiny. So I don’t usually bother to go out looking for more claims. If you want to defend the ocean acidification hypothesis with cites, links, and quotes, I am happy to consider it. > [@](#): > > Personally, I find understanding science to be an interesting pastime regardless of conclusions. Then I imagine will enjoy finding, summarizing, citing, linking, and quoting the evidence to support your claims about ice-driven positive feedback and positive feedbacks in general. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/311 "2011-09-03T13:27:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, once again, I’m talking about finding justification that the UN was not talking about a warming trend Didn’t claim they were. > [@](#): > > your point and the out of context quote made the claim that the UN supported you on saying that there was no warming trend. Hard to falsify a misunderstanding or a baseless question. Why, what as-yet-hypothetical evidence would the UN need to say there’s no warming trend? Would the same evidence convince you? > [@](#): > > Keep living with disappointment, as long as you do not want to deal with what the independent statisticians reported and what the UN overwhelmingly reported you only have an out of context quote and no support from the UN to claim that there is not a warming trend. I realize what they have isn’t yet enough for them, and haven’t said otherwise. But until they spell out what _ **would** _ be enough for them, they’re not making a meaningful prediction; we can’t know if they’re right unless they tell us what it would mean to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/312 "2011-09-03T13:41:24Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > All the claims I have seen about the supposed dangers of increased CO2 levels have not stood up to scrutiny. So I don’t usually bother to go out looking for more claims. > > If you want to defend the ocean acidification hypothesis with cites, links, and quotes, I am happy to consider it. As this will be ignored also, the reality is that models are not the only way scientists found out we have a problem with the oceans too. > **[Ocean acidification](https://skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acid.html)** > > While Andrew Bolt continues his character assassination, let's get back to the facts. There are several misconceptions about ocean acidification that require correction, both here and elsewhere. Modelling studies based on what are essentially simple geochemical processes\*\* have matched the observed decline in ocean pH. \*\* Essentially, while we are there is still much to learn about how the ocean works, there are many empirical studies that show that ocean pH is changing rapidly. An excellent description of this work can be found in Doney et al. (2009). Ocean acidification is occurring at rates which dwarf anything seen over the recent past. > **[Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin](https://skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm)** > > \Past history shows that when CO2 rose sharply, this corresponded with mass extinctions of coral reefs. Currently, CO2 levels are rising faster than any other time in known history. The change in seawater pH over the 21st Century is projected to be... > [@](#): > > The photo below right shows a exoskeleton of a live specimen of the same species obtained from the water column in the same area in 2007. These stunning images were obtained using an electron microscope. (An interview with Dr. Howard was broadcast on the Catalyst television program). [vii] What is staggering is the amount of erosion in the right image compared to the left. The right sample look porous with larger holes and a 10-fold increase in their number. These and creatures like them are at the base of an ocean food chain, and they are already seriously damaged. If they are lost, it is not just biodiversity we are losing, but our food supply as well. > > The implications of all of this are disturbing. For corals to absorb aragonite from seawater, the latter needs to be saturated in this mineral. > > Now a report from NOAA scientists found large quantities of water undersaturated in aragonite are already upwelling close to the Pacific continental shelf from Vancouver to northern California [v]. Although the study only dealt with the area, the authors suggest that other shelf areas may be experiencing similar effects. > > For corals like those in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the outlook is grim. They are threatened with destruction on two fronts, both caused by CO2 emissions. Not only do increased ocean temperatures bleach coral by forcing them to expel the algae which supplies them with energy (see photo at left) [viii], but increased ocean CO2 reduces the availability of aragonite from which reefs are made. > **[Ocean Acidification: A Greater Threat than Global Warming and Overfishing?,...](http://www.terrain.org/articles/21/burns.htm)** > [@brazil84](#): > > Then I imagine will enjoy finding, summarizing, citing, linking, and quoting the evidence to support your claims about ice-driven positive feedback and positive feedbacks in general. > **[Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?](https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=967)** > > Climate modeling is notoriously complex, but it all boils down to one key question: How sensitive is the Earth’s climate to perturbations like an increase in the greenhouse effect? > **[How sensitive is our climate?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm)** > > \Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around... ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/313 "2011-09-03T13:42:03Z")
Does anybody \*NOT \*see how Gigobuster is squirming around trying to avoid simple questions? He makes a lot of broad declarations about what is and is not correct. And he pastes a lot of links. But when it comes to actually explaining what the facts are in his own words, for some reason he is forced to weasel out of answering simple questions for 3 pages and 4 days. Of course where real science is involved, weaseling is never necessary. Real science is base don hard fact and figures and doesn’t require or even permit weaseling. It’s only alarmist psuedoscience that requires such weasel tactics. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/314 "2011-09-03T13:53:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Didn’t claim they were. You pointed at them for the support of your claim, and that is what I wanted to show, you have no support from them to base your overall point. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Why, what as-yet-hypothetical evidence would the UN need to say there’s no warming trend? Would the same evidence convince you? Again the point was to press you into finding other evidence that the UN was not overweeningly talking about a warming trend. The evidence that would convince me that there is no warming trend would be an independent group of statisticians looking at the data from NASA, HadCRUT or NOAA and come with a different conclusion as the UN. And we already know what did say about it. The sad part is that you have not noticed yet that the UN also relies on the data from NASA, HadCRUT or NOAA, so that is why it has been really silly to avoid dealing with what the independent statisticians are saying. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I realize what they have isn’t yet enough for them, and haven’t said otherwise. But until they spell out what _ **would** _ be enough for them, they’re not making a meaningful prediction; we can’t know if they’re right unless they tell us what it would mean to be wrong. And so, we come to this, for all what you said you only ended going back to the same point, but at least with the acknowledgment that the UN is not supporting it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/315 "2011-09-03T14:00:27Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > All the claims I have seen about the supposed dangers of increased CO2 levels have not stood up to scrutiny. So I don’t usually bother to go out looking for more claims. > > If you want to defend the ocean acidification hypothesis with cites, links, and quotes, I am happy to consider it. > > Then I imagine will enjoy finding, summarizing, citing, linking, and quoting the evidence to support your claims about ice-driven positive feedback and positive feedbacks in general. So you’re interested in science but too lazy to click those links. And pretend that you’d be more interested in my summary than the writings of scientists. Got it. And, either you’re unaware of the ice-driven positive feedback mentioned in any junior-high-school summary of global warming or, more likely, are so intent on finding fault that you’ve not bothered to understand my sentences. Got it. > [@Blake](#): > > It’s only alarmist psuedoscience that requires such weasel tactics. > [@septimus](#): > > Personally, I find understanding science to be an interesting pastime regardless of conclusions. Without mentioning names, others seem agenda-driven, happy to pick and choose which areas of science are interesting and which they prefer to pretend not to understand. This isn’t BBQ Pit, which is why I didn’t “mention names” but now we’re seeing the sort of Know-Nothing non sequiturs which make clear who is who in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/316 "2011-09-03T14:02:19Z")
Why are you so studiously avoiding answering our simple questions Gigobuster?:rolleyes: This is the sixth time I’ve had to ask. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/317 "2011-09-03T14:02:41Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Does anybody \*NOT \*see how Gigobuster is squirming around trying to avoid simple questions? He makes a lot of broad declarations about what is and is not correct. And he pastes a lot of links. But when it comes to actually explaining what the facts are in his own words, for some reason he is forced to weasel out of answering simple questions for 3 pages and 4 days. > > Of course where real science is involved, weaseling is never necessary. Real science is base don hard fact and figures and doesn’t require or even permit weaseling. > > It’s only alarmist psuedoscience that requires such weasel tactics. No, everyone can see that I explained twice why, the fact that you want to ignore the clear evidence that simple answers only generate myths that are never corrected or acknowledged by the groups I deal with is your problem, as it is your baseless accusation here. So far the pseudoscience is the one coming from deniers, the “just asking questions” groups, and people accusing others of being alarmists when at the same time they ignore the scientists being cited. [![](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tadH5eSBLHM/SBL6z67RiMI/AAAAAAAAABw/ibNUbDdykYg/s1600-h/cartoon+on+global+warming+alarmism.gif) ](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tadH5eSBLHM/SBL6z67RiMI/AAAAAAAAABw/ibNUbDdykYg/s1600-h/cartoon+on+global+warming+alarmism.gif) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/318 "2011-09-03T14:10:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You pointed at them for the support of your claim, and that is what I wanted to show, you have no support from them to base your overall point. I pointed at them in reply to a specific question about '98 and '05 and '10. I’d previously mentioned them and made specific mention that I know it’s not good enough for you, and so would like to know what would be. > [@](#): > > Again the point was to press you into finding evidence that the UN was not talking about a warming trend. The evidence that would convince would be an independent group of statisticians looking at the data from NASA, HadCRUT or NOAA and come with a different conclusion as the UN. I’ll admit that’s a baby step forward for you, but it’s still the same type of evasion. It’d be obviously inadequate for you to state no falsification criteria, and it’d be obviously inadequate if the folks you’re talking about state no falsification criteria – and so switching from _I Won’t Name Such A Criterion_ all the way over to _My Criterion Is The Criterion They Won’t Name_ is still a bit lacking. You’re saying no change in temperature over any span of years could falsify it for you in its own right; it’s someone else’s _ **conclusion** _ that will win you over, not their _ **facts.** _ That’s, like, the opposite of science. (Unless, again, they’ve stated falsification criteria you’re endorsing by proxy? If so, name 'em and end my objection.) > [@](#): > > And so, we come to this, for all what you said you only ended going back to the same point, but at least with the acknowledgment that the UN is not supporting it. And so we come to this: for all you’ve said, you acknowledge that no amount of hypothetical evidence could sway you so long as folks you trust keep telling you the evidence isn’t good enough – without them ever telling you what evidence _ **would** _ be good enough. You’re not the one who refrains from making falsifiable predictions; you’re the one who refrains from asking for them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/319 "2011-09-03T14:25:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And so we come to this: for all you’ve said, you acknowledge that no amount of hypothetical evidence could sway you so long as folks you trust keep telling you the evidence isn’t good enough – without them ever telling you what evidence _ **would** _ be good enough. You’re not the one who refrains from making falsifiable predictions; you’re the one who refrains from asking for them. Don’t be silly, you already admitted I said that: “The evidence that would convince would be an independent group of statisticians looking at the data from NASA, HadCRUT or NOAA and come with a different conclusion as the UN.” We know what did they said, so the evidence is already in favor of the warming trend, anyone saying that that is not so has to point at the evidence from experts that it is not, as it is clear that you are not an expert on this. And the UN and the other climate research centers still report a warming trend that continues after the CO2 forcing began to overwhelm the solar one. If the independent statisticians and other experts would come up with evidence that your opinion is a valid one, then that would already had made a blow to the idea that there is no warming trend and the results reported in scientific journals. The fact that you had to go for an out of context quote from the UN for support and that the context shows that they continue to report a warming trend is enough for me to say that your points can be ignored until better support is found. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/320 "2011-09-03T14:54:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Don’t be silly, you already admitted I said that: > > “The evidence that would convince would be an independent group of statisticians looking at the data from NASA, HadCRUT or NOAA and come with a different conclusion as the UN.” A little ways back, I didn’t know what you were using as falsification criteria and I also didn’t know what they were using as falsification criteria. Telling me that whatever criteria they’re using would be good enough for you – look, that’s admittedly _ **something,** _ you’ve now taken two vague claims and unified 'em into one, but there’s still no _ **there** _ there. So long as I don’t know what they want, I still don’t know what you want. > [@](#): > > The fact that you had to go for an out of context quote from the UN for support and that the context shows that they continue to report a warming trend is enough for me to say that your points can be ignored until better support is found. Absent a stated falsification criterion, they can _ **always** _ say such points can be ignored until better support is found. So long as they never specify what facts would add up to a big enough context, they can _ **always** _ brand any given facts as out-of-context items that fall short of a trend. How much “better” does the support need to get? I don’t know. What amount passes the “trend” threshold? I don’t know. Would any hypothetical evidence make their claim subject to revision? Or can they reassuringly placate you by just repeating a context-free _We Haven’t Yet Seen Enough_ again and again, forever and ever, amen? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=17)