# 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:** 6
**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:** [August 24, 2011, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/101 "2011-08-24T22:06:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The people on the right don’t think it’s a problem because of basic common sense. Oh really? So where is the carbon controls that should be used now? The discussions should involve carbon tax or other solutions but that common sense is lacking from most of the Republican party. > [@Magiver](#): > > Technology has advanced exponentially throughout history. It will continue to do so in the future. We do not need to panic and buy into the Al Gore fright-fest because it will happen naturally with little effort on our part. So there is a global warming problem or not? You still do not see how contradictory is to come defending a denier and then reporting that there is a global warming problem? A problem that will be taken care by the magic of the free market, unfortunately many wizards of the markets are dark lords themselves financing denialist think tanks. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/102 "2011-08-24T22:11:46Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Quote: > This is one problem I have with the global warming lunatics. So, is there a problem or not? Why reach for debunked denialist baloney then before making this point? And that insult of yours is duly noted BTW. > [@ralph124c](#): > > Why do the high priests of this cult (Gore, Clinton, etc.) carry on as if their own enormous energy use is unimportant?\Gore has several enormous mansions..including a beach house in California. He probably generate a carbon footprint equivilent to 3000 ordinary people. Clinton likes to fly around on private jets-not a good example for one who preaches the "green"life.:smack: This has been explained many times, Gore’s point is that we should be carbon neutral, whatever the levels they emit they are working to remove the same quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. There are environmentalists that do think it is not a very efficient way to deal with the problem, but it has merit. So, nice strawman you have there. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/103 "2011-08-24T22:15:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh really? So where is the carbon controls that should be used now? The discussions should involve carbon tax or other solutions but that common sense is lacking from most of the Republican party. That would be the pointless direction the right isn’t buying into. If you want to solve a problem then apply technology as it becomes viable. We are naturally using less carbon every year and will continue to do so in the future. eventually bio-fuels will replace crude oil and the carbon cycle will be drastically reduced. That will be replaced by electric cars that are viable which will be fed by solar sells when they become viable. Power production and distribution will be radically different 25 years from now and the same will be said of it 25 years after that. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/104 "2011-08-24T22:22:54Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That would be the pointless direction the right isn’t buying into. If you want to solve a problem then apply technology as it becomes viable. We are naturally using less carbon every year and will continue to do so in the future. Cite? > [@Magiver](#): > > eventually bio-fuels will replace crude oil and the carbon cycle will be drastically reduced. That will be replaced by electric cars that are viable which will be fed by solar sells when they become viable. Bio fuels do not work that way. They still emit CO2 In previous discussions I have also seen that most new technology will not be implemented until fossil fuel are more expensive than the alternatives. A carbon tax will be an incentive for market solutions to get hold. > [@Magiver](#): > > Power production and distribution will be radically different 25 years from now and the same will be said of it 25 years after that. Same as before, as long as we do not assign the real cost of putting that mess of CO2 in the atmosphere very little will change. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/105 "2011-08-24T22:55:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bio fuels do not work that way. They still emit CO2. So what if they emit CO2. It gets recycled by plants and the cars that would burn it have the potential of doubling the mileage of current fleets. The reduction is substantial and more importantly, realistic. Al-Gore’s vision of the world is never going to happen. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > In previous discussions I have also seen that most new technology will not be implemented until fossil fuel are more expensive than the alternatives. A carbon tax will be an incentive for market solutions to get hold. sigh… fucking the economy in the ass is the wrong way to advance technologies. It takes money out of circulation to buy technology that isn’t ready. The Volt is a perfect example. It’s a waste of production facilities to produce a car that nobody will buy. They should have invested the money in reducing the production costs of diesels instead of fronting a car based on battery technology that isn’t up to the task. We would do better to open up all our oil fields and use the taxes they generate for technologies that people will buy which in turn will reduce CO2 now. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2011, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/106 "2011-08-24T23:57:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So what if they emit CO2. It gets recycled by plants and the cars that would burn it have the potential of doubling the mileage of current fleets. The reduction is substantial and more importantly, realistic. Al-Gore’s vision of the world is never going to happen. Uh.. it did. Are you so ignorant that you do not know that Al Gore was a proponent of bio fuels and his votes helped make the widespread use of ethanol possible? Yes, he admits that in the case of ethanol he was wrong but what you are saying here is really ignorant. Too funny for words… > [@Magiver](#): > > sigh… fucking the economy in the ass is the wrong way to advance technologies. It takes money out of circulation to buy technology that isn’t ready. The Volt is a perfect example. It’s a waste of production facilities to produce a car that nobody will buy. :dubious: [http://business-news.thestreet.com/new-haven-register/story/silent-sales-success-plug-in-electric-cars/11074516](http://business-news.thestreet.com/new-haven-register/story/silent-sales-success-plug-in-electric-cars/11074516) > [@](#): > > NEW YORK (TheStreet) – Let’s say you are an automobile manufacturer. Let’s further say that you want to sell every car you make, preferably the same day the car arrives at the dealership, so that there is no inventory and no discounts. > > Ferrari has done this for years or decades. > > But so can Chevrolet and Nissan(:NSANY), with their new plug-in electric cars, Volt and Leaf. These silent electric cars are also this year’s silent sales successes. Almost every Volt and Leaf manufactured is reserved already before the iron ore is mined in Pennsylvania or China. > [@Magiver](#): > > They should have invested the money in reducing the production costs of diesels instead of fronting a car based on battery technology that isn’t up to the task. :dubious: [http://gas2.org/2011/05/04/gms-chevy-volt-exceeding-expectations-luring-in-prius-owners/](http://gas2.org/2011/05/04/gms-chevy-volt-exceeding-expectations-luring-in-prius-owners/) > [@](#): > > Owners of the new Volt are giving its gas mileage rave reviews, and GM is claiming the average Volt owner is traveling around 1,000 miles and one month between fill-ups. > > Perhaps just as importantly is how the Volt is changing consumer perception of electric cars. Owners are describing the car as “fun to drive,” a contention in direct opposition with Mazda’s campaign to paint electric vehicles as the ultimate buzzkill. Consumer perception is a funny beast, and which story ultimately prevails will play out in the years to come. For now, the additional bit of good news for GM is that 90% of Volt owners are new to the company. > [@Magiver](#): > > We would do better to open up all our oil fields and use the taxes they generate for technologies that people will buy which in turn will reduce CO2 now. :dubious: But not because that looks really silly, it is because most republicans are now attempting to kill green jobs funding that would grow at a faster pace if it wasn’t for their myopic ideals of today. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/24/303234/van-jones-slams-misleading-quotes-in-flawed-ny-times-story-on-green-jobs/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/24/303234/van-jones-slams-misleading-quotes-in-flawed-ny-times-story-on-green-jobs/) > [@](#): > > The story in question is “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.” I debunked it here yesterday for completely ignoring the “explosive growth” documented by a recent Brookings study in the clean energy jobs sector – even though the article cited the study! > > I thought that the quotes attributed to Van Jones didn’t sound like the passionate, optimistic green jobs guru I have had the good fortune to get to know at the Center for American Progress: > > > [@](#): > > > > President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream. > > > > ``` > > “I won’t say I’m not frustrated,” said Van Jones, an Oakland activist who served briefly as Mr. Obama’s green-jobs czar…. > > > > ``` > > #FAIL > > I asked Jones if that’s what he really said, and he replied: > > > [@](#): > > > > I was quoted in the story as “frustrated.” I am. But not in the way that the story suggests. > > > > ``` > > “Yes, I said I was frustrated. **But I was talking about my frustration with the GOP, not the green jobs movement.** The whole thing is ridiculous. Dirty energy backers blocked cap-and-trade, which would have spurred green innovation and enterprise. Now they complain that we have not had more progress regarding green jobs? > > > > That would be like someone tripping a racehorse and then saying, “See, I told you that horse was no good!” > > > > That is the frustration that I was talking about. > > > > What I find inspiring, if not miraculous, is that the green economy continues to blossom — despite everything that has been thrown against it. Thanks for pointing that out in your column. > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/107 "2011-08-25T00:43:21Z")
Wish in one hand, shit in the other. The Volt is a sales and financial failure. It would be funny except GM did it on the public dime. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/108 "2011-08-25T00:47:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Wish in one hand, shit in the other. The Volt is a sales and financial failure. It would be funny except GM did it on the public dime. Baseless claim. Not to mention that it was not accurate to say that no one would buy it. > **[Nissan Doubles Leaf Sales, Volt Stays Steady: Some Perspective, Please](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1060899_nissan-doubles-leaf-sales-volt-stays-steady-some-perspective-please)** > > Sigh. Here we go again. It's the first of the month, which means that auto journalists are scrambling to put together their monthly sales reports. Sales in May weren't great, for a variety of reasons: higher prices and shortages of some Japanese... > [@](#): > > Utter lack of context > > What irks us above all is the lack of context on the part of political commentators–we won’t dignify them by mentioning names–who have already pronounced the Volt and Leaf “sales failures” based on a few months’ data. > > Get it straight, guys: Chevy always said it would build 12,000 Volts in 2011, and they’ve just boosted that to 16,000 based on demand. Nissan planned to deliver 20,000 Leafs in the U.S. this year, and has waiting lists that stretch out for months. > > They are still delivering demonstration cars to dealers, shaking down production, and otherwise doing what any sane maker does when it launches a new and important vehicle region by region. Especially one that requires more than average education on the part of the buyer. > > In other words, it’s a problem of supply, not demand. Got it? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/109 "2011-08-25T00:50:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Baseless claim. Not to mention that it was not accurate to say that no one would buy it. > > [Nissan Doubles Leaf Sales, Volt Stays Steady: Some Perspective, Please](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1060899_nissan-doubles-leaf-sales-volt-stays-steady-some-perspective-please) like I said, complete [failure](http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/08/02/chevy-volt-sales-slump-gm-clarifies-%E2%80%9Cvirtually-sold-out%E2%80%9D-comments). 12,000 is a financial bust. They’re sitting in dealerships waiting to be sold. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/110 "2011-08-25T01:05:06Z")
Oh, and for them to sell the original 12,000, they would have to average how many a month? For them to build 16,000 they will have to buy stock in the Cracker Jack company and give them away as prizes. It was a stupid idea when they brought it out, it’s a stupid idea now, and it will continue to be a stupid idea until the price of batteries comes down and they recharge faster. Costco is already pulling the recharging stations because nobody bought the cars so consequently nobody uses the stations. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/111 "2011-08-25T01:34:28Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Or would the concepts underpinning global warming remain unfalsified – for (1) and (2) and (3) – even after a 300-year flat spot, or 300 years of cooling? Does the data matter at all? Are _ **any** _ falsifiable predictions being made about global warming? I appreciate the problem and I know it seems nonsensical, but there simply isn’t sufficient understanding of the climate to fully answer your question. In one sense, it depends on what you mean by “falsify”. We _know_ additional CO2 in the atmosphere will have a warming effect, and we can do a rough back-of-the-envelope black-body calculation to say how big it should be. For CO2 alone (ignoring feedbacks for the moment) it isn’t much, but it isn’t nothing. If we observe prolonged cooling while CO2 is increasing, it doesn’t invalidate the CO2 warming mechanism (it can’t!) and it doesn’t invalidate the claim that the latter 20th Century warming was due at least partly to AGW. Invalidating the latter would require additional discoveries about the way the climate works. Prolonged cooling would falsify the claim that AGW is _continuing_, but it would also mean something additional was going on that we hadn’t taken into account, that was counteracting the effect of the climbing CO2. Until we discovered what that something else was, we couldn’t really say that AGW was falsified even in the face of prolonged cooling, and we couldn’t say it was safe to burn as much fossil fuel as we liked either. It’s a dirty little secret of climate science that our understanding of the climate is far from a done deal. There’s a number of pseudo-cyclic oscillations such as El-Nino/La Nina (ENSO) and also the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) which operate on long time scales and which aren’t well understood. The top of atmosphere (TOA) imbalance between energy coming in and energy radiated away is not directly measureable. The influence of sulphates is poorly quantified and a 400-million dollar satellite mission to study their effects crashed and burned earlier this year, [Glory (satellite) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_%28satellite%29). Without knowing the effect of sulphates, estimates of climate sensitivity fall over a wide range. The net effect of clouds and their response to rising temperatures is again poorly quantified. There’s a fair bit of uncovered territory out there. Unfortunately the whole matter has become ridiculously polarised, with the AGW activists framing the narrative from their as a battle to save the planet against the forces of evil (Big Oil, Big Coal, “corporations”, and the USA’s Republican Party) and the AGW deniers framing it as a giant “hoax” or “conspiracy” by the UN and/or others. There’s a distinct lack of middle ground. Climate science mainly operates from the AGW activist point of view (understandably, given the wingnuts on the other side) but this means that any uncertainty or gaps in our knowledge tend to be kept quiet as possible. I don’t know if you followed any of my links earlier, but [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg) is Mann’s iconic 1999 hockeystick, published in IPCC3, headline news, reproduced in newspapers. The cyan line in [this](http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/NHcps_no7_v_orig_Nov2009.pdf) is a non-dendro (no tree rings) multi-proxy hockey stick of Mann’s, obscurely released as supplementary material to Mann’s 2008 paper and never publicised or to my knowledge discussed in acedemia. They tell rather different stories! There’s a lot of this selective publicising in climate science, but somehow it’s flirting with the forces of evil to point it out. That’s why when an acknowledged honking great hole appears in Earth’s energy budget (caused by the lack of ocean heat content increase) and continues to grow ([Understanding Trenberth's travesty](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html)) it stays out of the news while every hurricane and flood gets tagged as evidence of global warming. The facts are that CO2 does have a warming effect and it continues to increase in the atmosphere. The current flat temperature trend is _probably_ just a temporary lull that will end in a few years - that’s the way I’d bet, if I had to. It’s worth drawing attention to though because we don’t know why it’s happening and the answer to that question will improve our understanding of the whole picture and help us shape policy. From the link above, Trenberth thinks that the missing energy is transitioning to the deep ocean. I doubt that’s the case but if that’s true, what was happening before 2003? Have some ocean downwellings just kicked in? Is this an undiscovered cooling mechanism that has just fired up? How effective is it, and how long will it last? Important questions. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/112 "2011-08-25T02:37:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > like I said, complete [failure](http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/08/02/chevy-volt-sales-slump-gm-clarifies-%E2%80%9Cvirtually-sold-out%E2%80%9D-comments). 12,000 is a financial bust. They’re sitting in dealerships waiting to be sold. :dubious: I’m afraid the spin of the right wing media is ignoring that the volt was not geared to be produced at the levels other cars are made. > [@](#): > > More to the point, this week GM’s spokespeople preemptively contacted media prior to official July sales results explaining only one hundred Volt sales were expected\*\*. As it turned out, Chevrolet beat their number with 125 Volts sold in July.\*\* > > In getting this background context delivered ahead of time, it was been kind of like hearing, “The kid has just started walking, but he’ll be out running for the end zone before you know it” … or something along those lines. > More Volts are being made, including for export, such as this one in old Shanghai. > > It is all understandable though. Considering the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant was shut down for upgrades for four weeks until earlier this month, Chevrolet wanted everyone to know the Volt had been down for the count, but indicators are it is just waiting to rebound with a new lease on life. > > The bottom line, GM said, is it was all planned – and the positive news is demand has been relatively high. > > “Volt sales are exactly as we expected as we shut down production in June and July to revamp the plant to increase Volt production in 2012,” said GM spokesperson Michelle Bunker. “We are ‘virtually sold out’ – only about 100 2011 Volts are left in stock – or one per every six dealers.” > > Chevrolet built 3,975 Volts for the 2011 model year, she said, with about 550 of these being assigned as dealer demos. To date, 3,200 have sold, and 125 are being used for internal uses, such as for engineering, marketing, training and media sampling – speaking of which, GM-Volt is (finally) supposed to have one of these remaining 2011 media Volts trucked down to Pennsylvania from New York on Aug. 11 for a one-week review. I am looking forward to it … > > As for regular waiting consumers in selling markets, on average, Bunker said, including time required to prep for delivery, this year Volts spent about 13 days in the dealership before being taken by a new customer. > > And the really good news for Volt enthusiasts is the kid will soon be out running for the touchdown, er, that is, the Volt will soon be selling in far higher volumes. > > “As a result of the plant upgrades, planned Volt and Ampera production capacity this year will increase to 16,000 units. In 2012, global production capacity is expected to be 60,000 vehicles with an estimated 45,000 to be delivered in the United States,” Bunker said. > Coming soon: More Volts to fill up those Chevy solar charging stations. > > Bunker said since June 10, dealers nationwide were able to enter orders for 2012s, and it is hoped increased availability will ameliorate the up-till-now situation whereby dealers have been asking for more than Chevrolet was able to deliver. > > “Our dealers have requested allocation four to seven times the numbers which were available each month since launch,” she said, which put in a positive light meant, “Each month we were able to see demand from our participating dealers.” > > Gaining stride > > So, we have been hearing of limited supply, but strong demand all year. Last week Volt Line Director, Tony Posawatz conceded GM underestimated Volt demand, but the question is what will it take to catch up to real automotive industry level sales numbering in the thousands and tens of thousands, instead of hundreds? In context, I will have to say this a case of an auto maker just making as many as they expected the demand to be. Can you tell me where GM said that it was going to be a high production model? Otherwise I would have to assume there is very misleading spin from the right here. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2011, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/113 "2011-08-25T02:52:23Z")
Missed the link there: > **[After a necessarily slow July, Chevrolet Volt sales...](https://www.gm-volt.com/threads/after-a-necessarily-slow-july-chevrolet-volt-sales-poised-to-significantly-increase.336723/)** > > Having listened to GM explain the Volt’s cautious roll out all year, and most recently its reduced July sales, it has been reminiscent of hearing doctors making positive predictions for an injured star ball player – who just recovered from... Still, on top of a limited production, the VOLT was also for sale limited to a few states of the union. Sales were better early in the year, but as the economy goes, I would not be surprised if there if production will not increase as it was planed for the end of the year. > **[GM to boost Volt production](https://money.cnn.com/2011/05/19/autos/volt_production_increase/index.htm)** > > General Motors is preparing to greatly increase production of the Chevrolet Volt but the car will be hard to find in the meantime. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/114 "2011-08-25T03:09:24Z")
But, we are drifting away from the main issue, lets check our old friend and past doper the Bad Astronomer: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/) > [@](#): > > What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced back to the famous “hockey stick” diagram, showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid — or at least is not as weak as so many would lead you to believe. > > And what does this mean about “ClimateGate”? That’s clear enough: all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air. > > Not that this will stop or even slow down the denial machine. Politicians from the Virginia State Attorney General to members of the House of Representatives have been on what I would characterize as witch hunts. Dr. Mann has been vocal in his opposition, and I applaud him. Still, needless to say, the attacks will continue. Oh, yeah, you would expect Ken Cuccinelli to drop the case he has against Mann, but this is still going. [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/04/deniers-abuse-power-to-attack-climate-scientists/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/04/deniers-abuse-power-to-attack-climate-scientists/) > [@](#): > > And some of those people ramming through this agenda are using — I would say abusing — their power to do so. For example, über-conservative Virginia State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — the same guy who was so offended by the artwork of a naked breast he had it covered up on lapel pins — is investigating climate scientist Michael Mann. Cuccinelli is claiming that Mann may have defrauded taxpayers while trying to get grants to fund his research. Mind you, Mann has survived such attacks before as fallout from the nonsensical climategate “scandal” (which was a completely manufactured controversy with no substance at all). > > The fact that someone, let alone a state attorney general, would start up something like this after an investigation already cleared Mann smacks of a very transparent political attack. This has all the marks of an attempt to chill academic research when it goes against someone’s antireality stance. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/115 "2011-08-25T04:06:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But, we are drifting away from the main issue, lets check our old friend and past doper the Bad Astronomer: I forgot he was still out there! That’ll give me some lunchtime reading. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh, yeah, you would expect Ken Cuccinelli to drop the case he has against Mann, but this is still going. Cuccinelli is a dick, no question about that. I’m no particular fan of Mann but he shouldn’t have to put up with frivolous attacks of this kind. ---
**Author:** ![AT116](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@AT116](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AT116)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/116 "2011-08-25T06:02:10Z")
Anyone perusing this circle jerk with questions about the global warming issue who would care for a dose of calm reason should watch the following short video in which a leading scientist explains the whole thing quite nicely. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/hgaeyMa3jyU/hqdefault.jpg "Climate Change - has it been cancelled?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU) Now watch the jackals attack! ---
**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:** [August 25, 2011, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/117 "2011-08-25T06:21:27Z")
> [@AT116](#): > > Anyone perusing this circle jerk with questions about the global warming issue who would care for a dose of calm reason should watch the following short video in which a leading scientist explains the whole thing quite nicely. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU) > > Now watch the jackals attack! Old news too. > **[Climate misinformation by source: Bob Carter](https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Bob_Carter.htm)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... That is just to show how wrong he has been, the video linked deals mostly with this item: > **[The human fingerprint in global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm)** > > \The human fingerprint in global warming is evident in multiple lines of empirical evidence - in satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, in surface measurements of downward infrared radiation, in the cooling stratosphere and other... And if one had looked at the video already linked in this thread: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/cMtiyHzUiP4/hqdefault.jpg "9 Climate Change Meet the Scientists from potholer54") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMtiyHzUiP4) Bob Carter was listed as palaeoclimatologist in a recent US Senate Minority Report, but there is the little problem that in reality he is a Paleontologist and most of his work work was in Stratigraphy, he is not an expert on climate science nor paleoclimate. Real paleoclimatologists come with other ideas: > **[NASA GISS: Hansen and Sato 2012: Paleoclimate implications for human-made...](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/ha05510d.html)** > [@](#): > > Paleoclimate data help us assess climate sensitivity and potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods of nthe past million years was less than 1°C warmer than in the Holocene. Polar warmth in these interglacials and in the Pliocene does not imply that a substatial cushion remains between today’s climate and dangerous warming, but rather that Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. Thus goals to limit human-made warming to 2°C are not sufficient — they are prescriptions for disaster ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/118 "2011-08-25T07:32:52Z")
> [@AT116](#): > > Anyone perusing this circle jerk with questions about the global warming issue who would care for a dose of calm reason should watch the following short video in which a leading scientist explains the whole thing quite nicely. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU) > > Now watch the jackals attack! Same old story, somebody who isn’t qualified to make these allegations. After watching the video, I think a yapping Chihuahua is a better metaphor. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/119 "2011-08-26T06:18:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The people on the right don’t think it’s a problem because of basic common sense. > > Technology has advanced exponentially throughout history. It will continue to do so in the future. We do not need to panic and buy into the Al Gore fright-fest because it will happen naturally with little effort on our part. This claim is foolish. There is absolutely no common sense involved in such an argument. All you are saying is that it’s OK to defer the problem to a later date. This is also called living in denial. It is the same argument I heard from young smokers when I was in school: “Medicine is advancing so rapidly that I can afford to smoke now and be cured of any health problems when I am older.” A narrative that (unsuprisingly) led to happy endings like cancer and emphysema. It is the same argument that landed the US in all its credit troubles: “Oh the economy will continue to grow, the bubble will continue to inflate, so we can easily afford to assume more debt because a rising tide and all that.” Yes, that ended well. What common sense \*\*actually \*\*suggests is that if there is a planetary problem that is getting worse with time (such as liberated carbon, greenhouse effect, pollution, etc.), it is better to address that problem ASAP rather than try to defer it to a future time when that problem is only guaranteed to be worse and therefore correspondingly harder to correct. Assuming that magic will eventually manifest in the future while ignoring the worsening severity of a current problem - that’s living in denial. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/120 "2011-08-27T00:20:04Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > This claim is foolish. There is absolutely no common sense involved in such an argument. All you are saying is that it’s OK to defer the problem to a later date. This is also called living in denial. No, that’s not what I said at all. Not even close. I said technology advances exponentially and that we should plan accordingly. Use the technology that is currently viable to accomplish a task and move on. That is the most cost effective way of getting things done. Take any advance in technology and project the cost backwards. As an example, a standard home computer today would cost as much as a house if it was purchased 20 years ago. The cost/performance benefit difference is exponential. The natural advancements in computer technology should be applied as they occur. Solar cells are not currently viable for mass use. They will be but they aren’t right now. Maybe in 5 years or maybe 20 years. Solar thermal power is now getting to the point where it is viable today and should be invested in today. That makes sense today as does clean burning coal with co2 scrubbers. If we attempt to use technology ahead of it’s financial viability then we draw down wealth that could be used for other purposes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=7)