# 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:** 8
**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 27, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/141 "2011-08-27T16:56:21Z")
I had to add this, people like Bob Carter are many times the source of debunked points that, just before that debunking takes place, all blogessors had already cut and paste in their never ending efforts to confuse people. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/31/xvMmPtEt8dc)** > > The purpose of this channel is to explain in simple terms the conclusions of scientific research, and correct some of the unsourced crap we hear from bloggers, politicians and the media. I am a former science journalist (see the "Who I am" video)... Always go for the source, the warnings they give are very important. Fortunately you do see the blogessors posting corrections to their “This shows once and for all AGW is not happening” articles mentioned in the video, right? Right, I did not think so, virtually all those debunked to death points are \*\*still \*\*pushed in the sites you are pointing there. ---
**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 27, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/142 "2011-08-27T17:02:11Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I always thought, and taught, that science is about facts and that we should discuss the facts so that we can use them to help us. Then they do not need to lie, they need to work together to publish their ideas or modify the CERN experiment to deal with the **hypothesis** that they are mistakenly or misleadingly telling their readers is the correct conclusion or a fact. The blind telling the blind how to science is not science. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I cannot imagine, in fact I called absolute brachiosaurusshit the possibiliy, that CERN guy saying “don’t politiceze the results” if the results had favoured AGWers. Unfounded accusation, what it is clear is that it is more likely that they, just like geneticists having to add specific warnings in their papers about not using their research to make racist policies, so do have the climate researchers and physicists getting the notice that throwing a bone to the deniers does more harm than good. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/143 "2011-08-27T18:50:28Z")
Quote: 1. Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. 2. Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains: What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero. Gore has a 10,000 square foot mansion in TN-with an indoor (heated basketball court). I wonder how many CFL bulbs it will take to offset that carbon? Gore has a fleet of 11 MPG SUVs-which he likes to tool around in. For a guy who is so concerned about AGW, he seems to have strarnge habits …but heck, he loves to lecture us "little people"about our evil energy habits. The purveyors of Global Warming want control-that is the real object of this scam. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/144 "2011-08-27T19:29:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Then they do not need to lie, they need to work together to publish their ideas or modify the CERN experiment to deal with the **hypothesis** that they are mistakenly or misleadingly telling their readers is the correct conclusion or a fact. The blind telling the blind how to science is not science. > > Unfounded accusation, what it is clear is that it is more likely that they, just like geneticists having to add specific warnings in their papers about not using their research to make racist policies, so do have the climate researchers and physicists getting the notice that throwing a bone to the deniers does more harm than good. Far from me to defend the really stupid guys in the sceptic camp, especially those with little or no grasp of science. However, the pont is that there has never been such a warning (that I know of) in the case of a AGW-affirming study. Why shoudln’t we use science to help people? If the theory of CO2-fueled-AGW wer wrong whoudln’t we know it? shoudln’t we use the knowledge? shouldn’t we know if all the carbon-credit or CO2-abatement schemes are a waste fo time? Loonies are loonies and fuck them hard, but I still think that “don’t draw conclusions” is wrong, always, for anything that is published. ---
**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 27, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/145 "2011-08-27T20:19:16Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Gore has a 10,000 square foot mansion in TN-with an indoor (heated basketball court). I wonder how many CFL bulbs it will take to offset that carbon? > Gore has a fleet of 11 MPG SUVs-which he likes to tool around in. > For a guy who is so concerned about AGW, he seems to have strarnge habits ..but heck, he loves to lecture us "little people"about our evil energy habits. > The purveyors of Global Warming want control-that is the real object of this scam. So you say, but you offer no evidence that he does not purchases enough credits to become carbon neutral. And: [http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/05/23/drudge-lies-about-gores-use-of-suvs-in-cannes/](http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/05/23/drudge-lies-about-gores-use-of-suvs-in-cannes/) > [@](#): > > This time it’s Matt Drudge who retracted a story on his website saying that Gore and his party drove SUVs 500 feet from their hotel to a screening at the Cannes Film Festival because it proved to be untrue: So once again, you do need to stop relying on sources that are scamming you, but I’m not having many hopes for that, usually the ones getting scammed never demand better from their sources, I will always wonder why. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/146 "2011-08-27T20:34:47Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Leaving aside specific examples, in your opinion then we are doing everything reasonable and possible at the moment to address the problem? Of course not. We are lazily and dishonestly deferring it to a future time yet again. And by “we” here I mean most of the world, not one specific country or political party. Again, you completely missed what I said. We are not doing everything possible nor should we do everything possible because it’s not an emergency problem and viable technologies are already on the cusp of making huge gains. Beyond that future technologies will replace those soon to be released today. It’s stupid to invest large sums of money in solar cell technology when we could build coal plants that scrub CO2 significantly cheaper. It’s pointless to build cars like the Volt that nobody will buy when high mileage cars already exist. Better to have real cars on the road doing something good. There are certainly things that government agencies can do to nudge things in the right direction but they need to be well thought out and held to some kind of standard if they fail to achieve a cost benefit break-even point. Wishing something will happen after spending large sums of money is not the way to accomplish it. ---
**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 27, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/147 "2011-08-27T20:45:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Far from me to defend the really stupid guys in the sceptic camp, especially those with little or no grasp of science. > However, the pont is that there has never been such a warning (that I know of) in the case of a AGW-affirming study. Gee, I thought you were making just a point about having a head in the clouds. 🙂 Anyhow, I pointed you at this source before that refers to the scientific papers published, the reality is that ever since scientists like Plass in the 50’s showed to be more accurate and the warming took place then that is what science does, it demonstrated with evidence that AGW is the best explanation for the current warming we are experiencing. > **[The human fingerprint in global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.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... > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Why shoudln’t we use science to help people? If the theory of CO2-fueled-AGW wer wrong whoudln’t we know it? shoudln’t we use the knowledge? shouldn’t we know if all the carbon-credit or CO2-abatement schemes are a waste fo time? You are ignoring the big elephant in the room (Usually Republican 🙂 ), denier sites do not look for knowledge, they have false conclusions or deny the evidence, very unlikely that good solutions will come from them since they star by claiming that there is no problem. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Loonies are loonies and fuck them hard, but I still think that “don’t draw conclusions” is wrong, always, for anything that is published. Sorry, but you wrought the loonies in, that can make me and others draw our own conclusion on who we should rely on. Since researchers have investigated and began to give the alarm since the 50’s what we see now is the result of more than 60 years of confirming and improving the science. It is the main reason why scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming, 6 times more than the now becoming minority researchers. Today among climate researchers the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached [even higher levels](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm), the biggest problem is that most deniers even deny that this progress has taken place or think that it all started with Al Gore. ---
**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 27, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/148 "2011-08-27T21:10:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Again, you completely missed what I said. We are not doing everything possible nor should we do everything possible because it’s not an emergency problem and viable technologies are already on the cusp of making huge gains. Sure, we should leave it to our sons and grand sons, I don’t see a problem with that. > **[Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes](https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-emergency-time-to-slam-on-the-brakes.html)** > > Global warming is an increasingly urgent problem. The urgency isn’t obvious because a large amount of warming is being delayed. But some of the latest research says if we want to keep the Earth’s climate within the range humans have... > [@](#): > > Global warming is an increasingly urgent problem. The urgency isn’t obvious because a large amount of warming is being delayed. But some of the latest research says if we want to keep the Earth’s climate within the range humans have experienced, we must leave nearly all the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. If we do not act now we could push the climate beyond tipping points, where the situation spirals out of our control. How do we know this? And what should we do about it? Read on. > > James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist and one of the first to warn greenhouse warming had been detected, set out to define dangerous human interference with climate. In 2008, his team came to the startling conclusion that the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is already in the danger zone. > > Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 to 390 parts per million (ppm). Don’t be fooled by the small number – 390 ppm is higher than CO2 has been in millions of years. CO2 is rising by 2 ppm per year as we continue to burn fossil fuels. To stabilise the Earth’s climate, we must reduce CO2 to the relatively safe level of 350 ppm. And we must hurry, because the task will soon be an impossible one. > > The 350 target is based not on climate modeling, but on past climate change (“paleoclimate”). Hansen looked at the highly accurate ice core record of the last few hundred thousand years, sediment core data going back 65 million years, and the changes currently unfolding. He discovered that, in the long term, climate is twice as sensitive in the real world as it is in the models used by the IPCC. > > … > > Right now we stand at an intersection. What we do in this decade is crucial. If we choose one path, by the end of the decade the world could be well on its way to phasing out coal. If we choose the other, we face an uncertain future in which the only certainty is a continually shifting climate. I’ll leave the final word to Hansen et al, whose concluding statements were pretty strongly worded coming from a dense, technical, peer-reviewed paper: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. […] The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable. > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/149 "2011-08-27T22:56:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Gee, I thought you were making just a point about having a head in the clouds. 🙂 > > Anyhow, I pointed you at this source before that refers to the scientific papers published, the reality is that ever since scientists like Plass in the 50’s showed to be more accurate and the warming took place then that is what science does, it demonstrated with evidence that AGW is the best explanation for the current warming we are experiencing. > > [The human fingerprint in global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm) > You are ignoring the big elephant in the room (Usually Republican 🙂 ), denier sites do not look for knowledge, they have false conclusions or deny the evidence, very unlikely that good solutions will come from them since they star by claiming that there is no problem. > Sorry, but you wrought the loonies in, that can make me and others draw our own conclusion on who we should rely on. > > Since researchers have investigated and began to give the alarm since the 50’s what we see now is the result of more than 60 years of confirming and improving the science. It is the main reason why scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming, 6 times more than the now becoming minority researchers. > > Today among climate researchers the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached [even higher levels](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm), the biggest problem is that most deniers even deny that this progress has taken place or think that it all started with Al Gore. Since I’m Peruvian, I don’t really give a house-rodent-pest’s anal orifice about stupid Republican-voting not-big-on-science guys on loonie blogs. Science, gimme the hot science. ---
**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 27, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/150 "2011-08-27T23:02:44Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Since I’m Peruvian, I don’t really give a house-rodent-pest’s anal orifice about stupid Republican-voting not-big-on-science guys on loonie blogs. > Science, gimme the hot science. Funny thing is that most of the cites you brought came from looney Americans. But they were a couple good science ones that contradicted even the loonies, did you pay attention to the cites or did you get them from a Google Vomit? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/151 "2011-08-28T02:29:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Funny thing is that most of the cites you brought came from looney Americans. But they were a couple good science ones that contradicted even the loonies, did you pay attention to the cites or did you get them from a Google Vomit? Not, I got them form Bing Binges. Can you point out a couple of specifically loonie stuff (unless loonie means being a denier or sceptic). - Cite 1 come from a libertarian. - Cite 2 from the Institute of Physics - Cite 3 is from the BBC (not a denier hotbed). I provided it for the phrase “_If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal_” by an AGWer scientist. - Cite 4 comes from a not-loonie looking place. - Cite 5 comes from a guy who wrote for New Scientist. - Cite 6 is from the same guy reporting on the CLOUD find. - Cite 7 provides a description of the study ---
**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:** [August 28, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/152 "2011-08-28T03:22:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is the main reason why scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming, 6 times more than the now becoming minority researchers. Intriguing. What specific predictions about mean global temperatures were they making in, say, '98? Did papers from those days likewise split along a better than 6-to-1 ratio in predicting warming? > [@](#): > > Today among climate researchers the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached [even higher levels](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) That link doesn’t actually say anything about whether they agree that AGW is a problem. ---
**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 28, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/153 "2011-08-28T03:37:58Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Not, I got them form Bing Binges. > Can you point out a couple of specifically loonie stuff (unless loonie means being a denier or sceptic). > > - Cite 1 come from a libertarian. The title is _Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?_ Just the old FOX question mark at end on a title that shows where the bias is. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > - Cite 2 from the Institute of Physics > [@](#): > > Kirkby shares Pierce’s caution. He argues that CLOUD’s results “say nothing about cosmic-ray effects on clouds” because the aerosols produced in the experiment are far too small to seed clouds. There is a big gap on replicating previous results from a lab and assuming they apply to real clouds. This was indeed Smith’s point and this article supports his and my points in the thread. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > - Cite 3 is from the BBC (not a denier hotbed). I provided it for the phrase “_If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal_” by an AGWer scientist So that was a binge search? For all purposes it is then a vomit, I was not sure before but now I am, because it is clear that on the way to making an automatic “Gish Gallop” you are missing what they really say: > [@](#): > > **‘No Sun link’ to climate change** > > Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity. > > The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate “sceptics”, that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. > [@](#): > > Professor Sloan’s team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times. > > “For example; sometimes the Sun ‘burps’ - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles,” he explained to BBC News. > > “So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing.” > > Over the course of one of the Sun’s natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness. > > And for the following cycle, no correlation was found. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > - Cite 4 comes from a not-loonie looking place. If it is not loony, then it is a lying place as noticed already by Smith. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > - Cite 5 comes from a guy who wrote for New Scientist. That is an opinion, nothing to do with the science. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > - Cite 6 is from the same guy reporting on the CLOUD find. Can not take him seriously after he titles another article “The global warmists’ dam breaks” by ignoring the fact that the effect in real clouds is minimal. On top of that it is clear that AGW has many other factors and forcings involved that are more important. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > - Cite 7 provides a description of the study No, he is accusing the CERN researchers of minimizing the results (for political reasons) to conform to the well researched points that show that the effect on real clouds is minimal. That is also an opinion piece. The point remains that 2 of the articles do take perspective into account and show that the effect of cosmic rays is not really important to the overall issue. The rest are just opinions that show either lies or distortions about what the science really says. ---
**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 28, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/154 "2011-08-28T03:56:14Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Intriguing. What specific predictions about mean global temperatures were they making in, say, '98? Did papers from those days likewise split along a better than 6-to-1 ratio in predicting warming? Bob Carter is that you? 🙂 Really, you are already on the record ignoring the evidence of what Plass predicted back in the 50’s, as mentioned before, the attempts of trying to make a mountain of this mole hill of a point of starting from '98 would mostly produce scientists just dealing with noise issues on the way to the continued warming that we are experiencing, unlike Bob Carter, they do not ignore the previous decades. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That link doesn’t actually say anything about whether they agree that AGW is a problem. The A in AGW is from Anthropomorphic, that is human made, one question was: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” As many other research papers of today show, and a super majority of scientists and scientific organizations agrees that (on the science academic organizations statement): > [@](#): > > We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC > principles4, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of > climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the > issue is included in all relevant national and international > strategies. As national science academies, we commit to > working with governments to help develop and implement > the national and international response to the challenge of > climate change. > > G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past > greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8 > nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing > climate change and assisting developing nations to meet > the challenges of adaptation and mitigation. > We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the > Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to: > > **· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear > and increasing.** > > · Launch an international study5 to explore scientifically informed > targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas > concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, > that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed > unacceptable. > > · Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to > contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net > global greenhouse gas emissions. **Recognise that delayed > action will increase the risk of adverse environmental > effects and will likely incur a greater cost.** ---
**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:** [August 28, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/155 "2011-08-28T04:03:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Really, you are already on the record ignoring the evidence of what Plass predicted back in the 50’s, as mentioned before, the attempts of trying to make a mountain of this mole hill of a point of starting from '98 would mostly produce scientists just dealing with noise issues on the way to the continued warming that we are experiencing, unlike Bob Carter, they do not ignore the previous decades. I’m not ignoring what Plass predicted in the '50s; I merely don’t want anyone to ignore predictions made in '98. You’re currently ignoring that request for information, is all. > [@](#): > > The A in AGW is from Anthropomorphic, that is human made, one question was: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Well, sure. But an answer to _ **that** _ question doesn’t reflect whether it’s a problem, as you said it did – only whether it’s a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. I could readily answer “yes” to that one even if I thought changing mean global temperatures were (a) unproblematic, or (b) cooling. > [@](#): > > As many other research papers of today show, and a super majority of scientists and scientific organizations agrees that (on the science academic organizations statement): Yes, as _ **other** _ research papers show. But you were for some reason describing the study you linked to. ---
**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 28, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/156 "2011-08-28T04:25:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not ignoring what Plass predicted in the '50s; I merely don’t want anyone to ignore predictions made in '98. You’re currently ignoring that request for information, is all. Nope, I already posted the last video mentioning that Bob Carter was the one that came with that silly point. The experts report that Carter misrepresented the information from CRU, NASA and others. Carter misunderstood how warming trends are analyzed. Watch the video. As on a previews thread, I have to mention that the '95 year was chosen by deniers before because it leads to scientists to be precise and report that there was no significant warming trend. We can now on '95 and we will soon on '98 but it is painfully obvious that this was almost a literal moving of the goal posts, \*\*\*\*after \*\*\*\*the goal from the 50’s the 60’s, 70’s 80’s 90’s was already scored. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes, as _ **other** _ research papers show. But you were for some reason describing the study you linked to. I’m referring to the whole cite, scroll down to see the scientific organizations mentioned that they agree with the consensus, and the conclusion is that that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost. ---
**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:** [August 28, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/157 "2011-08-28T04:53:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, I already posted the last video mentioning that Bob Carter was the one that came with that silly point. The experts report that Carter misrepresented the information from CRU, NASA and others. Carter misunderstood how warming trends are analyzed. Watch the video. So, just to clarify: you’ll briskly post that _“scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming”_ – but, when asked, _ **won’t** _ likewise post a quick sentence or two when asked to follow up about predictions made in the '90s? Just so we’re all clear. > [@](#): > > I’m referring to the whole cite, scroll down to see the scientific organizations mentioned that they agree with the consensus, and the conclusion is that that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost. Ah. So the poll itself doesn’t spell it out, but the link goes on to spell out that _“The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that ‘most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities’”_, and that _“A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: ‘Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science’”_, and so on… …but while I see multiple references to a consensus about whether climate change is occurring and why, the specific backup for your claim that "the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached even higher levels " isn’t actually reflected _ **on** _ that site itself, but might be found by following yet other links _ **from** _ the site, which (a) may or may not go further than saying that projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects – but which (b) _ **won’t** _ actually specify whether the number of scientists who agree with said claim has reached even higher levels? ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/158 "2011-08-28T05:06:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So, just to clarify: you’ll briskly post that _“scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming”_ – but, when asked, _ **won’t** _ likewise post a quick sentence or two when asked to follow up about predictions made in the '90s? Just so we’re all clear. Just so we are clear, you promised all that you would deal with predictions posted, Plass made one, and many others in the 60’s and 70’s, but it is clear that your game is to really ignore it. You still think it is better to continue with a point that even skeptical scientists think is silly. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Ah. So the poll itself doesn’t spell it out, but the link goes on to spell out that _“The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that ‘most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities’”_, and that _“A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: ‘Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science’”_, and so on… > > …but while I see multiple references to a consensus about whether climate change is occurring and why, the specific backup for your claim that "the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached even higher levels " isn’t actually reflected _ **on** _ that site itself, but might be found by following yet other links _ **from** _ the site, which (a) may or may not go further than saying that projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects – but which (b) _ **won’t** _ actually specify whether the number of scientists who agree with said claim has reached even higher levels? You are just protesting too much, and with the intention of not dealing with the conclusion that it is linked and referred to in the cite itself. ---
**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:** [August 28, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/159 "2011-08-28T05:20:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just so we are clear you promised all that you would deal with predictions posted, Plass made one, but it is clear that your game is to really ignore it. Pardon? I’ve stated that my primary concern with _ **any** _ scientific claim involves dealing with predictions that can currently be falsified; I’ve stated that I’m mildly interested in predictions that have already come to pass, but AFAIK only _ **ever** _ while adding that I’m more interested in predictions that can falsify it. It’s the first question I usually ask about a scientific claim: not whether it’s tested well so far – because, had it _ **already** _ been falsified, there presumably wouldn’t even be a question – but how it can hypothetically be falsified going forward. > [@](#): > > You are just protesting too much, and with the intention of not dealing with the conclusion that it is linked and referred to in the cite itself. The cite itself makes no reference to what you claimed it did; without clicking on the links, _ **no** _ statements regarding whether it’s a problem can be found. The site admittedly provides links to other sites, and clicking on them can lead one to vague statements about how predicted climate change will have both beneficial and adverse effects – but still without specifying the change in number you claimed. You’re, like, protesting too much, is all; simply provide a better cite when linking to ostensible support for such a claim. ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/160 "2011-08-28T05:28:05Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Pardon? I’ve stated that my primary concern with _ **any** _ scientific claim involves dealing with predictions that can currently be falsified; I’ve stated that I’m mildly interested in predictions that have already come to pass, but AFAIK only _ **ever** _ while adding that I’m more interested in predictions that can falsify it. > > It’s the first question I usually ask about a scientific claim: not whether it’s tested well so far – because, had it _ **already** _ been falsified, there presumably wouldn’t even be a question – but how it can hypothetically be falsified going forward. The same way, but it takes time, and this was explained many times before, it is clear you do not like the answer, too bad, but it is not a big deal when the record shows you would not be able to convince even skeptical scientists that this is a big deal. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The cite itself makes no reference to what you claimed it did; without clicking on the links, _ **no** _ statements regarding whether it’s a problem can be found. The site admittedly provides links to other sites, and clicking on them can lead one to vague statements about how predicted climate change will have both beneficial and adverse effects – but still without specifying the change in number you claimed. You’re, like, protesting too much, is all; simply provide a better cite when linking to ostensible support for such a claim. The cite is there regardless, you were wrong, not a biggie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=9)