# 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:** 9
**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, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/161 "2011-08-28T05:36:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The same way, but it takes time, ans this was explained many times before, it is clear you do not like the answer, too bad No, we’re _ **agreed** _ that “it takes time”; that’s why I asked how much time, sure as I liked the answer you gave; 15 years will be here in short order, and things are looking great. > [@](#): > > 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. Which is why I want to know: what will convince (a) skeptical scientists, and (b) non-skeptical scientists? Maybe twenty years for the former and thirty for the latter? We know what answer is good enough for you; what’s good enough for them? > [@](#): > > The cite is there regardless, you were wrong, not a biggie. The cite isn’t there; you were wrong; I can’t prove a negative; supply the quote from the link or drop it, as you please. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/162 "2011-08-28T05:47:33Z")
> [@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. 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. And… yet again. The defer to a brighter future argument. Can you really not see what you keep repeating? Whichever way you spin it, every time I break down the argument you present this is what I get: [ul] [li]Continue causing cumulative damage to the environment and climate, damage that could lead to dangerous cascade effects that will be exponentially harder to address[/li][li]take no meaningful initiatives in the present because in a state of denial “there is no emergency”[/li][li]defer meaningful action to an unknown future in the hope that technology will eventually fix everything[/li][/ul] “It’s not an emergency problem”? Link already provided by Gigobuster here reposted with emphasis: > [@](#): > > from [Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-emergency-time-to-slam-on-the-brakes.html) > > 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.** **There is an emergency right now** and that’s when we consider ONE offending substance - the entire picture looks much worse. Look at the excellent materials that **Gigobuster** has been providing in this thread. They have obviously been going over some posters’ heads but they are good. > [@Magiver](#): > > 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. The Volt is a real car and people are buying it (it and Nissan’s alternative are selling ok, Nissan is doing slightly better but it is HALF the price of the Volt). It’s not selling faster in the US because 1) the introduction of new technology is usually slow at first and done as a product test rather than a contained business model, 2) prices are still high, particularly for the Volt’s monster (and revolutionary) battery, 3) the market attitudes in America tend to be anti-environmental and pro-big wasteful car culture. Volt pre-orders are doing OK in Europe, where the population enjoys less politically motivated denial and better environmental awareness. And don’t forget there are other alternatives to the Volt around the world. More detailed arguments here: [Five Reasons Why The Chevrolet Volt Isn’t Losing Popularity](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065043_five-reasons-why-the-chevrolet-volt-isnt-losing-popularity) Of particular note, given how this thread has become all about denial and how quite a few misconceptions about the Volt originated from CNW Marketing Research, is the following: > [@](#): > > from [Five Reasons Why The Chevrolet Volt Isn’t Losing Popularity](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065043_five-reasons-why-the-chevrolet-volt-isnt-losing-popularity) > > CNW Marketing Research is the same firm that caused a huge press furor four years ago by claiming that a Toyota Prius consumed more energy in its lifetime than a Chevrolet Tahoe sport-utility vehicle. > > Right-wing media outlets jumped on its report, later debunked, to claim that the [Prius did more damage to the environment than a Hummer H2](http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth). In other words, bullshit-spewing by the usual suspects. Aggressive and destructive denial in the service of the “let’s defer until later” argument. Truly lovely. But let’s not get hung up on the Volt, after all it is just one option among others. > [@Magiver](#): > > 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. The way to accomplish it is first to recognize there is an \*\*urgent \*\*problem that needs to be addressed, and then to address that problem in a fairly aggressive manner commensurate with its severity. That includes having the government throw money at the issue in order to change current attitudes and markets, if necessary (which it clearly is). Goals. Milestones. Deadlines. Progress reports. None of this stuff happens by itself and it can take years just to set up a meaningful framework, modify popular attitudes, etc. Of course, sitting and waiting for a technologically brighter tomorrow while the present situation gets worse is also an option, just not one that is acquainted with common sense. ---
**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, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/163 "2011-08-28T06:18:34Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, we’re _ **agreed** _ that “it takes time”; that’s why I asked how much time, sure as I liked the answer you gave; 15 years will be here in short order, and things are looking great. Not for Bob Carter, and not for the big picture. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Which is why I want to know: what will convince (a) skeptical scientists, and (b) non-skeptical scientists? Maybe twenty years for the former and thirty for the latter? We know what answer is good enough for you; what’s good enough for them? Well I see you will attempt to teach grandma to suck eggs, but before that one should look at the big picture, temperatures were going down in the 50’s and then they did go up, on physical models (**[that do not deal with future predictions but with past and current data](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm)**) scientists, and even skeptical ones, can see that cooling would be there already for several decades if it wasn’t for the heat brought by human made global warming gases. The forcing made by human released global warming gases began to overtake the natural causes. This was mentioned before, a lot more cooling than the one you seem to think we have needs to be observed to falsify this. Plus we need also evidence for alternative causes on why the earth is warming or evidence that other mechanisms will overcome the forcing brought by human activities. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The cite isn’t there; you were wrong; I can’t prove a negative; supply the quote from the link or drop it, as you please. :sigh:, **you even quoted my cite on your post #152** Scrolling down you can see that the cite not only deals with the polls but with the positions of the most involved scientific organizations with the issue: > [@](#): > > 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." > > ``` That has a link to the PDA with the already quoted conclusions from the organizations. ---
**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, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/164 "2011-08-28T06:34:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Human released global warming gases began to overtake the natural causes. This was mentioned before, a lot more cooling than the one you seem to think we have needs to be observed to falsify this. Hey, _ **I’m** _ not the one who came up with the “15 years” mark, sure as _ **I’m** _ not the one who thinks 15 years is enough to falsify it. I asked for your falsification timetable, and you supplied it; I’m curious as to how much “more” is needed by actual scientists, and still await your answer on that if your timetable of choice isn’t good enough for them. > [@](#): > > Plus we need also evidence for alternative causes on why the earth is warming or evidence that other mechanisms will overcome the forcing brought by human activities. Er, yes; that’s exactly why I want to know how we can falsify it. If you say “we need also evidence” to that effect, all I want is specifics: what evidence, precisely, will suffice? > [@](#): > > :sigh:, **you even quoted my cite on your post #152** > > Scrolling down you can see that the cite not only deals with the polls but with the positions of the most involved scientific organizations with the issue: > > 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.” Which says nothing about whether they say it’s a problem; only that it’s occurring, and what the primary driver is, and what the conclusions are based on, and so on – but nowhere says what it claims you said. A quote reflecting what you claimed simply doesn’t appear in that quote, or on the linked page in question. > [@](#): > > That has a link to the PDA with the already quoted conclusions from the organizations. Sure, if we click on a link to another page we can of course find all sorts of other statements: “projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects”, say, and “climate change will have broad impacts on society” – but, again, the claim you made seems to lack a quotable cite. Maybe if we click on a link to a link to a link to a link? ---
**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, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/165 "2011-08-28T06:50:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Sure, if we click on a link to another page we can of course find all sorts of other statements: “projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects”, say, and “climate change will have broad impacts on society” – but, again, the claim you made seems to lack a quotable cite. Maybe if we click on a link to a link to a link to a link? Nah, it was just only a test, I wanted to find evidence that in reality you do not check citations, and then you ignore them even if quoted, and you demonstrated that. Well done. Incidentally also that bit of: [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] Is ridiculous as you are only explaining why you do not want to deal with the predictions already made and fulfilled, it does not remove the fact that you are indeed actively ignoring that what the best science can offer is already here and it is telling us that we have to act. Scientists take into account the whole picture, under those conditions demanding that we should wait for proof until a future date to do something about the best data that we have already have after 60 years, is indeed an attempt to ignore what was demonstrated before. ---
**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, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/166 "2011-08-28T07:10:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nah, it was just only a test, I wanted to find evidence that in reality you do not check citations, and then you ignore them even if quoted, and you demonstrated that. Well done. No quote you’ve provided backs up your claim; you supplied a quote that didn’t get the job done, and then declared victory upon coming up empty. Well done. > [@](#): > > Is ridiculous as you are only explaining why you do not want to deal with the predictions already made and fulfilled, it does not remove the fact that you are indeed actively ignoring that what the best science can offer is already here and it is telling us that we have to act. I’m not ignoring predictions that have already been made and fulfilled; I’ve merely asked – and you’ve helpfully answered – questions about what predictions could yet falsify it. That’s how science works, guy: folks keep making falsifiable predictions, and either keep verifying that a claim holds true or revise that claim as contrary evidence appears. Some claims get disproven, but we never otherwise declare a given claim proven; we only ever keep testing. > [@](#): > > Scientists take into account the whole picture, under those conditions demanding that we should wait for proof until a future date to do something about the best data that we have already have after 60 years, is indeed an attempt to ignore what was demonstrated before. But I’m not saying we should wait for proof until a future date before doing something; I of course want to know what needs to happen in order to falsify the current claims, but that in no way means I advocate waiting before doing something. (Do you have a cite to me saying otherwise? I can’t help but figure you’ll link to a site that doesn’t actually contain a quote to that effect, and again miss the point to declare victory.) ---
**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, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/167 "2011-08-28T07:46:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No quote you’ve provided backs up your claim; you supplied a quote that didn’t get the job done, and then declared victory upon coming up empty. Well done. [Looks up at the quotes] Well I have to say that you are indeed complaining too much, the quotes are there already and now I pointed were they are, deal with them. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not ignoring predictions that have already been made and fulfilled; I’ve merely asked – and you’ve helpfully answered – questions about what predictions could yet falsify it. That’s how science works, guy: folks keep making falsifiable predictions, and either keep verifying that a claim holds true or revise that claim as contrary evidence appears. Some claims get disproven, but we never otherwise declare a given claim proven; we only ever keep testing. That is nice, can you deal with the quotes and the science? I may decide that gravity will not work in a few years and so I will continue testing and react accordingly to check if the change takes place, but it would be silly to ignore the past scientific results and think we are safe by ignoring the leaning boulder that is over our house. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But I’m not saying we should wait for proof until a future date before doing something; I of course want to know what needs to happen in order to falsify the current claims, but that in no way means I advocate waiting before doing something. (Do you have a cite to me saying otherwise? I can’t help but figure you’ll link to a site that doesn’t actually contain a quote to that effect, and again miss the point to declare victory.) [QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper] How do you plan to stop the warming? By having big government interfere with the free market? If so, that’s going to make 'em skeptical as the default. Shucks, imagine two impossible things: first, that I have access to a working time machine and so can now talk my skeptical younger self into getting right on this problem; and second, that I at present give a crap about global warming. How would the conversation go? [/QUOTE] So, it is impossible that at present you give a crap about global warming. Well, your first post in the thread did not have just what got us here now, it also had other howlers, like “We call it ‘climate change’ now.” that demonstrated how silly that post was but I wanted to be brief. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqMunulJU7w/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AHUBoAC1gOKAgwIABABGEQgXChyMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBxlJL73bJIrZYo1w4t0OgtByKKUw "Global Warming? or Climate Change?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w) As for me, I’m constantly learning about what the science says and others are learning, it is not a big problem that in reality you are absorbing climate denier points, what it counts is that others are checking the science. ---
**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, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/168 "2011-08-28T08:36:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Looks up at the quotes] Well I have to say that you are indeed complaining too much, the quotes are there already and now I pointed were they are, deal with them. The quote you “pointed were they are” says nothing about whether they think it’s a problem. It states that (a) climate change is occurring, and (b) greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver, and (c) contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science – but there’s no (d) to back up what you’d claimed. Deal with it. > [@](#): > > That is nice, can you deal with the quotes and the science? I may decide that gravity will not work in a few years and so I will continue testing and react accordingly to check if the change takes place, but it would be silly to ignore the past scientific results and think we are safe by ignoring the leaning boulder that is over our house. Indeed it would. I saw gravity work from '98 to '99, and kept watching it work in '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 and '10, which is a big part of why I’d never ignore a boulder over my house here in '11 – and if gravity keeps behaving the same way in '12 and '13 and '14 and so on, I’ll keep reacting accordingly. > [@](#): > > So, it is impossible that at present you give a crap about global warming. I at present don’t give a crap about global warming; I saw the globe cool down from '98 to '99, and kept watching it not warm up in '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 and '10, which is a big part of why I’d never ignore global cooling in '11 – and if the climate keeps changing the same way in '12 and '13 and '14 and so on, I’ll keep reacting accordingly. I _ **do,** _ however, give a crap about climate change – the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years – and I don’t advocate waiting, I think we should do something about that right now. Don’t confuse “global warming” with “climate change”; the only way I can even _ **imagine** _ giving a crap about global warming is by mistakenly equating it with climate change, such that cooling is evidence of warming; so long as that’s impossible, I remain unable to convince my younger self that global warming is on the way. ---
**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, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/169 "2011-08-28T09:08:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The quote you “pointed were they are” says nothing about whether they think it’s a problem. It states that (a) climate change is occurring, and (b) greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver, and (c) contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science – but there’s no (d) to back up what you’d claimed. Deal with it. That only works by ignoring that the organization’s positions are also what most scientists agree with. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Indeed it would. I saw gravity work from '98 to '99, and kept watching it work in '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 and '10, which is a big part of why I’d never ignore a boulder over my house here in '11 – and if gravity keeps behaving the same way in '12 and '13 and '14 and so on, I’ll keep reacting accordingly. I’m beginning to see a pattern, everything before '98 does not exist in your universe. Oh well, no danger to that you will convince the scientific world. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I at present don’t give a crap about global warming; I saw the globe cool down from '98 to '99, and kept watching it not warm up in '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 and '10, which is a big part of why I’d never ignore global cooling in '11 – and if the climate keeps changing the same way in '12 and '13 and '14 and so on, I’ll keep reacting accordingly. That is nice, as it was shown the experts still say that you and Bob Carter are just misrepresenting the data. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I _ **do,** _ however, give a crap about climate change – the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years – and I don’t advocate waiting, I think we should do something about that right now. Don’t confuse “global warming” with “climate change”; the only way I can even _ **imagine** _ giving a crap about global warming is by mistakenly equating it with climate change, such that cooling is evidence of warming; so long as that’s impossible, I remain unable to convince my younger self that global warming is on the way. That is nice, do you have a cite of a climate scientist doing that? BTW: “the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years” is yet another absorbed denialist point, what the science says to that: > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman. ---
**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, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/170 "2011-08-28T11:08:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That only works by ignoring that the organization’s positions are also what most scientists agree with. Do you even understand the point of a cite? Even assuming for the sake of argument that you’re right about something, you’d still be wrong to cite a link that doesn’t assert it. If you tell me dogs are mammals and cite a link to, say, information about when Casablanca was filmed – well, I’d simply and only point out that your link doesn’t actually say a thing about what you claim it does. This is, of course, also what I’d do if you were insisting that dogs _ **weren’t** _ mammals, which is why the whole point is to evaluate whether your cite says what you claim it does, regardless. Your cite – doesn’t. The words you’ve quoted from that cite – don’t. > [@](#): > > I’m beginning to see a pattern, everything before '98 does not exist in your universe. Oh well, no danger to that you will convince the scientific world. Well, not yet, no. I know how many years you need; how many will the scientific world need? > [@](#): > > That is nice, as it was shown the experts still say that you and Bob Carter are just misrepresenting the data. Let me see if I understand you correctly; I’ll write out what I think the experts would say about the data, and you correct me if I get it wrong? “So, did it get warmer or cooler from '98 to '99?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '00?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '01?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '02?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '03?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '04?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '05?” “Warmer.” “Really?” “No, not really.” “From '98 to '06?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '07?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '08?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '09?” “Cooler.” “From '98 to '10?” “Warmer.” “Really?” “No, not really.” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I do, however, give a crap about climate change – the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years – and I don’t advocate waiting, I think we should do something about that right now. Don’t confuse “global warming” with “climate change”; the only way I can even imagine giving a crap about global warming is by mistakenly equating it with climate change, such that cooling is evidence of warming; so long as that’s impossible, I remain unable to convince my younger self that global warming is on the way. > > That is nice, do you have a cite of a climate scientist doing that? Doing what? Giving a crap about climate change? Doing something about it right now? Refusing to equate global warming and climate change? What? > [@](#): > > BTW: > > “the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years” is yet another absorbed denialist point, what the science says to that: > > [What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm) > > > [@](#): > > > > What the science says… > > > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. I’m, uh, not denying that. I don’t think I’m making the point you’re anticipating and reacting to, here. > [@](#): > > “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman. And, of course, it goes around and around; I think you’re fooling yourself, which is precisely why I asked what you believe could falsify your claims. So long as you limit yourself to saying _X and Y and Z isn’t yet good enough evidence against it…_ without going on to add _…but A or B or C would be good enough_, you can go on fooling yourself indefinitely. And that’s why I likewise want to know what evidence would be enough to get the _ **scientists** _ to admit they were wrong; so long as they limit themselves to saying they made correct predictions in the past and don’t yet have a reason to reconsider, they can likewise go on fooling themselves indefinitely – unless they spell out exactly what could hypothetically falsify their claims even now. So, again: I know your chosen falsification criterion. What’s theirs? ---
**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, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/171 "2011-08-28T15:26:32Z")
Meh, just asking questions and hoping that nonsense makes sense to others uh? When active conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore reports that there is a problem and we should curb CO2 emissions, an affirmation that scientists do not also see a problem is the one that needs a cite. And you continue to ask questions to avoid dealing with the video on how Bob Carter misrepresented the data to continue to claim it is cooling after 1998. > **[What has global warming done since 1998?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm)** > > \The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due... Then “just asking questions” so as to not deal with the request that scientists are calling it now climate change, your sorry point on that first post of yours is based on denialist propaganda. > **[Global warming vs climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)** > > \There have long been claims that some unspecificed > [@](#): > > \*The skeptic argument… > > They changed the name from global warming to climate change\* > > What the science says… > > There have long been claims that some unspecified “they” has “changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’”. In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming ‘skeptic’. Finally you claim that you are not denying that humans are responsible, and yet, you are only avoid looking at solutions, continue to defend even already dropped denialist points and just asking questions. I clearly can not worry that you will make any changes to the point of view of the experts on this issue so, as usual these replies are for all others so they can check the science and not worry about endless questions of already debunked points. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/172 "2011-08-28T18:42:28Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > The Volt is a real car and people are buying it So was the Edsel, and no, people are not buying it. It’s a financial failure and it’s a Co2 failure because nobody is buying it. You really don’t get it. You keep demanding that something be done and ignore that it’s already being done and that we’re on track technologically to make large scale changes. My argument has always been one of logistics and fiscal responsibility. It makes more sense to spend money researching a technology than to front it’s use when it’s not financially viable. We should spend the money on solar cell development and not on the solar cells themselves. We will get the batteries needed for cars like the Volt not because of a need by those cars but because there is a universal push for cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter batteries. There are too many products on the market now that would benefit from such batteries. The tax money spent on the Volt would be better invested in battery research and not wasted on product design by a private concern. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/173 "2011-08-28T18:51:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, just asking questions and hoping that nonsense makes sense to others uh? I doubt it’s nonsense, though from the way you seem to be ducking the question it’s possible you’re genuinely misunderstanding it. So I’ll restate it: what needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming? A year of cooling won’t do it; we know that. We know your stated criterion; what’s theirs? > [@](#): > > When active conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore reports that there is a problem and we should curb CO2 emissions, an affirmation that scientists do not also see a problem is the one that needs a cite. The question isn’t whether some other affirmation needs a cite; it’s whether the affirmation you claimed was backed up by a particular cite was in fact backed up by the cite in question. Is that also so hard to understand as to approach nonsense, from your viewpoint? I’ll rephrase it: you cited X to establish Y; X said nothing about Y; regardless of Z – or A or B or C, or anything else – you got it wrong on X and Y. > [@](#): > > And you continue to ask questions to avoid dealing with the video on how Bob Carter misrepresented the data to continue to claim it is cooling after 1998. That’s the whole reason I keep asking: _what needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming?_ I’m letting you call any shot you want; you can peg it to temperatures taken anywhere you like, over any span of time you name, when specifying what hypothetical evidence could make scientists realize no warming has taken place. I’m not making a claim; I’m requesting one. I’m not ruling out any data; I’m telling you to mention whatever data scientists think is key. > [@](#): > > Then “just asking questions” so as to not deal with the request that scientists are calling it now climate change, your sorry point on that first post of yours is based on denialist propaganda. Pardon? _ **I’m** _ a guy who calls it climate change, and scientists also call it climate change. Which part of that is unclear to you? Which part of that is denialist propaganda? > [@](#): > > Finally you claim that you are not denying that humans are responsible, and yet, you are only avoid looking at solutions, continue to defend even already dropped denialist points and just asking questions. Well, you’re partially correct; I don’t deny that humans are responsible for climate change. I am, though, interested in solutions. As for the “denialist” points and the “just asking questions”, it’s simply that I want to hear what hypothetical evidence would be enough to falsify current predictions – adding as always that I know the cool-down after '98 as reported by the UN’s WMO isn’t yet enough to do it, and going on to ask: _what would be?_ Every winter, I turn on the television and watch the proverbial man in the street (a) complain about how cold it is, and (b) make a snide comment about the falsehood of global warming. Every time, I see an expert patiently explain that one cold winter doesn’t disprove it, because short-term weather is quite different from long-term climate. And every time, I wait to see if the expert will go on to see what _ **would** _ disprove it; every time, they don’t. So year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year the experts keep chuckling and telling the general public that one year of cooling won’t do it – and then keep stopping short instead of finishing the sentence to spell out what _ **would** _ do it – and then marvel at how the general public keeps reaching its own strange conclusions about what would do it. They’re not selling their idea because they’re not even _ **mentioning** _ it. They’re as coy on the news as you are in this thread: they merely say folks are wrong without adding what it takes to be right, and keep failing to change the point of view of folks who keep noting the lack of warming year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year and keep getting called “incorrect” without ever hearing what “correct” would be. You think that’s a winning strategy? Your side is welcome to it. > [@](#): > > I clearly can not worry that you will make any changes to the point of view of the experts on this issue so, as usual these replies are for all others so they can check the science and not worry about endless questions of already debunked points. You say I won’t make any changes to the point of view of the experts – but I don’t _ **want** _ to change their point of view; I’d be delighted to hear 'em predict warming, it’s merely that I want to hear it accompanied by a disclaimer spelling out the hypothetical evidence that would falsify their current predictions. That’s me requesting a point, not me asserting one; if you’d like to _ **make** _ said point by supplying that hypothetical evidence, we can then debunk or accept it – but that hasn’t happened yet. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/174 "2011-08-28T19:17:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Pardon? _ **I’m** _ a guy who calls it climate change, and scientists also call it climate change. Which part of that is unclear to you? Which part of that is denialist propaganda? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > “We call it ‘climate change’ now.” > " No scientist says that, only “skeptics” or people that in reality consult denialist sites and then attempt to claim that they are not following them. I think some doper before pointed out that when a wall of text is needed to explain a point then the point is usually a silly one or has no support. We already established that you will ignore the past predictions and research that has convinced even skeptical scientists to drop see this point of attempting to falsify a cherry pick a date that has been selected to confuse people before and at the same time you continue to ignore the evidence already cited that it is warming, not cooling, as the CRU NASA and others keep telling Carter that it is wrong to say that there is cooling in recent years. What it is clear is that the '98 year point has been dropped and most skeptics now concentrate on the sensibility issue, as Pat Michaels once again said, it is still warming and humans are responsible, but by how much? Pat Michaels made the same point again that it is warming, but nowadays skeptics do concentrate on the levels the human CO2 emissions are affecting the current warming. Pat Michaels then avoids the '98 nonsense and looks at the science, but as one of the latest hearings showed, most scientists are not respecting him as even on his later points (that human influence is minimal) he is misinterpreting the data or missing important facts. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/-a4R1bKGsN8/hqdefault.jpg "Climate Scientist Beat Down!!") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a4R1bKGsN8) ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/175 "2011-08-28T20:02:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No scientist says that, only “skeptics” or people that in reality consult denialist sites and then attempt to claim that they are not following them. If you seriously think denialist types have a monopoly on referring to “climate change”, then you’ve got bigger problems than failing to read your own cites. > [@](#): > > I think some doper before pointed out that when a wall of text is needed to explain a point then the point is usually a silly one or has no support. ::shrugs:: I’ll gladly make it concise; I’ll make each point one sentence, if that helps you. 1. What needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming? > [@](#): > > We already established that you will ignore the past predictions and research that has convinced even skeptical scientists to drop see this point of attempting to falsify a cherry pick a date that has been selected to confuse people before and at the same time you continue to ignore the evidence already cited that it is warming, not cooling, as the CRU NASA and others keep telling Carter that it is wrong to say that there is cooling in recent years. Two sentences for two points: 1. The UN apparently disagrees about warming since '98, as per their 2011 press release about global average temperature. 2. I’m not ignoring past predictions when asking a separate question about what can falsify current predictions. > [@](#): > > What it is clear is that the '98 year point has been dropped and most skeptics now concentrate on the sensibility issue, as Pat Michaels once again said, it is still warming and humans are responsible, but by how much? 1. Again – as per point #1 – I’m merely asking how much _ **would** _ be enough, not saying the '98 starting point _ **is** _ enough. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/176 "2011-08-28T22:16:18Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If you seriously think denialist types have a monopoly on referring to “climate change”, then you’ve got bigger problems than failing to read your own cites. Remember that that came from your first post here, you did refer to “now we call it climate change”. It demonstrated gross ignorance from the get go. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > ::shrugs:: I’ll gladly make it concise; I’ll make each point one sentence, if that helps you. > > 1. What needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming? Explained many times, you do not like the answers because in reality it is very unlikely that you will be correct. You are wrong from the get go, the el nino year of 1998 is recognized as an outlier when the warming caused by humans is what is taking place. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Two sentences for two points: > > 1. The UN apparently disagrees about warming since '98, as per their 2011 press release about global average temperature. > 2. I’m not ignoring past predictions when asking a separate question about what can falsify current predictions. You are moving the goalposts, and using an outlier goal post for that. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 1. Again – as per point #1 – I’m merely asking how much _ **would** _ be enough, not saying the '98 starting point _ **is** _ enough. Again, you are wrong from the get go, your basic “just asking question” is useless when the basis for it is flawed. And anyone can see you ignored the pasting Pat Michaels got in the hearings, in any case, that was to show all that even there Pat continues to acknowledges the basic fact that it is warming and humans are the cause of the recent warming. ---
**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 29, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/177 "2011-08-29T00:31:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Remember that that came from your first post here, you did refer to “now we call it climate change”. It demonstrated gross ignorance from the get go. We _ **do** _ call it climate change! What the heck do you think the letters in IPCC stand for? What point are you even trying to make? > [@](#): > > Explained many times, you do not like the answers because in reality it is very unlikely that you will be correct. It hasn’t been explained many times; you’ve mentioned _ **your** _ falsification criterion of choice, only to (a) backwalk it in this thread as a mere “humor him” bet, and to (b) emphasize that it’s not the falsification criterion that would satisfy actual scientists. > [@](#): > > You are wrong from the get go, the el nino year of 1998 is recognized as an outlier when the warming caused by humans is what is taking place. I can’t make this clearer: I’m _ **not** _ – that’s N-O-T – claiming that what’s happened since '98 is enough to serve as a falsification criterion for scientists. I’m asking what _ **would** _ be enough to serve as falsification criterion for scientists. And that’s, like, the exact _ **opposite** _ of what you’re making my position out to be; you read my posts as poorly as you read your linked cites. > [@](#): > > You are moving the goalposts, and using an outlier goal post for that. In that “moving the goalposts” means sticking, by default, to the _ **same** _ goalpost until and unless you supply me with a different one? > [@](#): > > Again, you are wrong from the get go, your basic “just asking question” is useless when the basis for it is flawed. But there is no basis, flawed or otherwise; I’m simply asking what the falsification criterion would be, which is a question mercifully free of content or context. (If it helps, drop your bizarre preconceptions about me and simply deal with it as a question from someone who states no other basis?) And note, too, that it’s pretty much the opposite of useless; it’s what science _ **is,** _ such that _ **every** _ brisk quip from your side about how _“what we’ve observed so far is insufficient to count aganst our predictions…”_ should be followed up by an equally brisk _“…but the following would suffice.”_ > [@](#): > > And anyone can see you ignored the pasting Pat Michaels got in the hearings, in any case, that was to show all that even there Pat continues to acknowledges the basic fact that it is warming and humans are the cause of the recent warming. Again, I’m asking what would be good enough, and you keep replying with a mere “not that” – with, here, a side of “it’s very unlikely”. Given your outlandish reluctance to answer that straightforward question, you might as well be a denier trying to make the AGW crowd look bad; for one reason or another you act like you lack the confidence to crisply put the falsification cards on the table. (That said, though: have I ever cited Pat Michaels as a source?) ---
**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 29, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/178 "2011-08-29T01:07:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. THAT’S your answer? The title sounds “Foxish”? I gather that reading and understanding arguments and poiting out mistakes is not your way of making science. Good to know. > [@](#): > > 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. Caution is your point? Isn’t that my point too? “Look, interesting results in the lab, let’s see if they apply in the real world”, however they seem to have big implications. > [@](#): > > 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: > > If it is not loony, then it is a lying place as noticed already by Smith. Yeah, it’s not like a poster I know that get all his quotes from the same webpage. You did see that it was an '08 cite, didn’t you? They were pre-empting the study saying it wouldn’t produce the results it finally produced. There own admission was that if the results were like the actual ones were, then they themselves (and AGWers) would be wrong in the whole carbon teh sux0r stuff. They said it. Any SPECIFIC instances of lying (i.e. saying somethig one know to be wrong as it if were true)? OR, as usual, does lying means disagreeing with you? > [@](#): > > That is an opinion, nothing to do with the science. Can I quote you on that? I mean, saying that opinions have nothing to do with science is, to say the least, supremely disingenous. > [@](#): > > 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. Heeeey, another “I-don’t-like-the-title-so-it’s-wrong” opinion. I’ll bet 1000 dollars that if the title had been “Deniers’ dam breaks” somehow you wouldn’t find it so objectionable. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, that’s his point. That politics are intefering with science. Isn’t that, in general a valid point? Isn’t, in fact, made by guys like you when it fits your desires? Again with your “opinions-are-not-valid” stuff, even when the point is not about the scientific validity of the test (where opinions without facts would be less valuable) but the public action of humans and their motivation (where pure, cold science is less helpful). > [@](#): > > 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. …and you know that cosmic rays are not important because of which real-life, on-the-field experiment? I seem to have missed it. Or is it you opinion? ---
**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 29, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/179 "2011-08-29T01:40:05Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > We _ **do** _ call it climate change! What the heck do you think the letters in IPCC stand for? What point are you even trying to make? That is my line, do not play like if you do not get it. Using “we call it climate change now” is boilerplate from denialists, the fact that you \*\*did \*\*use it betrayed where you are coming from. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It hasn’t been explained many times; you’ve mentioned _ **your** _ falsification criterion of choice, only to (a) backwalk it in this thread as a mere “humor him” bet, and to (b) emphasize that it’s not the falsification criterion that would satisfy actual scientists. It has satisfied virtually all scientists and experts, you do not like that tough. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I can’t make this clearer: I’m _ **not** _ – that’s N-O-T – claiming that what’s happened since '98 is enough to serve as a falsification criterion for scientists. I’m asking what _ **would** _ be enough to serve as falsification criterion for scientists. And that’s, like, the exact _ **opposite** _ of what you’re making my position out to be; you read my posts as poorly as you read your linked cites. It can not be much clearer, your point is really silly and incapable of changing minds. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > In that “moving the goalposts” means sticking, by default, to the _ **same** _ goalpost until and unless you supply me with a different one? **You need to take the big picture into account** , otherwise you are indeed just playing, and uselessly too. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But there is no basis, flawed or otherwise; I’m simply asking what the falsification criterion would be, which is a question mercifully free of content or context. (If it helps, drop your bizarre preconceptions about me and simply deal with it as a question from someone who states no other basis?) And note, too, that it’s pretty much the opposite of useless; it’s what science _ **is,** _ such that _ **every** _ brisk quip from your side about how _“what we’ve observed so far is insufficient to count aganst our predictions…”_ should be followed up by an equally brisk _“…but the following would suffice.”_ You still insist, with no support from any organization like CRU and NASA that it is cooling, your point fails from there. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Again, I’m asking what would be good enough, and you keep replying with a mere “not that” – with, here, a side of “it’s very unlikely”. Given your outlandish reluctance to answer that straightforward question, you might as well be a denier trying to make the AGW crowd look bad; for one reason or another you act like you lack the confidence to crisply put the falsification cards on the table. (That said, though: have I ever cited Pat Michaels as a source?) Now the reality is that \*\*this \*\*is plain evidence that you are the one giving skeptics a bad name, the reason why Pat Michaels was mentioned is to make the point that the very few experts that are involved with the pertinent research and still remain skeptics of AGW (or being just lukewarm to it) have dropped this “it hasn’t wormed up since 1998” or other recent dates canard and moved on to better points based on real data. You already tripped mentioning denialists points several times already and with no thought on why you got them or why you thought it was ok to use it on your first post. But more importantly: you continue to ignore what the few skeptical scientists that the Heartland Institute or serious conservative think thanks do say: “Drop this point, you will kill us if you use it”. I told you before that you are headed into nowhere-land territory is that continues to be your position, it is a very peculiar and useless one to have. > **[The Monckton Files: Solar Variation](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/the-monckton-files-solar-variation/)** > > I have examined a single paragraph in Lord Monckton’s recent testimony to a committee of the U.S. Congress, in which Monckton cited some statistics about natural variations in incoming solar … (Monkton makes the same basic point here in 2010 that there is cooling by declaring there has been cooling on the last 8 years on) > [@](#): > > So I guess one could say that we’ve generally been warming since 1695 (or thereabouts,) but if there have been multi-decade cooling trends since then, it makes absolutely no sense to contrast “eight full years” of cooling with a 300+ year warming trend. In fact, even over the past 30 years, during which climate scientists agree there has been a pretty consistent warming trend, there have been other 8-year periods of cooling. > > Figure 2 shows a graph of the slope of the global average temperature (from NASA’s GISTEMP and the UK’s HadCRUT3 data sets) over 8-year periods starting with the year plotted. That is, the point plotted above the year 2002 is the slope over the 8-year period 2002-2009, and so on. > > All the points that lie below zero on the y-axis represent 8-year periods in which there was an overall cooling trend. Note that several points (not just the last couple) have negative slopes, and each of those represents an 8-year period during which there was net global cooling, even though most of the time the overall trend from 1979-2009 was warming. > [@](#): > > You should notice a couple things about the graph in Figure 3. First, given all the known climate drivers (the pink band), the IPCC climate models do a decent job of mimicking the temperature evolution over the 20th century. But they don’t do such a good job over the last half of the 20th century when you don’t include human causes (the blue band). Second, the blue and pink bands stop overlapping one another after about 1975, so the predictions for all natural vs. natural + human causes have really diverged by then. I think it’s fair to say, therefore, that the climate scientists who put this graph in the IPCC report would have no problem attributing climate change before about 1950-1975 mainly to natural factors like variations in TSI. > > **So really, Monckton’s point is worthless unless he can show that the IPCC climate models can’t adequately reproduce the global temperature evolution over the past 300 years. Since he didn’t show that, I can only assume that Lord Monckton was playing to the large segment of the public that erroneously believes the IPCC says humans are the ONLY thing driving climate change.** ---
**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 29, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/180 "2011-08-29T02:10:15Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > THAT’S your answer? The title sounds “Foxish”? > I gather that reading and understanding arguments and poiting out mistakes is not your way of making science. > Good to know. Nope, I did read it, it is just an opinion piece, useless. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Caution is your point? Isn’t that my point too? “Look, interesting results in the lab, let’s see if they apply in the real world”, however they seem to have big implications. Not as the scientists that did the experiment reported and other researchers mentioned. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yeah, it’s not like a poster I know that get all his quotes from the same webpage. > You did see that it was an '08 cite, didn’t you? Yes I did notice that, I was going to say that showed that you are even more clueless than I assumed but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > They were pre-empting the study saying it wouldn’t produce the results it finally produced. There own admission was that if the results were like the actual ones were, then they themselves (and AGWers) would be wrong in the whole carbon teh sux0r stuff. > They said it. That is not what they said, Terry was referring to the whole of Svensmark’s work, it has been cut to pieces already and the experiment did not deal with the upper atmosphere clouds, as noticed before and after the experiment the effect at best is very small, hardly the forcing needed to turn off the one brought by CO2. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Any SPECIFIC instances of lying (i.e. saying somethig one know to be wrong as it if were true)? OR, as usual, does lying means disagreeing with you? To begin with, any cite that does not report the reality of the levels the cosmic rays are affecting the current warming is lying by omission. "It was baseless to even say “significant” on the title. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Can I quote you on that? I mean, saying that opinions have nothing to do with science is, to say the least, supremely disingenous. Nope, you have demonstrated so far that you only guessed those cites were excellent when it was just a binge. 🙂 You are trying, unsuccessfully to make them sound helpful to your position after the fact. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Heeeey, another “I-don’t-like-the-title-so-it’s-wrong” opinion. I’ll bet 1000 dollars that if the title had been “Deniers’ dam breaks” somehow you wouldn’t find it so objectionable. Nope, the main reason why a google vomit or a binge of citations is a dishonest debating tactic is that the one making it does not have to explain why the cites are relevant, you are making others do your homework, you needed to point at the quote that you think it makes it important and then one can make a proper rebuttal, as it is, the reason why I do think it is safe to ignore him is that the scientists are saying that it is not really an important factor and he is not a scientist. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Well, that’s his point. That politics are intefering with science. Isn’t that, in general a valid point? Isn’t, in fact, made by guys like you when it fits your desires? > Again with your “opinions-are-not-valid” stuff, even when the point is not about the scientific validity of the test (where opinions without facts would be less valuable) but the public action of humans and their motivation (where pure, cold science is less helpful). The overwhelming evidence is that politicians of the right have done this, most of the cites you have here come from right wing publications. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > …and you know that cosmic rays are not important because of which real-life, on-the-field experiment? I seem to have missed it. > Or is it you opinion? Read the BBC article again, the scientists do refer to the research that showed that, once again, depending on a \*\*binge \*\*is not a good idea. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=10)