I Am Woman Hear Me Roar; Michael Mann’s Bullying Backfires

whoopassIf you haven’t seen it yet, Dr. Judith Curry gives one of the greatest climate bully beatdowns in world history. Serial Climate Bully Michael “I Bully Women” Mann’s effort to bully Dr. Judith Curry backfired worse than Scott Farcus’ effort to bully Raphie. Here is a link to the actual video where Dr. Judith Curry humiliates Michael “The Short Bald Inquisitioner” Mann. Show the above video to your daughters, it teaches them what a real feminist is. Dr. Curry earns respect not by playing the victim, but through her actions. People respect her not for her gender, but because of her character. This is an actual screenshot of Michael “Homer” Mann’s facial expression.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Dr. Judith is the epitome of a strong woman, Michael Mann is the epitome of a weak man. Michael Mann isn’t weak because he got beat by a girl, he is weak because of his character. Mothers should tell their daughters to grow up to be like Dr. Judith Curry, no father would ever tell their son to be the next Michael Mann.

743647dc8a9cebf6c38ca2f1bfe105a3

Coral Reef Sophistry

Almost everytime I look into an alarmist’s claim, there is an easy to identify natural cause of the observation.

The arctic sea ice is greatly impacted by the wind direction, storms and warm water entering the arctic. None of which are due to CO2.

Polar bears are doing just great, so there is no issue there.

The Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.

The global temperatures are relatively stable if the urban heat island effect and temperature station location are controlled for. This is supported by “unadjusted” long term thermometer records.

Frying an egg on a sidewalk

Declining bee population

Water vapor causes lower tropospheric temperatures, not CO2.

Now we have an explanation for Great Barrier Reef bleaching. El Ninos and El Ninas alter the sea level of the reefs, and the lower the sea level exposing the coral. Coral is shallow water tend to bleach. Not due to CO2, but due to exposure. Put almost anything out in direct sunlight and it will turn white. No CO2 needed.F5QDF9YGRTHTE6E.RECT2100.jpg

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

As a follow up to Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print, we have Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism. A collection of shameless displays of true, unhinged, unashamed fascism. Watch as the true nature of these fascists is exposed. Fascist and proud!!! Let the book burnings begin!!!

climate-book-burners Intolerant Democrats Ask Teachers To Destroy Books Written By ‘Climate Deniers.’

Capture17.PNG

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

Capture20.PNG

Bill Nye Deemed “Too White”, “Too Male” To Lead Lefty Science March

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

After Years of Threats, Prominent Climate Alarmists Still Seek to Jail Climate ‘Deniers’

Screenshot-2017-03-17-at-07.58.29

Not Funny: Monty Python’s Eric Idle: Climate skeptics should be put on trial for ‘crimes against humanity’

Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to ‘Punish Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’

160404_AG_RK-1250x650.png

16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

Stemming population growth is a cheap way to limit climate change.

Professor Wants to Use RICO to Punish “Climate Change Deniers”

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Climate Scientist Beat Down!!

And the list could go on and on and on and on.

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

8a937b7c2319be52c09a40bf74d6c400

Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effect and solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.

Point 2) Climate “science” is extremely hostile towards anyone that is critical, and the hostility is well documented. This hostility is so endemic to the climate alarmists that they verbally smear opponents during congressional testimony, and put their smears in writing.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Capture17

Point #3) Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade. Real science uses terms like “scientific method,” “rejecting the Null at a 95% confidence level,” “R-Squared of 0.80,” “experimentation,” “conclusion” and back everything with numbers. Climate science uses terms like “computer model/simulation,” “consensus,” “scientific organizations agree,” and “peer review.” Climate “science” is run more like a popularity contest than a real science.

Point #4) Climate “science” makes grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence. The endless “tipping points” that have come and gone, as well as the “100% of warming is due to man” claim, are evidence of this. The most damning evidence however at the IPCC computer models. The computer models quantified the grandiose expectations, and they all failed.Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

Point #5 Cherry picks only favorable evidence, and relies on testimonials and or weak evidence. Ironically, the best examples of this are also the best-known arguments the climate alarmists make. The N Pole is losing ice, but it is largely due to natural forces. The S Pole, that isn’t impacted by these natural forces is actually gaining ice. The other example is the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier that is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.

Point #6) Uses flawed methods that are not repeatable. The “Hockey-Stick” is the greatest example of this. This critical piece of “evidence” used to support the AGW theory used manufactured, researcher specific statistical techniques like “Mike’s Nature Trick to …Hide the Decline.”  The NOAA/NASA/GISS temperature reconstructions are also not reproducible, and are dependent upon “adjustments” to manufacture warming.

Point #7) Lone Mavericks working in isolation. The field of climate science is defined not by a lone Maverick working in isolation, but by a cabal of activists colluding for a common cause. The Climategate emails expose a well-established conspiracy between NASA/NOAA/GISS Penn State University/Michael Mann, and the “peer review” journals.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Point #8) Uses inconsistent and invalid logic. Once again, the poster child of climate change, the polar ice caps are a great example. If losing ice in the N Pole is evidence of warming, the increase in ice at the S Pole must be evidence of cooling, but you never hear a climate alarmist make that case. Additionally, the models, data “adjustments,” and AGW theory all define a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. The relationship is logarithmic, not linear. Lastly, daytime record high temperatures and warming oceans aren’t evidence of CO2 driven warming, they are evidence of an increase in incoming radiation, not trapping outgoing radiation.

Point #9) Dogmatic and Unyielding. The recent House Hearings of Climate Change gave a graphic example of this characteristic of pseudo-science. Michael Mann even attacked a Woman, Dr. Judith Curry, an action I’m sure he deeply regrets. Don’t expect NOW to come running to Dr. Curry’s defense, however, she is on the wrong side of this political argument.

Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, called his hockey stick an iconic result, and was caught in two new lies: he denied his affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute and he denied calling Dr. Curry a “denier.” When shown a transcript in which he called her that name in the same session, he went into a diatribe about the supposed difference between “climate change denier” and “climate science denier.” It appeared to me that questions the Democrats on the Committee asked Mann and the answers he gave had been scripted.

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

aaaaaaa

Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One

quote-there-are-no-morals-in-politics-there-is-only-expedience-a-scoundrel-may-be-of-use-to-us-just-vladimir-lenin-110531Real climate scientists have been arguing against the climate alarmists for years, and they have done a great and helpful job. With basically zero resources, they have been able to at least fight the extremely well-funded climate alarmists to a stand still. With the recent election of President Trump, the balance has definitely tilted towards the climate realists. Unfortunately, that is only a temporary victory, and sooner or later, another president favorable to the alarmist’s position will get elected, and the cycle will start all over again.

To truly defeat the climate alarmists, and to send the climate change/global warming hysteria to the history books to join “The Coming Ice Age,” real climate scientists and climate realists must fight a two-front battle, and broaden their approach. The unfortunate reality is that climate change/global warming has, and never will be a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Real science simply isn’t involved. The minimum of any real science is the ability to model/define what is being observed. The climate models themselves reject the hypothesis of man-made climate change, and that is all the climate alarmists really have to go by. There are no experiments to support their claims, only sophistry.

To make my case, one only needs to read the reviews of the recent House Hearings on Climate Change. This quote is from an article titled:  A newcomer’s first opinion of Michael Mann in the context of science discourse.

I listened to the entire hearing yesterday, and while I don’t have any individual experience with any of the people on the panel, I can now understand why Dr. Mann is not liked, and globally not liked at that. For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject…He seemed to have no problem veering off into innuendo and personal attacks and weaved them into the threads of his testimony. And of course there was the preening megalomania of him reciting his CV … I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style. And then going off on Pielke and Curry repeatedly, right out in the open in one of the halls of Congress, while still portraying himself as the victim.

b6c6b01cf5d222b2616df5d59106f0b9Michael Mann’s behavior is the antithesis of a real scientist, but he doesn’t care, his objectives are political, not scientific. That is what the other real scientists don’t seem to understand. They aren’t debating in front of a professional science organization, seeking to reach the truth, they are testifying before congress. While Michael Mann is testifying to gain sound bits and greater funding, the real scientists are there trying to convince a divided congress that 50% of them are wrong. That is an insurmountable task. 50% of congress gets elected by constituents that expect them not to look behind the curtain and expose the fraud. Michael Mann’s objective is simply to throw red meat to his constituency. This part of the above quote is worth highlighting for emphasis.

I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style.

Michael Mann has a focus group tested presentation that is so well known that I could recite it in my sleep. It is pure nonsense, but he knows that all his supporters have bought into it, and that is what they expect. Those recited comments mean votes for the people that vote for climate change legislation. Facts and science have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The problem conservatives have arguing this issue is that we are conservatives. We look at the facts. We look for the truth. When the NYT or ex-President Obama makes a series to erroneous statements, we respond with rebuttals. The NYT and ex-President Obama reaches millions with their nonsense, conservatives reach very few with their rebuttals. Liberals are propagandists, conservatives are seeking the truth. Conservatives are only winning this battle because 50% of America leans right and their views are influenced by politics, not science.

a0a55a6d380a1c59ba7ab5ff45490c43From another article about the House Hearing on Climate Change, this was written.

Democratic members of the Committee did everything they could to remain alarmist and keep the Republicans confused.

Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, … It appeared to me that questions the Democrats on the Committee asked Mann and the answers he gave had been scripted.

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human-caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

The last statement is true, unfortunately. He also mentioned recent example of silencing of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. by the Center for American Progress and Tom Steyer as another victory for his “climate science.”

Without acting even half as forceful as Mann had, the other three witnesses firmly rejected alarmist conclusions and revealed the subversion of the scientific method in the climate debate. Democrats easily extracted from Dr. Curry an admission that they deal with an extremely complex problem, and from Dr. Pielke Jr. that there are fundamental risks. If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

The last line is worth highlighting and is especially important because it is being written by a skeptic.

If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

6a6krzctxfsv-6g78foiflpmcczp8ahlzog_up41bfcThe climate alarmists are fighting a political fight, the real scientists are debating a scientific issue. The real scientists brought a pencil and ruler to a political gun fight. They simply didn’t have the correct armor for the battle. Dr. Ball seems to share my opinion.

Mann took it very seriously, was well prepared and exploited it for every political opportunity – he dominated the entire proceedings. He had the advantage of not caring or having to care about the truth. His performance was designed for most of the public who have no idea about what is true. He knows this works because that assumption has driven the juggernaut from the start.

Mann also understood the political and manipulative nature of Congressional hearings. They are charades supposedly seeking the truth, but are really designed to make the politicians look good.

In no way do I want any of my comments to be construed as being negative or critical of the good work done by Dr. Curry, Spencer and/or Pielke Jr.. Their work is critical, and as mentioned above, with very limited resources they have at least fought this battle to a stand- still. The purpose of this article is to survey the landscape, identify and define the enemy, recon and detail the battlefield, identify strengths and weaknesses, and construct a two-front battle plan what will lead to victory. A battle plan to win on both the science and political front. This is the first of a series to develop a political battle plan to assist those testifying before congress and the public.

Because this isn’t a real scientific debate, the old rules don’t apply. The scientific method doesn’t apply. Getting to the “truth” isn’t the goal of this “scientific” debate, getting income redistributed to your cause is the goal. The “truth” has absolutely nothing to do with it. The real climate battle isn’t being fought in our labs, free universities, debate/science clubs/organizations, the real battle is being fought in congress, elections and the courts

joseph-stalin-quotes14

The Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life

gandhi-first-they-ignore-you

Please Help Fight Against Censorship. I’ve been informed that this site has been banned on Facebook as being “Abusive.” If anything, I’ve been trying to bring awareness to the “abuse” perpetrated by the “Climate Bullies.” Please post these articles on as many sights as you can, and most importantly, forward them on to President Trump.  Help end the reign of the Climate Bullies.

Capture17

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt caused a carbon kerfuffle today.

In an interview on CNBC this morning, Pruitt raised doubts over whether or not carbon dioxide is the main driver behind climate change. Asked if CO2 is the “primary control knob for climate,” Pruitt said he wouldn’t agree with that assessment.

Let’s take the Alarmists at their word, and assume that CO2 is the “primary control knob of the climate,” and absolutely absurd claim for a molecule that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and whose absorption of IR decays logarithmically.  Let’s also assume that the “Science” magazines that make those claims require the application of the scientific method and reproducibility for publication, something they do not. Just what “Costs” have been inflicted on the earth?

#1: The number of Southern Hemisphere Hurricanes has fallen to the lowest level on record.

Screenshot-2017-04-03-15.32.29.png

#2: There has been a tremendous “Greening” of the Northern Hemisphere.

greening

#3) Crop yields and food production are reaching record levels.

indicator3_2012_CornWheatRice

#4) Life expectancy has DOUBLED.

ourworldindata_life-expectancy-by-world-region-since-1770-1

#5) Standards of living have greatly increased.

World-Poverty-Since-1820

What is the cost of higher CO2? An immeasurable “increase” in the “unadjusted” thermometer temperature record. If CO2 is such a powerful “control knob” for the climate, one would think they would be able to demonstrate it in a laboratory experiment. They can’t. Nor can they even write computer models to demonstrate their theory. In reality, all the climate “alarmists” have is political rhetoric, and the ability to censor those who disagree.

The Days of “Trust Me” Science Are Over

Wizard

Last week was a complete disaster for the climate alarmists, and recent events only promise that things are going to get much worse. Toto finally peaked behind the curtain. On Wednesday the House passed a bill that would require the EPA to release its data to the public.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said “the days of ‘trust me’ science are over,” adding that the House bill would restore confidence in the EPA’s decision-making process.

Personally, I was shocked that that wasn’t already a requirement. Just what is the purpose of a taxpayer funded agency designed to serve the public’s interest keeping its data and methods secret? Worse yet, this secret data must have been used to influence the Supreme Court’s recent costly decision to label CO2 a pollutant. Stalin would have been very proud of this system, but it has no place in an open and free Democracy. Not surprising however 198 Representatives voted against it, and I bet you can guess what party they are from. I didn’t know Mother Nature’s medical records were protected under HIPPA.

Connecticut Rep. Elizabeth Esty and other Democrats said the bill would cripple EPA’s ability to conduct scientific research based on confidential medical information and risks privacy violations by exposing sensitive patient data.

Republicans should take this decision a bit further and not only demand the release of the studies and data but also demand “reproducibility” of the studies supporting the EPA regulation. Recently it was discovered that much of the research published in major journals like Nature and Science magazine are not reproducible. This throws the entire “peer-review” process and the “consensus” that results from such “authorities” into question. Climate alarmists never argue data, facts, experiments, they argue “consensus” “peer-review” and computer models. The lack of reproducibility completely destroys the main pillars holding up the entire AGW movement. Without reproducibility, there is no real science. Science that isn’t reproducible is nothing more than witchcraft, black magic, and sorcery performed by Oracles and Soothsayers, not real scientistsCapture16

Additional safeguards would be to divide and compartmentalize any major research initiative. The problem with climate “science” is that power is extremely concentrated in the hands of very few self-interested organizations that control the entire process both vertically and horizontally. When the military designs a new weapon system, the process is designed so that no one person knows or controls all the parts. Things are done on a “need to know” basis. The Federal Government should treat the EPA, FDA, DOE, DOE like they treated Standard Oil and break up the Monopolies. People like Michale “Climate Crusader” Mann should never be given power in such easily corruptible systems.

NOAA/NASA and HADCRU should break the temperature reconstruction process into their fundamental components.

  1. Data Collection: Google/Oracle/IBM/ADP could bid to collect all the temperature data from all the temperature centers.
  2. Data Compilation: Google/Oracle/IBM/ADP could bid to compile the data in raw form.
  3. Data Adjustment: A transparent open source method could be created for “adjusting” the data. No longer would a single person or small group make those decisions.
  4. Data Analysis: Statistical research firms like IBM, SAP or Oracle should be hired. Considering the decisions made based upon the conclusions may cost the taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars, this work is simply too important for government workers.
  5. Data Interpretation:  If research universities are going to play a part in developing the climate models and policy proposals they simply must demonstrate a political diversity of their staff. No conservative would have ever signed off on this climate change nonsense.
  6. Published Research: If published research is to be used, it must me reproducible by independent bodies, and the scientific method must have been applied.

the_mann_o_war_panel_scr

Also on Wednesday, the climate science equivalent of the Titanic hitting the iceberg occurred when Michael “I’m a Victim”  Mann got completely owned by Dr. Judith Curry in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Hearings on Climate Change, and inadvertently gave the climate “deniers” the battle plan on how to defeat the climate alarmists. That “battle plan” will be detailed in future blog posts, so stay tuned. BTW, Michael “Owned by Judith Curry” Mann used “denier” 4 times in his written testimony.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.