Hokey stick creator Michael Mann and a number of fellow alarmists sent a letter to Congress yesterday asking it to take a “fresh look at climate change.”
In the letter’s section “Climate Change Deniers,” Mann et al. state:
… no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.
Some quick thoughts:
- The claim presumes that alarmist research has provided any scientific understanding in the first place. Every climatic prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be wrong in one way or another. If your “understanding” doesn’t provide for reasonably accurate predictions, then your “understanding” isn’t. Don’t forget Kevin Trenberth’s Climategate e-mail to Tom Wigley:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin [Emphasis added]That doesn’t sound like understanding to us.
- Even the alarmists own research doesn’t support their position — remember how they had to “hide the decline”?
- Click here for an article about a December 2007 study that directly contradicts the assertion about “no research results” contradicting alarmism — and there are many more.
In addition to choking off funding for the EPA, Congress needs to stop taxpayer funding of Mann et al. Let’s see if Penn State is willing to support Mann’s nonsense without taxpayer largesse.
I am still waiting for an example of an experiment or observation that would rule out internal climate cycles as the cause of the warming in the thermometer record. Please, somebody? EPA, are you there?
Predictions are right or they’re wrong and if they’re based on false premises then one doesn’t go making more predictions based on the same premises.
No AGW “predictions” have been shown correct and none “generally” correct or anything else.
The whole thing is a sham based on bogus premises and given a “scholarly” air by people who have no idea what that is.
AGW is a sham designed to perpetuate itself while leaving a trail of victims in its path and for no other reasons than egotism and enamor with socialist politics.
Mann is being dishonest. The July 2009 paper in JGR, written by John McLean, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter showed that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation was a very good indicator of global temperature average temperature 7 months later. The relationship has been sustain since the 1960s and the temperature graph line does not rise about the SOI line, which is what one would expect of CO2 played a major part.
Michael Mann knows this paper very well. He co-authored a flawed criticism that focused a minor point of the Analysis rather than the substance of the Discussion and Conclusions. The “comment” also contained fundamental errors of fact but JGR published it and refused to publish the rebuttal by the authors. P.S. The continued fall in lower tropospheric temperature is in good agree with the original paper.
To me, this shows just how desperate the alarmists have become. The gravy train sustaining this unprovable hypothesis must come to a screeching halt. Our Government should stop funding this fiasco right now. With the state our economy is in it seems criminal to persue it further.
Your statement that “Every climatic prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be wrong in one way or another” reflects your lack of understanding of a prediction. While some of the predictions have been wrong on a few points, most have been generally correct. If a prediction is 80% or more correct but there are a few aspects that are not, does this justify throwing out the whole prediction? If you tried to predict based on no evidence, you would have a 50% chance of being wrong. Is this better?