Michael Mann is a slimy little lying weasel and is getting ripped to shreds.

a reply to: D8Tee

When you actually listen to the testimony at 1:45:20, a congressman wonders how someone can remember how many times they have testified to Congress and then says "but can't remember his association with Climate Accountability Institute".

Obviously Congress is well aware the Mann lied.

Mann's written testimony to Congress (Link Provided)

science.house.gov...

In his testimony, he describes the Sarangeti Theory, whereby a pack of lions will isolate and attack one member of the group, in an attempt to weaken and bring down the group. He portrays himself as a victim of such tactics.

However, his association with the Climate Accountability Institute identifies him as a member of a pack of activists trying to misuse RICO laws to isolate EXXON and thus weaken the group (so-called deniers) and intimidate them into silence. He is obviously projecting his own tactics onto his opponents.

Just prior to the moment, he reads out a statement from Roger Pelke Jr's blog, stating that he is no longer working on a writing on climate and will not testify to Congress (as if he has the choice). He states this then he testifies that so much has changed since 2015???? (there has been an alarmist stand for at least 20 years) and infers that Roger Pelke is no longer qualified to speak on the issue.

Another attack to weaken Roger Pelke's testimony.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

Methane up 50% in a lifetime. 10 degree annual average increase in Greenland. This is stuff recorded in the ice cores. We're headed that direction. It is concerning.

"we know these things are real, we've seen them in the ice cores"

Since when did ice cores become a crystal ball that predict the future?

He's speaking to models again, and they have yet to be right.

And Greenland is not the world. Why do they ignore the ice cores from Greenland when it comes to C02 data?

Could be ocean currents affecting Greenland for all we know, the science is not settled.

Many abrupt changes in the past, no surprise, climate changes.

He's talking about the past - proxy observations from ice cores.

What do you mean about ignoring CO2 data?

Physics are pretty much settled:
-Stefan-Boltzmann law says Earth should be 255 Kelvin throughout the atmosphere
-The surface is 288 K.
-33 K difference between S-B law and observation
-Atmospheric observations explain this - temperature decreases ~6.5 K per 1km above surface, up to tropopause
-The tropopause is the boundary (9-17km depending on latitude, closest at poles and furthest at equator) between the troposphere (lower 75% of all atmospheric molecules) and stratosphere (about 20% of the remainder)
-The atmosphere is clearly redistributing heat (infrared radiation) to the surface.

This is all uncontroversial. What some seem to think is controversial is the mechanism by which this observation occurs - greenhouse gases, whose radiation absorption bands were observed by a 1970 satellite:


This is really easy stuff to understand. It's a lot harder to figure out a solution that doesn't involve millions of deaths. A self-inflicted humanitarian and ecological crises; the fossil fuels that propelled our exponential population growth may well kill us.

a reply to: Greven

You are seriouly off-topic and I will report this to admin if you don't stop.

The topic of this thread is Micheal Mann's testimony to Congress and the lie he told of not being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

So what is your point?????

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

It has to do with Congressional testimony where the testimony was clearly wrong.
This too was the case with Jeff Sessions.
It is a fairly recent and rather high-profile analogue to this.

Do other people's lies make the truth out of Micheal Mann's lie in some way?

Why did they ask a question they already had the answer to, an answer Mann had already given prior to speaking?

People are fallible - that's why there's a written record, like Mann's submitted CV.

He was clearly wrong in his verbal testimony. His verbal testimony clearly disagrees with his own written record. Y'all are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

You are seriouly off-topic and I will report this to admin if you don't stop.

The topic of this thread is Micheal Mann's testimony to Congress and the lie he told of not being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute.

Like this thread is on topic when the OP dredges up my quotes from another thread and then mischaracterizes them, along with doubling down on that mischaracterization in order to personally libel me.

Also? The statement in the course of discussion was that "the science is not settled" - raised by the OP of this thread. This topic is still about climate change in a broad sense, otherwise it shouldn't be in this forum. Rebuking that is fairly on-topic.

Report and let the administrative team decide; threatening it is just sad. Not that I expect any counter to the physics; I've brought it up in numerous threads prior and it's just ignored.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It was quite a spectacle. Mann was joined on the panel by Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Jr. — three scientists who have actually endured the kind of political witch-hunts Mann referred to. Rather than present data or debate the science, Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science. He repeatedly referred to a bogus “97 percent consensus” about man-made climate change, and accused the Heartland Institute of being a “climate-change denying, Koch brothers–funded outlet.” He engaged in one ad hominem attack after another against his fellow panelists and the committee’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith. He questioned whether Smith really understood the scientific method and read a nasty quote about Smith from a smear piece in Science magazine.

link

a reply to: Greven

Because when Micheal Mann answered "NO", he was able to cut off the line of questioning about his actions in the field of environmental activism.

Its obviously a deliberate legal ploy to avoid being made accountable to ones own actions.

When his written testimony is so obviously "playing the victim card", his own actions and attacks on other scientis are a legitimate and obvious topic for questioning.

Here's my boy Clay ( Higgins ) before he was elected to Congress.



Buck

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Because when Micheal Mann answered "NO", he was able to cut off the line of questioning about his actions in the field of environmental activism.

Its obviously a deliberate legal ploy to avoid being made accountable to ones own actions.

When his written testimony is so obviously "playing the victim card", his own actions and attacks on other scientis are a legitimate and obvious topic for questioning.

You are correct, his answering No was to cut of the line of questioning.

His little story about Lysenko was amusing, total hypocrisy.

In his testimony to the House Science Committee on Wednesday, Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, told the story of Trofim Lysenko, a plant scientist who worked for Stalinist Russia:

Lysenko was a Russian agronomist and it became Leninist doctrine to impose his views about heredity, which were crackpot theories, completely at odds with the world’s scientists. Under Stalin, scientists were being jailed if they disagreed with his theories about agriculture. And Russian agriculture actually suffered, scientists were jailed, many died in their jail cells and potentially millions of people suffered from the disastrous agriculture policies that followed from that.

The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment.

But astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag. It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yeah - its obvious that Higgens had a purpose to establishing Mann's advisory position to climate accountabilty institute to pervert the use of RICO and intimidate people who question alarmist climate change. He was deliberately taking aim at Mann's victim card.

Unfortunately, Higgens doesn't seem to have picked up the info in Mann's CV.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mann is recalled to testify some more.

Props to Higgens

Posted earlier here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here
www.abovetopsecret.com... ....MUD PIT


Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked threads.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**

Closed in error, sorry.

Lives and work in a cesspool. Do you expect anything different? He is a professor at Penn State the same place of the pedophile football coaches and the administrators who covered it up. They are all now in jail so do to expect Mann to be clean?

Mann gave the UN's climate change people a gift of bad science (hockey stick charts) to advance their global scam. The only thing that Mann has given to real science is thug science. Thug science is better know as pseudoscience where their proof is the threat of jail time under the RICO statues.

Global man made warming is an attempt to extricate money from you through taxing for unproven science. These taxes are pushed strangely by one political party in Washington and left leaning college professors.

a reply to: Greven

What do you mean about ignoring CO2 data?

Funny thing about the Greenland cores. They show much higher CO2 levels (330-350 ppmv) during Holocene warm periods and Pleistocene interstadials. The Dye 3 ice core shows an average CO2 level of 331 ppmv during the Preboreal Oscillation.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

When you actually listen to the testimony at 1:45:20, a congressman wonders how someone can remember how many times they have testified to Congress and then says "but can't remember his association with Climate Accountability Institute".

Obviously Congress is well aware the Mann lied.

Yes, Weber calls him out on the lie.

Higgins also called him on it.

Higgins: Dr Mann, would you be able to at some future date provide to this committee evidence of lack of your association with The Union of Concerned Scientists and lack of your association with The organization called The Climate Accountability Institute, can you provide that documentation to this committee sir?

Mann: See you haven't defined what association even means here, but it's all in my CV which has already been provided to committee.

Higgins: Would you provide a statement regarding your assertion?

Mann: (overtalking Higgins) I'll send it again.

What a pompous lying weasel this Mann guy is. He spends a lot of time attacking others, calling them Deniers, but cries like a little baby if anyone questions his work.

He seemed to have no problem veering off into innuendo and personal attacks and weaved them into the threads of his testimony.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

– H. L. Mencken

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

The earth is warming, how much of that is due to man made causes?

Beats being in an ice age.

Not really. Try living in Las Vegas when every summer get's hotter than the one before. Think about what's going to happen in the middle east and Africa when it's too hot to live there and there is drought and Famine and we have millions of Refugees or Immigrants who literally have to move to survive. Ice age would be much preferable.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

The earth is warming, how much of that is due to man made causes?

Beats being in an ice age.

Not really. Try living in Las Vegas when every summer get's hotter than the one before. Think about what's going to happen in the middle east and Africa when it's too hot to live there and there is drought and Famine and we have millions of Refugees or Immigrants who literally have to move to survive. Ice age would be much preferable.

I disagree.
Besides the fact it would be an awful lot colder, huge regions where hundreds of millions of people live would become completely uninhabitable. They'd be covered in thick ice sheets and subject to an inhospitable climate.

A lot of North America would be covered in ice, the whole of northern Europe, the whole of northern Asia would be covered in ice.

For all intents and purposes the Middle East is already uninhabitable. It has a minimum of arable land, fairly harsh climates, and population centers that aren’t well suited to modern transportation, (it’s tough when your large cities are located at old nomadic cross-roads).

So isn’t this a tautology?

Besides, all the dire preditions you are seeing are RCP8.5 which assumes energy/GDP does not fall with development, which is historically false. Projects that annual emissions go from 6GtC to ~27 GtC by 2100. Roughly 4.5x, meaning 4.5x annual fossil fuel consumption. That is geophysically impossible for oil. And probably impossible for coal.
The studies are nonesense.

The big problem facing the Middle East and Africa is population Growth.

www.cebr.com...

a reply to: D8Tee

What does "associate" mean? Mann is pulling Clinton's trick of asking what the definition of "is" is!

His attacks on the other 3 scientists is absolutely sickining. All three are renowned climatologists. If you listen to their testimoney, you will see that not a single one of them attacked Mann. All of them kept to the subject at hand and offered their opinions in a professional manner. None of the 3 of them ever hesitated to explain where they had doubts.

Mann on the other hand, never has a doubt on anything!

He is really full of himself and unprofessional

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

More lies from Mann with regards to Mann's personal attacks on others in the scientific community.

The man will be reincarnated as a weasel in his next lifetime.

Youtube link starting at 156 minutes

originally posted by: CB328
America is doomed. There are far too many mentally warped people like the OP for this country to survive.

I can't believe that in America a scientist is being questioned like a criminal by the party of crime, murder and corruption. Let's put those congressmen on trial for all the innocent people they've permitted to be killed by pollution, drones, health insurance "death panels", etc.

So, will you put Hillary on trial for causing the greatest refugee crisis since WW2 ?

What's really funny is that there are literally thousands of Scientists and researchers writing papers, publishing articles, submitting scientific evidence and basically telling us that the earth is getting warming and that man's pollution is one of the leading culprits.

This thread shows, I think, one of the biggest problems. Of all of those thousands of scientists, we're singling out one "Mann" and showing his faults and calling him a liar. Will we do the same thing with the other thousands of scientists that have the same view as this "Mann"? If not, why not?