True, he's just yet another science denier, much like yourself it appears.Who cares, he's not a scientist whose work policymakers are relying upon.
Since you and I will most likely be dead before the worst impacts of climate change manifest does not grant the right to selfishly ignore the possibility that sustained emissions of greenhouse gases will bring a level of suffering that threatens our civilization. It is obvious that air pollution has a tremendous cost to the health of us all. You remind me of an anti-vaxxer smug in your condemnation of science, clinging to false facts, secure in your ignorance, while those in the scientific community eliminate polio for seven billion people.His appointment has the climate change crowd's knickers in a knot. Of course the usual suspects are claiming this is the beginning phases of dirty air and dirty water blah blah blah.
Stop being such a lemming and think for yourself man. Learn some climate history. Do some research. Be objective. Get enlightened.Since you and I will most likely be dead before the worst impacts of climate change manifest does not grant the right to selfishly ignore the possibility that sustained emissions of greenhouse gases will bring a level of suffering that threatens our civilization. It is obvious that air pollution has a tremendous cost to the health of us all. You remind me of an anti-vaxxer smug in your condemnation of science, clinging to false facts, secure in your ignorance, while those in the scientific community eliminate polio for seven billion people.
Thinking for yourself:Stop being such a lemming and think for yourself man. Learn some climate history. Do some research. Be objective. Get enlightened.
You and I lack the training or ability to offer any insight into climate change. I accept that the overwhelming majority of scientists from a broad range of political perspectives have, like Exxon did many years ago identified the link between climate change and carbon fuel emissions. How we deal with that is a policy and political question. Perhaps the worst outcomes will not come about but most people with a scintilla of decency are not willing to deny the need to increasingly limit our emission of greenhouse gases. Only a fool would reject the need to change our behaviour.Stop being such a lemming and think for yourself man. Learn some climate history. Do some research. Be objective. Get enlightened.
There is NO consensus that is complete bogus. Any assertion as such is fraudulent. Most scientists DO NOT know the impact of human activity on changes in our climate. And the reason is simple - there is not enough evidence over a significant time frame to make any judgment.Thinking for yourself:
Objectively weighing the massive and near century long research from the scientific community, whose consensus reports with links to research and data are fully available through the IPCC.
Then objectively looking at the countering research, which has no credible alternate theory to explain the rise in global temperature that coincides with the rise in greenhouse gases.
Comparing funding from government funded research from about 100 countries vs countering claims funded by the fossil fuel industry, which has a vested interest.
So you think you've compared the research and really, honestly think that you have an alternate theory that explains the changes in the planets climate we are experiencing?
Can you explain it here?
That is true, neither of us are climate scientists. But I know basic science and how the scientific method works. Climate change alarmists have perverted it to further an agenda. The evidence of that is so overwhelming you'd have to be ignorant or plain dumb not to understand it.You and I lack the training or ability to offer any insight into climate change. I accept that the overwhelming majority of scientists from a broad range of political perspectives have, like Exxon did many years ago identified the link between climate change and carbon fuel emissions. How we deal with that is a policy and political question. Perhaps the worst outcomes will not come about but most people with a scintilla of decency are not willing to deny the need to increasingly limit our emission of greenhouse gases. Only a fool would reject the need to change our behaviour.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon/
I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist just intelligent enough to see through the charade of climate change alarmists. Do yourself a favor read Judith Curry's blogYes. As with most conspiracy theorists you spend lots time looking for any flaw in the accepted that could justify your faith but you are incapable of coming up with any better explanation for the observed reality.
Because these guys want to spend money on anything but new weapons.That is true, neither of us are climate scientists. But I know basic science and how the scientific method works. Climate change alarmists have perverted it to further an agenda. The evidence of that is so overwhelming you'd have to be ignorant or plain dumb not to understand it.
Awhile back you posted a prediction from Dr. Carter that we were on the cusp of a cooling period, and you provided a video that itself was a couple of years old, from Aug 2013:Mann is an intellectual fraud and a pseudo scientist.
Awesome pick! Hopefully the truth will come out ... How billions of dollars waste on climate alarmist crap! Time to gut the EPA and get rid of the graveyard train!Today is a day to celebrate. The U.S. Senate has confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/320103-senate-confirms-pruitt-to-lead-epa
Obama's climate agenda is quickly being killed. Good riddance.
Cye is correct, even Exxon's own scientists, doing their own Exxon funded research, came to the same conclusions as 98% of all scientists who studied the subject did.There is NO consensus that is complete bogus. Any assertion as such is fraudulent. Most scientists DO NOT know the impact of human activity on changes in our climate. And the reason is simple - there is not enough evidence over a significant time frame to make any judgment.
Toronto hits warmest Feb. 18 on record
Toronto has hit the warmest Feb. 18 on record.
According to Global News meteorologist Ross Hull, Toronto’s double-digit temperature of 12 degrees Saturday is the warmest Feb. 18 on record. The previous record was 10.8 degrees set back in 2011.
The weather for the city is supposed to be above seasonal all week, with a high of 11 degrees expected for Sunday.
Unlike you, I did -- and your response is a total evasion.Why don't you stick to the terms we agreed on?
Apart from your false accusations of lying, you've got the wrong paper.You need to stop lying about that paper.
Exactly. It's worth quoting from the Lawrence Solomon column that I posted the other day:I don't dispute those facts. What I do dispute is that a) the warming is unusual or damaging and b) that humans are the primary cause of the warming.
http://business.financialpost.com/f...ers-of-corrupted-climate-science-to-speak-outNone of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud.
Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals.
The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down.
That's not the bet, according to your own confirmation of the terms, this is the bet.Unlike you, I did -- and your response is a total evasion.
The fact remains that 0.13C is less than the 0.15C increase we bet on. No amount of Enron-style bullshit can change that.
We bet on whether 2015's global temperature anomaly would hit 0.83ºC as reported by NASA.http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
From his wiki page:?????? :Eek:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Awards_and_honorsAwards and honors[edit]
Mann's dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an "outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences" at Yale University. His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's outstanding scientific publication award. In 2002 he was named by Scientific American as one of fifty "leading visionaries in science and technology." The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate. The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors' Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.[63]
The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[64][65][66][67]
In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[2] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for "his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions."[3][63]
Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[68] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[69]
In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the "50 Most Influential" people, included in a group of "thinkers" with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog "to climate change deniers", and his book publications.[70][71] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation's National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[72]
On 28 April 2014 the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[73] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[63]
