Pathological Science

[Crafty_Dog]

Please post that in the Environment thread as well!

[DougMacG]

https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/as-a-scientist-im-not-allowed-to-tell-the-full-truth-about-climate-change/

[Body-by-Guinness]

The final paragraph or so strikes me as being both de rigueur and self-contradictory, but the rest rings true. And from the Chronicles, of all places:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-need-scientific-dissidents-now-more-than-ever?fbclid=IwAR0vZX3oVxQmpugEtmSUWQ9nmIFiZK9c7fSh16NFDEsxtHEyAKm8mtJcs1I

[Body-by-Guinness]

2nd post.

Datasets controlled for the heat island effect show no catastrophic warming:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/12/noaa-u-s-contiguous-uscrn-temperature-anomaly-september-2023-data-shows-no-climate-emergency/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=noaa-u-s-contiguous-uscrn-temperature-anomaly-september-2023-data-shows-no-climate-emergency

[Body-by-Guinness]

This is about as succinct a statement of my views as I've ever found:

https://the-pipeline.org/lies-damn-lies-and-polling-questions/?fbclid=IwAR1Iivl2pkFxnjCHTMoQcK5LwaWyJh1RGSbcdM0lq8-vRVZlw9dSOAl9_z8

[Body-by-Guinness]

These folks go through the MSM pablum that's all the talking heads and dead tree rags have been circulating of late:

https://climaterealism.com/2023/10/climate-fact-check-september-2023-edition/

[Body-by-Guinness]

China won’t meet “net-zero” goals, which makes out effort to do so basically pointless:

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4252904-bidens-kamikaze-climate-plan-for-the-us-economy/

[ccp]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/era-of-unquestioned-and-unchallenged-climate-change-claims-is-over-5503316?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-10-15&src_cmp=mb-2023-10-15&utm_medium=email&cta_utm_source=Morningbrief&est=4kOylaKwcqv7NXcKRPSYK3mCzaWQo5OcaC%2B6hdnX%2FGoXq2nroljm0Ha1slQ%3D

[Body-by-Guinness]

You see this a lot in “climate science” (as well as other sciences). Often it’s statistical tools; often a scientist understands a great deal about their field, but seeks to bulwark a finding with the tools of statistics with only a semester or two of those studies underneath their belts. Here we have someone that works in applied gas science taking issue with those in theoretical gas science who make CO2 the boogie man in their climate passion play and, having done so, continue to build on the frightful message long after tools at hand have shown it to be untrue.

https://twitter.com/owengregorian/status/1714619596303430084?s=61&t=L5uifCqWy8R8rhj_J8HNJw&fbclid=IwAR3caUO14ry9YJWe8KzWyYBKvhk5Sh4bi-zUZw_0DyuV5Y8VfDHD7QKgiGo

[DougMacG]

Good stuff!  We know the models don't match reality but (almost) no one ever says why.  One side point:

"Because their world is theoretical, they use peer review for approval."

   - "Peer review" in climate 'science' is a proven fraud. 

[Body-by-Guinness]

Conclusion: man made gasses have little to do with what little climate change is noted:

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

\

[Body-by-Guinness]

2nd post.

Gawd, some of these bozos shill for the gender dysmorphia that has caused numerous impressionable teens to be irreversibly surgically altered are branching out I guess:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/climate-change-and-mental-health-connections?fbclid=IwAR37FW0aLYMcwUnJMxnTPGD1a8ng8rOks3YniSID9krYRKg9ezQib5Zr2Gk

[Body-by-Guinness]

I never expected an honest lockdown reckoning
Samizdata.net by Johnathan Pearce (London) / October 23, 2023 at 03:52AM//keep unread//hide

“Since apologies are now required. Challenging any consensus is fundamentally important to good science – especially that of an unproven intervention such as lockdown. The onus should have been on those proposing such a radical new policy to justify it, not the reverse. Sweden is the elephant in the room. A nation of relatively similar wealth and standing to us, it largely avoided lockdowns yet has emerged with impressively low excess deaths. Should the inquiry not be asking how? Anders Tegnell, the architect of their successful strategy, should have been a priority witness.”

– Prof Karol Sikora is a consultant oncologist. Daily Telegraph (£)

When the pandemic petered out and lockdowns were – with some reluctance from the powers-that-be – abandoned, there was some speculation about how there needed to be “a reckoning” over the damage done, that we should examine the Swedish case, and re-visit the Great Barrington Declaration’s arguments. But I feared at the time that this was unlikely to happen, at least for some time with the present political establishment. Simple reputation protection is part of it. Also, it appears the large majority of the public in countries such as the UK supported lockdowns. Maybe too many voters did not want to face the full, ugly fact that what had been done was a massive mistake, on a par with entering a war. In this day and age – and I suspect it has been like this since forever – soul searching and honest reflection is not encouraged. Parts of the media probably thought the same about lockdowns and in far too few cases has there been much reflection. You can almost detect a certain awkwardness. I mean, at any social gathering I have been at, among journalists and suchlike, the folly of lockdowns never comes up unless I raise it (I try not to make a habit of it, mind), and if I ever do, I get that “oh, look at that oddball” stare, or desire to shift the conversation to something less controversial.

On the Conservative and Labour sides, and across the public sector, most were invested into lockdowns; already, when I saw journalists have a go at the Boris Johnson government, for example, it was usually that it did not lock down hard enough and early enough. The whole “meta-context” was about repression, speed and duration of lockdown, and the need to throw the full apparatus of the State at it. The idea that ordinary members of the public were already acting to socially distance back in February and early March of 2020, that various methods, freely embraced, might have made a difference (I am not a doctor, so usual disclaimers), were ignored. Not just ignored, but as we saw over the GBD crowd, mocked and scorned.

It became clear to me that there is a clear overlap between the lockdowners, as I call them, and much of today’s Green movement. It was hard for me to ignore an almost pleasurable embrace of lockdowns by the Greens. I mean, we’d stopped most people flying! Look at how clear the canals of Venice are, daaaahling. The Net Zero phenomenon, whatever else it is, is about using the coercive power of the State to force people to change how they behave in ways they will find restrictive and unpleasant for some sort of supposed provable collective goal. The lockdowns were a trial run, in a way, for the sort of repressive measures that such Green activists seek. In one story, an academic suggested that lockdowns were actually a sort of “liberation”.

Clearly, it is possible to be alarmed by all this even if you are, for example, concerned about viruses, possibly cooked up in a lab, or Man-made global temperature increases. These are matters of empirical science. Just because freedom-loving individuals don’t like lockdowns or restrictions on fossil fuels doesn’t mean these fears are unfounded. (The correct approach is to accept the best evidence available without rushing to junk freedom.) But it surely does suggest that in so many cases, top-down responses to this or that threat need to be questioned more. To go back to the quote at the top of this article, there is a need for a burden of proof to sit with those who want to slam measures on the public, not the other way around. And there needs to be more willingness to embrace the solutions and tools to which a free, entrepreneurial society give rise to.

https://www.samizdata.net/2023/10/i-never-expected-an-honest-lockdown-reckoning/

[DougMacG]

Super cold Halliween:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/halloween-artic-blast-allow-temperatures-111155755.html

Search word 'climate' = 0/0.
----------------
And THIS, that went by so quietly:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/
---------------------
More:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/archives/2021/08/22/uncharted-waters-lake-michigan-water-levels-record-low-2013-could-mark-new-era/1366664001/

"New Era"
"This is not a story about climate change.
 It is a story about climate changed."

The following year:
https://eos.org/science-updates/water-levels-surge-on-great-lakes#:~:text=Water%20level%20data%20from%20the,January%20through%20the%20following%20December).

Water Levels Surge on Great Lakes
The recent 2-year surge represents one of the most rapid rates of water level change on the Great Lakes in recorded history and marks the end of an unprecedented period of low water levels."

[Body-by-Guinness]

… that lead to this piece with all sorts of apt source material:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=facebook&rs=SHRNCMMW&fbclid=IwAR0RgSof5dIf6bgEmcDaVYx2Joa3T4rLryzX-Q89rPTks388X8EPU3WNKlk

[DougMacG]

Was this SNL Weekend News or NBC News? They both do it with a straight face.

https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/1719441354319679620

Oddly, that would have been better than what we have now.

Temperatures still swing more in an hour than they do in a century.

Nothing (anecdotal) says Unstoppable Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming more than having the coldest winter EVER (on record) at the South Pole, 2021:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/

[Body-by-Guinness]

Preach it sir!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/04/truth-and-science-a-nobel-laureates-advice-to-students/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=truth-and-science-a-nobel-laureates-advice-to-students&fbclid=IwAR1C5ALZQpR90APKIZJpXz4ppZ7s9x4RjToPrdL2WOkbeuvKVfKVGtb_q3I

[Body-by-Guinness]

… we’d hear no end of it:

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/11/08/weird-its-cold-in-winter-again/?fbclid=IwAR38J7LcKYQffXjgpbqUjYOjzj-l_z6Q1La1dN4E5i68DypWmAMq0ZwXYS0

[Body-by-Guinness]

https://the-pipeline.org/who-wants-to-live-in-caves/?fbclid=IwAR0UALLxfKEbGiPHGEWZ-4CgQe5QRQlgSW_upQXJyR6mXni_KMf1X-Kbqg0

[Body-by-Guinness]

Perhaps misfiled as this piece takes issue with the pathological science, but if correct what’s presented here sure poops on the alarmist parade.

The real villain.

Many factors determine the weather at any given time and place on the globe: water cycles, air masses, jet streams, weather fronts, elevation, and topography are among them. The more these natural factors are examined, the less credible the environmental narrative -- that man’s use of fossil fuels is the most significant factor in those changes -- appears to be. If you believe, as I do not, that human-emitted CO2 is the principal driver of climatic warming, you have to downplay the importance of other natural phenomena.

Take volcanos. This year through October, there were 67 confirmed eruptions from 66 different volcanos around the world. This is not an unusual amount of volcanic activity -- it has been fairly consistent for two centuries -- though the population increases near volcanos and better reporting sometimes obscures that fact. Here's what The Smithsonian has to say on the matter:

The best evidence that these trends are apparent rather than real comes from the record of large eruptions, whose effects are far reaching and less likely to escape documentation even in remote areas. Their constancy over the past two centuries is a better indicator of the global frequency of eruptions than the improved reporting of smaller eruptions.

The volume of volcanic CO2 emissions has been substantially underestimated. Because naturally-emitted CO2 and Co2 emitted as a result of human activity have the very same isotopes, it is impossible to distinguish the source and has not been accurately assessed for a number of reasons. For example, the amount of CO2 from volcanic action cited over and again is based on an analysis of only seven active volcanoes and three seafloor emitting volcanos (o.oo.1 percent of earth’s volcanic features). Recent studies indicate massive amounts of C02 are emitted from non-erupting volcanos, such as Greenland’s Katla volcano.

A recent study, authored by Hermann Harde, a professor of Experimental Physics and Materials Science at Helmut-Schmidt-University in Hamburg, indicates that CO2 emissions from volcanos and other natural causes are six times higher than man-made sources. Not only is the data relied on to argue against this phenomenon surprisingly inaccurate, the claim of higher human-sourced CO2 relies on a fiddling of the record of how long these emissions remain in the atmosphere.

 According to a new study, the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 are driven exclusively by humans relies on a made-up, disparate accounting model, with the residence time for natural emissions three to four years (which is consistent with actual observations), but CO2 from human sources is claimed to have a residence time of 50 to over 100 years. [emphasis, links added]

The 15 to 30 times longer residence time for human emissions is an imaginary conceptualization that is wholly inconsistent with (1) bomb tests (1963) and (2) seasonal CO2 variations found in real-world observations. Human emissions account for under 5 percent of the total from all sources, natural and anthropogenic.

I suppose the climate change crowd’s response is to conduct a worldwide search for enough virgins to throw into volcanos to keep them from belching and oozing CO2 into the atmosphere, but how far removed from this supposition is from the rest of their schemes?

Clarice Feldman is a retired attorney living in Washington, D.C. During her legal career she represented the late labor leader Joseph ("Jock") Yablonski and the reform mine workers against Tony Boyle. She served as an attorney with the Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations, in which role she prosecuted those who aided the Nazis in World War II. She has written for The Weekly Standard and is a regular contributor to American Thinker.

[Crafty_Dog]

One of the Environment threads would be a good place to post this as well.

[ccp]

BBG very interesting.

I am trying to pull up whether the water vapor released by last yrs underwater volcano in Tonga is responsible for the recent warming

I remember the description of Tonga in the Washington Post forecast it would increase temperatures worldwide by few degrees.

Of course, now the libs seem to be certain it would not cause this: 

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/did-the-tonga-eruption-cause-this-years-extreme-heat

I really don't know who to believe and who is honest or simply juggling the "data"

[Body-by-Guinness]

BBG very interesting.

I am trying to pull up whether the water vapor released by last yrs underwater volcano in Tonga is responsible for the recent warming

I remember the description of Tonga in the Washington Post forecast it would increase temperatures worldwide by few degrees.

Of course, now the libs seem to be certain it would not cause this: 

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/did-the-tonga-eruption-cause-this-years-extreme-heat

I really don't know who to believe and who is honest or simply juggling the "data"

Data on the Tonga eruption is very difficult to come by, I suspect because that data doesn’t gird alarmist narratives.

[Body-by-Guinness]

https://realclimatescience.com/2023/12/origin-of-the-global-warming-threat/#gsc.tab=0

[DougMacG]

Very unusually warm Christmas here.

Is it global?

Record cold in Beijing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/25/beijing-records-most-hours-of-sub-zero-temperatures-in-december-since-1951.html#:~:text=As%20of%20Sunday%2C%20a%20weather,to%20state%2Dbacked%20Beijing%20Daily.

Record cold in Nigeria.
https://www.semafor.com/article/12/20/2023/nigerian-naira-falls-to-record-low

Record cold in the Arctic!.
https://watchers.news/2023/12/24/arctics-40-year-record-low-temperatures-spawn-rare-clouds/

[DougMacG]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-cold-antarctica-climate-change/index.html

 Antarctica’s last 6 months were the coldest on record
By Allison Chinchar, CNN Meteorologist
6 minute read
Updated 12:30 PM EDT, Sat October 9, 2021

[ccp]

 

Until I read this section below.

Funny, how every single weather event is consistent with climate change but when there is something that contradicts the theory of man made climate change we get some sort of poo pah about it like this:

Weather versus Climate Change

It is important to understand weather is different from climate. Weather is what happens over shorter periods of time (days to months), such as the seven-day forecast. Climate is what happens over much longer periods of time, such as several years, or even entire generations.

“One such example is a cold snap, which can happen due to sudden changes in atmospheric circulation and may not be linked to climate change,” says Tom Slater, Research Fellow at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds. “Texas is a good example of this; even though parts of it experienced extreme cold weather earlier this year when air from the Arctic was pushed south, looking at the long-term change in temperature tells us that Texas is 1.5 degrees warmer on average now than it was 100 years ago. That’s climate.”

Scientists also agree that since the 1950s extreme cold snaps do occur, but climate change is bringing far more heat records than cold records.

“In other words, while the globe may be warmer than average as a whole, some areas will still observe colder temperatures and even severe cold outbreaks,” says Zack Labe, Climate Scientist at Colorado State University. “This regional variation is due to the influences of the oceans, mountains, deserts, ice sheets, and other geographic features that all affect our weather and climate. It’s also from changes in weather patterns that are related to the position of the jet stream (storm track), which can vary from day-to-day or even month-to-month.”

So, this recent winter stretch from June-August is definitely interesting from a research standpoint, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect what Antarctica is doing in the long term.

View of the Argentinian Esperanza military base from the Brazilian Navy's Oceanographic Ship Ary Rongel in Antarctica on March 5, 2014.  (Vanderlei Almida/AFP via Getty Images)
Antarctica just registered its hottest temperature ever
One great example of this is while June-August of this year may have been quite cold, February of the previous year recorded the new all-time record high for the Antarctic continent. On February 6, 2020, the Esperanza Research Station recorded a high temperature of 18.3°C degrees (64.9°F). This broke the previous record for the Antarctic region (continental, including mainland and surrounding islands) of 17.5°C (63.5°F) recorded in March 2015 at the same station.

“There were thousands upon thousands of these penguins just in distress because they were so overheated and there was no snow,” Camille Seaman, a photographer who has traveled to Antarctica, told CNN in August. “They were looking for any little patch of snow or ice to lay on.”

Polar opposites

[DougMacG]

Yes.  If the anecdotal matches the narrative, it is "climate change".  If it opposes the narrative it is "weather".  And then both happen at once.  We are having the craziest warm start of a winter here in memory with open water on the lake at Christmas (although it was crazy cold at Thanksgiving etc).  Record cold on three other continents.  The warmth is climate change, the cold everywhere else is weather.  "Climate change" causes drought and torrential rains.  How do you argue with these people?

Then they conflate climate change (that has been going on since the beginning of time) with anthropogenic (human caused) climate change, and 1 1/2 degrees in 100 years warming without telling us if it's Fahrenheit or Celsius, or what the temp would have been with fires and volcanos but not cars.

If concrete causes it, let's at least stop building government buildings.  We can do that without crushing the private economy.

Funny how all the solutions involve fascism and loss of freedoms, but all the dirtiest places on earth already have fascism and already lost all their freedoms.

Nothing gives us the power to innovate and build cleaner, healthier solutions than prosperity.  Why isn't THAT their focus?

Electricity for air conditioning is killing us but electricity for charging electric vehicles will save the planet.

There isn't going to be an honest debate on this anytime soon.

[ccp]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/climate-scientists-say-we-should-embrace-higher-co2-levels-5551562?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-12-31&src_cmp=mb-2023-12-31&utm_medium=email&est=2T4kHf%2FCK11nhboxdI852x5mFix7kLyPln2B%2Btvq9VKmsLYvPQj4g6ya0d8%3D

Endless confusing back and forth "research" being published.

I am unable to sort this out from my armchair

But I still think Repubs can speak of this a a reasonable way and not simply say it is all BS and ignore it.
that is definitely NOT politically astute.

[ccp]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/junk_climate_science.html

[DougMacG]

Soon you will hear 2023 was the hottest year ever, hottest year on record, etc.

Wouldn't you think they are comparing temperature readings then with temperature readings now?

I've already railed on this but the point is their still doing it, in particular adjusting older records downward to make current data look warmer.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-1-7-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxxi

https://realclimatescience.com/2024/01/what-did-they-do-wrong/#gsc.tab=0

Doesn't "data" in science mean raw data.  Raw, unaltered data, and everything else is something else, analysis by someone.  Why can't they simply disclose it's altered data and release their algorithms for it and their justifications for doing so, like good economists do?

Maybe it is getting warmer, but how would we know?

[ccp]

Doug 2 days ago:

" Soon you will hear 2023 was the hottest year ever, hottest year on record, etc."

Right on time:

https://news.yahoo.com/earth-just-had-hottest-ever-165025339.html

[Body-by-Guinness]

... so it's hardly surprising that the Israelis can create a "climate catastrophe:"

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/media-beclowns-itself-with-articles-linking-israels-military-efforts-in-gaza-to-climate-crisis/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=media-beclowns-itself-with-articles-linking-israels-military-efforts-in-gaza-to-climate-crisis

[Body-by-Guinness]

Five minute video demonstrating why datasets used to demonstrate claimed warming are bunk:

https://realclimatescience.com/2024/01/imaginary-record-heat-2/#gsc.tab=0

[Body-by-Guinness]

Even climate czars are admitting Net Zero goals are based on poor data as the US & other “quiet quit” hydrocarbon abstinence:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/british-scientist-admits-climate-change-committees-net-zero-goals-based-on-insufficient-data/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=british-scientist-admits-climate-change-committees-net-zero-goals-based-on-insufficient-data

[Body-by-Guinness]

Long but very readable piece examining the difference between what alarmist predictions claim will occur and what has indeed occurred, with basic possibilities presented to explain the difference:

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models

[Body-by-Guinness]

If you see a mark on Dr. Hansen, this is what left it:

https://archive.is/TTPP8

[Body-by-Guinness]

Like my grandpa used to say “figures never lie, but liars always figure.” Juking wildfire stats:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-__pY6Dp5M&t=345s

[Body-by-Guinness]

This is delicious! After decrying rumored right wing big meanies and dragging detractors to court whereupon he dragged his feet through discovery for YEARS, Michael Mann is on the stand testifying in the libel suit he initiated, and is screwing the pooch.

In many ways he’s already lost. His Hockey Stick hyperbole which, at one time, you couldn’t turn a corner without being smacked in the face with has been utterly memory holed, and indeed despite refusing to share either his data our source code because science doesn’t have to be replicable if you claim those seeking to follow this basic tenet of science are big meanies, the math behind his inane graph was backward engineered and shown to be so poorly construed one could drop the recipe for chicken salad into it and have a hockey stick shaped line plot emerge. Alarmist these days tend to turn pink when you mention that chapter in their panic mongering, yet Mann proceeded with his lawfare nonetheless. Now that’s chutzpah!

It’s a DC court and Mann is playing the right wing extremist card so it’s likely too soon to count chickens, but it’s fun to watch him squirm and equivocate on the stand.

I began this thread with Mann in mind; hope to punctuate it with a trial loss here:


The Emperor Has No Clothes
by Amy K. Mitchell
Mann vs Steyn Trial Day Eight
January 29, 2024

Michael Mann took the stand for the third day at the trial of his own making to start Week 3. Mark's cross-examination continued in full force today. By the end of the day, Mann's lawyers were clearly flustered as illustrated by their attempts to rebut Mann's own testimony (in vain).

C.S. Lewis (yes, that C.S. Lewis) once said, "Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others." We witnessed a lot of blame in Room 132 of the DC Superior Court today, so hell must be near.

As Mark detailed in exhibit after exhibit, Mann, despite his protestations to the contrary of double-checking (nigh, triple checking) his work and always ensuring that he has facts right each and every time, had to resort time and again to the common refrain, "it was an honest mistake."

What mistakes you ask?

Well, let's start with Mann's own deposition — the deposition that was signed under penalty of perjury. Mann failed to disclose all persons who he believed had "communicated false statements of fact about you or your work that caused damage to your reputation, as well as the statements."

Mann's response: "It fell through the cracks. It was an honest mistake... there were hundreds of pages." Hundreds of pages? This from the man whose entire profession (and career) is contingent upon hundreds of, if not thousands, points of data? And those other persons? Well, they "didn't have nearly the reach" as Mark and the other defendants.

The discrepancy in the alleged decline in the Plaintiff's grant funding submitted in his own documentation admitted as evidence? "It was the lawyers."

The distortion of Hockey and Football, one of the "statements at issue," in Mann's book in which the word "mad" was added to a direct quote attributed to Mark, as in, "Mad Michael Mann was the man behind..." Oh, that is a "typo." No wait, it was "the editors."

Mann is never to blame. He is innocent. Perfect, if one will.

Let's turn to Mann's emails, which in discovery included the following gem about Judith Curry:

"... folks here were relieved to see her go. I don't know all the details. What I do know is that Peter Webster was a married faculty member and Judy Curry was a graduate student. Affairs, ugly divorce, et cetera, yada, yada. Webster and Curry left together... to the relief of everyone I know here who was around then. mike."

Except the woman in question wasn't actually a graduate student, but was in fact another faculty member. Mann admitted: "These are rumors I was passing along" (lovely), and his "facts could be wrong," AND wait for it... "she is what I would a call a serial misinformer when it comes to science."

Ah ha. So spreading rumors of an affair in academic circles if you're Michael Mann — on purpose — to discredit someone who doesn't agree with you to ruin their reputation isn't defamation? Got it.

Finally, ICYMI — This evening, Bill McGurn in the Wall Street Journal writes, "This is lawfare. The message is: If you don't like a critic's tweet or blog posts, just drag him through the courts. It's especially sweet if someone else foots your bill." Read the full column here.

National Review is also tracking the trial, with coverage here.

And Mark's Opening Statement can be found here.

https://www.steynonline.com/14056/the-emperor-has-no-clothes?fbclid=IwAR1ww5SwRU6uHGqNPnkx1B8E0IwA5nKoWouZvmlghlEaBF_K0dgEe1GvzoQ

[Body-by-Guinness]

CO2 level responsible for planetary “greening:”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/30/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and-its-driven-by-co2-fertilization/

[Crafty_Dog]

Heh heh.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Feldman looks the UK’s Net Zero plan, with the Royal Society head noting the energy emperor is way underdressed:


In A Scandal in Bohemia, Sherlock Holmes say, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ” Recent admissions by Britain’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) indicate they've done just that, relying on insufficient data to induce parliament to embrace net-zero. Without accurate data the net-zero plan must be suspended or repealed until further, more accurate assessment is made.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who headed a Royal Society study on future energy supply, is the man who pulled back the curtain on the Climate Change Committee’s sloppy, misleading work. Whether this was just incompetence or an intent to deceive, I leave it to readers to decide. Llewellyn Smith determined that the CCC grossly overestimated the potential number of days during which the U.K. could rely on wind and solar energy to reach a net-zero goal.

The CCC has admitted the error: through its chief executive, Chris Stark, it conceded its projections were based on “the hourly energy demand and real weather data from a low-wind year.” The CCC’s advice to ministers in 2019 projected “there would be only seven days in which wind turbines would produce less than ten percent of their potential output. That compared to 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018.”


Performance anxiety.

By using data from only one year, just as the CCC overestimated the energy output of these renewables it also underestimated the amount of storage capacity needed when relying on these “intermittent weather dependent energy sources.” The Royal Society report estimates that by 2050 one hundred terawatt hours (TWh) of storage will be needed to make up for the variations in wind and sunshine, an estimate not based on the CCC’s reliance on one year’s worth of data, but on 37 years of weather data.

It’s hard to imagine how such an optimistic forecast based on so little was not the product of deliberate misinformation, misinformation unquestioned by parliament or Theresa May when they enshrined the 2050 target into law. It’s even harder to imagine why, with the error admitted, parliament won’t suspend or repeal it.

In the process of critical examination of the data underpinning the Net-Zero law, parliament ought to also consider the words of John Clauser, winner of the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize:

I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency.... atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated.

Clauser asserts that, as with the U.K.’s net-zero policy, the “climate emergency” policy is based on bad data—in this case the IPCC’s computer models which “have all misidentified the dominant process that controls the earth’s climate.” Neither is he alone in debunking the “climate emergency” claim. More than 1,600 climate science professionals have signed a declaration saying the same thing:


Politicized the climate debate certainly is; with no consequences for producing bad data and inducing passage of laws based on it, fakery will continue until the charlatans who peddle such things face some consequences and voters wise up and demand change.

Clarice Feldman is a retired attorney living in Washington, D.C. During her legal career she represented the late labor leader Joseph ("Jock") Yablonski and the reform mine workers against Tony Boyle. She served as an attorney with the Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations, in which role she prosecuted those who aided the Nazis in World War II. She has written for The Weekly Standard and is a regular contributor to American Thinker.

https://the-pipeline.org/net-zero-a-capital-mistake/?fbclid=IwAR1lUxk_pv0AtIFjzbVtZB6ckvA0fCcB6VK3IJBoQt-wt00krXUXQaxUJdM

[ccp]

thanks for the climate posts BBG
help clarify the ongoing debates

[Body-by-Guinness]

thanks for the climate posts BBG
help clarify the ongoing debates

Something of a peeve of mine. 30 years of doomsaying, primarily made off of models, models that when extrapolated rearward don’t match the weather we’ve had, and when a couple years pass after a model is presented, they invariably fail to have predicted the weather we did have. Combined with all the duplicity associated with the alarmist side—Michael Mann’s suit against Mark Steyn and others currently occurring in DC is a fine case in point—and it’s difficult to conclude the alarmist side is little more than a ham handed attempt to stampede the hoi poli into relinquishing liberty and choice to politicians and politicized “scientist” pursuing power rather than truth.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Some serious irony here. I handle print and mail at a college. Trying to talk faculty out of their desktop printers despite there being a more energy efficient multifunction print producing higher quality impressions 30 feet from their office, or for that matter getting students to break down their boxes for recycling in the mail room are both tasks I’ve banged me head against the wall regarding. Now these woebegone profs. are claiming they can’t take action on behalf of the climate? Hell, in academia the horse is led to water, a bucket full thereof raised to its lips, but no drinking done? Hell, what they want is for someone to do the drinking for them so they can take credit for it.

Claim: University Researchers Feel Powerless to Take Personal Climate Action
4 hours agoEric Worrall31 Comments
Essay by Eric Worrall

“Barriers” to climate action include pressure to travel, and a lack of financial incentives to embrace low carbon approaches to research.

Climate change: university researchers feel powerless to take action – survey

Published: January 31, 2024 2.38am AEDT
Briony Latter
Researcher in Climate Change Engagement, Cardiff University

University researchers in the UK, across all disciplines and at all career stages, are struggling to take action against climate change despite wanting to do so.

Many academics worry about climate change but face several barriers to changing their habits, including the pressure to travel. In one case, a climate researcher conducting field work abroad wanted to use slower and more sustainable forms of transport rather than fly back to work at a research institute in Germany. He was fired.

The majority think their university does not give them enough information about how to conduct research in a sustainable way. Funding processes, such as applications for grants to carry out research, do not incentivise low-carbon approaches either, they say.

Different barriers to climate action appear at different career stages. Early career researchers in particular lack institutional support (such as job security or the encouragement to act), are involved in few projects about climate change (whether as part of research or outside of their roles) and feel uncertain about what they can do.

Mid-career researchers were more likely to complain of a high workload thwarting their ambitions. When asked if senior researchers should have a high responsibility for addressing climate change in universities, senior researchers themselves were more likely to think so than early and mid-career researchers, suggesting that they recognise their own potential role.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-change-university-researchers-feel-powerless-to-take-action-survey-221830

Why are academics yielding to pressure to travel frequently, if every flight brings us closer to a lethal climate tipping point? Why is keeping their job so important, if the world is on the brink of climate catastrophe?

Why do university academics want OTHERS to spoon-feed them information on how they can be more carbon neutral? Why can’t they take 5 minutes to look up low carbon lifestyle and professional alternatives for themselves?

If this pathetic effort is all the energy and concern university academics can muster to address the alleged climate crisis, there is no reason for the rest of us care.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/04/claim-university-researchers-feel-powerless-to-take-personal-climate-action/

[Body-by-Guinness]

This is a hoot. Psycologists theorize “deniers” are more selfish that those who swallow alarmist claims. Alas, a series of experiments all fail to prover their hypothesis, leaving these True Believers bewildered:

https://joannenova.com.au/2024/02/psychologists-were-sure-climate-deniers-were-selfish-but-a-study-of-4000-showed-the-experts-were-wrong/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=psychologists-were-sure-climate-deniers-were-selfish-but-a-study-of-4000-showed-the-experts-were-wrong

[Body-by-Guinness]

If a "denier" were to do what Mann has done he'd be cancelled with extreme prejudice. Check out what Mann said about Curry toward the end of this piece. Indeed, Mann was forced to state under oath that he had lied about Curry. He has yet to apologize. This is the face of unbridled narcissism, and the "progressive" left hasn't and won't hold him to account:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/06/quote-of-the-week-manntastic-claims/

[Body-by-Guinness]

Posted as an example of everything wrong with journalism these days. No mention of Mann’s sexist slander of Judith Curry, the poor statistical analysis, the unwillingness to share source code, of who is paying for Mann’s suits as NPR slings around guilt by association non sequiturs about oil companies and right wing boogie men as Steyn serves as his own attorney because he isn’t backed like Mann is as he has dragged these proceedings out for a decade precisely because he seeks to were down and bankrupt people with the gall to use protected speech to tell the truth as they see it. Behold this example of media malpractice and keep it in mind the next time some talking head proclaims her journalistic virtues, and then go count your silverware in case she stole some:


The Courts  Science

A Famous Climate Scientist Is In Court With Big Stakes For Attacks On Science (npr.org) 25
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @10:30PM from the climate-information-on-trial dept.

Julia Simon reports via NPR:

In a D.C. courtroom, a trial is wrapping up this week with big stakes for climate science. One of the world's most prominent climate scientists is suing a right-wing author and a policy analyst for defamation. The case comes at a time when attacks on scientists are proliferating, says Peter Hotez, professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology at Baylor College of Medicine. Even as misinformation about scientists and their work keeps growing, Hotez says scientists haven't yet found a good way to respond. "The reason we're sort of fumbling at this is it's unprecedented. And there is no roadmap," he says. The climate scientist at the center of this trial is Michael Mann. The professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania gained prominence for helping make one of the most accessible, consequential graphs in the history of climate science. First published in the late 1990s, the graph shows thousands of years of relatively stable global temperatures. Then, when humans start burning lots of coal and oil, it shows a spike upward. Mann's graph looks like a hockey stick lying on its side, with the blade sticking straight up. The so-called "hockey stick graph" was successful in helping the public understand the urgency of global warming, and that made it a target, says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit. "Because it became such a powerful image, it was under attack from the beginning," he says.

The attacks came from groups that reject climate science, some funded by the fossil fuel industry. In the midst of these types of attacks -- including the hacking of Mann's and other scientists' emails by unknown hackers -- Penn State, where Mann was then working, opened an investigation into his research. Penn State, as well as the National Science Foundation, found no evidence of scientific misconduct. But a policy analyst and an author wrote that they were not convinced. The trial in D.C. Superior Court involves posts from right-wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg. In an online post, Simberg compared Mann to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child sex abuser. Simberg wrote that Mann was the "Sandusky of climate science," writing that Mann "molested and tortured data (PDF)." Steyn called Mann's research fraudulent. Mann sued the two men for defamation. Mann also sued the publishers of the posts, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but in 2021, the court ruled they couldn't be held liable.

In court, Mann has argued that he lost funding and research opportunities. Steyn said in court that if Penn State's president, Graham Spanier, covered up child sexual assault, why wouldn't he cover up for Mann's science. The science in question used ice cores and tree rings to estimate Earth's past temperatures. "If Graham Spanier is prepared to cover up child rape, week in, week out, year in, year out, why would he be the least bit squeamish about covering up a bit of hanky panky with the tree rings and the ice cores?" Steyn asked the court. Mann and Steyn declined to speak to NPR during the ongoing trial. One of Simberg's lawyers, Victoria Weatherford, said "inflammatory does not equal defamatory" and that her client is allowed to express his opinion, even if it were wrong. "No matter how offensive or distasteful or heated it is," Weatherford tells NPR, "that speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment when it's said against a public figure, if the person saying it believed that what they said was true."


https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/02/06/2254240/a-famous-climate-scientist-is-in-court-with-big-stakes-for-attacks-on-science?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed

[Body-by-Guinness]

Posted as, in view of recent California rain etc. we can expect other alarmists to to embrace weather anecdote caused by a known phenomenon and instead ascribe it in pursuit of a hidden political end.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/07/is-northwest-snow-history-scientific-errors-in-a-major-seattle-times-climate-story/

ETA: And of course I find an immediate piece embracing what I predicted:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/07/no-los-angeles-times-climate-change-is-not-supercharging-the-latest-winter-storm/

[Body-by-Guinness]

2nd post: a bit of alarmist hand wringing that minds me of a scene in This is Spinal Tap:

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and…
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don’t know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: (pause) These go to eleven.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/07/hurricane-category-6/