Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« TailGate - Josh 389 | Main | Petition to the President »

Dr Mann in the dock - Josh 388

On this historic Brexit day the fun has not been confined to this continent. Over in the US they have had a 'hearing' on Climate Science with three of the world's most eminent climate scientists. Michael Mann was there too. 

Worth watching (nearly) the whole thing.

Cartoons by Josh


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (217)

Why should I consult a history book at this juncture?

Apr 5, 2017 at 12:29 PM | Jim Hunt

If you knew some history, you would not keep making the same mistakes.

That is why Climate Science prefers to rewrite history, so it does not appear it is making the same mistakes, for example, William M Connolley trying to erase the 1970s Ice Age scare? Or do you still believe that did not happen?

Climate Science refused to listen to those who questionned Mann's Hockey Stick. Why should anyone listen to Climate Scientists and/or their Collaborators now?

Apr 5, 2017 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You can fit a lot of nuclear subs in Santa's 2016 summer swimming pool!

Apr 5, 2017 at 1:11 PM | Jim Hunt

What about 1816, "The Year Without a Summer", that followed the Tambora volcanic eruption in 1815 (same year as Waterloo), that saw world temperatures plunge? Strangely, by 1846, the Franklin Expedition was lost, looking for the North West Passage, that followed a decade+ of decreasing Arctic Ice, as temperatures had warmed, more than in living memory.

Strangely, Mann's Hockey Stick does not note these anomalies, and you don't believe them, even though they are recorded. Would you prefer to denounce "International Ice Expert" Peter Wadhams, as Gavin Schmidt has done? Apparently he has been to the Arctic over 50 times, therefore he must be an expert according to The Guardian.

Ignoring his Hockey Stick, why do you bother to defend Mann? Is it because you can't be bothered with Inconvenient Truths like history, geography and science?

Apr 5, 2017 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Charlie - For much discussion about "The Year Without a Summer" and its relation to Arctic sea ice in general and Franklin in particular please feel free to peruse:

The Northwest Passage in 2016

Your name is mentioned in the very first paragraph, and there's some excellent musical accompaniment!

Apr 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

I'm still trying to figure out how RDF can provide a reasonable fix (better than DR) in the polar basin when the nearest NDB is over 1,000 nm away . . .

Apr 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

My motives are simple, Mr Hunt: the facts. With facts can come hypotheses; with hypotheses can come further observations to test these hypotheses; those hypotheses that agree with these further facts can develop into theories. Theories are NOT immune to further testing – indeed, further testing of theories is essential. Regrettably, the theories around climate science do seem to be above all reproach: “The science is settled!” A position that you seem to consider correct, hence your dismissal of those scientists who question the theory, and quite avid support for a demonstrable liar.

There didn’t seem to be much in the way of digital photography back then, so people were a bit more circumspect with their use of a camera.

A few year later, they had progressed to colour.

Apr 5, 2017 at 4:57 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

As for the evidence that the Arctic has records going further back than 1979, and today may not be too unusual, here is another site, complete with sources, for you to peruse.

Apr 5, 2017 at 5:11 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Jim Hunt, can't be bovvered. Much like the work of vvussell.
By coincidence, have you noted Russell's Teapot?

Apr 5, 2017 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Apr 5, 2017 at 5:11 PM | Radical Rodent

Thank you. Much more honest info, from people who are not trying to profit from wrecking lives and science.

Apr 5, 2017 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As for the pillorying of those who question the “science” of climate change, how soon before we start burning books?

What worries me is that there may be some who read, and contribute on, this site may harbour agreement with that idea.

Apr 5, 2017 at 10:33 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Apr 5, 2017 at 10:33 PM | Radical Rodent

Climate Science is proving as Unreliable for Politicians, as their energy policies are for taxpayers.

Burning Climate Science would be of therapeutic value for billions of people, and probably more energy efficient than woodchips, but production of useless Climate Science is Unsustainable, once Politicians realise that Taxpayers don't like them burning other people's bank notes, for no logical reason, and without any benefit to anyone (apart from 97% of Climate Scientists and thousands of their Collaborators)

Apr 6, 2017 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

By all means listen carefully at first hand to that 17 second clip, wherein Mann truthfully repeats that Judy has been called a denier in print by someone else.

If heresay dismays you, you haven't been paying attention to two of the world's great Advertising organs- Question Time & The Congressional record.

Apr 9, 2017 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Apr 12, 2017 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

There are very reliable numerical estimates of the human contribution to warming…
Wow! What a killer of an observation! (And that is only the first comment…)
There are indeed plenty of studies that use statistical or model-based fingerprints to assess this…
Mr Schmidt as his best, eh?

The rest is of similar quality, from a very limited quantity – many being the usual suspects. Ho-hum…

Whether or not you agree with the scientific arguments put forward by the Drs Curry, Christy and Pielke, at least they put forward scientific arguments, something sadly missing from Mr Mann’s self-praise liturgy and deceit.

Apr 16, 2017 at 10:20 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I think it is a mistake to get hung up on the word 'estimate'. In practice, all measurements are in fact estimates, with a degree of uncertainty constrained by a number of factors.

When you're driving down the M1 and your speedometer tells you your speed is 70mph, is that right? On a hot day, your tyres will expand slightly, meaning each revolution of the wheels takes you fractionally further than the odometer is calibrated for, and who knows if that factory calibration was correct?

But the variance between your actual speed and the estimate being reported by your instrumentation is highly unlikely to be more than 10%. Which is why the police operate to that tolerance when issuing fixed penalty notices for speeding.

Similarly, we cannot put an exact number on the human contribution to global warming, but we can come up with an estimate, along with the confidence interval for that estimate, which as Professor Renwick notes, is actually quite narrow.

Apr 17, 2017 at 2:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Apr 19, 2017 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Not another Josh Own Goal !

Is he punch drunk from his own GWPF cartoons?

Apr 23, 2017 at 8:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

GC gives me too much credit- I have never put a teapot in Earth orbit, albeit my lab did design the diamond optics for the Magellan Venus lander through which the presure broadening of the atmospheric CO2 absorption spectrum was measured before the Hellish Greenhouse Effect on the surface fried the poor specrophotometer.

Apr 24, 2017 at 12:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>