Wednesday
Mar292017
by 
Josh
Josh Dr Mann in the dock - Josh 388
Mar 29, 2017 Climate: Curry Climate: Mann Climate: RP Jnr Josh ;)
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.
Reader Comments (217)
RR - Unlike you I am well aware of when Skate surfaced "at the North Pole" via a handily located lead, and it wasn't in 1957. Despite what WUWT might claim, it wasn't in 1958 either.
If you contend otherwise then once again I suggest you stop throwing stones from within your proverbial glass house and present some evidence for your assertion that is more credible than an article by Anthony Watts!
Skate at North Pole
https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html
Okay, so I got the year wrong. Though she did try in 1957, they actually had to wait a couple more years. Never mind (I tried Wikipedia, but there are indications that Mr Connolly might have got there before me).
By the way, even if WUWT was extant when I was 12, there is no way I could have afforded a computer to read it (and, even if I could have afforded one, I would not have had the room – or, more correctly, rooms – for one), but – hey!
Dang! My little German cousin beat me to it!
Apr 3, 2017 at 11:13 PM | Jim Hunt
Despite what you claim, why should anyone believe you?
If you contend otherwise, then you will need to prove your "evidence" was not produced by a Hockey Teamster, such as William M Connolley. He has a proven track record of rewriting science and history, and you have a proven track record for gullibility.
You could search Anthony Watt's site for more accurate information.
Radical Rodent, if only Jim Hunt and Climate Science were so meticulous about their own fabricated data. What is the significance of a single year in Earth's Climate history?
If only Mann could remember what he had written in Testimony, he would not have told such a stinking porky pie in front of the World's media, Lawyers and Politicians. Climate Scientists do not consider this to be worth a mention, presumably, it is deemed normal working practice.
vvussell quotes Nick Stokes from this thread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/02/why-john-christies-missing-hotspot-matters/
but completely fails to draw attention to responses, such as this initial one (there are more), from
richardscourtney April 3, 2017 at 7:30 am
This tends to reduce the credibility of Nick Stokes, but 97% of Climate Scientists will argue about anything if there is sufficient incentive to save Climate Scientists' careers.
An incident from the hearings of the Committee of Science, Technology etc. that the MSM missed out on.
https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html
Watching it in small doses, Mann's familiarity with speaking brazen
untruthslies comes over loud and clear in that he actually seems quite bored with it in places.Watching him speak to academic audiences he usually seems more animated and persuasive in his confident style. The exception was when he got straight to his 97% consensus and questioning the right of Christy, Curry and Pielke to even be there. He gives a genuinely good impression of believing they have no right to speak on the topic, either there or anywhere else. ,
I quite liked Christy showing once again that a well-chosen picture can speak a thousand words. He emphasises that the real consensus, the one that matters, can be physically represented by one of the lines in his simple diagram: The line that doesn't match reality when comparing the climate models with the real world measurements. It is good to be able to speak to a lay audience and say "Look at that line. That line represents the core 'consensus' of climate science today, and it can be swiftly rejected by those who adhere to basic scientific standards that prevail in most of human scientific endeavour outside of global-warming alarmism. There is a consensus, a consensus of computer models, and it is failing.” The remedy for a host of failing models is not more models and more consensus.
Pielke did his usual solid job of simply reminding us of the topic that most of the media actually spends most of their time on: the (in)frequency of weird dangerous weather, and how it's not increasing. The IPCC says there is no evidence for historically unusual incidence of hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes or storms raining frogs and brimstone. The media thinks it is. But it isn't.
Curry's style is less flamboyant than team Mann but she said the points that needed saying and his history towards her is surely well known to most. My guess is that seasoned professional politicians watching would not be particularly impressed by Mann's approach. He is a bully who is too arrogant to hide it when it might be wise to do so.
Skate at North Pole
https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html
Look at the amazing lack of ice at 1:10 ;-)
He is a bully who is too arrogant to hide it when it might be wise to do so.
Apr 4, 2017 at 3:59 AM | michael hart
Progressives in The US, UK and EU think Mann is the new Messiah, and this performance probably convinced them they are still right.
Climate Scientists have never found any mistakes in their own work, or each other's, therefore their arrogance is part of a positive feedback mechanism that enhances their own personal and collective delusion. They will deny this too.
Charlie - "Why should anyone believe you?"
Well for starters, because KFM & RR have produced a video stating that it happened in 1959? Didn't you watch it?
"You could search Anthony Watt's site for more accurate information"
I don't think so. Watts claimed it was 1958!
Apr 4, 2017 at 8:14 AM | Jim Hunt
Do you agree with Mann (the subject of this thread) that there was no Medieval Warm Period?
You still miss the basic point however. Why should anyone trust anything from you or anyone else trying to defend Climate Science?
It was necessary at the time for US Military propaganda purposes, to convince the USSR and the US Public, that they could hide a submarine, and surface it, from under Arctic Ice.
It is still necessary for Climate Science propaganda purposes to cast doubt on any Inconvenient Truths.
William M Connolley is stll lying about the 1970s Ice Age scare, and you believe him. Do you have access to William M Connolley propaganda about Arctic Ice conditions in the 1970s, or is that what you are referring to, without realising it, about the late 1950s?
You seem to exercise selective discrimination when it comes to dishonesty. Is it deliberate?
JH
I thought you might have hysterics about the 1957 'claim' and you haven't disappointed.
II don't really care, actually, whether it was 50 or 48 years ago - the point was this was well before good old CAGW got going (allegedly).
Heh, the Piltdown Mann's straight shaft on his Crook't Stick was a lie, and it will haunt the alarmists until the end of time. Please, why were they so penny wise and pound foolish as to promote that?
==================
Pw & pf is not quite the metaphor juste. The alarmist took an immediate gain with a guaranteed long term loss. Just stupid, but look how destructive their stupidity has become. It would be a laughing matter but for the damages, not just to society, which are huge, but also to Mann's 'cause', which are fatal.
Dumb, dammed, damnably dumb.
=================
I rather like the tropical troposphere hot spot. The prediction is for a nice, fat slug of hot air at the top of the tropical troposphere. There's a nice paper about its absence here:
http://sciencespeak.s3.amazonaws.com/missing-hotspot.pdf
which puts the difficulty rather well:
"The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart, because the same water vapor feedback that produces the hotspot in IPCC climate theory also doubles or triples the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC climate models. If the IPCC climate modellers just turn down the water vapor feedback in their models enough so their theoretical signatures match the observed warming patterns, then the predicted temperature increases due to projected carbon emissions are greatly reduced and are no longer of much concern.
The radiosonde data shocked the alarmists, who expected a hotspot to confirm their theory. Alarmists now dispute the radiosonde data, saying it is so poor that it cannot show any pattern. But radiosondes can reliably detect temperature differences of 0.1°C, and the hotspot would be at least 0.6°C warmer. And there were hundreds of radiosondes—they cannot all have missed it. Alarmists now distract people away from the hotspot issue, and often give the impression that they found the hotspot without actually claiming they have."
The last sentence puts me in mind of a sort of tropical, troposphere hot spot 'pause'.
That quotation was written 10 years ago, so by now we must be talking about thousands, not hundreds, of radiosondes.
Personally, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised it's not there: if you stick a lump of hot air high in the troposphere then it'll be whisked away by convection in no time, but that again hints that global warming due to CO2/water vapour is unlikely to be a concern.
Global Warmists are stuck with Mann, and his fiery pants. If they all threw a bucket of water over him now, it would only be about 20 years too late.
II don't really care, actually, whether it was 50 or 48 years ago - the point was this was well before good old CAGW got going (allegedly).
The point is, the submarine surfaced through ice. Sea ice sheets have areas of open water and thinner ice, due to stresses in the ice and warmer air and sea currents. Always did, always will. Google Leads and Polyannas.
Apr 4, 2017 at 10:08 AM | Capell
After all the Taxpayer Funding wasted on looking for the Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot, they decided it was hiding at the bottom of the ocean, and never admitted they were looking in the wrong place, for something that did not exist.
All Climate Scientists have pixies at the bottom of their garden, but this can not be verified, because they claim they are away on a camping holiday, on the Dark Side of the Moon. Climate Scientists will not accept they are wrong about the pixies at the bottom of their garden, without proof that they are not on a camping holiday on the Dark Side of the Moon.
Google Leads and Polyannas.
Apr 4, 2017 at 10:53 AM | Phil Clarke
??????
Did submarines find "Leads and Polyannas" with a SeeUpU-Scope?
Charlie - Almost. See: http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01360_upward_looking_sonar/ for example.
Capell - Hysterical? Moi?
You might find this interesting?
http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_40/nautilus.html
Since good old CAGW hadn't got going:
This is the only image that I know of that is definitely the USS Skate at the Pole in 1959. Note the submariners miraculously walking on the expanse of open water.
She did attempt to surface 2 years earlier, but only managed to get within 30 nm of the pole and only shallow enough to send off a radio message, due to all the ice ......
Note the massive up thrust of enormously thick ice that the sub has lifted up as her sail broke through the ice . . .
Capell, the Polyannas ate all the ice.
Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it Capell?
Captain's log. Star date 1959 and a bit:
Can I safely assume that you didn't bother to read the text helpfully provided beneath the video op. cit.?
JH
I wasn't op.citing your video, but PC'S picture, so your assumption is correct.
Boundless ignorance indeed!
This is the only image that I know of that is definitely the USS Skate at the Pole in 1959. Note the submariners miraculously walking on the expanse of open water.
She did attempt to surface 2 years earlier, but only managed to get within 30 nm of the pole and only shallow enough to send off a radio message, due to all the ice ......
Apr 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM | Phil Clarke
What evidence do you have to prove your evidence is definitely right? You were very definite about Gergis "proving" Mann correct, but it is quite clear that Mann can't remember the Testimony he wrote himself, and now you don't even mention Gergis.
The "Facts" relied upon by Climate Science, seem endlessly variable, and definitely forgettable by Climate Scientists themselves.
As Supertroll observed, the thread is about Mann lying. Would it matter if USS Skate surfaced before or after afternoon tea?
Mr Clarke, you do seem to be joining Mr Hunt in missing the point – a submarine surfaced at the North Pole some 60 years ago, in an ice field that the captain of the submarine considered sufficiently thin not to pose too much of a threat to his boat. (As an aside, it is interesting to note that a self-proclaimed expert of the Arctic seemed to declare ignorance of this event.) Whether the captain found a conveniently-located lead or polynya (curse your auto-correct!) is really irrelevant; he surfaced at (or as near as dammit) the North Pole. The year is really irrelevant, too; could such a feat be performed, today? Now, we are being told that the ice is the “least it has ever been!” yet, not too long ago, we have televisual evidence of the ice extent being enough to enable people to drive to the North Pole. The point is that we DO NOT have the same level of information about the ice from before the launch of satellites to be able to make true comparisons between the situation then (be it 60 years ago or 160 years ago, or any time in between) and the data we have accumulated over the past 38 years.
One other thing that puzzles me is why we always refer to 1979 as the start of satellite measurements, as these satellite measurements actually began in 1973. The fact that 1979 was when the ice extent was unusually high might have some bearing on that, as the extent in 1973 was not much more than it is, today, therefore offers not much that we can be scared with.
Golf Charlie,
Phil Clarke was claiming that USS Skate tried to get to the pole in 1957, but it was not the Skate - it was the Nautilus. I can only say his ignorance knows no bounds . . .!
Actually, Nautilus was a very silly bunny in 1957 because she went in June, and any fool knows the ice will be very thick indeed in that month.
Skate went there at the beginning of August.
Judging by how few UK politicians voted against the 2008 Climate Change Act the prospect of climate change catastrophe is regarded as certain. One MP recently stated that climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity. When asked why, their reply is that "scientists" tell them we must stop using "fossil fuels" or face irreversible global warming catastrophe due to man made CO2 emissions (or CAGW, for short).
Yet, on here, self-proclaimed harbingers of the climate change consensus deny CAGW. So why doesn't the consensus correct the politicians' belief in CAGW? The obvious answer is that the present situation suits the consensus very well. Not only does it ensure the continuation of the publicly funded gravy-train, and the kudos that goes with it, but also the consensus hopes that politicians will be blamed in the future when the whole hoax collapses.
Budgie
Indeed, climategate ended current climate research as a credible scientific endeavour but the establishment covered it up. Hide the decline revealed the proxy methodology as not only wholly inadequate but recklessly dishonest.
Climategate, the gift that will never stop giving.
esmith. Au contraire, apart from some tightening up of protocols, I noticed very little change in CRU after Climategate I or Climategate II. Funding continued, researchers were recruited, and those whose contracts expired went onto pastures new and lush. Several new degree courses were begun and attracted sufficient undergraduate interest. You may think Climategate was significant but, after the various investigations (= cover ups) were completed all went merrily along as if nothing had really happened.
The only significant change I noted was that the CRU building became limited access and a short cut to my office in ENV became barred to me. That and a few more gray hairs on the principal protagonists.
Supertroll
I agree, but the evidence is there for any reasonable person to see. Whitewashed or not.
Apr 4, 2017 at 2:15 PM | Radical Rodent
Climate Science, like polyannas and polar bears, should not skate on thin ice.
The precise timing of the event remains confused, possibly deliberately, for reasons of National Security that existed at the time.
The precise location of the event also remains a guessestimate of academic interest only, unless Phil Clarke and Jim Hunt can demonstrate how a 1950s submarine beneath ice, could have located itself, prior to surfacing through ice.
Astro/Celestial Navigation does require a view of the sky. GPS did not exist. RDF (Radio Direction Finding) was developed during WW2 to locate a submarine when it was transmitting, and was used by aircrew to locate themselves and plot a course to steer towards their target.
A submariner could have transmitted a signal, that others could have triangulated, and/or a submariner could have triangulated a position by a Direction Finding Antenna plotting the angles to known transmitters.
So if a submarine had been ordered to surface through ice at the North Pole, it would have had no means to be accurate, UNTIL it had an antenna above water and ice.
GPS was developed to allow Cruise Missiles to work out where they are, and how to steer towards a target, once launched.
If Climate Science collaborators prefer to argue about precise time and location of USS Skate (?) at the North Pole (ish) as a means of diverting discussion away from Mighty Mann, the Holiest of Hockey Sticks, and Unprecedented Pork Pie production before a world wide audience, filmed for posterity, it would suggest that their Denial has reached Desperation Level 10.
Too bad the poyana pollyanna's & white bears kept golf charlie more than a few degrees away fronm Santa's Workshop a year ago January, when temperatures rose above freezing in the middle of the circumpolar night.
Tip O' the mitre to the Bish's acolytes for keeeping the stocking-stuffing coal mining classes well employed .
RR - Do you know what a "small lead" is?
Charlie - Do you know what "inertial guidance" is?
Russell - FYI - Santa's swimming pool last summer:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/santa-extends-his-secret-summer-swimming-pool/
Any chance we can now get back to "Mann in the dock"?
Mr Hunt: yes. Also, as Golf Charlie is an experienced navigator, he is most probably does know what “inertial guidance” is, though is unlikely to have practical experience of it; however, it is unlikely to have been particularly accurate, as it was still developing technology, then. You are aware that, deep sea, there is no real need for accurate positioning, unless making landfall or in hazardous waters – and, in both occasions, there will be other methods of fixing your position?
Apr 5, 2017 at 8:15 AM | Jim Hunt
Does inertial guidance assist the positioning of a submarine beneath ice? How do you verify accuracy whilst under the ice, until you surface? Was the exact position of USS Skate relevant at the time? You do understand propaganda, misinformation and fake news, so why are you drawing attention to it?
Yes, many would like to get Mann back into the dock.
Climate Science is all doom and gloom, you ought to try the PollyAnna approach, and see the brighter side, no one is complaining about the Climate. Life on Earth is happy. No one wants a return to the Little Ice Age, which Mann denies ever happened, so Climate Science refuses to explain.
Climate Science has backed itself into a corner by adhering to Mann's redaction of the LIA and MWP. What is Climate Science going to do about it now? Climate Science has had almost 20 years to get honest, but has failed.
Could you prepare a list of the good bits of Climate Science, so they are saved?
RR - Some evidence for you:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/december-2016-arctic-report-card/#comment-216803
Charlie - Yes it does. Read the history books.
How else do you suggest you navigate under thick sea ice should you want to demonstrate your ability to nuke Moscow even in the middle of winter?
Re CRU, why jest
carry on regardless,
pal-gate-keeping,
judiciuos-carpet-sweeping,
omnimodo necesso perifcere,
must keep the funding flowing.
Apr 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM | Jim Hunt
Dead Reckoning. Surface. Obtain RDF Fix.
The point of the US Navy popping up a submarine at the North Pole (ish) was to demonstrate to everyone, including the Soviets that they could. They did not need a land base or airfield close to the USSR. They could even hide a sub under the ice in the Arctic waters that border the Soviet Union.
Part of the Soviet response was to build missile launchers in Cuba ..... I know William M Connolley of the Green Party and Hockey Teamster notoriety has seen fit to nuke much of Wikipedia, but there must be some bits worth reading for you to learn some history.
How do you suggest Mann got away with lying for so long about Climate History, with 97% of Climate Scientists not noticing?
Thank you, Mr Hunt. Now, is there evidence that this has never happened before, and/or that its event is because of human-induced global warming?
You do understand that I am rather cynical about you and your motives in this? You do seem to be rather keen to dismiss the scientific evidence provided by three of those four on the panel in question, and show an eagerness to support an almost science-free presentation from a demonstrable liar. Such behaviour is one of a person who is not prepared to keep an open mind in the debate, and is more than happy to not only leap to conclusions, but avidly defend those conclusions, in spite of much evidence to the contrary: not, I would have thought, what one should expect in a scientist.
Ravishing Rattie, upon reflection I think I agree with Tim Ball over at WUWT that the MANNikin had no intention of winning a scientific conflict at the hearing. Instead he strove to win a media battle, and using several possible measures, he did. He certainly was the most confident that he was correct and, in any battle for influence, that means a great deal.
You could be right, Minty. The sad truth is that you could be right. Mr Mann knew that he could not win a scientific argument, so merely courted the media, a skill he seems particularly good at – which is odd, considering his distinct lack of good looks or personality. Perhaps one should refer to one of the true greats of our time (sadly no longer with us, so we have to miss the maelstrom that he would have caused with the “scientific” community).
Charlie - The Skate tested another method:
Surface through a small lead or with luck a large polynya. Obtain RDF Fix. Inertial guidance.
You've reiterated my point about "the US Navy popping up a submarine at the North Pole (ish)". Why should I consult a history book at this juncture?
Ravishing Rattie - Sticks and stones etc. Especially when located in a glass house! You're putting words in my mouth re Dr. Mann. You do understand that I am rather cynical about you and your motives in this?
Have you viewed my images of Oden and Santa at the North Pole yet? Let me experiment....
Do you have anything similar with Skate in view? Then back to the main Mann!
It seems there's no way to include an image in a comment here? In which case:
Santa Extends His Secret Summer Swimming Pool
You can fit a lot of nuclear subs in Santa's 2016 summer swimming pool!
Apr 5, 2017 at 12:29 PM | Jim Hunt
you forgot to respond to this:
"How do you suggest Mann got away with lying for so long about Climate History, with 97% of Climate Scientists not noticing?
Apr 5, 2017 at 11:19 AM | golf charlie"
Mann forgot his own written testimony.
Even 97% of Climate Scientists are beginning to wish the Hockey Stick had been forgotten, rather than wasting even more taxpayer funding on trying to prove it.
The beauty of the internet is that Trump does not require WW2 Radio Technology to target 97% of Climate nonScience. Some US Universities may see entire faculties wiped out with one financial strike. The space, time and money can be used more effectively, which will be a bonus for all.