By Dr. John Happs
Dr. Michael Mann will be in Australia for 6 months during 2020 as Visiting Professor at the Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) at the University of New South Wales.
This is the same university that awarded an honorary doctorate to the late Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, in her book: Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report and the Nobel Peace Prize, described Rajendra Pachauri, the former chairman of the IPCC, as an environmental activist, habitual liar on climate matters and a “non-stop train wreck.”
Tony Thomas has certainly done his homework on Pachauri and his summary makes the above comments by Laframboise appear more than charitable:
No doubt Dr. Michael Mann will take every opportunity to engage the Australian media to persuade them that dangerous global warming is here and we are all doomed. He will tell us how we are now facing more heatwaves, droughts, dramatic sea level rise, species loss, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and more of those “unprecedented” wildfires.
Of course Mann can always count on the ABC, SBS and The Project on Channel 10 to promote this kind of alarmist nonsense. Wasting no time, Mann has already told reporter Swati Pandey:
“It is conceivable that much of Australia simply becomes too hot and dry for human habitation.”
“Unfortunately we could well see Australians join the ranks of the world’s climate refugees.“
If any Australians flee the country, it will most likely be because they can’t afford the ever-increasing cost of electricity brought about by the introduction of inefficient, unreliable wind and solar sources of energy.
Naturally, some naïve politicians and drama-seeking reporters will now link every storm, wildfire, flood, drought, very hot days, very cold days, cyclones or any natural disaster to Michael Mann’s dire warnings about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The fact that there is a total lack of empirical evidence to support his alarmism will be ignored.
We need to go back to historic records and well-established geo-chronology techniques to be confident about past climate change and how those changes compare with today’s climate.
We are currently living in a mild period of an ice age called an interglacial. Despite all the alarmist drama about an overheating planet, we are now experiencing an unusually cold period, compared to most of the past 500 million years. For more than 80% of geologic time the Earth has been up to10oC warmer than current global temperature and was free of ice sheets and glaciers.
20,000 years before present (bp) the current ice age we are now living through reached its lowest temperature (glacial maximum). Deserts occupied much of the land mass and sea levels were around 100 metres below current levels.
14,000 years bp saw a rapid warming of the Earth with temperatures similar to those we experience today. Ice sheets and glaciers retreated, sea levels rose and forested areas expanded.
12,500 years bp, in a period known as the Younger Dryas, the planet moved back into a brief cooling phase and experienced 1,000 years of increasing glacial conditions.
11,500 years bp ushered in the mild interglacial period we are now living through. This is known as the Holocene, a time when the Earth warmed, ice sheets and glaciers retreated once more, sea levels rose again, forests extended their range and deserts retreated.
However, temperatures fluctuated markedly during the Holocene and this more recent Earth climate history is well documented in both historic and geo-chronological records. These show:
200 BC to 600 AD: A time known as the Roman Warming Period.
600 to 900: A time known as the Dark Ages Cold Period.
900 to 1300: A time known as the Medieval Warm Period. The whole world experienced medieval warming which exceeded (by at least 3oC) 20th Century temperatures. Greenland was colonised; agriculture flourished in Europe and people prospered.
1300 to 1850: A time known as the Little Ice Age or Maunder Minimum, was a period of low solar activity. The LIA had global temperatures 2-3oC lower than we experience today. Crops failed; famine and disease spread and millions died of malnutrition.
As physicist James Marusek points out:
“Hunger became the heart of this crisis. Plagues, smallpox, typhus, measles and fever belong to a cluster of deadly diseases that correlate closely with harvest yields. Little Ice Age conditions produced famines, which increased the frequency and intensity of these diseases. Flooding created swamplands that became mosquito breeding grounds and introduced tropical diseases such as malaria throughout Europe.”
More recent temperature shifts include:
1850 to 1940: A period of global warming.
1940 to 1975: A period of global cooling.
1976 to 1978: A period of global warming.
1979 to present: Independent, uncontaminated temperature readings from satellites and radio-sondes (balloons) do not show any unusual warming and certainly no catastrophic global warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988. So how did the IPCC depict Earth temperature history over the last 1,000 years or more? In fact they initially showed it exactly as it is recorded in historic and geo-chronological records.
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) released in 1990 stated clearly:
“The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth Century. Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activity.”
(IPCC, WG1, Chapter 7.2.1, 1990 Report)
The IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR) released in 1995 clearly showed the historic temperature shifts, including the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the gentle 20th century warming.
In fact the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report released in 1995 stated explicitly that:
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “No study to datehas positively attributed all or part(of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversialuntil uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
IPCC contributing scientists could find no evidence for human-driven climate change and had accurately portrayed the two major climate shifts (warming and cooling) over the last 1,000 years. This was problematic for those United Nations officials who needed to show that human-produced (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide emissions were driving dangerous global warming. After all, this was their primary political/ideological goal.
How do we know this was the IPCC’s primary political/ideological goal?
The IPCC was established in 1988 by both the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
The IPCC was given the following brief:
“To assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.“
There was no empirical evidence to show any human-induced climate change – none at all. But, for political/ideological reasons, UN officials needed to show that human-induced climate change was real and the result of industrial emissions. In fact only data supporting that contention would be seriously considered.
UN officials started by ignoring the lack of evidence for human-driven climate change and used the “Summaries For Policymakers” document to say:
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”
Dr. Frederick Seitz, Past President of the NAS and American Physical Society, was appalled by this blatant abuse of the scientific process. He commented:
“This Report is not what it appears to be– it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American Scientific community, including service as president of both the NAS and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer- review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
The corruption gathered momentum when IPCC contributing scientist Dr. David Deming, a geologist at the University of Oklahoma, reflected:
“They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” (My bold)
“The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20thCentury warming was anomalous. It had to be gotten rid of.“
Enter Dr. Michael Mann, with his recently awarded Ph.D. He readily embraced “The UN’s Cause” and stepped forward with a way to get rid of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
He achieved this by producing a temperature graph from tree-ring analysis that showed temperature almost flat-lining for 900 years, ending with a sharp uptick in temperature after the Industrial Revolution.
The shape of the graph resembled a “hockey stick” with its flat handle and upturned blade. Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” became the IPCC’s prize exhibit:
Mann made the claim, with no empirical evidence known to the climate science community, that the sudden temperature rise was a result of the trivial anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
The IPCC seized on Mann’s “hockey stick” graph since it served its purpose exactly and it became the poster for the UN/IPCC’s aim of persuading countries to take carbon dioxide emissions seriously with commitments to reduce them. The UN was also asking developed nations to pay climate compensation into the UN’s Green Climate Fund.
Many scientists, including some who were still working with the IPCC, immediately became suspicious. They knew that Mann’s graph ignored the many peer-reviewed published journal articles showing clear evidence of a Medieval Warm Period that was significant and global.
So how had Mann actually generated data in order to show 900+ years of little temperature change followed by dramatic 20th century warming?
In the first instance, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Raymond Bradley and Dr. Malcolm Hughes published a paper in the journal Nature entitled:
“Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries.”
The data for Mann’s “Hockey-Stick” graph came from dendrochronology or tree-ring analysis. This technique dates tree growth-rings back to the year they were formed and gives some insight into the climate at different periods during the tree’s growth.
Curiously, other dendrochronologists didn’t find the same results as those found by Mann et al.
Alarm bells started to ring!
The late Dr. Keith Briffa and his colleagues published a paper, also based on tree-ring data, but they did not find the same dramatic temperature uptick that Mann claimed to have found. In fact Briffa et al. showed cooling after 1983:
Another paper by Jones, Briffa, Barnett and Tett actually cast doubt on tree-ring reliability. This was:
“High-resolution paleoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures.”
They concluded that tree-ring data can be very unreliable although their paper showed that the Medieval Warm Period and theLittle Ice Age bothexperienced significant temperature shifts.
Now these results alone should have cast doubt on the claim that Mann’s graph could be trusted. But it seems the IPCC couldn’t allow that to happen and they certainly didn’t want Briffa’s reconstruction to “dilute” the alarmist message. Briffa’s temperature “decline” had now become a problem.
Mann, was a Lead Author for the key chapter in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR). He was asked to write a temperature summary for that report and, although Jones and Briffa were allowed to be contributors to the IPCC report, only Mann could deliver the final message and the IPCC knew exactly what they wanted that message to be.
In short, Jones and Briffa appear to have been sidelined and this could well be perceived as being a case of political and scientific interference.
IPCC Coordinating Lead Author Dr. Chris Folland observed the discrepancy between the Mann and Jones et al. data:
“A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data (Briffa’s) somewhat contradicts the (Mann) multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.”
It is likely that Folland didn’t want the alarmist “carbon dioxide drives global warming” messageto be “diluted” and he probably didn’t want any contradictions. Placing Mann’s “hockey-stick” centre-stage in the final IPCC report would present a nice tidy story about recent unprecedented anthropogenic global warming. The “hockey-stick” was to be paraded in the IPCC’s Summaries For Policymakers.
It must be stressed that the Summary For Policymakers is the one negotiated and approved by UN officials before it is sent out to politicians and the media. It is a political document, used by the IPCC to essentially ignore or marginalise any conflicting scientific evidence in order to promote its catastrophic anthropogenic global warming message.
Dr. Phil Jones from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia admitted the politics in the following email to Dr. Chris Folland:
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
to: “Folland, Chris” <REDACTED>
I sent it. He says he’ll read the IPCC Chapters! He hadn’t
as he said he thought they were politically biased. I assured
him they were not. The SPM may be, but not the chapters.
From other things in his email though, he won’t be convinced.
Dr. Peter Thorne, from the UK Meteorological (MET) Office, had also noted the politics in the IPCC’s 2007 4th Report, saying:
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Jones and Briffa were perturbed by Mann’s “hockey-stick” taking precedence over their more moderate findings. Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed that Briffa really had his doubts about Mann’s data:
“I know Mike thinks his series is the “best” and he might be right – but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly over confident in his. After all, the early (Pre-instrumental) data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations.”
Briffa was aware of the IPCC’s political/ideological agenda and other leaked emails showed that Briffa was worried. He persisted:
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data” but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) contain some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it is wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.”
Briffa persisted in another leaked email:
“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene … .” (My bold)
This statement alone appears to contradict the argument put forward by Mann et al. that recent global warming was unprecedented. Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry observed:
“Temperatures have been warming for more than 200 years, and, that in the 20th Century, 40 percent of the warming occurred before 1950 when carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming.”
Michael Mann was likely concerned that the IPCC’s alarmist message might be dismissed by those many scientists who did not have a political agenda (The Cause) so, in a leaked email, he responded:
“So if we show Keith’s series in the plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case… We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics would have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.”
Presumably, Mann wanted all the plots to agree so he got around the problem of data contradictions by producing the following plots that incorporated data from Mann et al. (1999); Jones et al. (1998); Briffa (2000). He then added modern instrumental data:
Incredibly, all the separate data sets now appeared to merge and agree that recent 20th century warming was unprecedented and dramatic.
Briffa’s reconstructions diverged from the instrumental series towards the end of the 20th century so Mann used the instrumental post-1960 record for padding so that the “divergence problem” was resolved and the smoothed series now pointed upwards. Briffa’s data had to be hidden since they showed 33 years of temperature decline. The instrumental data were added with the Briffa data hidden under the other plots and smoothed to “hide the temperature decline.”
The graph with the Mann, Jones and Briffa data appeared in the IPCC’s main report whilst Mann’s “hockey-stick” graph appeared several times in both the IPCC report and the political/ideological Summary For Policymakers that went out to politicians and the media.
That was enough to cause the climate alarm UN officials wanted and the IPCC made sure that their alarmist message got through to the right people. The “hockey-stick” graph was presented several times at conferences by the then IPCC Chairman Sir John Houghton and later by the then chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.
The broader scientific community didn’t accept Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick” graph. Its problems had been exposed by several scientists and statisticians for the flawed “climate science” that Mann hoped everyone would believe. It was seen as little more than a fabrication and is now widely parodied.
Among those scientists who questioned the “hockey-stick” graph was Dr. Stephen McIntyre, an expert IPCC reviewer. He requested that the IPCC show the decline:
“Show the Briffa et al. reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading.”
McIntyre’s comments were ignored.
A thorough analysis of Mann’s “Hockey-Stick” graph was made by Dr. Stephen McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick in their paper:
“Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series.”
McIntyre and McKitrick commented:
“The dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects.”
“The extent of errors and defects in the MBH98 data means that the indexes computed from it are unreliable and cannot be used for comparisons between the current climate and that of past centuries, including claims like “temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented.”
McIntyre had really exposed the flaws in the “hockey stick” but this wasn’t appreciated by Mann who acidly wrote in August, 2007:
“I have been talking [with] folks in the States about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose [him].”
As Dr. Jim Lacey, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Marine Corps War College pointed out:
“Rather than contest McIntyre’s findings with evidence and data, Mann decided that his best alternative was to smear his challenger’s reputation. Skeptics always had to be on the watch for Mann’s spiteful attacks. But what is interesting is that many of his fellow warmists had a low opinion of his work. Despite this, they were slow to criticize Mann – partly because they did not want to give the skeptics any more ammunition, but also because they were afraid of him. As one warmist wrote to Jones, Mann was a “serious enemy” and “vindictive.”
A number of other scientists and statisticians criticized Mann’s “hockey-stick” graph, including expert statisticians Dr. Edward Wegman from George Mason University, Dr. David Scott from Rice University, and Dr. Yasmin Said from the Johns Hopkins University.
The Wegman Report concluded:
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
The question must be asked – how did Mann’s “hockey-stick” get past peer-review? The answer is – it didn’t have to and Wegman explained why:
“There is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
“As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.”
There was mounting criticism so the IPCC quietly dropped Mann’s infamous “hockey-stick” graph from subsequent reports and, if the aim was to get strong media coverage and to influence politicians, then the IPCC had achieved this.
The demolition of the “hockey-stick” didn’t stop Al Gore from using it in his discredited movie “An Inconvenient Truth” that was shown to promote the climate alarmist message that had little basis in fact. A later High Court judgement in London was highly critical of Gore’s “imaginative” and “politically-motivated” movie.
Mann’s contrived graph has also been used to promote the “Kyoto Protocol” and the UN’s “Agenda 21″ with the likely intentions of controlling the lives of those who actually accepted the IPCC’s climate alarmism.
An increasing number of prominent climate scientists, such as Dr. Judith Curry doubted the validity of Mann’s “hockey-stick” graph and Canadian statistical experts Dr. Steve McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick had already exposed numerous errors in Mann’s work.
Energy consultant Dr. Philip Bratby, in his submission to the UK Parliament, wrote:
“It is concluded that over at least a period of 20 years, climate science has been seriously compromised by the actions of a small group of scientists who have attempted to control the debate about climate change. The effects of this are potentially profound. For example a generation of work may have been corrupted and may be unreliable. A generation of students may have been corrupted and their work may be unreliable.”
Although many in the scientific community saw through this “data- massaging” episode, many media commentators and some politicians, wanted to maintain the climate alarm. Incredibly Mann’s infamous “hockey-stick” graph had become a central icon for climate alarmists and is still trotted out by a number of vested interest groups.
Former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Tim Ball was one of many scientists who were not fooled by Mann’s “hockey stick” graph. He knew that emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed that other scientists also knew exactly what was going on. Ball was quite explicit in his criticism:
“The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.”
“Carbon dioxide was never a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it is the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science.”
Ball, referring to Mann’s position at Pennsylvania State University, famously quipped that Mann: “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.”
Mann wasn’t happy with this and, rather than argue the science, he took legal action, filing a libel suit against Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court in Canada.
John O’Sullivan observed:
“Facing each other is Plaintiff, Dr. Michael Mann (he of ‘hockey stick’ graph infamy) representing so-called UN ‘consensus’ climate science. Mann claims his work proves humans are dangerously warming the planet. Defendant, retired Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball believes Mann was a key player in the Climategate scandal and has hidden his dodgy tree-ring data for over 13 years to cover up fakery in the numbers.”
In September, 2011, the Canadian court asked for Mann’s data with which the “hockey-stick” graph was produced. Mann refused, stating that “private ownership” blocks any Freedom of Information claim.
Dr. Tim Ball further observed:
“We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”
The saga dragged on for more than 5 years until, in February 2017, the British Columbia Court finally instructed Mann to hand over all data relevant to the “hockey-stick” graph. He didn’t comply and so the court decided that Mann’s non-compliance was compelling evidence that he had no intention of proving that Ball had defamed him. This was a cynical attempt by Mann to silence Ball and prevent any further criticism of his data manipulation.
Mann failed to demonstrate that he had not “massaged” his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years and, after 9 years had passed, Mann’s case against Ball was dismissed by the Hon. Mr. Justice Giaschi on 22nd Aug 2019 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
All Michael Mann was asked to do was go before the Court and produce empirical evidence proving the veracity of his “hockey-stick” graph. He failed to do this and his case was thrown out with Ball being awarded court costs.
Mann has also turned his legal sights on author Mark Steyn. In 2015, Steyn wrote:
“My name is Mark Steyn. I am not a scientist. I am an author. My main interest in climate science is that Michael E Mann, the inventor of one of its most notorious artifacts, is suing me for “defamation of a Nobel Prize winner” – a crime that I was not aware existed, especially in his case, as according to the Nobel Institute he is not a Nobel Prize winner. So I recently edited a book about it called “A Disgrace to the Profession”: The World’s Scientists – in Their Own Words – On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science, Volume One -which I’m proud to say was Number One on the Climatology Hit Parade.”
Many scientists might say that Mann and the IPCC’s work serve as a shining example of how science can be abused for political/ideological reasons. They might also say that the meme of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is already proving to be the biggest fraud in the history of science. In fact many scientists are now being forthright in their public criticism of the IPCC.
The late Dr. Vincent Gray, climate consultant, long-standing member of the New Zealand Royal Society and founder of the New Zealand Climate Coalition was an expert reviewer for all four IPCC Assessment Reports. He described the IPCC’s climate change statements as:
“An orchestrated litany of lies.”
Gray went on to say:
“It is now evident that the promoters of the greenhouse theory are not just deluded – in order to promote their delusion that the planet is being destroyed by humans, they resorted to many forms of deception, dishonesty, distortion and downright fraud to impose policies for which there is no scientific evidence.”
Gray, V. (2015). “The Global warming Scam and Climate Change Superscam.” Stairway Press.
Dr. Christopher Kobus, Professor of engineering at Oakland University said:
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen… Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data.”
Geophysicist Dr. Norm Kalmanovitch agrees:
When the cooling started in 2002 climate change and advocacy for following the dictates of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change went from an issue of science to an issue of fraud, so it is no longer up to the scientists to disprove the AGW hypothesis as much as it is up to the lawyers to lead a class action against this fraud which has crippled the economy and caused global starvation as basic food staples are being used as feedstock for biofuels so the perpetrators of this fraud can increase their wealth trading carbon credits.
As does Dr. Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University:
“The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
As does Dr. Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara:
“Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen.”
“… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
A final word from Mark Steyn who added:
“I despise Michael Mann for many reasons, not least for the damage his peculiar insecurities have done to honest inquiry and scientific integrity.”
“Phil Jones and Michael Mann are two of the most influential figures in the whole “climate change” racket. What these documents reveal is the greatest scientific scandal of our times – and a tragedy. It’s not just their graphs but their battle lines that are drawn all wrong. Science is never settled and certainly not on the basis of predictive models. And any scientist who says it is is no longer a scientist. And the dismissal of “skeptics” throughout the Jones/Mann correspondence is most revealing: a real scientist is always a skeptic.”
Once more, we have Dr. Michael Mann suing someone for pointing out his questionable science.
Once more, it would appear that Mann has little prospect of winning.
Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.