Global climate debate-the facts

More of your fallacious denier cult myths. You are completely divorced from reality!

The hockey stick graph has been replicated by many other scientists and is simply a scientific fact at this point. Except in denier cult Bizarroworld.

The IPCC continues to fully support the conclusions of Professor Mann's original temperature reconstruction.....no matter what lies you have been fed.

Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene
By Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
RealClimate
16 September 2013
(excerpts)
Recently a group of researchers from Harvard and Oregon State University has published the first global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years -- that’s the whole Holocene (Marcott et al. 2013). The results are striking and worthy of further discussion, after the authors have already commented on their results in this blog.

A while ago, I discussed here the new, comprehensive climate reconstruction from the PAGES 2k project for the past 2000 years. But what came before that? Does the long-term cooling trend that ruled most of the last two millennia reach even further back into the past?

Over the last decades, numerous researchers have painstakingly collected, analyzed, dated, and calibrated many data series that allow us to reconstruct climate before the age of direct measurements. Such data come e.g. from sediment drilling in the deep sea, from corals, ice cores and other sources. Shaun Marcott and colleagues for the first time assembled 73 such data sets from around the world into a global temperature reconstruction for the Holocene, published in Science. Or strictly speaking, many such reconstructions: they have tried about twenty different averaging methods and also carried out 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with random errors added to the dating of the individual data series to demonstrate the robustness of their results.

To show the main result straight away, it looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene – after the end of the last Ice Age – global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)

***

Conclusion

The curve (or better curves) of Marcott et al. will not be the last word on the global temperature history during the Holocene; like Mann et al. in 1998 it is the opening of the scientific discussion. There will certainly be alternative proposals, and here and there some corrections and improvements. However, I believe that (as was the case with Mann et al. for the last millennium) the basic shape will turn out to be robust: a relatively smooth curve with slow cooling trend lasting millennia from the Holocene optimum to the “little ice age”, mainly driven by the orbital cycles. At the end this cooling trend is abruptly reversed by the modern anthropogenic warming.

The following graph shows the Marcott reconstruction complemented by some context: the warming at the end of the last Ice Age (which 20,000 years ago reached its peak) and a medium projection for the expected warming in the 21st Century if humanity does not quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Figure 4 Global temperature variation since the last ice age 20,000 years ago, extended until 2100 for a medium emissions scenario with about 3 degrees of global warming. Graph: Jos Hagelaars.

Marcott et al. dryly state about this future prospect: "By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean."

In other words: We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene.

Just looking at the known drivers (climate forcings) and the actual temperature history shows it directly, without need for a climate model: without the increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans, the slow cooling trend would have continued. Thus virtually the entire warming of the 20th Century is due to man. This May, for the first time in at least a million years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has exceeded the threshold of 400 ppm. If we do not stop this trend very soon, we will not recognize our Earth by the end of this century.

 

The MWP was warmer than today. There is no doubt about that. Rahmstorf has predicted that sea levels will rise by 2 meters by the year 2100 in a world in which sea level is rising by ~ 3 mm per year. It appears that Rahmstorf is off by a few orders of magnitude.

 

Another crackpot denier cult myth that is not supported by the scientific evidence.

You can repeat your delusional myths 'till you're blue in the face but that won't magically make your lies become true.

In the real world....


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005) shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red.[/B]


Temperature over the past 1000 years

 

More hockey stick dishonesty. The consensus of all papers (379 of them) on the MWP indicate that the MWP was ~ 1 deg C warmer than today.

 

That's your denier cult myth that you can't back up with actual evidence, as always.

I just showed you the actual scientific findings expressed in those graphs.

And, of course, even if there had been a worldwide unified period of warming back then, which there wasn't, it would have no bearing or influence on the evidence supporting the current rapid and abrupt and accelerating CO2 driven warming.

 

So how do you explain that 40% of that warming happened with only 10% of that CO2 increase during the first half of the last century?

I see you like to get your information from the cartoonists alarmist blog, (un)SkepticalScience. That's like getting your facts about liberals from Rush Limbaugh.

 

"Climate Change Reconsidered - Physical Science" - page 388. And the gradient of global temperature in the current warm period is the "same" with or without increasing CO2 and has exhibited periods of warming, cooling, and steady temperatures. There is no rapid and abrupt and accelerating CO2 driven warming. The climate sensitivity is logarithmic.

 

Well, let's see now....I present the consensus of the world scientific community, as published in well respected peer-reviewed science journals.....and you come back with some anti-science nonsense, lacking peer-review and ONLY published by a front group for the Koch brothers and EXXON and written by three deceitful science whores stooging for the fossil fuel industry. LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are very hilarious! And very, very, very pathetically gullible!!!

Craig D. Idso

Background
Craig Idso is the Chairman and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (AKA Co2Science.org or CSCDGC). [1] The Center's stated mission is to “separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change.” [46]

The CSCDGC ranked Number eight on a list of the “Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial” compiled by Mother Jones in 2009. [37]

The Center's publication is CO2 Science, a weekly magazine that features articles questioning the science behind man-made climate change. Craig's father Sherwood B. Idso is currently the President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide on Global Change, while his brother, Keith Idso, is the Center's Vice President. [46], [47]

According to leaked internal documents from the Heartland Institute in 2012, Craig Idso was receiving $11,600 a month from the Heartland Institute through his Center for the Study of CO2 & Global Change. [43], [44]

Oil Industry Ties
Craig Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy from 2001-2002 in St. Louis, MO. According to ExxonSecrets, Craig and Keith Idso produced a report for the Western Fuels Association titled “The Greening of Planet Earth Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory” in January, 1998. [1], [2]

Craig and Keith Idso have other ties to the Western Fuels Association. In October, 1999, they assisted in publishing a report for the Greening Earth Society (a group funded and controlled by Western Fuels) titled “Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration,” as Idso announced in a separate CO2 Science article. [38]

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch) reports that Idso's CSCDGC was also listed as a creditor in Peabody Energy's bankruptcy filings in 2016. [35] While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [36]

In 2006, Craig Idso also incorporated Cenospheres.net Inc., a company serving the oilfield industry. According to the Arizona Corporation Commission, the company was dissolved in August, 2008. A similarly-named “Cenospheres LLC” was also incorporated in May of 2008 and run by Lance and Julene Idso until that corporation was dissolved in February of 2013. [39], [40]

Despite the connections listed above, in a 2014 radio interview, Idso was asked if he had “any ties to any energy companies.” He responded: “No I don’t, actually.” [41]
***

S Fred Singer
(Siegried Frederick Singer)
— Best known as a climate denier. However Singer also was available for contract work with many poisoning and polluting companies. He is also the author of the Heidelberg Appeal scam. —

An atmospheric scientist from the University of Virginia with strong pro-market neo-liberal ideas who set up a number of think-tanks and decided to make a career in assisting corporations challenge the ideas of global warming. He was responsible for a number of very dubious scams -- in particular, the Heidelberg Appeal -- and a lot of even-more-dubious propaganda.

Despite the way in which his opinions are dismissed by his contemporaries today, Prof. S. Fred Singer has a long and fairly distinguished career in the area of climate change. He is an Austrian-born Doctor of Physical Science and a genuine atmospheric scientist who was the former Director of the Weather Satellite Program and Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Miami.

He was also Deputy Assistant Administrator of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which appears to be a political appointment, awarded by President Nixon at a time when the reluctant president had just been pushed into creating the EPA -- and was beginning to regret it.

Singer first broke with other climate scientists over their claims that the polar's protective ozone levels were being depleted, and about this time he appears to have thrown in his lot with the chemical companies which tmanufactured CFC's which were then (and now) believed to be the major cause of the depletion problem. His theory was the ozone depletion was entirely a consequence of volcanic activity.

In the late 1980s he and Candace Crandall (his partner) became associated with the Washington Institution for Values in Public Policy which had been set up, funded and supported by the Moonies Unification Church. At this time he also began writing regularly for the Moonie's newspaper, The Washington Times,which was President Reagan's favourite news source.

Singer appears to have progressively abandoned financial support from his university [he has been 'on leave' for decades] and embarked on a career of running and promoting neo-conservative/ulta-libertarian ideas through think-tanks and policy institutes. Virtually all of those he dealt with have had substantial ExxonMobile funding, and most have had strong associations with the tobacco and chemical industries.

Science & Environmental Public Policy
In 1990 he took leave from his post as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and set up his most infamous climate-denial/junk-science operation, the Science & Environmental Public Policy (SEPP). This was organised with

• Candace C Crandwell ( his wife — since divorced)
• Gerhard Stohrer (a biological research chemist),
  later:
• Fred Seitz, (an ex-nuclear scientist)
• Michel Salomon, (PR for Winthrop-Sterling Pharacueticsls)

When Seitz joined them he provided SEPP with the tobacco link: he was the Emeritus-President of the Rockefeller University, and also a secret consultant to RJ Reynolds Tobacco. All of the SEPP leaders were active in the Republican conservative circles and zealous Cold War warriors.

A Frontline documentary says that SEPP was initially organised and promoted by APCO & Associates a PR firm which, at that time, was totally directed and controlled by Philip Morris (through its corporate lawfirm Arnold & Porter). [APCO also created The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), and the junkscience.com web site for Philip Morris.]

However, Singer clearly was a reluctant shill for the tobacco industry: he only agreed to work for them in attacking the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment of passive smoking [ETS -- as a Class A carcinogen] and was only persuaded when British-American Tobacco's PR firm, Shadwick, suggested that he could remain at arms-length by putting out (in January 1995) a press-release along the lines of the "The 5 Scientific Myths of 1995".

This narrowed attack was directed at the scientific establishment (rather than being in support of tobacco) and it used 'junk-science' claims and highly dubious material from other tobacco-lobby sources (namely the CRS report) to suggest that passive smoke was not a problem. This approach allowed SEPP to hide behind 'scientific' claim that the EPA had over-reacted on such questions as the health threat from radon and ozone depletion, and had relied on the impossible standards of "zero-risk" (Delaney Clause).

Before long his new organization attracted funding from a large number of industrial groups which were interested in climate-denial and anti-activism attacks in areas of the environment and public-health.

APCO specialised in this sort of 'coalition-building' activity for the tobacco industry, but Singer was not willing to be identified as a tobacco-friendly scientist, so he only worked for the cigarette industry at a distance -- always careful to put at least one policy/scientific organisation between himself and the source of his funds.

In 1992 he was the principle author of a report prepared for the Tobacco Institute (via the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution) entitled "The EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke". However when the document finally appeared it was buried in a longer and more varied attack on the EPA, and supposedly authored by Kent Jeffreys, one of the staffers at the Institute. Singer was only credited as "Principle Researcher".

SEPP's President, Fred Seitz, another climate denier, worked primarily through the gung-ho, Star-Wars, nuclear-energy promoting, George C Marshall Institute which was heavily funded by the main contractors to the Department of Defence. It's main agenda was to attack communism both from the USSR, and from 'liberal activists' in the USA, which it portrayed as "fellow travellers". Seitz was much closer to tobacco than Singer since he had worked for RJ Reynolds Tobacco as a consultant for decades, and had also done some work for Philip Morris.

International Center for a Scientific Ecology (CIES)
SEPP's attacks on environmental science also raise the interest of Big Pharma and the chemical companies (Winthrop-Sterling was also into pesticides), and eventually this bought to the surface a French ex-military radical conservative Michel Salomon who had a medical degree and operated as a lobbyist and PR expert for Winthrop-Sterling, and later for the European pharmaceutical industry.

This cabal of neo-conservative science lobbyists were then backed by funding from the asbestos and tobacco industries to organise of a conference in Heidelberg on the handling of hazardous materials. It was directed principly at defeating the US government's Delaney Clause which had been written in a way which forced the regulating agencies (EPA, OSHA) to ensure the complete removal of carcinogenic materials (asbestos fibres from schools, tobacco smoke from workplaces) from human environments. The industries wanted this replaced with the concept that, at low levels, carcinogens could be tolerated because the costs of complete elimination was simply too high.

At that time, it was a reasonable argument (especially with asbestos). And participants at the conference were presented with an already-drafted (by Michel Salomon) Heidelberg Appeal document which stressed the need for governments to pay more attention to scientific opinion, and not allow themselves to be pressured into costly and ineffective toxic clean-up actions by non-scientific doomsayers and overzealous activists. The Heidelberg document originally had nothing to do with climate denial; it was little more than a broad 'motherhood statement' by scientists seeking more influence in such decisions.

SEPP and ICSE, however, took the Heidelberg Appeal to the Rio Earth Summit, and released it through the energy-funded Global Climate Coalition (Candace Crandall was PR for them in Rio) in a way that suggested the signatories were climate deniers. So the context of the release, rather than the statement or the signatories, were interpreted as a major scientific counter to the climate-change discussions.

The media sensed the thrill of a scientific controversy when previously only dull consensus existed at Rio, and they then took up the vague demands of Heidelberg Appeal and promoted them worldwide as if a major group of top scientists were contradicting the scientific findings being discussed. In a convoluted way, this then fed (via Seitz and the George C Marshall Institute), into the later Oregon Petition and Leipzig Declaration which had specific and direct climate denial intentions.

So the consequences of the Heidelberg Appeal were substantial, and Singer and SEPP had a major win which established his reputation, and attracted substantial funds. The later pseudo-scientific petitions, and the rash of 'sound-science institutes' and 'junk-science' web-sites and institutes that were floated by the big corporations, were then carefully crafted to appeal to legitimate scientists with a conservative slant. The scientists became convinced that political extremists had taken control of the scientific establishment.

For many years [before climate denial became untennable] SEPP maintained in the media the fiction that "most climate scientists" didn't believe the global-warming alarmists, and that global warming activism was just the amplified sounds of a "very vocal minority". This is the classic Looking-Glass ploy of maintaining that your opposition is an illusion, when in fact it is your own image which is without substance.

Singer may believe what he says, but he is clearly also a professional shill for the big energy corporations. SEPP, the George C Marshall Institute, and various other climate denial organisations have since been exposed and dissected in numerous articles and a few major television documentaries. However there is still enough ignorance about some of sub-categories of climate change, and still far too many exaggerated claims by the activists.

He is therefore able to continue in his chosen profession as a loudspeaker for the lunatic right of the Republican party, and because of people like Singer, American think-tanks have increasingly gained a reputation as inhabiting a world not entirely divorced from Lewis Carrol.

Singer's latest book "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" was published in late 1997 ... but only by the Independent Institute [A right-wing publishes-on-payment think tank]. Clearly he now has no credibility with conventional publishers when he has to resort to this sort of vanity publishing venture.

Postscript
Singer still operates through SEPP even though it has been well exposed as little more than a front for ExxonMobile and other poisoning and polluting industries.

Crandall divorced him and resigned from SEPP in 2001, and she is now an Associate Producer with PBS producing a far-right-wing talk show. And Singer's old partner Gerhard Stohrer runs the faux- Risk Policy Institute out of his home in New York. Seitz recently died.
***

Bob Carter - climate denier, on the payroll of polluter front groups.

Bob Carter (Robert M. Carter), born 1942 - died 2016, was a retired Australian marine geologist and a paid AGW denier. He is also an adjunct (unpaid[1]) Research Fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University" in Australia,[2]and on the academic advisory council of the denialist front group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[3] Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).[4]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007, Carter was "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector" and believed, SMH said, that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed."[5]

Denialist affiliations
Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice".[7]

Speaking at Heartland Institute events
Carter was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), organized by the Heartland Institute[8] Carter is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change.[9] In all, Carter has been a speaker at six of Heartland's climate change conferences.[7]

Claims
Carter's climate reasoning is selective and raises questions:

"Carter goes to some length to claim that the surface temperature record (according to institutions like NASA GISS) is unreliable. In fact he implies that it’s downright useless. Yet he also states that the satellite record is reliable...[But] if the satellite record is so reliable but the surface record is so useless, why do they agree so closely?"[10]

In March 2007, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Carter asserted [falsely and without any evidence to support his claims] that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence." [11] Carter has also asserted that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," and claimed that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [12]

 

Somehow alarmist word diarrhea is supposed to be science.

 

The papers used in the consensus on the MWP max temperature are all peer reviewed. Again with the harsh and impolite words which indicate the lack of fact based argument. And the Koch brothers - too funny.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it's the bold multicolored large print ploy. Beats facts all day long to some.

 

The fact that you have a question does not support your belief system.

 

Translation: You can't answer the question.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are so utterly clueless, it's hilarious.

The scientific consensus on the WMP is that it was NOT GLOBAL, but rather regional and disconnected. That is a fact.

It makes no difference whether or not your supposed "papers on the WMP" were peer reviewed.....I quite obviously was not referring to them, but rather to the bogus bullcrap book you cited back there by those three science whores and 'published' by a front group for EXXON and the Koch brothers. Definitely NOT PEER REVIEWED.

 

It was absolutely global. The ~ 400 papers clearly show that. The information in those papers clearly show the consensus.

Your hurtful words have no bearing on the above facts. But could be used to describe the actions of the hockey team.

 

No.

The problem here is that any reasonably awake individual can ask all sorts of questions. In fact, scientists can ask WAY more questions about their topic than can the average reader.

That's just not evidence of anything.

You should be able to ask dozens of questions like yours. And, that would STILL mean nothing.

If you can ANSWER your question, then THAT would be evidence of something - as long as it can't be refuted.

Thus, if I feed you an answer to your question, it means absolutely nothing. It just means that one of your dozens of questions didn't happen to be significant.

 

Well, except for all the papers saying otherwise, you might have something.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: You can't answer the question.

 

That is your denier cult myth, not the scientific consensus.

Wrong, just more denier cult misinformation and lies.

In the real world...

"A good rule of thumb is that the more insistent climate change deniers are about any particular talking-point, the greater the likelihood is that the opposite of what they are claiming actually holds. The IPCC has, in fact, actually strengthened its conclusions regarding the exceptional nature of modern warmth in the new report. A highlighted box in the "summary for policy-makers" states the following (emphasis mine):

"In the northern Hemisphere, the period 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years."

The original 1999 Hockey Stick study (and the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report) concluded that recent northern hemisphere average warmth was likely unprecedented for only the past 1,000 years. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment extended that conclusion back further, over the past 1,300 years (and it raised the confidence to "very likely" for the past 400 years). The new, Fifth IPCC Assessment has now extended the conclusion back over the past 1,400 years. By any honest reading, the IPCC has thus now substantially strengthened and extended the original 1999 Hockey Stick conclusions."

 

Now you are quoting the litigious Micheal Mann of the infamous tree ring circus writing about himself. One of the scientists giving science a bad name.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0986...profession&dpPl=1&dpID=51ysQya9zoL&ref=plSrch

 

Translation: you just don't get it.

 

Translation: you don't read outside of alarmist outlets.

 

Where do those quotes come from ?? Michael Mann who professes to be a champion of honesty in science ?? You can't make this up.

http://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html

 

LOLOLOLOLOL......your denier cult smears and myths about Dr. Mann are as ludicrous and absurd as always.

In the real world....

Dr. Michael E. Mann
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. His research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system.

Dr. Mann was a Lead Author on the "Observed Climate Variability and Change" chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report in 2001 and was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences "Frontiers of Science"in 2003.

He has received a number of honors and awards including NOAA’s outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by "Scientific American" as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002.

He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

He was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2012 and was awarded the National Conservation Achievement Award for science by the National Wildlife Federation in 2013.

He made Bloomberg News’ list of fifty most influential people in 2013. In 2014, he was named Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and received the Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education.

He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dr. Mann is author of more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published three books including "Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change", "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines", and most recently, "The Madhouse Effect" with "Washington Post" editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. He is co-founder of "RealClimate".

More information about his research and publication record can be found here.

 

And he is a friend of Bill Nye who as we all know is a science guy who made a complete a$$ out of himself last night on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

 

Dr. Mann is right about human caused global warming, as virtually the entire world scientific community affirms. So is Bill Nye.

Your far-right-wing crackpot political belief systems won't let you understand the validity of the science backing AGW.....so, foolishly convinced in advance that Nye is wrong and Carlson right, you imagine that Carlson's questions were meaningful challenges to the science Nye was presenting.....they weren't.....they were the same old debunked objections that fossil fuel propaganda pushers have tried to scam people with for decades.

However, it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the validity of the conclusions of the climate scientists, if Nye....who is not a climate scientist, only a popularized science explainer....had blown the explanation in some way. You are grasping at straws....or, rather, your propaganda pushing puppet-masters are......sooooo desperate.

It is extremely amusing that you imagine that scientific questions are settled on rightwing fake-news shows rather than in the ongoing scientific research appearing in global peer-reviewed scientific publications.

 

Carlson was not expressing anything. He was asking a question which was how much of global warming is caused by humans. Nye with his huge IQ was not able to answer and was seemingly not aware of the Little Ice Age and the fact that the globe has been warming since the mid 1800's. Your contention is that Nye is a "popularized science explainer" for the global warming alarmists who cannot explain the settled science. Maybe Mann should stuff a sock in Nye's pie hole.