Author Topic: Hammer Forum: Michael Mann og Brenda Ekwurzel med tidenes løgntirade?  (Read 2013 times)

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 076
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
Jeg har stort sett prøvd å overse de ulike framstøtene fra Michael Mann, i trygg forvissning om at hans notorisk kvasivitenskapelige misbruk av klimadata (jfr. den famøse hockeykølla som ble muliggjort ved å bl.a. fjerne varm middelalder og varm mellomkrigstid) alltid plukkes ned av klare hoder som Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry, osv.

Her kan man stort sett enkelt arrestere ham for banale vitenskapelige feil. Verre blir det når han og hans kumpaner skifter taktikk og starter en kampanje med en strøm av ulike former for avvisninger av forhold som kan true det AGW/CO2-politiske verdensbilde. En konkret avsløring av tvilsom/feil faktabruk ved en slik strategi betyr at man må begynne en omfattende listing og gjennomgang av alle forhold som er satt sammen for å bygge tendensiøse argumenter.

Men noen ganger blir misbruket av vitenskapelig posisjon sÃ¥ Ã¥penbar at det gÃ¥r an Ã¥ rake ut de verste grovhetene: For bare fÃ¥ dager stilte Mann og alarmismeaktivisten Brenda Ekwurzel fra propagandamaskineriet Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) i det sÃ¥kalte Hammer-forumet (uten opposisjon; dette er et rent AGW/CO2-propagandaforetak, og lyd- og bildeopptak var forbudt under seansen), og leverte en grov salve av fornektelser rundt den sÃ¥kalte "pausen" i akkompagnement med nykomponerte skremselsbilder.   

Sentrale klimaløgner framsatt i "UCLA Hammer Forum on Climate Change" sist uke: Nekter bl.a. for stoppen i global oppvarming
Første punkt var en 15 minutt presentasjon fra hver. Tross lyd- og bildeopptaksforbudet klarte noen å notere uansett, og noen som gjorde det var klimabloggen The Hockey Schtick, og som denne informasjonen i stor grad er hentet fra.

I dette startinnlegget skal vi se på Ekwurzels løgner først, og evt. komme tilbake med Manns tilsvarende i et oppfølgingsinnlegg dersom The Hockey Schtick holder sitt løfte om å publisere også om dette.

Det ble for øvrig heller ikke tillatt å komme med spørsmål fra salen, man måtte i så fall levere inn skriftlige spørsmål som de bolde alarmister kunne velge fra. Det eneste "skeptiske" spørsmålet fra denne forsamlingen på ca. "150 mostly elderly academics & a few UCLA students" kom nettopp fra "Hockey Schtick" og ble stilt til Ekwurzel via moderatoren:

Q: Why does satellite data show that global warming has stopped or "paused" for more than 18 years, despite climate models predicting continued warming from increased CO2?

Svaret:
The UCS chief of climate science education, Dr. Ekwurzel, answered the question by denying that there was any "pause" of global warming, falsely claiming that the reason satellite data shows no warming for the last 18 years is that "things were forgotten when the early satellite data was collected," and that after these "forgotten" things were corrected, the satellite data allegedly shows no pause in warming. She claimed that these "forgotten things" included not distinguishing temperatures collected at night vs. daytime, degradation of the sensors on the satellites, and degradation of satellite orbits.

For informerte mennesker er jo dette en ren saus av feilaktige bortforklaringspåstander (og verst av alt: mest sannsynlig helt mot bedre vitende), med en fellesnevner: Fornekte og tåkelegge at AGW/CO2-hypotesen er bredt falsifisert i nesten 2 tiår gjennom observasjoner.

Kommentaren fra "Hockey Schtick" bør derfor ikke overraske noen:

This is blatantly false information. The fact is both the RSS and UAH satellite datasets have corrected for all of these not-forgotten things, and after all of these corrections, still show a clear "pause" of zero warming for 18+ years. The satellites are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds, and thus provide far more accurate and complete temperature data than surface thermometer data.
In addition, there are over 50 papers published in the climate literature acknowledging the "pause" or "hiatus" of global warming and attempting to explain it, but apparently Dr. Ekwurzel hasn't gotten around to reading any of those. As Dr. Judith Curry notes, "pause denial is getting more and more difficult with time."


Pga. opptaksforbudet var det selvsagt vanskelig å notere alle "additional litany of misrepresentations" i Dr. Ekwurzels presentasjon, men her er noen:

� Ekwurzel sa bl.a. at ho skjønte menneskeskapt global oppvarming (AGW) var et faktum da ho "went on an Arctic expedition and saw an area of open water."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "....which she photographed from a helicopter. The ice-free area was only about 1000 feet in diameter, based upon the size of the ship shown in her Picture. This proves nothing, and is certainly not unprecedented or unusual in the Arctic."

â?¢ Ekwurzel hevdet videre at der er "strong evidence" for at "heat waves, drought, extreme precipitation, and floods have increased from AGW".
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "In fact, there is no such evidence, and much opposing evidence."

Flere påstander som taler for seg selv mht. useriøs faktafordreining trass forskning som viser det motsatte, og/eller helt avkrefter påstandene:

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "the California drought is unprecedented and caused by AGW."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "In fact, California mega-droughts were far worse in the past."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "recent California fires were caused by AGW."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "The data instead shows a decrease in wildfires."

� Påstand: AGW forårsaker "higher tree mortality."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "The data instead shows significant global greening from CO2 and warming."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "California citizens voted to approve California's cap and trade Law".
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "In fact, California bill AB 32 was passed by the legislature and never voted on by California citizens."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "CO2 lifetime in atmosphere is 800 years".
(Sterkt ironisk) Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "This is slightly higher than the 14 year lifetime proven by the bomb tests."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "CO2 levels with business as usual will double before 2100".
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "At current business as usual rate of increase of ~2 ppm per year, doubling of CO2 would require 200 years. Although the CO2 level data is very slightly exponential, extrapolation of the slight exponential component still places doubling well beyond 2100".

Så langt Ekwurzel, vi satser på at vi får se Manns bidrag snart også. Det sies også at "The presentations were recorded on video by the UCLA Hammer Museum, and hopefully will be posted on the internet soon.". Man tok vel ingen sjanser på at usensurerte versjoner skulle lekke ut?

Linker:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/ucs-climate-scientist-tells-litany-of.html

http://hammer.ucla.edu/programs-events/2014/10/tackling-climate-change-nationally-and-globally/
« Last Edit: 25.10.2014, 22:06:26 by Telehiv »

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 076
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
Og så kom Michael Mann-referatet!

Vi har i trådstarten allerede gått gjennom Ekwurzels beklagelige feilinformasjon til Hammer-forumet.

I dag skal dere få anledning til å se på Michael Manns bidrag:

â?¢ Started presentation claiming the evidence for AGW is "straightforward and not controversial."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Her ser det ut til at han mistet munn og mæle, og kommenter ikke

â?¢ Said CO2 levels have not been as high as today for "several million years"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "Debunked"

â?¢ Said there are multiple lines of evidence for AGW
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "using the repeatedly debunked image from SkS"

â?¢ Claimed IPCC report is "conservative" and that climate scientists are "conservative" in their projections of climate change
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said natural variation cannot explain recent climate change
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said climate change we are allegedly experiencing now is "dangerous" and we will soon be inhabiting a "different planet"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said with "business as usual" there will be 4-5C warming by 2100, and 8-10C warming in the Arctic
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said use of polar bears as the "poster child" for AGW was a "mistake" because it gave the "false impression that climate change is a distant thing" despite it allegedly happening "everywhere"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs?

â?¢ Said he doesn't have to convince the people in the audience from Southern California that climate change is real: "just look at the historic drought"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Claimed flooding from Florida king tides "used to happen only once a year," but allegedly due to AGW, "will happen once a month."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": (controlled by gravitation from the Moon and Sun and have occurred for millennia)

â?¢ Said due to climate change, the surge from Sandy was 13 feet instead of 12 feet and that this caused flooding of an extra 25 miles inland
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Claimed sea level rise of 3-6 feet by 2100
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Discussed his Scientific American article on 2036 doomsday scenario
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick":[debunked]

â?¢ Said "California drought was made worse" by climate change, and is "the worst ever seen"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said Senator Inhofe, Heartland Institute, Republicans in general, and "climate deniers" are all allegedly funded by the Koch brothers.
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said Inhofe was scheduled to give a speech at a Heartland meeting, but had to cancel because he was ill from swimming in a lake with an algal bloom due to "unprecedented heat in Oklahoma"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": (implying that was man-made)

â?¢ Showed his thoroughly debunked hockey stick [containing 'Mike's trick to hide the decline'] and called it an "icon" of the IPCC that is now part of a "veritable hockey league" of other "hockey sticks" since "every study says recent temperatures are unprecedented."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said you don't even need his hockey stick to know that AGW is real because of the greenhouse effect described [incorrectly] by Arrhenius in 1896.
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": described [incorrectly] by Arrhenius in 1896
 
â?¢ Says the Republicans get their climate science from a journal...(long pause)..."The Wall Street Journal"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said Republicans are "the party of anti-science"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said the only debate Congress should be having is "how to deal with this problem, and not pretend the problem doesn't exist"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Showed the picture of his daughter at an aquarium with a polar bear diving for a fish behind her, as Anthony has already commented upon. Using this picture as a prop, said AGW is a problem of "intergenerational ethics" and that he didn't want his daughter to one day have to tell her kids that "polar bears used to exist, but we damaged their home."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": 'Nuff said already?

â?¢ With that tear-jerker of an ending, Mann finished his presentation.

Additional notes on Mann's responses to written questions from the audience
(which were first carefully  filtered by the moderator):


â?¢ Said "scientists are the most conservative people on the planet" and that "science has self-correcting machinery." Said that if a scientist commits fraud or makes a mistake, "you'll be found out" by other scientists, and that one "gets ahead in science by proving other people wrong"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [conveniently failing to mention that Mann himself is potentially the most "caught out" scientist in history, by McIntyre & McKitrick, Wegman and the NAS, Richard Mueller, John Christy, and many others].

â?¢ Said that "for thousands of scientists to conspire and the oceans and atmosphere to play along" would be necessary for AGW to be a "hoax"

â?¢ Said climate skeptics "are not real skeptics," they are just "denialists"

â?¢ Said the IPCC claims "are as certain as science can be about anything"

â?¢ Said "in many ways, China and India are ahead of us on fighting climate change"

â?¢ Said there's no reason why renewables can't replace fossil fuels

â?¢ Said Koch brothers are funding ALEC and the "campaign of denial"

â?¢ Said North Carolina is trying to "outlaw Teslas"

â?¢ Said CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is "centuries" and that even if man-made emissions completely stopped now, warming would continue for "centuries" Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said CO2 emissions must be reduced 5-10% per year starting now, that he said that many years ago, "but I'm really serious this time!"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [accompanied by Cheshire smile]

â?¢ Said Exxon is planning for a carbon tax of $60/ton, meanwhile "funding the disinformation campaign"

â?¢ In answer to audience question, "Can capitalism be defeated to stop the destruction of the natural world?" [which received applause from the UCLA aging-hippie-commie audience], Mann said it was the other speaker's turn to answer.

â?¢ Said there are 5 times more fossil fuels available than necessary to warm the planet by 2C, which if all were burned, would allegedly warm the planet 10-14C

â?¢ Said "we are already seeing dangerous climate change"


Noen sluttkommentarer:
- Following the presentations and questions, the fake-Nobelist went to the lobby for book signings [the back cover of which says he shared the Nobel Peace Prize], guarded by 3 heavily-armed UCLA police officers nearby [I've attended many other events in this same theater and never seen any UCLA police officers at any other events].

- Perhaps 20-25 attendees bought Mann's book for signing . 

- I asked if I could stand in the line to ask Dr. Mann a question without having to buy his book first, and was told no.

- On the way to the theater parking lot, I noticed the bicycle rack was empty, and the anti-capitalism and anti-fossil fuel attendees driving off in their fossil-fueled vehicles.

Ja, da har jeg gjort som jeg lovet - videreført Manns tanker til den vitenskapshungrige allmue!!

Link: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/michael-manns-ucla-schtick.html
« Last Edit: 27.10.2014, 15:32:57 by Telehiv »

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 076
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
Når vi først tar for oss disse tvilsomme figurene, må jo Manns hyppig brukte partner også trekkes fram i lyset ifm. med en sak som må få de faste klimajuksemakerne til å fryse nedover ryggen: Steve McIntyres metodiske opprulling av hva denne gjengen egentlig har drevet med, og fremdeles driver med:

Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision

Dette er kanskje ikke det letteste stoffet å henge med på, men de som leser dette litt grundig, vil sitte tilbake med ganske oppsperrede øyne på klimaforskningens vegne, er jeg redd (et hovedpoeng her er jo at Manns notorisk sammensvorne Schmidt ble satt til å delta i "hvitvaskingen" av nettopp Mann - en grovere hildet kobling er vanskelig å finne i vitenskapens historie):
 
http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/18/gavin-schmidt-and-the-epa-denial-decision/#more-20138
« Last Edit: 27.10.2014, 15:45:44 by Telehiv »

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 076
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
Manns ulike former for "Nobelpris" i fri dressur....

Manns FAGLIGE bidrag til Hammer Forumet har dere allerede fått sett og vurdert. Det er vel ikke nødvendig å påpeke tristheten rundt dette for vitenskapens generelle anseelse.
 
Men på andre siden; haussebestrebelsene av Manns storhet blir stadig morsommere og morsommere når vi ser på Hammer Forums omgang med brosjyrer; først presenterte man Mann som Nobelprisvinner per se (trolig etter Manns egne henvisninger, dersom man ser på hva han selv har skrevet om dette på baksiden av sin egen bok!!), og så måtte man komme tilbake med en modifisert versjon. Osv. Osv.

Les den elleville følgjetongen her: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/ucla-michael-mann-wins-nobel-prize-again.html
« Last Edit: 28.10.2014, 10:46:34 by Telehiv »

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 076
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
James Hansen har virkelig lagt opp til å matche skremselspropagandaen som nå pumpes ut internasjonalt av Verdens Meteorlogiorganisasjon, ja, ikke bare det:

Han ønsker å slå dem ned i støvlene! Er han kanskje ikke den mest seriøse, ærligste, sakligste og klokeste av alle IPCC-koryfeene, kanskje?
Og en mann verdens beslutningstakere virkelig burde lytte til?

Joda, for hva kunne ikke "Hansen et al" fortelle om verdens framtid i en artikkel allerede i fjor (hvem er det forresten som lar denne figuren få publisere disse tingene?!?), før den mer puslete delen av IPCC ikke engang hadde fått rigget en eneste av skremselsvideoene de kjører nå: http://m.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

Jo, her kan vi lese at om 118 år vil verden se slik ut, iht. denne edle representant for seriøs vitenskap:

- planet uninhabitable
- 30C warming at poles
- 20C over land

Det som vireklig gjør meg bekymret er at dette er nok bare forsiktige spådommer, som nesten kan konkurrere med Mann i foredraget nevnt foran i tråden her, for Hansen understreker nemlig at:
 
- klimaforskere "are the most conservative people on the planet," og
- IPCC-rapportene er "very conservative."

Her er Hansens vitenskap rundt dette:

"If we assume that fossil fuel emissions increase by 3% per year, typical of the past decade and of the entire period since 1950, cumulative fossil fuel emissions will reach 10 000 Gt C in 118 years.  [Fossil fuel emissions were 7.8 GtC in 2005 per IPCC estimates.] Are there sufficient fossil fuel reserves to yield 5000â??10 000 Gt C? Recent updates of potential reserves, including unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands, tar shale and hydrofracking-derived shale gas) in addition to conventional oil, gas and coal, suggest that 5Ã?CO2 (1400 ppm) is indeed feasible. Our calculated global warming in this case [1400 ppm] is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world. Increased stratospheric water vapour would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer.  More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans."

Som min uforlignelige bestemor (som sluttet å røyke da ho var 82 for ikke å bli avhengig) pleide å si: "Les og lær, og en vakker dag kan du selv komme blant profetene".

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/hansen-says-planet-uninhabitable-30c.html
« Last Edit: 02.11.2014, 22:16:26 by Telehiv »