Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme

[Chris]

Here's a quick list of ten things that could falsify AGW theory. There are more.
...
Demonstrating climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

This just in: Scientists discover evidence for past high-level sea rise at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

...One key interval of particular interest during the Pliocene is the mid-Piacenzian Warm Period – some 3.264 to 3.025 million years ago - when temperatures were 2 to 3º Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels. “The interval also marks the last time the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 was as high as today, providing important clues about what the future holds in the face of current anthropogenic warming,” Onac says.

This study found that during this period, global mean sea level was as high as 16.2 meters (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) above present. This means that even if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes around current levels, the global mean sea level would still likely rise at least that high, if not higher, the scientists concluded. In fact, it is likely to rise higher because of the increase in the volume of the oceans due to rising temperature.

“Considering the present-day melt patterns, this extent of sea-level rise would most likely be caused by a collapse of both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets,” Dumitru said.

The authors also measured sea level at 23.5 meters higher than present about four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels. “This is a possible scenario if active and aggressive reduction in green house gases into the atmosphere is not undertaken,” Asmerom said.

[skepticalmike]

This just in: Scientists discover evidence for past high-level sea rise at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

Just because atm. CO2 was as high 3.0 to 3.2 million years ago doesn't mean that atm. CO2 rose as fast in the past as it has today. This isn't evidence that climate changed the same way in the past as it is changing today. The commentary on sea levels when the GMT was about 2 to 3 degrees C. above pre-industrial levels should be a warning of what could happen in a
few centuries.
This study found that during this period, global mean sea level was as high as 16.2 meters (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) above present. This means that even if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes around current levels, the global mean sea level would still likely rise at least that high, if not higher, the scientists concluded. In fact, it is likely to rise higher because of the increase in the volume of the oceans due to rising temperature.

[Peter1469]

Just because atm. CO2 was as high 3.0 to 3.2 million years ago doesn't mean that atm. CO2 rose as fast in the past as it has today. This isn't evidence that climate changed the same way in the past as it is changing today. The commentary on sea levels when the GMT was about 2 to 3 degrees C. above pre-industrial levels should be a warning of what could happen in a
few centuries.
This study found that during this period, global mean sea level was as high as 16.2 meters (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) above present. This means that even if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes around current levels, the global mean sea level would still likely rise at least that high, if not higher, the scientists concluded. In fact, it is likely to rise higher because of the increase in the volume of the oceans due to rising temperature.

What is Plan B when voters ignore all of this?

[donttread]

In the climate arena science has given up its natural skepticism. They declare consensus over a fraud. It is a shame.

Maybe what climate scientist on both "Sides" .( here we go again, everything has to chose sides) are hiding is that they don't know jack about predicting long term weather patterns.

[Hoosier8]

I defend Mann's work. I only know of one insignificant statistical error in his analysis. There is no evidence of fraud that I am aware of.

Below is the original Hockey stick graph with error bars in light blue and the mean in dark blue. The green dots are from a later reconstruction, the pages 2k consortium (2013). The red lined is HADCRUT4 data from 1850-2013.

graph taken from Wikipedia

That is your choice but in court, not one scientist would offer a brief in his defense.

[Hoosier8]

This issue has been investigated by many groups and no evidence exists of fraud. Here is a partial rebuttal from skepticalscience.comhttps://skepticalscience.com/Climate...ils-hacked.htm

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
3. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
4. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

"Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"

The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...

There is further discussion on this topic. It is boring to me.
https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ri...ce-problem.htm

Relying on the failed cartoonists blog (un)SkepticalScience is like relying on InforWars for your news.

[skepticalmike]

This was a question posed at quora.com

What is the best single climate change science resource I can link to when engaging with climate change skeptics on the internet?

One answer from Skip Morrow, a Republican

I think the best single climate change science resource on the internet is Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined (https://skepticalscience.com/). From there you will find many links to authoritative documents. They have simple explanations for all of the most popular denial arguments, and they have more in-depth responses for those that want it.

Another answer from Gordon Stranger, PhD Earth Science and Climate Change OU,UK

I wouldn’t even bother . Why waste your time and emotional energy trying to engage with climate skeptics at all? They are not amenable to rational discussion. They have made up their minds, and don’t want to be confused by the facts. Whatever and however much evidence you produce to back up your arguments, and however well validated the data, the climate skeptic will simply dismiss it all as irrelevant, or ‘fake news’, or the product of ‘scientific conspiracy’. You might just as well shout at the waves, or bang your head against a brick wall.



Here is Michael Mann's response:

"...there are great websites where you can go and get reliable information about the science of climate change, whether it's the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences. There's a great website called Skeptical Science that has sort of a list of all of the various myths about climate change that have become commonplace in sort of among those who deny the reality of climate change and the actual scientific responses." Michael Mann

".

[Peter1469]

Mann is a fraud. And lost in court.

[Chris]

Finally, the court's opinion: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/1...19BCSC1580.htm

I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.

[Peter1469]

We call it failure to prosecute.