Michael Mann is writing a children’s book about climate change.
Don’t all rush to donate at once – you might break the internet – but he wants you to pay for it through crowdfunding.
The book is called The Tantrum That Saved The World.
Michael Mann knows all about tantrums. Probably his biggest was the one that led him to sue Mark Steyn for having had the temerity to suggest that his now-infamous Hockey Stick was fraudulent. The case has been grinding on for six years now: as Steyn says “the process is the punishment”. Also, the alarmists funding it really can’t afford for it ever to be resolved because the disclosure requirements may open a can of worms so huge that the $1.5 trillion a year climate industry may never recover.
As scientists – or, in Klein’s case, people with pretensions to having scientific evidence on their side – they really ought to know better than to pin man-made climate change on a natural meteorological event which has nothing whatsoever to do with man-made climate change.
New York Magazine has just broken the world record for the scariest, most catastrophic, hysterical exercise in extravagant climate doom-mongering in the history of the universe.
Here are just some of the horrors that await us, according to David Wallace-Wells in his 7,000 word compendium of climate terror, titled The Uninhabitable Earth.
No more Bangladesh – or even Miami!
Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade.
A sixth mass extinction killing about 97 percent of us, probably…
In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs were caused by climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead. We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster. The rate is accelerating. This is what Stephen Hawking had in mind when he said, this spring, that the species needs to colonize other planets in the next century to survive, and what drove Elon Musk, last month, to unveil his plans to build a Mars habitat in 40 to 100 years.
Pretty much everywhere hotter than the Middle East is now.
As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still. By the end of the century, the World Bank has estimated, the coolest months in tropical South America, Africa, and the Pacific are likely to be warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century.
Mass kidney failure [no really!]
In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one-fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, including over a quarter of the men, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago. With dialysis, which is expensive, those with kidney failure can expect to live five years; without it, life expectancy is in the weeks.
No more hamburgers…
It takes 16 calories of grain to produce just a single calorie of hamburger meat, butchered from a cow that spent its life polluting the climate with methane farts.
Meet Dr Olivia Doll, the world’s smartest dog. Dr Doll is the formal professional name of Ollie, a Staffordshire terrier, who sits on the board of seven international medical journals and was recently asked to review a paper on the management of tumors.
Her impressive curriculum vitae lists her current role as senior lecturer at the Subiaco College of Veterinary Science and past associate of the Shenton Park Institute for Canine Refuge Studies — which is code for her earlier life in the dog refuge.
Ollie’s owner, veteran public health expert Mike Daube, decided to test how carefully some journals scrutinised their editorial reviewers, by inventing Dr Doll and making up her credentials.
The five-year-old pooch has managed to dupe a range of publications specialising in drug abuse, psychiatry and respiratory medicine into appointing her to their editorial boards.
Dr Doll has even been fast-tracked to the position of associate editor of the Global Journal of Addiction and Rehabilitation Medicine.
Several journals have published on their websites a supplied photo of Dr Doll, which is actually of a bespectacled Kylie Minogue.
Professor Daube said none of them smelt a rat, despite Dr Doll’s listed research interests in “the benefits of abdominal massage for medium-sized canines” and “the role of domestic canines in promoting optimal mental health in ageing males”.
The Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise concluded something similar in a report last year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
“A journal’s decision to publish a paper provides no assurance that its conclusions are sound . . . Fraudulent research makes it past gatekeepers at even the most prestigious journals. While science is supposed to be self-correcting, the process by which this occurs is haphazard and byzantine.”
Laframboise was especially damning about the way “peer review” has been used to flatter dubious research in the field of climate ‘science’.
This has been a well-publicized problem with climate science ever since the Climategate emails leak showed the scientists at the heart of the global warming ‘consensus’ engaging in all manner of skullduggery in order to prop up their debased cod-scientific theory.
Scott Adams has gone full-on climate denialist in his latest Dilbert strip, causing liberal heads to explode.
Some of his old fans just aren’t happy at this betrayal of The Cause:
it’s a shame to see this as I used to think he was very funny. The Way of the Weasel was an awesome book.
it could be dementia – that is a thing that happens to people
On Scott Adams, his comic strip and thought processes have pretty clearly jumped the shark
The man has become a dangerous idiot.
I guess 30-ish years of minor fame and a little bit of pussy took his brain for a ride.
No doubt it is an accident of the pen. But the “climate scientist” in the cartoon bears more than a passing resemblance to Michael Mann, globally renowned inventor of the “Hockey Stick” and winner – or so he used to claim till he got rumbled – of the Nobel Prize.
As Homer would say, this cartoon is funny because it’s true. In fact it sums up pretty much everything the layman needs to know about the state of climate “science” and how it abuses the public trust.
So, it starts with truths which are widely accepted – “the basic science of physics and chemistry”.
Then – like a street magician or a confidence trickster – it slips quickly from the realm of evident truth into a world of illusion: “We put that data into dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us.”
Anyone who questions this groupthink is labelled a “science denier.”
Unlike its creaky predecessor – basically an extended Powerpoint lecture featuring crap animations of drowning polar bears and a fat, sweating, failed presidential candidate in a suit clambering up onto a hydraulic elevator to make some tendentious, whiney point about a graph – this sequel uses shock, awe and spectacular footage to bludgeon its audience into submission.
A maelstrom of brown, boiling floodwaters, calving glaciers, burning mountainsides and lashing tornadoes, Gore’s production team have pulled out the stops to create a propaganda movie so lavishly convincing it makes Triumph Of The Will look like Snakes On A Plane.
At the heart of the movie is Gore himself – whose caring, nurturing, brow-furrowed sensitivity as he travels the world’s weather disaster zones to marvel at the damage done by man’s selfishness, greed and refusal-to-amend-his-lifestyle (TM) is contrasted with the smirking evil of the movie’s arch-villain, Donald J. Trump. Trump, of course, represents the “Power” to whom the heroic Gore figure is speaking “Truth.”
What is clear, though, even from the two-and-a-half-minute trailer, is that among the things left behind on the cutting room floor are science, integrity, and credibility.
There is, for example, absolutely no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has produced an increase in extreme weather events. In fact tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, bitter winters and extreme precipitation have all either remained much the same or reduced since “global warming” began.
So what Gore is doing here, in other words, is misleading his audience with weather horror porn of extreme events which have nothing at all to do with climate change.
As for the prominently featured wind turbines and solar arrays – these are a blatant attempt to push the expensive, environmentally damaging, inefficient renewables to which green shysters like Gore are ideologically committed but which will make no difference to climate change. Their sole purpose is to enrich, at taxpayers’ expense, a few of the rent-seekers, troughers, crony-capitalists and other charlatans who are leeching off the back of this disgusting $1.5 trillion per annum scam.
Follow the money: this is the real reason Gore has made this movie. And it’s the reason there has been such squealing objection to President Trump’s (actually quite disappointingly modest) attempts to take on the Climate Industrial Complex.
Still, you can tell Trump is headed in the right direction from the kind of people who are attacking him.
Yesterday I asked of lying liar climate ‘scientist’ Michael Mann: “Does anyone take this guy seriously any more?”
But the question was a purely rhetorical one. I already knew the depressing true answer having just sat, fuming, in my car listening to Mann being given the red carpet treatment on a BBC Radio 4 science programme.
“Oh Professor Doctor Mann, Sir, may it please your eminence to descend from your radiant cloud for a few precious moments and explain to us mere mortals why your amazing and unquestionably brilliant new paper on global warming demonstrates you to be even more right about climate change than you were even in the days when you won your Nobel prize?” fawned and grovelled the BBC’s interviewer from his prostrate position on the studio floor.
Perhaps I exaggerate slightly.
But it would be fair to say that the BBC’s interviewer, Adam Rutherford, sought to leave the listener in no doubt that when it came to climate science the “Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science” Michael Mann was a respected expert of great insight whose opinions one could totally trust.
Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.
Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)
Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here.
So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:
After my attack on activist and environmental journalist Mark Lynas, I thought I’d test the waters with Tom Chivers who is a science editor at Buzzfeed.
Chivers has been a nemesis of mine since my days at the Telegraph. A likeable, good natured nemesis – but an irritant nonetheless. It’s bloody annoying when you’re a seasoned hack breaking stories like Climategate showing alarmists to be a bunch of lying charlatans and you’ve got some dogged progressive fresh out of ‘uni’ in the neighbouring pages, brandishing his science degree like it automatically trumps your Oxford arts degree, explaining patiently, goodnaturedly, passively aggressively that there’s this thing called the “science” and that what the “science” shows is that global warming is real, regardless of what some batshit crazy conspiracy theorist from the bad old days when the Telegraph was conservative might say.
So I thought I’d goad Tom, partly for the pure mischievous hell of it; but partly because I’m genuinely interested in seeing what coping strategies professional climate alarmists are going to adopt as their bankrupt theory crashes about their ears. Are they going to make a clean breast of things – admit they got the whole man-made-global-warming thing wrong and hope that we sceptics don’t shoot all our prisoners? Or are they going to go down with the sinking ship?
Well, this morning I had my answer from Mark Lynas.
The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.
Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.
This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”
More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”
Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.
Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the Ted Cruz “Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.
In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.