Michael Mann, who has staked his reputation on being right about climate change, has apparently abandoned the science that he said he’s kept his "head buried in" for "much" of his career.
Mann, a climate scientist chosen to help the Democratic Party draft its election-year platform, has concluded that "these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary."
So if the global warming alarmists should no longer use these tools — the climate prediction computer models — to badger the rest of us, then what should they use? Well, just tell some tales, of course.
"We can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle," Mann told Democrats at a platform draft hearing last month. "The signal of climate change is no longer subtle, it is obvious."
Maybe Mann, from his ivory tower at Penn State University, is seeing something we’re not. Whatever it is, there’s no way he can, with any degree of certainty, say it’s caused by humans. As we’ve said before, there are simply too many variables to declare without reservation that man’s carbon-dioxide emissions are causing the planet to overheat. Our climate is too complex for an explanation as simplistic as that.
But Mann is right about abandoning the models that he’s used to try "to tease out" — isn’t this a second admission that a con is going down? — "the signal of human-caused climate change." The models that the global warming scare are based on are severely flawed.
And the models are not really solid science themselves. Aside from being consistently wrong, predicting more warming than has been observed, they have taken the place of doing the real work of science — which involves actual experimentation, not just fiddling with highly questionable math models. Scholars Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Wojick recently wrote in the Cato Institute’s At Liberty blog that the "the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models."
They certainly could be improved upon. But so, too, can Mann’s observational skills. He’s seeing things.