Michael Mann Can’t Add Up!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier
Michael Mann seems to be having trouble with his abacus!
Michael Mann, one of the most eminent climate scientists in the world, believes averting climate catastrophe on a global scale would be “essentially impossible” if Donald Trump is re-elected.
A professor at Penn State University, Mann, 54, has published hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers, testified numerous times before Congress and appeared frequently in the news media. He is also active on Twitter, where earlier this year he declared: “A second Trump term is game over for the climate – really!”, a statement he reaffirmed in an interview with the Guardian and Covering Climate Now.
“If we are going to avert ever more catastrophic climate change impacts, we need to limit warming below a degree and a half Celsius, a little less than three degrees Fahrenheit,” Mann said. “Another four years of what we’ve seen under Trump, which is to outsource environmental and energy policy to the polluters and dismantle protections put in place by the previous administration … would make that essentially impossible.”…
Mann denies that it’s a partisan statement to say that four more years of Trump would mean “game over” for the climate.
“It is a political statement, because it speaks to the need to enact policies to deal with climate change,” he says. “But it isn’t partisan to say that we should act on this crisis.”
It’s also a scientific statement, Mann adds. Two years ago this month, scientists with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a landmark study, Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees, which found that humanity had to cut heat-trapping emissions roughly by half by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. Headlines warned we had “12 years to save the planet”. Those 12 years are now 10.
Except more than two years have been lost, because in that time, the Trump administration has prevented the world’s biggest economy from making “the dramatic reductions that were necessary to keep us on that path” of halving emissions by 2030, Mann says. “So now the incline is steeper. It’s no longer 5% [reductions] a year for the next 10 years. It’s more like seven and a half per cent.” (As a comparison, 7% is how much global carbon emissions are projected to fall in 2020 due to the Covid-19 economic lockdowns that shrank driving, flying and other carbon-intensive activities.)
The numbers get unrealistically challenging if Trump gains another four years as president.
“Four more years of relative inaction, of flat emissions, means that four years from now that number might be closer to 15% [emissions reductions] a year,” Mann says. “And that may be, although not physically impossible, societally impossible. The rate at which we shift away from a fossil-fuel-driven infrastructure, it just may not be economically possible or socially viable to do it that [fast].”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/02/donald-trump-climate-change-michael-mann-interview
Since Trump was elected in 2016, US emissions have fallen slightly by 1.5%, from 5042 to 4964 MtCO2 in 2019.
Meanwhile, the Rest of the World’s emissions have risen by 1311 MtCO2, an increase of 4.6%.
BP Energy Review
Even if the US had been cutting at the rate demanded by Mann, global emissions would still have risen sharply. It is also worth pointing out that under the saintly Obama’s second term, emissions only fell by 48 MtCO2, which is less than Trump has achieved.
No doubt, Mann would argue that if Trump was setting a better example, the rest of the world would follow him over the cliff. But this is bunkum. The likes of China, India and most other countries are are still following their pledges made under the Paris Agreement, which expressly allowed them to carry on increasing emissions up to 2030.
For some reason, Mann conveniently ignores this fact, which suggests this latest intervention is politically motivated, and has nothing to do with the climate.
Comments are closed.
OMG
What will happen if Mann et al are wrong? What will the insurance companies do? The claim that it is all or fault – could finish up like the South Sea Bubble or, as that white privileged, anti woke, pro slavery bastard Shakespeare has it – it could be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
Life, but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon stage and then is heard no more, here’s a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Hear! Hear!
First sentence should be:
Michael Mann, one of the most infamous climate “scientists” in the world, believes averting climate catastrophe on a global scale would be “essentially impossible” if Donald Trump is re-elected.
In reality, it would be good if Donald Trump is re-elected and put an end to the climate change scam.
How does this man (sic) get away with this? One of the main protagonists in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, which seems to have been conveniently brushed into history, despite being one of the scandals of the century. Unlike many it seems I read every one of the 1200 emails made public (for a while), and I know what institutionalised fraud that was.
Also the subject of a recent court case (still ongoing I think) where he (Mann) has refused to produce the data on which his proven fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph, on which so much of the climate scare mongering was based.
And if course The Guardian, that bastion of ‘groupthink’ still insists on publishing this drivel, but then we all should know where their motivations come from.
Sorry for repeating a lot if what you have written so much more eloquently about in the past a Paul, but it needs repeating I guess.
Actually Phillip the case I think you refer to was thrown out because incredibly he refused to submit the data upon which his work was based to the court! https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/08/26/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case/
I am not sure how but his vexatious case against the wonderful Mark Steyn appears still in progress https://www.steynonline.com/10400/the-costs-of-mann-delay
Yes, the case against Dr. Tim Ball in British Columbia as thrown out.
However, the case with Mark Steyn is still in the limbo of the corrupt Washington, DC court system where it has been for 8 years.
Good so WHEN he wins Mann, you and all your rent seeking mates will no longer have a reason to draw your salaries. I invite you to submit your CV but be aware it will be considered ON MERIT, setting your skills as a scientist in the first position. You will however be facing a lot of competition from possibly less prominent people who actually understand the scientific method and critical thinking and who’s only interest is to find truth. As a “scientist” you will of course understand that the basis of science is only empiricism and everything else is just hubris.
As a true scientist, I have watched with horror as the Scientific Method has been brushed aside. Almost all of the so-called institutions of higher learning (including both my undergraduate and graduate universities) have gone full Marxist. So Mann is in “good company” at Penn State.
It’s a world-wide disaster in progress.
Amen, Joan.
i am an apolitical true scientist also, with over 40 years in forestry, fire behavior and forest pathology.
A big part of the problem is indoctrination and brainwashing at a very young age in public schools…
Proper science is still done but in any area that touches any political agenda of the Progessives it has been utterly corrupted. Universities are now more censored and restricted than they have been since the Reformation.
mardington, I am a botanist with a BA from WVU and a MA in plant taxonomy/ecology and later a PhD in plant ecosystems from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I had a fine education, but see it turn into a political point of view field now. I helped teach dendrology at WVU for several semesters, assisting Dr. Harry Wiant. He was the best and had worked as a forester, especially in the northwest. ALL students in the Division of Forestry were required to take and pass dendrology (even Parks and Recreation students). I also taught a Bryophytes and Vascular Plants course at nearby Fairmont State. Most schools have gone cellular/molecular as a result of pressure from medical schools and no longer teach organismal courses.
Hi Joan. Both of the once august institutions I attended have been infected and now infested by left speaking people barely capable of articulation. I speak about Newcastle University and UCL in what was once called Great Britain Newcastle have renamed the Armstrong Building because one person complained that its benefactor may have sold arms which ended up in the hands of the wrong people and UCL repeatedly utters abject tripe about the climate and race. Do they not realize the lack of scholarship behind this extreme minority view garbage they have bought into and yet they see that as justification for undoing everything which went before? Every road leads back to Marxism and Critical Theory.
It could be that Mann is just thick and unable to comprehend the facts that Paul has posted. A lot of people with academic achievement are in real life quite dim – look at the buffoon Boris for example.
They really aren’t interested in facts, just their agenda, which continues to bring in loads of money and a whole heap more if they continue the charade.
It is very hard to get a man to understand the truth when his income depends on not understanding it.
And what if the whole concept of divide solar irradiance by 4 is wrong?
An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget
There’s day and night, so what are the other two? 😎
The surface area of the earth is four times the cross-sectional area of the earth (the area subtended by sunshine).
Wait a while and at least one will dawn on you.
What are the other two?
Dawn and Dusk – Simples!
Also the fact that different solar intensities have a 4th power relationship with warming.
Means taking 1/4 is just WRONG. !
“Mann denies that it’s a partisan statement to say that four more years of Trump would mean ‘game over’ for the climate.”
The only “game over” is the future inability for Mann and his pals, the UN and every other little tin horn game to pick the pockets of the United States.
Maybe he can’t add but he is a scientist and there are certain things that scientists know for sure.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/25/earth-day-wisdom/
Love the quote on the Table of Contents page!
Spot on.
Thank you.
I wonder if Mann is cashing in on meat analogs with his co-fraud Gore, who made $10million out of the hockey stick, and making even more with Beyond Meat franchise.
“Two years ago this month, scientists with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a landmark study, Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees, which found that humanity had to cut heat-trapping emissions roughly by half by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. Headlines warned we had “12 years to save the planet”. Those 12 years are now 10.”
By half? In 2019 it was ~40 billon tons. Five tons per person for 8 billion people. Seems simple enough. Everyone store 0.25 tons of dry ice or carbonated beverages a year for ten years. But then in 2030 the atmosphere will still be where it is now. Lowering CO2 emissions does not lower what has already been added. Why they don’t understand that is the puzzle.
The avowed devotion by which M. Mann believes and espouses the mantra of CO2 (man-made and natural) controlling our chaotic climate shows this guy is quite dim and not a true ‘scientist’ of any kind. Unfortunately he is looked upon as a sage of the ridiculous notion of anthropological global warming by those who prefer science-fiction rather than science. Followed by many despite being proven a liar in the Canadian Law courts!
M. Mann, here are 2 statements for you to consider …
1) Nature controls the chaotic process we call climate (not humans).
2) A little more warmth and CO2 is very good for all of nature including humans.
These two statements are back-up by the evidence of geology, human history, and many proxy climate studies. Regardless of how much of the increase is caused by temperature, Harde, Berry, and Salby have shown conclusively that man’s emissions are much too small to have caused the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
The measured increase of CO2 can only come from natural emission. It controlled how much CO2 was in the atmosphere before the industrial age. It still does.
No biased models, no handpicked tree rings, no over emotive sophistry, you just need a rational and logical thought process.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/23/emission-reduction-atmospheric-co2/
Even though Im in complete agreement with these conclusions, there is no such thing as a “conclusive” proxy data study. Its an oxymoron.
Yours in APOLITICAL science, MAA
Unlike the work of Mann (and many others in the climate change machine), the analyses of Harde, Berry, and Salby are not on proxy data. They are on real data: Atmospheric behavior that was actually measured.
In science, it is not possible to prove a theory conclusively. It is, however, possible to disprove a theory, as Salby notes after time 36:00 in this video. That’s just what the above analyses do. Human emissions are too small to be responsible for the measured increase of CO2. END OF STORY.
Berry’s new book will go to print tomorrow (https://edberry.com/climate-miracle/ ) it is an easy read that explains the basic IPPC error Salby originally pointed out that falsifies Mann’s theory about our emissions causing warming.
Many thanks! Chapter 4 is most illuminating!
“The measured increase of CO2 can only come from natural emission.”
That is not true. The correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population is almost perfect. This was demonstrated over 30 years ago. Newell & Marcus, 1987: “Carbon Dioxide and People”. The year-over-year increase in CO2 is not a straight line. Some of the CO2 is natural, of course. But not all of it.
Why cite Mauna Loa at all? It’s smack in the middle of a seismic belt.
CO2 is measured at all latitudes across the Pacific. Mauna Loa is the default value.
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/mlo.html
Al Gore Jr. was born in March of 1948. The correlation between Al’s weight and atmospheric CO2 increase since then is almost perfect.
Also note that many of the additions of global population since 1948 have very low “carbon footprints” – unlike Al, Mike Mann, James Hansen, Maurice Strong, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand (1942).
What was the question, again?
It might be worth adding that the highest annual average temperature in Al Gore’s home state of Tennessee was back in 1921. And so was the maximum.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/40/tmax/12/12/1895-2020?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Doesn’t really matter where the increase in atmospheric CO2 is coming from.
Just so long as it KEEPS COMING !!
A correlation between two continually increasing quantities is meaningless. Such quantities will always have a correlation. But it has no significance.
Regardless of correlation, once you understand what is shown by these real scientists, you will understand why the above statement is incorrect. The key point is
“Regardless of how much of the increase is caused by temperature, Harde, Berry, and Salby have shown conclusively that man’s emissions are much too small to have caused the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Michael Mann is the same shameless moron who used proxy data from a flawed bristlecone pine “study” to jump to some absurdly flawed “consensus” conclusions.
As a field forest pathologist i laughed through my review of most if that paper. He us either being purposefully obtuse OR he has no grasp of even rudimentary tree physiology. Hey Michael, it ain’t temperature thats the primary factor in growth of Pinus longaeva, its MICROSITE CONDITIONS RELATED TO MOISTURE.
It’s all too late anyway, the game was over back in 2009:
Prince Charles – 100 months to save the Planet https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/mar/08/prince-charles-monarchy
The Prince of Wales is to issue a warning that the world has only “100 months to act” before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible. (2017)
Gordon Brown October 2009: “We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313672.stm
“The UK faces a “catastrophe” of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.
World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.”
Sir John Houghton November 2009
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/04/climate-change-faith-religion-justice
“Global carbon emissions are still rising rapidly. Within about seven years, well before 2020, global emissions need to peak and begin rapidly to reduce – an extremely challenging goal. The means to achieve it are available and the cost affordable. But is the will there to do it?
In December, the world’s nations meet in Copenhagen to set targets and a timetable for action. People of faith are calling for worldwide prayer and many are saying it is the most important meeting the world has ever seen.”
All down the tubes then…
Yes, I see that we are doomed. When someone who believes in inanimate reincarnation (wants to come back as Camilla Parker-Bowle’s knickers) says we’re toast…. may as well slather us with butter cause it’s a DONE DEAL.
It looks like CountryFile is now going to visit every vineyard in the country one at a time and tell us it’s only possible because of climate change.
They were in Wales today. One planted 12 years ago – and we were supposed to believe that in a place that shows no meaningful trend in any weather metric for at least 25-40 years, climate change was now making for lovely red wine.
The farmer even said it was a micro-climate and he used an early maturing pinot noir i.e he chose a favorable clone and a sloping aspect for shelter and sun, as is always the case with growing these grapes.
As we know vineyards have been in SW England just 10’s of km away ‘forever’, why on earth would some places in Wales not be suitable? It’s just the will to do it, fashion – not climate change nonsense.
“The first commercial vineyard in Wales was planted in 1875 near Castell Coch, the 19th century Gothic castle built on the outskirts of Cardiff by industrialist Lord Bute. A century and a bit on there are over a dozen commercial vineyards in operation all over the country.”
“Welsh vineyards were first planted by Romans, but in the 1970s, modern vineyards were planted in South Wales with the intention of creating Welsh wine. Despite a slow start, by 2005 Wales had 20 vineyards, producing 100,000 bottles a year, primarily white wines, but also a few reds.”
“Other small commercial vineyards in Britain followed in the 1960s with growers such as Joy and Trevor Bates in Kent, Norman Cowderoy in West Sussex……….. Wales also had George Jones, Lewis Mathias and Margaret Gore-Browne.”
And of course the following weather forecast was also a tale of wild extremes of weather in the past year – yes the edge of the Atlantic battleground is always so reliably calm and average in the UK! Matt Taylor should examine his professional conscience.
It is now mandatory for CountryFile to mention “climate change” at least once in every programme.
A whole Heap of it!
It builds on a strange belief in the UK that wine can only be produced in “Mediterranean ” climates. But much isn’t. Champagne and the Alscace region are quite northerly in France, and the Loire valley is nowhere near the south. Germany is obviously not at all Mediterranean. Its lies based on a total misconception.
yes. New Zealands south island is a long way from the Med too. Otago Pinot Noir has quite a reputation now but its colder than the south of England. England had vineyards at Hadrians Wall in the Roman warm period and they did well in the medieval warm period. Declined during the little ice age but were snuffed out when England had prohibition during its short spell as a Republic. One of the reasons we became a monarchy again – we wanted our booze back!
These themes recur regularly, true recycling and get repeated by the the likes of Countryfile:
Thanks to Tomomason for posting the Salby lecture, the first of his which I have watched right through…very enlightening.
Mann is actually lying this time, because he knows what he says is false. The IPCC study looked at 1.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees, because both are Paris Accord targets. They clearly found that 2.0 was not catastrophic and it remains the target. So his saying that the report says 1.5 is the threshold of catastrophe is a clear lie. And as a climate scientist he cannot claim he misunderstood the report.
“…one of the most eminent climate scientists in the world…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good thing I was sitting down when I read that one.
So he’s 54 but has published “hundreds” of papers. Let’s say he started 25 years ago and has published 200. That’s eight a year, orettymuch one a month allowing for holidays. What sort of quality do they think you get at that rate? All just junk basically.
I like the mention of “setting an example.” Is this not patronising, colonialist drivel?
Mann says that re-electing Trump would make averting climate catastrophe on a global scale ‘essentially impossible’. His reasoning is that the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report said that ‘humanity had to cut emissions by half by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown’. (It didn’t, but I’ll ignore that for now). He seems to think a Biden victory (‘This is a Tolkienesque battle between good and evil, and Sauron needs to be defeated on election day’) would save the day. But of course it wouldn’t. Half of today’s emissions is about 19.0Gt. US emissions in 2018 were 5.3 Gt so a 50% cut would leave 2.7Gt. But China (not mentioned by Mann), emitted 11.3Gt in 2018 and, even after Xi’s recent announcement, will probably emit at least 12.0Gt in 2030. And India will emit about 3.5Gt. In total (US+China+India) that’s 18.2Gt – meaning that the whole of the rest of the world must emit no more than 0.8Gt. In other words, had Mann been right about the IPCC’s 2018 report (he wasn’t), the world is heading for climate catastrophe whatever the result of the US election in November.