Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Has Michael Mann proved that the science is settled?
Mann's web page at Penn State shows his upcoming itinerary:
Green Energy Summit logoKeynote Speech and Book Signing
2012 Green Energy Summit and Exposition
Milwaukee, WI (March 8, 2012)
An Evening with Michael E. Mann
Ben McNally BooksBook Signing
Ben McNally Books
Toronto, ON (March 12, 2012)
Politics and Prose logoLecture and Book Signing
Politics and Prose Bookstore
Washington, DC (March 15, 2012)
Virginia Festival of the Book logoLecture and Book Signing
2012 Virginia Festival of the Book
Charlottesville, VA (March 24, 2012)
The Sustainable Operations Summit 2012
New York, NY (April 19, 2012)
That is one busy dude. Do you see any room there for any actual climate research? I guess the science is settled.
Does Penn State still give him a paycheck? What for?
How big is Mann's carbon footprint? Does it seem like he's acting like CO2 is a catastrophic problem?
I guess that itinerary of Mann is not all inclusive. Apparently he was in Honolulu this weekend at a paleo conference: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147815862/michael-ma...
@david b: I haven't read Mann's book but I have some idea about it based on the reviews and comments I have read (from Mann himself as well). So do you think his book is a climate science textbook or an auto-biography?
@JeffM: That's exactly my point. He has quite a few projects on the go. But given his schedule (and apparently that's only a partial list), where do you see he has time for research? Do you think he is on some sort of sabbatical?
@Gary F: "The Hockey Stick paper was never intended to be anything more than a little experiment in building a multi-proxy reconstruction. In terms of AGW, it is just one of thousands of pieces of supporting evidence."
Even though this has nothing to do with my question, I'll entertain this thought anyways. You're kidding right? You don't remember the Hockey Stick being front page material for the IPCC 2001 Report? It was just the thing to show to the policymakers: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?s...
"The high-profile publication of the data led to the "hockey stick" being used as a key piece of supporting evidence in the third assessment report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3569604.stm
The 'hockey stick" was a global warming icon
...right up there with a picture of a polar bear "stranded" on an ice flow (wasn't that picture fabricated? Aw, who cares, it's all good for the "cause".)
If you're going to go strawman on my question, you could at least use accurate information.
@ david b: Seriously, you should just skip over my questions. You seemed to get riled up over the most innocuous things I write. Don't worry about me "going scot-free" without getting insulted. There's a line up around here for that. Most can do it quite effortlessly and seem to enjoy it. You on the other hand seem to be laboring to cut me down. That's not good for you and it certainly doesn't affect me. Anyways, just saying....
@Bob: He was just in Honolulu this weekend at a paleoclimate conference. So maybe he's on a "semi-sabbatical" or maybe he still attends conferences at locations where there's nice, pleasant global warming.
Yes, I'm jealous. I'd love to have a job like that. Would I publicly state that I'm a firm believer in CAGW to get and hold such a job? Maybe...
- ?Lv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
Deniers have only themselves to blame. Without them, no one would have ever heard of Michael Mann.
The Hockey Stick paper was never intended to be anything more than a little experiment in building a multi-proxy reconstruction. In terms of AGW, it is just one of thousands of pieces of supporting evidence. If it had never been written, everything would be the same – except for Michael's notoriety.
Mann never sought the attention and, in fact, shied away from it. If you look at the media stories that appeared immediately following the paper's publication, there is a noticeable absence of first-hand interviews with him. That is because he did not want attention and passed that task on to one of his coauthors.
I guess you could say that Mann will have the last laugh since he will make more money thanks to Deniers that he ever did or could have doing research. But you are right about one thing – it leaves less time for research. And maybe that is the best strategy for the anti-AGW crowd – pay scientists more than they can earn working.
jim z --
<<Those who believe without that proof are little more than religious fanatics.<<
As are those who deny and lie about scientific evidence - and about scientists.
It is your non-question that is not relevant since neither Michael nor the Hockey Stick are critical to AGW or climate science. If not for Deniers, the hockey stick would have been forgotten a week after the IPCC report appeared and no one would have heard of Michael Mann. In hindsight, appearing on the IPCC cover seems like a big deal. Even with media coverage, it would not have amounted to anything if McIntyre had not gone Don Quixote on it.
The brief history goes like this. Over a period of 2-3 years, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in the US - and Keith Briffa and some others in Europe were doing exactly the same study using slightly different data. (The results are almost indistinguishable.) Then the IPCC announced that they would use one of the papers for its cover.
That sparked a little competition between the two groups, but no one else in the field was really interested. By the time it hit the IPCC cover it was already old news among researchers. Neither Mann's nor Briffa's research provided any new scientific information or knowledge. Even though they used a somewhat different approaches, their end results were always going to look just like everyone else's data - for the simple reason that is the way the data look like. The warming trend is a physical reality and that is what the empircal data show.
- 4 years ago
Honolulu has it all. Discover this place with this particular hotelbye small help. Honolulu is your home of some of Hawaii's many ancient places. From Iolani Palace, the Kawaiahao Church, the Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archive and the cherished artefacts of the Bishop Museum to legendary landmarks like the Aloha Tower, the King Kamehameha I Statue, the Duke Kahanamoku Statue and the historic Hawaii Theatre, Honolulu has, let me make it clear, lots of fascinating places. Honolulu can also be the Hawaii's spot for arts, tradition and entertainment. Among the areas you cannot skip from your holydays in Honolulu is Waikiki, the key beach location on most people maneuvering to Honolulu and the area of Oahu. This region is noted for its large crescent formed beach, wherever visitors arrive at lie out in the sun, swimming, and learn to surf.
- 6 years ago
While climate change is most likely a reality...This question is not properly worded since "science is settled" is a misnomer and is therefore inappropriate for any scientifically literate person to use. Newton's laws of physics suited mankind for a few generations but was later determined to be quite incomplete by Einstein who extended it to the next level thru his theories on general and specific relativity. Even today there are attempts to refine Einsteins theories to a more complete level.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- IanLv 59 years ago
I've said it before. I try my utmost to create as C02 as humanly possible. The is no way in Hades I can keep up with the likes of Mann, Jones, Hansen and Gore.
Think about that. The leading climatologists advocating that C02 is evil make a carbon footprint that is MASSIVELY larger than a skeptic who tries to make as much C02 that he can in his daily life. These clown are the most hypocritical people on earth and they have no belief in the manure they are spewing.
"Do as I tell you to do, not as I do. Now give me your money."Source(s): @ Manson Lamps...You do realize that Monckton is a skeptical public speaker right? He really doesn't believe his humongous carbon footprint does any damage. Mickey is supposed an impartial scientist (ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahaha) who believes people should reduce their carbon footprint while creating a larger carbon footprint than most "deniers" could dream of.
- Anonymous9 years ago
What we need to remember is that there is nothing about the Hockey Stick reconstruction which says why we are warming. It only says that we are experiencing a climate shift. Just looking at the graph, it looks like we could be experiencing a D/O event. During a D/O event, Greenland can warm as much as 8C in a period of years.
If the Medieval Warm Period had been a global phenomenon, we have no reason to believe that Michael Mann and other scientists would have shown it to be so in their temperature reconstructions. (Please, no defamatory replies to this point, at least not without evidence.) The Hockey Stick reconstruction was probably a let down for many climatologists, who would have rather been able to explain the MWP than disappear it. And even if the MWP were global, we would want to know, what caused it and whether whatever caused it were happening today. And if it were happening today, would that explanation explain away CO2 or would CO2 and that natural cause be compounding effects, perhaps leading to much greater warming than either CO2 or the natural cause alone would cause.
If I wanted to deceive people in order to frighten them, a global MWP would be an aid, rather than a hindrance to that cause.
<Does Penn State still give him a paycheck? What for?>
If it is for research, it is for original research. Global warming is high school physics.
- RioLv 69 years ago
It will totally depend on how good his editor/s are. If used as general reading...probably.
- JimZLv 79 years ago
<<<The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines>>>
This mann is a buffoon. I think the way he handled McIntyre clearly shows that he wasn't prepared to fight for what he believed. He wasn't prepared to debate his ideas. He was simply using deception (possibly deceiving even himself) to push AGW by flattening the climate history in any way he could. It didn't matter if the science was sloppy. It only mattered that he blame mankind for causing catastrophic warming knowing that he was making a name and lots of money for himself in the process. .
Wrong Seven, the burder of proof is always on the person making the theories. Those who believe without that proof are little more than religious fanatics.
It sometimes surprises me to see the vitriol that is aimed at you. It seems to me that you are always extremely polite and restrained and yet you seem to have a lion's share of stinging barbs aimed at you. Perhaps your mild manner has them frustrated.
Note: Jyush said: <<<If I wanted to deceive people in order to frighten them, a global MWP would be an aid, rather than a hindrance to that cause.>>>
Wow. Let me help you out with this. If you get rid of the MWP, then the warming in the last 100 years looks more ominous and can be more easily blamed on humans. Isn't that too obvious for me to have to spell it out for you?
- 9 years ago
Along with the majority of other real scientists, yes.
- pegminerLv 79 years ago
How do you know he's not working WHILE making the book tour? We scientists have these things called LAPTOPS and this other miraculous thing that we use called the INTERNET, so it's actually possible to remain working while on the road. Personally I've taken many trips with meetings in the daytime and working in the hotel room at night, and I'm sure Michael Mann is the same way.
I think you're making the same argument about Michael Mann that many people make about Congress--they hate what they do when they're working, and then call them lazy when they're not in session!
- tim kLv 59 years ago
lets deal with info not personality, to attack credibility one must attack credentials not personality