Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Well, there we go! You said it and we have to believe it.

BS

Regardless...it doesn't matter if he is wrong or right

Let's assume he is.

Are China, Russia, and India (to name but three) going to change their ways?

Of course not.

Can the US, alone, stem the tide of global warming?

Of course not.

Will the world end in the next ten years because of global warming?

Of course not

Are all of America's ultra-vocal eco-warriors really prepared to fundamentally change their lives to accommodate the proposed solutions?

Of course not

You are among a very large pack of braying hounds who enjoy feeling you are virtuous when in reality you are doing nothing in your life to address the supposed problem

Don't shoot the messenger.

Could you please post the source from which you came to this conclusion? Thanks, in advance.
______________________________________________________

In the meantime, here is a comprehensive look into Michael Mann's and his lawyer's problem:

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-michael-mann-doubles-down-over-contempt-issue/

.

Do yoou disagree with science that has been repeated in modelling and experimentation and discovery (such as ice cores, tree rings, sedimentation nd palynology).


I think you and a few others are stuck on the end of a hook with which your president has baited you.


Many insurance policies in coastal areas have a "sunset" for claims because of AGW.
We know for certain that Fossil fuel industry hqs heavily supported the "fake science" of climate denial and insult at real climate, ya think theres a connection? scientists.

He's right.


'Hockey stick' climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time
By Joseph Romm on Aug 23, 2011





The “hockey stick” temperature chart.
National Science Foundation (NSF) inspector general: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”
Two things we know with extremely high confidence:
Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks like a hockey stick).
Michael Mann, the lead author on the original hockey stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.
We know these things because both the hockey stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist (see links below).
Readers also know that “the first rule of vindicating climate science is you do not talk about vindicating climate science.” While the anti-science extremists who rule the Tea Party and the right-wing bunkosphere keep shouting lies about the hockey stick and Mann — and urging their followers to “shout down” science-based commenters on independent websites — the vindications of the science and the man are reported as quietly as if they came from the Whos of Whoville.
And so after countless investigations — three in the U.K., two by Penn State, by the EPA, by the NOAA inspector general — that have all unanimously found the allegations against climate scientists and their research conclusions based on the hacked “climategate” emails to be wholly unsubstantiated, a top GOP presidential candidate backed by the fossil-fuel industry still gives voice to the Texas-sized lie.
While Mann and the hockey stick were getting yet another full vindication (from Penn State) earlier this year, Fox News was trumpeting one final investigation:
But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State’s investigation was adequate.
The Office of Inspector General confirmed that it will review the misconduct charges. A spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that “in accordance with our research misconduct regulation (45 C.F.R. part 689), when the OIG is provided with an institution’s investigation report, we review it for fairness, accuracy, and completeness” — issues the investigation has already been faulted for.
Yes, well, the Penn State investigation was faulted only by anti-science deniers. And NSF’s IG is “skeptical” only in the sense that global warming “skeptics” are not — which is to say it analyzes the facts objectively and comes to defensible and reproducible conclusions.
The IG analyzed all of the charges once again and concluded:
“Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”
I have uploaded the full report here [PDF], but you can also go the NSF IG website and insert “A09120086.”
Let me end with some key findings of the Penn State investigation:
“An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials” has unanimously “determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”
His work “clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field … Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.”
So Mann isn’t merely a competent researcher. He is one of the leading climate scientists in this country, which of course is precisely why the anti-science crowd has gone after him, much as they have with other leading climate scientists, including Hansen and Santer.
And that’s one more reason why the major media outlets who smeared and defamed him owe him an apology and a retraction — loud ones!
Recent studies vindicating the hockey stick:
Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” – Science (2011)
GRL (2010): “We conclude that the 20th-century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
JGR (2010) [PDF]: “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”
Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009)
Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010)

They've all taken steps, Finn. Not enough comply with the Paris Accords but, considering their economies they've shown more resolve than Trump's USA which is still denying the problem. As Thunberg pointed out, in this situation the right thing to do is clean up our own act and then push others to do the same.


That "ten years until doom" trope is a misunderstanding or willful misinterpretation of the UN report released last year. What they actually said was that if emissions aren't cut considerably within the next decade the levels of greenhouse gases may very well have reached the point where catastrophic warming can no longer be avoided. But this would occur over a much longer time frame.



That's where government action is needed. For instance, we may all believe in recycling and take steps to separate our trash — but without the development of real waste-to-energy technology, new recyclable materials, and extensive improvement of existing energy sources all that carefully separated trash will simply continue to mound up in landfills.

The marketplace can help to address the problem as well as new companies develop greener products for people to purchase. This is happening. And it wouldn't have happened had there been no "ultra-vocal eco-warriors".

source of my post

https://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-22-climate-scientist-michael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee/

hightor very calmly talks extreme sense to the hysterical denialists

You're supposed to produce the data and computer codes behind Mann's analysis. You failed to do so.

“The Claims Made In The Piece That Our Data Are Not Available Or That We Did Not Provide Materials Requested By The Court Are Provably False. And They Are Libelous."

But they weren't libelous. Mann's libel case against climatologist Dr. Tim Ball was lost because, contrary to Mann's claim, he refused to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data.

[1] “My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”“—Dr. Michael Mann’s letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)

It is easily verified that the data and computer code behind our analysiis [sic] and has been available for more than 15 years.” [Michael Mann Sept 06. 2019]

The data that Mann released 15 years ago, before suing Ball, is neither the subject of the lawsuit or of Lange’s article. It is, rather, about whether he has produced enough additional evidence to satisfy the judge. Mann’s statement blatantly contradicts why he ultimately lost his lawsuit versus Tim Ball!

Learning of Mann’s threat of a lawsuit against Pastor Lange, Dr Ball wrote to PSI to clarify the following:

“The court threw out Mann’s case because he failed to provide any evidence to support his claims. The specific data he claims he presented was not presented. The court also agreed with us that Mann had had from 2011 to make his case and failed to do so. In fact, we had a trial date scheduled for February 20, 2017 but Mann postponed the trial and we heard nothing from him since.” [Dr Tim Ball, Sept o6, 2019]

So, Mann’s weasel words are designed to deceive. Yes, Michael Mann released plenty of data but NOT the most essential numbers (his math ‘working out’) that would prove he had criminal intention to defraud when creating his infamous graph.

Quite simply the facts in the matter are as follows:

Mann has NEVER made his r2 regression numbers available for open review;

Mann is a proven liar and fraud who hides his numbers out of fear of criminal prosecution;

Dr. Mann lost his case versus Dr Ball because he showed ‘bad faith’ in breaching the binding “concessions” agreement that required him to release the above “computer codes, which are my intellectual property…” [1]

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-now-michael-mann-threatens-pastor-with-lawsuit/
_________________________________________________________________________________

So, where is the data and computer codes you say he has produced?

Political polarisation over climate crisis has surged under Trump

mediabiasfactcheck

We conservatives have enough votes to block any federal legislation in support of this global warming hysteria.

List of "scientists" writing in/for PSI

Climate change is the new religion of the left. They accept everything their told as faith and attack those you disagree with your religion as blasphemers. It's no longer science, it's a religion.

Yep. That's it exactly.

But as I said, conservatives have the votes to block Congress from passing any nutty global warming laws. So these global warming hysterics are harmless as far as the US economy is concerned.

That's perhaps the reason why the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church of Germany promote it? (The theme of this year's "harvest thanksgiving day" in both churches on last Sunday was about climate change and pollution.)

Oh boy — that's original.

Doesn't mean it's not true

There are people who subscribe to the "Gaia Hypothesis" and do tend to have a reverential attitude toward the planet and its biosystems. Whether they qualify as "religious" is not a concern of mine — nor for ninety-nine per cent of other people who are concerned about accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and ocean acidification caused by dissolved CO2. Can you show me why this concern should be deemed a manifestation of religion? There's no "supreme personal being" to worship, nothing transcendent, nothing supernatural. There's no overarching doctrine, no single system of values, no worship, no need for faith. The statement, "it's no longer science" is ridiculous. If it weren't for science we'd have a difficult time understanding the changing climate around us. Scientists first identified the phenomenon in the late 19th Century. People whose minds have been affected by eschatology may associate warnings of imperiled life with classic religious warnings about doomsday but there's really no similarity between climate science and religious mythology about the "end times".

The vast majority of Climate Warriors know nothing about the science of it. Faith doesn't require a belief in a deity.