Mike Mann Wins one for the Planet

November 2, 2011

Mike Mann strikes another blow against the ignorati.

Chris Mooney at Desmogblog: 

Yesterday in a Virginia courtroom, Michael Mann—who is quickly becoming the Galileo of climate science—triumphed over the conservative American Tradition Institute, (isn’t witch hunting an American Tradition? – PS) and ongoing attempts at scientist-harassment.

More specifically, Prince William County Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch both allowed Mann to join the case that ATI is pursuing against the University of Virginia to get Mann’s emails, and allowed UVA to back out of an agreement with ATI to let it review some of Mann’s emails that the university is nevertheless claiming are exempt from disclosure.

This is a bit technical, as is often the case in ongoing court proceedings, but let’s remember why it matters.

The ATI lawsuit is a follow-on to Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli’s outrageous harassment of Mann. (see at 2;35 in above video – PS) And protecting Mann’s emails from disclosure is critical for ensuring that ideological fishing expeditions that attack and harass scientists aren’t permitted. The contrary result, as many scientific groups have asserted, could have a chilling effect on academic research and freedom of inquiry in controversial areas.

Mann has been greatly supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Geophysical Union, and other organizations, and by grassroots fundraising efforts to support his legal expenses. (to contribute, you can click the icon in the right column on this page..PS)

Let us also add that there is no reason to think Mann has done anything wrong, scientifically or otherwise, or that his emails will reveal some malfeasance. To the contrary, Mann and other scientists involved in the pseudo-scandal of “ClimateGate” have been repeatedly vindicated by independent investigations.

Meanwhile, the connections between ATI and various other conservative and industry groups and funders have now been extensively documented.

I called Mann the “Galileo of climate science,” and increasingly, I think this is not mere hyperbole.

I’ve been following climate science, and political attacks on it, for nearly a decade. Throughout that period, conservatives have been relentlessly attacking Mann because of the hockey stick graph. And starting in 2005, there have been attempts—first in Congress, then using the legal process—to wrest information from Mann, information whose disclosure would simply allow conservative motivated reasoners to come up with new reasons to criticize and attack him.

This is a beast that, at all costs, must not be fed.

At the same time, all of this has surely exacted a serious toll on Mann himself in the form of personal stresses and, perhaps, legal expenses.

Mann has risen to the occasion, however, and fought back admirably and courageously.

In the process, he has become a hero and a role model for standing up against the forces of ideology and unreason.

And in turn, as this long and completely unnecessary legal process continues, we must continue to give him our full and absolutely unwavering support.

The Ultimate climate gate/hockey debate debunk video is below.

117 Responses to “Mike Mann Wins one for the Planet”


  1. “objective process of self-education”..how old are you Martin? I hope you realize there are 7 billion people out there convinced they have gone through an “objective process of self-education”.

    • Martin_Lack Says:

      If you could be bothered to visit the About page on my blog (2 clicks of the mouse), you would know how old I am and why I think I am qualified to diagnose the cognitive dissonance afflicting those that dispute the reality of anthropogenic climate change (and, by extension, why I am so convinced that I am not suffering from it myself).

      Given that the 7 billionth person currently on this planet is only one or two weeks old, what you say cannot literally be correct. However, for the reasons previously stated (in all my comments), I think the point you were trying to make is also invalid. This is because, just as only 49% of car-drivers can be better-than-average at driving, 49% of the population must be worse-than-average at making rational decisions based on all the available evidence (even if they look at it).


  2. […] week, Climate Scientist Mike Mann won a big one for the Planet. But the fight he’s in concerns anyone who believes in intellectual and academic […]


  3. Martin -you still don’t understand that it’s supremely ridiculous / very puerile / all too common for anybody to proclaim oneself “objective”. Good for you.

    • Martin_Lack Says:

      Maurizio, I think we may have to agree to disagree because, based on the vast majority of relevant scientific opinion, it is not only more than likely – it is well-beyond reasonable doubt – that I am indeed on the side of those who are being objective on this particular issue. You can indulge in pedantic arguments about generalities as much as you like; but it changes nothing. Sorry.

  4. daveburton Says:

    1. sinchiroca wrote: “The first point concerns the meaning of “error bar”. I think that our difference here is trivial, and is readily cleared up by editing your statement to be “the error range extends to zero”. So that’s a wrap.”

    You’ve got it.

    2. sinchiroca wrote: “The second point concerns Mr. Church’s statement. I accept your presentation of his statement to you, but there remains a serious discrepancy. If Mr. Church declared that the more recent data does not demonstrate any acceleration, then he has necessarily concluded that his earlier paper was incorrect.”

    Well, he might respond that his earlier paper, despite the title, did allow for a 2.5% chance of no acceleration. That’s close to “necessarily,” but not quite.

    3. sinchiroca wrote: “I would expect this to lead to a public retraction on his part, or at least a followup paper showing that more recent data contradicts his earlier conclusion. AFAIK, he has not published any such paper. Why not?”

    Perhaps be cause they didn’t want to publish such a paper. The title for it could have been, Oops, Never Mind: No 20th Century Acceleration in Sea Level Rise After All,, by Church & White (2009).

    Can you imagine why they might be less than enthusiastic about publishing that? 🙂

    3. sinchiroca wrote: “I can offer several speculations:

    1. You representation of his statement omits certain other details that render incorrect the conclusion that he considers his 2006 paper to be contradicted by later data.

    I quoted Dr. Church correctly.

    4. sinchiroca wrote: [or] “2. Mr. Church is a foolish scoundrel who thinks he can get away with ignoring the new data.”

    That seems a little harsh. He was cordial to me, at least. (He was a bit slow replying, but explained that the delay was due to some sort of medical issue.)

    5. sinchiroca wrote: [or] “3. Mr. Church is still preparing a new paper incorporating the latest results, and even after 16 months has not yet published it.”

    Well, as I previously noted, Drs. Church & White have released new data this year, which I’ve not yet examined.

    6. sinchiroca wrote: “Barring a more likely speculation, I’d put my money on Speculation #1 — but perhaps you can offer additional information or another speculation?”

    I’ve offered to forward you his email, if you email me and agree that it’ll go no further. Thus far, I’ve gotten no email from you.

    6. sinchiroca wrote: “I’m also curious: if you have found an error in Mr. Church’s work, why have you not published a paper pointing out his error? The fact that you haven’t suggests that you are not confident of your results.”

    I am fully confident in the results, but that paper has already been published, by a friend of mine & his colleague. (Perhaps I should have tried to publish a short note 16 months ago — too late, now.)

    7. sinchiroca wrote: “The third point of contention is the most important: my observation that data showing no acceleration to date does not constitute a plausible argument against ACC. Here your response is revealingly snarky:

    “By “physics” I assume you actually mean the IPCC-favored climate models. Right?””

    That’s not snarky at all. The physics does not predict significant sea level rise as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The earth’s climate system is far, far too complex and poorly understood to sustain any such claim. That’s why we have all these climate models.

    As any physicist could tell you, if you can’t quantify it, you don’t really understand it. What’s more, if a theory makes no falsifiable predictions then it is not a scientific theory. So, what is the falsifiable prediction regarding sea level?

    C&W 2006 appeared to identify that prediction, when they said that a 20th century acceleration in SLR was “confirmation” of it. But there was no 20th century acceleration, and since anthropogenic CO2 emissions really got going there’s actually been a slight deceleration.

    So, how is that not a falsification of the models’ prediction?

    The answer is that the predictions of catastrophic SLR are not truly scientific predictions, because whatever happens there’s an excuse for it. No matter how long there’s no detectable acceleration in SLR, and even if there’s measurable deceleration, the alarmists refuse to acknowledge falsification.

    If nothing is capable of falsifying a theory, then it isn’t science.

    8. sinchiroca wrote: “Since you appear not to be familiar with the relevant physics…”

    Now who’s being snarky?

    Quantify for me the delay which you think is responsible for the lack of measurable acceleration in rate of SLR after more than 2/3 century of pumping anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere, adding up to about a 1/3 increase, so far. How long should it take before the rate of SLR responds, and why do you believe it?

    It is obviously more than 70 years, since there’s been no acceleration so far. How about 100? How about 150? Or 200?

    How long do you think it will be until this acceleration starts — and why?

    You were surprised to learn that there’s been no acceleration so far, which tells me that you don’t know how long it will take.

    We know that most glaciers have been retreating since long before humans made any significant contribution to atmospheric CO2, and that their retreat has not been accelerating. So, why not? When do you expect that acceleration to begin?

    9. sinchiroca wrote: “Certainly an acceleration in sea level rise would indicate that the process is already well under way and would serve as further confirmation of the ACC hypothesis. However, the absence of such observed sea level rise does not, as you believe, serve to undermine the ACC hypothesis; it only demonstrates that the process is still in early stages.”

    In other words, according to you, AGW cannot be falsified. No matter what happens, you’ll still believe.

    That means it is Faith, not Science.

    What’s more, if the delay between cause and effect is 200 years, then we might see some acceleration in the coming years due to the end of the Little Ice Age, even if there’s no anthropogenic influence at all!

    10. sinchiroca wrote: “But most importantly, the fact of increasing global temperatures has now been established beyond all reasonable doubt. “

    Actually, though it is clearly warmer now than it was in the 1950s-1970s, it has now been established beyond all reasonable doubt that there’s been no sustained increase in global temperatures in the last 10-15 years.

    What’s more, in the USA, according to NASA’s figures, only one of the six warmest years on record was in this century, and three of the six warmest were over 75 years ago!

    10. sinchiroca wrote: “So here’s the basic logic:

    1. Rising temperatures cause ice to melt.
    2. Polar land ice that melts flows downhill and ends up in the sea.
    3. More water in the sea raises its level.

    Surely you accept this reasoning.”

    That’s basically true, but only a part of the picture.

    If you can’t quantify it you don’t truly understand it, and you can’t quantify it, so you can’t say which factors will predominate.

    And there there are many other factors at work. How about this one:

    More warmth over the oceans causes more evaporation which causes more precipitation which causes more snow accumulation in Greenland and the WAIS, which causes sea level to go down (or to go up less). See: http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm

    Or this:

    As temperatures go up, snow lines increase in altitude in mountainous regions, but since mountains are much larger at the base than at the top, the increase in altitude of the snow lines has a diminishing effect on the amount of frozen water stored, causing a deceleration in rate of SLR.

    Or this:

    Additional atmospheric CO2 has a diminishing effect on temperature, just as adding additional blankets to your bed has a diminishing effect on how warm you are at night. Atmospheric CO2 is now near 400 ppm. Half of the warming effect of the 400 ppm would be achieved with just 18 ppm CO2.

    Or this:

    More warmth causes more evaporation which causes greater cloudiness which causes less warmth — a negative feedback, diminishing the warming effect of CO2 and all other forcings.

    11. sinchiroca wrote: “And since we HAVE established that temperatures are rising, then the conclusion is inescapable.”

    It is anything but. The conclusion that is inescapable is that the last > 2/3 century of anthropogenic CO2 has caused no measurable increase in rate of sea level rise, so the next 2/3 century of anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to do so, either.

    However, the recent measurements by Zak et al at UofM indicate that increased CO2 will be a tremendous boon for agriculture.

    Suppose that we got to choose between two climate scenarios for year 2100, and one of them had 21% less plant growth and agricultural productivity than the other. What a disaster it would be to end up with the low-plant-growth scenario!

    Well, that’s the 390 ppm CO2 scenario. The high-growth scenario is 580 ppm, which we’re on track to achieve by about 2100, if we burn enough fossil fuels. So if you don’t want your great grandchildren to starve, burn more coal!

    • daveburton Says:

      Sorry about the extraneous italics. Obviously I missed an HTML tag or two.

      I wish this blog had a preview button, or an edit-your-last-post feature!

    • daveburton Says:

      Yikes! It seems the tags “stuck!” Maybe this’ll un-stick ’em.

    • daveburton Says:

      Double yikes! Six close-italics tags, and still everything is italic.

      A word to the wise: Do not mistype </i&gt as <i/> or wordpress will get very confused!

    • sinchiroca Says:

      Well, Dave, it looks as if you released so many italics into this blog that italic forcing reached a tipping point and now cannot be reversed. 😉

      Your main claim is that my failure to offer a numeric prediction of sea level rise acceleration proves that there is zero sea level rise acceleration. If your logic be correct, then we must dismiss enhanced cloud formation as a negative feedback factor in climate change, because you can provide no justifiable numbers for the magnitude of this effect — yet you yourself contradict this logic by citing cloud formation as a possible factor. Make up your mind: does lack of quantification annul a phenomenon?

      My own belief on this matter is that the value of any factor can always be represented in one of two forms: either by presenting the value with an error band or by presenting upper and/or lower bounds on it. In the early stages of any scientific inquiry, we often start off applying the latter form; as we start to obtain more data, we get our first expression in the first form, and from then on it’s largely a matter of refining the central value and reducing the error band.

      In the case of sea level, I can state with confidence that the acceleration is greater than zero, and in fact the Church paper confirms my statement with 95% confidence. I can also rely on data from the warming after the most recent Ice Age to produce a very rough estimate of future acceleration. Sea level then rose about 100 meters in 14,000 years, or 7 mm per year. It took roughly 7,000 years to go from zero sea level rise to 7 mm/year, so the acceleration back then was 0.001 mm/yr2. During that same time, temperature increased by about 8ºC. This gives us a way to relate sea level rise to temperature: 0.000125 mm/yr2-ºC. Temperature now is increasing at the rate of about 0.03ºC per year, so we’d expect over the next hundred years an average sea level rise of about 0.0375 mm/yr2.

      Unfortunately, I must go to a meeting now, so I’ll have to continue later.

      • Martin_Lack Says:

        “…it looks as if you released so many italics into this blog that italic forcing reached a tipping point and now cannot be reversed

        A work of a literary genius!

  5. Martin_Lack Says:

    Dave Burton says, “what is the falsifiable prediction regarding sea level?“. Well, to answer this question, you need to understand palaeoclimatology (not just physics)…

    In Storms of my Grandchildren, James Hansen points out that the Earth regulates its temperature (in response to an Energy imbalance) by moving CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. In the case of glacial / inter-glacial cylces of the last 750,000 years this has always been temperature first and CO2 second. We have two problems today, (1) we are already in an inter-glacial (warm) period and (2) we are driving CO2 to atmospheric levels the Earth has not seen for 35 million years. Therefore, in order to restore the energy imbalance, the Earth will now have to warm up. Thus the ice sheets are melting and sea level is rising.

    But “by how much and by when“, I hear you protest. Well, here too, palaeoclimatology has the answer: Between 14k and 12k years ago, sea level rose by 4 to 5 metres per century for several centuries; as a 6 Celsius increase in global average temperatures resulted in a 100m rise in sea level. Therefore, given that we show no sign of being willing to stop burning fossil fuel, we are heading for somewhere between an additional (post 1750AD) 3 and 6 Celsius increase in temperature. Therefore, what ice is left will now melt. Therefore, where we are now heading, Antarctica will be ice-free for the first time in 35 million years and sea level will rise by 50 to 100 metres.

    Despite what you may think, this is not the screenplay for The Day After Tomorrow; and it will take centuries if not millenia for the Earth to re-establish a new equilibrium, but, all the signs are that it is now starting to happen; and the disruption it will cause will be immense. The reasons for the delay (i.e. inertia in the climate system) we have seen are complex but the palaeoclimatic record does not lie; it will now happen unless we can take CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

  6. sinchiroca Says:

    I realized while waiting for the meeting to start that there is a much easier way we can resolve this disagreement, Dave. I present here two fundamental questions which I ask you answer as simply as possible:

    1. Are average global surface temperatures rising?
    2. Over climatologically significant time scales, do you expect sea level to rise concomitantly with average global surface temperatures?

    The answers to both questions are simple and should be obvious to any reasonable person. A negative answer to either one of these questions (or refusal to honestly and directly address them) ejects you from the sphere of reasoned discussion and places you in cloud-cuckoo land. I can in good conscience refuse to waste my time with a denizen of those regions.

    • Martin_Lack Says:

      Sinchiroca, Like I have said to you before, I admire your willingness to waste so much time in fruitless debate with people who think they deserve a Nobel Prize for having proved the consensus wrong… But, well done for distilling this down to its bare essential (it must have been a boring meeting). I can barely cope with the anticipation of awaiting Dave’s response…


    • sinchiroca – I remember having some discussion on this site about acceleratING sea level rises. I think you’ve come to a similar conclusion: the acceleration is _expected_. But to speak very precisely it is not happenING right now.

      So it is incorrect to say that the sea level rise IS accelerating. In fact, none of various Mr Climate Big’s (Hansen, Schmidt, etc etc) has tried to make that point.

      Peter our host here has, jumping the gun, and has so far refused to face reality on the topic.

      • sinchiroca Says:

        Maurizio, I don’t think that I can support the statement that sea level rise is NOT accelerating; the published literature clearly states that it appears in the records for the last 50 years. I think that the correct interpretation is to say that acceleration in sea level rise has not been reliably demonstrated to date. Neither has it been reliably shown to be zero or less. At this point, the published literature suggests that the value is positive, but a zero value remains well within the error range. Mr. Burton cites unpublished information supporting zero or negative acceleration, but if we’re going to be precise about it, we must confine our considerations to published, peer-reviewed material. And that material suggests a positive acceleration — but not strongly enough to satisfy my conservatism. Certainly the physics of the situation leads us to expect such acceleration, but only after some delay due to thermal inertia.

        So, the first-order answer is “We don’t know if it is taking place now, but we expect to see it show up well before the end of this century.” Fair enough?


        • Yes, that’s “fair enough”. Thank you for “reaching out” (and do stop using the term “denier” 😎 )

          • sinchiroca Says:

            I spent some time thinking about the semantics of “denier”, “alarmist”, “skeptic”, and a few of the other terms I’ve seen. My first thought is that the terminology should shift away from labels for individuals (which never apply well to any individual even if they correctly describe a broad group) and instead describe schools of thought. My second thought is that appropriate labels would have no prejudicial content. I therefore came up with “pro-ACC” and “anti-ACC” as better terms to use. although I admit they have a generic quality. The best argument against these terms is that, with the continuing progress of the science, the “anti-ACC” label might end up about as useful as, say, “antidisestablishmentarian” or “Cathar”. Nevertheless, I shall henceforth endeavor to use these labels (although I may well slip during the transitional period.)

    • daveburton Says:

      sinchiroca asked: “1. Are average global surface temperatures rising?”

      A: You should have put it in the past tense, since we only have data for the past. Statements about things for which we have no data are simply declarations of Faith. So, knowing that you value science over Faith, permit me to rephrase you question:

      Q: Have average global surface temperatures been rising?

      A: No, not in the last 10-15 years, they haven’t risen.

      Since the 1970s, however, they certainly have.

      Since the 1930s, maybe a little bit, but that’s unclear.

      Since 1850, certainly.

      Since 1600, definitely (thank God)!

      Since 1000, probably not, but that’s not completely clear.

      Since 600 AD, apparently so.

      Since 200 AD, maybe, but that’s unclear.

      sinchiroca asked: “2. Over climatologically significant time scales, do you expect sea level to rise concomitantly with average global surface temperatures?”

      Sorry, I don’t understand the question. What are “climatologically significant time scales?”

      Over economically important time scales (e.g., 50-100 years) there is no chance whatsoever of a catastrophic acceleration in rate of sea level rise.

      sinchiroca declared: “A negative answer to either one of these questions (or refusal to honestly and directly address them) ejects you from the sphere of reasoned discussion and places you in cloud-cuckoo land.

      Your argument isn’t with me. Take it up with the BEST folks (except Richard Muller, of course), and with the temperature data records which show that surface temperatures haven’t increased since the Clinton Administration.

      • sinchiroca Says:

        Dave, you state that you don’t know what ‘climatologically significant time scales’ means. That phrase describes a time scale that is not exact, but runs from 30 years to a century. There is no precise expression for the concept because it depends upon the magnitude of the stress placed on the climate. A first-order approximation of the concept can be obtained by calculating the heat capacity of the oceans, which is about 6 x 10^24 J/ºC. Global insolation is about 1.5 x 10^17 W, hence the response rate of the ocean to a 1% change in insolation is roughly 0.008 ºC/year. This rate jumps around quite a bit in the real world due to variations in deep ocean mixing. That is, the heat that’s taken in at the surface will be inefficiently transported to the deep ocean, but as the thermal gradient increases, we can get sudden changes in deep circulation that dramatically increase heat transport for some period of time. This is suspected to be one of the major factors in variability of global temperature rise over time.

        Thus, the slow response of the hydrosphere to changes in insolation means that, when you look at changes in global mean temperatures over the course of just a decade or two, you’re really seeing changes due to deep ocean circulation. That, in effect, is noise relative to the signal we’re looking for: monotonic changes due to greenhouse effects. To see that signal, you need to look at temperatures over the course of at least 30 years, and the longer the time period you examine, the more reliable your conclusions. This explains why your discussion of temperature changes during various decades is irrelevant to the matter of ACC. To properly analyze the data, you must examine the largest possible range of temperature changes, extending over at least a century. When we examine such a graph (such as Figure 6.10 in IPCC AR4 WG1), we clearly see a steep rise in temperatures.

        So, the Big Question is: Do you deny this? I’d really like to see a straight answer to this question, without evasion.

        Here’s an example of your evasion: I asked if sea level is rising. Your response was:

        “Over economically important time scales (e.g., 50-100 years) there is no chance whatsoever of a catastrophic acceleration in rate of sea level rise.”

        I didn’t ask about catastrophic acceleration. I asked:

        “do you expect sea level to rise concomitantly with average global surface temperatures?”

        Will you please answer the question?

        surely you know that a decade or two is not climatologically significant. Your frequent claims that temperatures have not risen for ten or fifteen years lacks any significance to a discussion of climatology. Yet you present an analysis of temperature changes over climatologically ins

  7. daveburton Says:

    Well, that’s one way to get a consensus: Where I live, everyone, and I mean everyone, is pro-ACC. 🙂

    How about pro-CAGW and anti-CAGW?

    GW (“Global Warming”) is better than CC, because it is more specific: these days nobody is worried about anthropogenic global cooling anymore.

    The “C” for “catastrophic” is even more important, because that’s the real distinguishing difference between warmists/alarmists and most skeptics/realists. Most skeptics do think that there’s probably a little bit of anthropogenic warming going on, we just don’t think the evidence supports the hypothesis that there’s a worrisome amount of it.

    • sinchiroca Says:

      Dave, the use of the phrase “global warming” has long since been abandoned by the scientific community as misleading because the greenhouse effect generates results that are more complex than simple warming. Some regions may actually experience temporary periods of cooling. Precipitation rates will change. Storm activity will change. Therefore, reference to global warming is inaccurate.

      Your suggestion that we include ‘catastrophic’ in the definition is preposterous, because the term is undefined. If the Maldives are inundated, the Maldiveans will consider that a catastrophe; many Americans would not think it as important as the latest scandalous pop star activities. If drought in East Africa kills millions, few Americans would consider that as significant as an eight-car pileup on the local roads. Moreover, the time scale is important here. While the current consequences of climate change are fairly small, amounting to a few billions of dollars per year, they will steadily rise. What dollar cost do we consider catastrophic? $10 billion per year? $100 billion per year? $1 trillion? This is all too subjective.

      Besides, you’re trying to politicize a term that Mauritzio and I agree should be descriptive, not judgemental. That’s unworthy.

  8. Martin_Lack Says:

    Dave and Maurizio, You appear to be fixated on short-term thinking and to be dangerously-close to refusing to acknowledge James Hansen’s arguments from palaeoclimatic data: In response to a 6 Celsius rise in global average temperatures between 14 and 12 thousand years ago, sea level rose 100 metres. It did so because large amounts of ice melted. The temprature change was the driver and CO2 transfer from oceans to atmosphere the means by which energy balance was restored. We are now driving CO2 to levels it has not been for 35 million years and therefore the temperature will have to rise to re-establish that same energy balance. Therefore more ice will melt. Inertia in the system means that what starts slowly will build towards continuous 40-50cm/decade sea level rise that will last for centuries.

    Since you both understand this point (about inertia), you also appear to be dangerously-close to refusing to acknowledge that the absence of significant change to-date is actually irrelevant. What is is so sad is that we have known this would happen for decades but too many people have spent too long denying it. As John Dryzek has said, you are like the driver of a car accelerating towards a brick wall. Yes, you can turn to your passenger and say, “so far so good“, but that does not mean the brick wall is not there!

    Therefore, with all due respect, if you are not worried, you do not understand the nature and scale of the problem we are now causing. Ignorance, however, is no excuse; and it does not change reality. I am genuinely sorry about that.


  9. Martin – I know you’re looking for a fight but since you’ve misunderstood pretty much everything you’ve spoken about, and consistently refused to admit your wrongness in the face of science and history, I’ll leave the trouble to somebody else. Perhaps Ms Thatcher did really ruin education in this country. Any news on your knowledge about King Canute or lack thereof? Also check out what the opening of the Drake Passage did to Antarctica.

    • Martin_Lack Says:

      Me looking for a fight? You’re kidding right? I am just trying to help you get the full picture. With regard to Genoa (you clearly have not re-visited that post or followed my link to the Independent newspaper), I will put this as simply as I can: I do not dispute the fact that there have been previous floods in the city, the point I am making – as are increasing numbers of relevantly-qualified active researchers into climate science – is that the frequency of extreme events is undeniably increasing as would be expected (and was predicted) as a result of warming oceans.

      Although I have repeatedly questioned your objectivity – and/or used humour to try and rouse you from your complacency – I have not insulted your intelligence and you do yourself no credit whatsoever by resorting to such tactics. However, I will read-up on King Canute and the Drake Passage (not that it will change the facts of Earth History or invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics) if you will read Storms of my Grandchildren or, at very least, my summary of itstarting here. Do we have a deal?


  10. Martin – I’ve read your summary. As for Genoa there’s still no proper paper out there showing any significant increase in flooding due to climatic changes. And anyway priority has to be saving people from next year’s rain (adaptation) and not vaguely committing to drastic reductions in Co2 that might slightly ameliorate things ten decades down the line.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: