Summary: The House Science committee heard from three climate scientists. The testimony of the activist, Michael Mann, destroyed the case for strong public policy action to fight climate change. He deserves attention.
On March 29 the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing on “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method“. The star witness, in terms of public profile, was Michael Mann — Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at Pennsylvania State. Mann gave a remarkable demonstration of why the 29 year-long climate change campaign has produced such small results. He opens strongly and closes with even more strongly. But his own evidence undercuts his claims.
(1) A consensus about current adverse impacts of climate change?
Mann opens with this claim, one that has been often said during the past…
View original post 1,649 more words
On March 31, 2017 on our twitter feed we received this comment and marked up graph from peaceful data boy @jamjoumie I wish you were applied the same skepticism of methodology to the appallingly misleading visualisations you cite
Since twitter is an unlikely forum for full explanations, we offer this blog post written up by our resident climate model and graph expert, Ken Gregory, B. AppSc. Ken has assessed models for the past decade and provides these insights on the Canadian Climate Model.
Response to Tweeted Graph with Comments
Contributed by Ken Gregory © 2017
Source of the graph is: “JH Christy”, John H. Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
About the notes on the graph below;
1) [Data improperly aligned to visually exaggerate the difference.] The box at the bottom left shows that the linear trend of all times series intersect at zero at 1979, which is…
View original post 518 more words