Michael Mann Strikes Out With Breathtaking Stupidity

Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says

Low-lying island nations threatened by rising sea levels this century could see the disastrous consequences of climate change far sooner than expected, according to one of the world’s leading climate scientists.

In the wake of last month’s discovery that the extent of Arctic sea ice coverage hit a record low this year, climate scientist Michael Mann told the Guardian that “Island nations that have considered the possibility of evacuation at some point, like Tuvalu, may have to be contending those sort of decisions within the matter of a decade or so.”

Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says

Sea ice has no impact on sea level, Antarctic sea ice is at the highest level ever recorded at either pole, and sea level is not rising in Tuvalu. Three whiffs for the hockey boy – send him back to strike out in little league.


h/t to Marc Morano


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Michael Mann Strikes Out With Breathtaking Stupidity

  1. sunsettommy says:

    A PHD degree holder and part time climate scientist fails to know what I knew as a high school student back in the 1970’s that Sea Ice is already floating in the water and therefore when it melts away in it will not raise the sea level.

    • tckev says:

      PHD in? Jerkology?

    • Remember this is the same fellow who managed to create a hockey stick projection of sea level rising out of control. This was perhaps the worst piece of junk science I’ve ever seen published in a journal (although it has many speculator competitors). The claims in the paper was based on (a) a climate model, (b) a proxy he admitted was inconsistent and (c) one tide gauge.

      I’m not making this stuff up… He projected global sea level rise using only one empirical observation – a single tide gauge. The problem is not so much Mann and shitty researchers of his type but that this stuff actually gets published.

  2. gator69 says:

    Pals have Degrees. I pay no attention, whatsoever, to credentials anymore.

  3. Independent says:

    Spectacularly dishonest article from PuffHo. Of course they mention Arctic sea ice, don’t mention Antarctic sea ice (what a surprise), then claim that somehow Greenland and WAIS are going to melt and cause huge sea level rises when realistically that would not happen for thousands of years even if temps were increased. Is it scientific to omit any facts that contradict your political talking points?

  4. kirkmyers says:

    Rapidly decreasing sea ice suggests that the melting of polar ice sheets may occur more rapidly than previously predicted. Mann explained to the Guardian that “we [will] really start to see sea level rises accelerate,” as the Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheets disappear. Unlike with the melting of sea ice, these ice sheets would introduce vast quantities of water into the world’s oceans, making them “critical from the standpoint of sea level rise,” according to Mann.

    As usual, Mann is being disingenous. The suggestion that the recent Arctic ice melt is a precursor to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is pure speculation. In addition, Mann conveniently ignores the fact that the Antarctic just set a new winter sea-extent record (based on satellite measurements since 1979).

    The ongoing rise in average global temperatures, which has accelerated Arctic ice melt, has been largely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant increase in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

    Pardon? What “ongoing rise in average global temperatures.” Both HadCRUT3 and RSS show no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years. In fact, since 2002 the globe has experienced a slightly cooling trend.

    Why is any doomsday prediction by Mann taken seriously? He’s a serial liar. He should have been bounced from his professorship at PSU long ago for scientific malfeasance.

  5. ralph says:

    What exactly is a “low lying island”? Below sea level???

    • Billy Liar says:


      Note that the article studiously avoids giving any figure for the height of the islands above MSL except for the La Pérouse pinnacle at 37 meters.

      A three-week research mission in October 2006 by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) led to the discovery of 100 species never seen in the area before, including many that are totally new to science.

      That’s enough new species to keep in positive territory with regard to extinctions for at least a thousand years.

  6. At some point, others need to see what I see — he needs to be fired, sued, and fined or jailed for “yelling fire in a crowded theatre”. Officially disgraced, in other words.

  7. Chewer says:

    Ice is water in it’s expanded form. when it melts it takes up less volume!

  8. Sundance says:

    “”The models have typically predicted that will not happen for decades but the measurements that are coming in tell us it is already happening so once again we are decades ahead of schedule,” Mann told the Guardian.

    Why would Mann speak to climate issues outside his expertise and then also completely ignore the Antarctic contribution to sea levels? Well at least he admitted that the MODELS ARE WRONG. Look at the way an ice specialist Dr. Rob Massom speaks about the Antarctic and the models.

    “The message is there is a lot of work to better understand what processes are occurring around Antarctica and the role of these processes in affecting sea ice.” Dr Massom said the most authoritative climate change models forecast a loss of up to 30 per cent of Antarctic sea ice by the end of the century, and did not indicate the present expansion.


    It is clear he acknowledges that the models got it wrong too, as the Antarctic incured a +2 standard deviation from average.

    More importantly the latest measurement assessment for recent Antarctic ice mass balance indicates a net increase of +49Gt annual growth since 2003. The The Western Peninsula loss has been more than replaced by the gains over the rest of the continent. That would indicate a negative contribution to sea level or decline in sea level rise rate. It is clear Mann is avoiding addressing the whole picture on global ice conditions and sea level impact while pandering to the “look at the Arctic only” lemmings. Imagine the reverse scenario where it was the Antarctic melting and the Arctic gaining ice. We would be reading stories that the Arctic doesn’t matter but the Antarctic melt will lead to 200 foot sea level rise and the eminent demise of the planet. 🙂

    • Where is your reference for a net increase of +49Gt annual growth since 2003 please?

      Note that the Arctic has gone through several cycles of rapid warming and cooling in the 20th century. It will switch to a rapid cooling again inevitably. (Whether the addition of CO2 adds to the acceleration or slows down the rate of cooling and to what degree, is an entirely separate debate.)

      When Mann said: “The models have typically predicted that will not happen for decades but the measurements that are coming in tell us it is already happening so once again we are decades ahead of schedule…”

      He is exactly correct and exactly disingenuous. The reason why the models are getting this wrong is because they cannot explain the observed cyclical temperature changes.

  9. Art Powell says:

    Chicken littles. I remember being in High School in the 80’s and they would tell us how by the year 2000 a billion people would starve, the cities on the US Coast would be underwater and the average mean summer temperature would be over 100 degrees, there would be no drinkable water yada yada yada yada. The fact that not one of these events occurred and yet they still have credibility is probably the most amazing thing of all.

    • and the relation between that site and the extent of sea-ice in the arctic would be what, exactly?

      • You are all over the map with your mindless distractions.

      • savebyj says:

        You mean besides the fact that they have a credibility issue? Tell me once something is going to happen and it doesn’t you made a mistake. Tell me twice something is going to happen and it doesn’t and your fanatic. Tell me three times something is going to happen and it doesn’t and your an idiot.

        These people want me to change my lifestyle and give them power when everything they say has turned out to be false. So the sea-ice in the Arctic is melting and the ‘professionals’ that want me to believe they know why are never right? I work in the real world (own a technology business). We fire people with that track record and hire people who can get results.

  10. Dr K.A. Rodgers says:

    The God-fearing Presbyterians in New Zealand are anxious to help stem the flood:
    I wonder if they have looked at the Funafuti guage. I was there when it was installed.

  11. Ilma630 says:

    Folks should write directly to PSU to complain about Mann’s lies. Contacts can be found on their web site. If no-one complains, nothing will happen.

  12. Imbeciles, attend:

    No, sea-ice coverage does not directly correlate to sea-levels.

    Sea-ice coverage IS, however, a reliable :”mine-canary” indicator of temperatures – average, and system-energy cumulative – at the opening, the close and during the sea-ice-coverage-forming season.

    Hence – duh – lower sea-ice coverage demonstrates the presence of more energy/higher temperatures in the locales (Arctic, Antarctic) over the sea-ice-forming season.

    Your reasoning (if it can be called that) is akin to Mush Bimbaugh roaring on every time there’s a blizzard on the East Coast, that all that snowfall PROVES there is no global warming. This without ever considering (or recognizing) the simple fact that a snowstorm of any kind is an indicator of higher energy in the system in the locality of the storm (what the hell do you people think evaporates the water and then lifts the water-vapor up to where the air is thin enough to precipitate it into snowfall? Angel farts?)

    • Me says:

      So, JT, are you going to do a word count report on this site aswell, or did you already do that? LMAO!

      • Oh my goodness but you are truly simple of mind.
        Not one bit of what you said applies to my comment or the matter my comment addresses.
        Let me try it slower, and with shorter sentences so as to make it a bit more graspable for you:
        – Quantity of sea-ice, greater or lesser in any season, does not impact on sea-levels.
        – Further, Prof. Mann did not say that it did. (do try, please, to keep that simple fact in mind)
        – The amount of sea-ice in any given season is dependent on the overall air and water temperatures through that season.
        – Less sea ice in a season demonstrates lower overall air and water temperatures through that season.
        — (correspondingly, more sea-ice in a season would demonstrate lower temperatures …)
        – Prof. Mann was addressing how, therefore, lower sea-ice coverage indicates lower air and water temperatures over a very large area of ocean surface over full season(s).
        – This, he argued, is evidence of general rises in global temperatures (AKA, “Global Warming”).
        btw, aside from not even applying to the matter at hand, your statements appear to be on their own almost entirely free of any meaning.
        To wit, in one sentence “energy flow” “energy” “absolute energy” noise, accidental tautology and logical disconnect, structured to as to appear, somehow, “scientific” – but conveying nothing other than “energy is energy – not energy” (or something equally sense-free).
        As to Hawaii storms vis-à-vis Alaska storms … applicability to the matter at hand?

        • The record Antarctic ice extent certainly proves that the Earth is getting warmer, dumbass.

        • – Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, where the Southern Hemisphere’s winter has just drawn to a close, the seasonal change that takes place with the ice is much less extreme than in the Arctic. The Antarctic only gains about 6,200 square miles of ice every year, “roughly an area the size of Connecticut,” the NSIDC said. In comparison, the Arctic is much more prone to flux, losing more than 35,000 square miles of ice in the same time-frame.
          next round, let’s discuss the fine art of de-contextualized data-free cherry-picking.

        • Are you completely daft?

      • and the ever-reliable board trolls make their first appearance. Let me know, Little T’s. when you feel ready to have the dynamic of your routine deconstructed yet again. It’s boiler-plate insertion at this point, no real trouble to post at all – just keep putting up your standard trollism’s to supply the necessary examples.

      • Me says:

        So JT, when you do your word count report, who do you send it to? 😆

        • J T Gillick says:

          ERROR IN THE RESTATEMENT ABOVE; Failed proofing. as thus:

          “… less sea-ice … demonstrates … overall lower temperatures …”

          was meant to read, obviously:

          “… less sea-ice … demonstrates … overal HIGHER temperatures …”


          Intersting, though, is how none of the arfing schlubs herabouts took note of an error that if it stood would have crashed my comment with that irredeemable internal contradiction. Something of an indication of the insight, intelligence and attention capacity they bring to their defense of their Denialism

          Little has changed since I last wandered this way: the noise-trolls lurk onder the bridges; reflexively they come rushing out like the junk-yard dogs they’ve3 chosen to be for their masters, barking, howling, slavering, doing their best to reduce all discussion to ad hominum noise. As is usual in these teacup tempests, this Denialist cadre of Useful Idiots – those Koch-suckers who toil, uncelebrated, unknown, unremunerated in the trenches for the 1% – have no interest in CONTENT – their concern is to maximize the yapping, howling, wailing, drum-beating and skin-dancing their masters encourage so as to minimize, suppress, obscure or otherwise render ineffective or undesireable any attempts by the rational to engage in productive discssion of the issues, scientific and political, ostensibly raised on noise-blogs such as this.

          The object of the exercise, Dear Little Puppies, is NOT persuading such as you. It’s the patient periodic presentation of fact, logical development of reasonable argument, first steps toeards rational dispassionate examination of the science … and this for that presumed uncommitted and seriously interested third party who mightb chance on the discussion. True, in venues such as this comic enterprise, those so presumed are few and far between; but, still – on slow sundays, holidays, these finger-exercises do entertain (me) a bit. And there’s something sweetly comforting about being reminded that so much of the energy on your side of the aisle flows from the committment of the willfully ignorant to the support of their comfortable delusions, their ingrained social superstitions (such as, “Science is a racket!” “them EEEEleeeetz is all cheetz!” and so on) – and that any movement so reliant on such support is doomed to devouring itself in its inchoate rage against … well, in the long run, against pretty much everything that evidences the inexorable movement of and change in the world, life, society, culture, knowedge – onward.

          And onward. And onward yet, kiddies (“… and having writ, moves on. nor all your piety nor wit …” etc.). So, rage as you will. Rage, rage against the rising of the light.

          (AND NOW … in accordance with the established dynamic, Troll Town should next expectorate a small gob of mini-rants that address nothign of the above, but instead, make claim that it was incoherent, unreadable, sensless raving. Enjoy)

      • gator69 says:

        Hey Me! I had forgotten about loony boy’s word count, here is how he wrapped up that “debate”…

        “# JTG@JTGILLICK.COM 2010-11-30 22:21
        From FIRST POST (2010-11-25 1745) to CLOSE OF DIALOGUE (2010-11-29 0000)


        TOTAL WORDS (149 posts): ~16,000

        “JTG” (39 posts): ~5,500

        RESPONDERS: (110 posts): ~10,250

        RATIO: ~1:2



        – Count was arrived at with a first run of filler deleted.

        – In this context, “filler” refers to words and expression equivalents of HELLO and GOODBYE (and all variations of) – and other social exchanges clearly not attendant on the subject(s) of the particular post as a whole.

        – Because rating pertinence/non-pertinence is a judgment call, the total numbers should be taken as falling within a +/- range of ~1%.”

        Any questions?

      • Me says:

        😆 I thought you would remember that sooner or later.

      • Me says:

        Hey Gator, I bet JT remembers you too now! What a strange bird that guy is. 😆

    • The Arctic experiences very severe storms and it is cold. Hawaii has very few storms and it is warm. Energy flow is driven by differences in energy, not absolute energy.

      Spouting alarmist crap indicates that you aren’t very intelligent.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      That’s an impressive website you have there JT. Did you pay someone to make that for you or did you create it all yourself?

    • suyts says:

      Attention Imbecile……

      “Sea-ice coverage IS, however, a reliable :”mine-canary” indicator of temperatures – average, and system-energy cumulative – at the opening, the close and during the sea-ice-coverage-forming season.”
      We’re still waiting for the empirical evidence of such an assertion. It is conjecture and nothing more.

      The rest of your hyperbole is simply projection of alarmism. So Rush roars every time there’s a snow storm. How is that different than when every time there’s a snow storm we hear about how this proves something? Or when it’s dry it proves something, or when the wind blows or doesn’t blow or rain or doesn’t rain…….. blather, blather, projection, idiocy, sophistry, stupidity…….

      What the hell do you think has been happening since the dawn of written history? What caused a drought in Egypt 4000 years ago? Angel farts?

      Idiot leftist projectionists….

    • savebyj says:

      You know John, these ‘scientists’ (word used loosely here) might actually have more credibility if their computer models could actually predict the weather with any accuracy. We know the Arctic sea ice is shrinking. Why has yet to be proven. The weather is so complex that the biggest, baddest computers in the world can only predict with any accuracy 24 hours in advance (and they can be wrong, very wrong).

      So let me summarize: You want us to believe that people who have been repeatedly proven wrong in the last 30 years and are studying a data model that is so complex it is not even fully understood (even with the latest technology) can tell us accurately the future of the Arctic sea ice? Or the Earth’s temperatures? Or how much the sea level is going to rise?

      Does the term, “drink the kool-aide” mean anything to you?

    • oogga-booga – sea-ice coverage GROWTH!!!!! As disproving of current mainstream developed theories of AGW as is four inches of snow in Washington DC!!!!!!


      Because … ?

      Because ANTarctic trumps Arctic!!! (?)

      Who doesn’t know that. (Film at 11!)

      … but, hey – just for the sake of argument, what about …

      – proportions of coverage?
      – Square-mileage in AA vs. in A?
      – Volume of ice South, volume of ice North?
      – proportional change in high-season and low-season medians in each hemisphere?
      — — over 5 years? 10? 25? 50?

      you know … some facts, figures in … CONTEXT?
      ahhhh … pissing up a pole here, aren’t I.

      Yeah, but just one quick question:

      Do any of you willfull-ignorami read anything beyond the first paragraph of an article? (by which I mean an article in a worthwhile Journal – or even in a worthwhile popular report on the science?)

  13. Ilma630 says:

    Steven G, whilst infuriating and bothersome, I would hope that us sceptics (of CAGW, aka realists) would not resort to name calling etc., but to logical and reasoned argument. JTG may well be incorrect in his understanding of the meaning/context/interplay of the comparative figures for sea ice and environmental parameters for the A and AA, so why not a calm and factual explanation of both cause and effect and lack of, which would help everyone, not only JTG in understanding, but the many with less knowledge, experience and investment time for investigation to learn. Please!

    • These people come to the blog to waste everybody’s time.

    • J T Gillick says:


      Nice try. really. I applaud. Sincerely. Your faith in (wistful hope for?) the possibility of a dialing down of the volume in these discussions, the eschewing of argumentum ad hominum and other such noise is touching.

      However, even the most cursory scan of discussions here – and in almost any other such blogs (be they Denialist or rational) on the AGW question – will make it perfectly clear to you that there is a near-fixed-proportion of commenters whose sole purpose is not to advance either argument or understanding – but rather to take every opportunity they can to shout and howl, beat drums, ring bells, set off stink-bmbs and otherwise by any means possible drown out discussion, obscure reasoning, and, if possible, discourage any who reject, disagree with, dissent from, or in any manner dispute with their holy doctrine and pre-formed conclusions from participating in or contributing to the discussion. (Just for example, quick-scan goddard’s comments here – and ask youself of each, “what did THIS contribute to the discussion?”)

      As you might also notice (if you do indeed take the trouble to do any sort of general survey on comments in such blogs) these denizens of Trollheim infest almost every discussion that can be found.

      To a fair degree, my interest in, my motivation for particpating periodically in these discussions correlates strongly to your interest (as expressed in this one comment of yours, at least): a concern with the discussion being conducted in an adult – and, ideally, productive – manner.

      In this, i no more expect to reach or communicate with on any real level with those sock-troops of unreason than I would expect to have a meaningful exchange with a passing swarm of locusts, a small pack of howling junkyard dogs. But I do think that what in this context could be called “right action” – that is, constraining one’s contributions to addressing the matter at hand, while avoiding getting embroiled in the the Tar-baby traps the trollish like to put out with their inevitable AH offerings – helps supplly and support the rational threads of any such discussion. In that, I may be as committed to wishful thinking as I suspect you are wth your appeal to Trollheim’s commitment to reason.

      But why not.

      Anyway – when the discussion deteriorates beyond recovery, I end up at least with more material on the dynamics of troll behavior (an actual study of mine).


  14. LLAP says:

    @JTG: “To a fair degree, my interest in, my motivation for particpating periodically in these discussions correlates strongly to your interest (as expressed in this one comment of yours, at least): a concern with the discussion being conducted in an adult – and, ideally, productive – manner.

    Based on your first comment which started out with, “Imbeciles, attend” and continued with, “Your reasoning (if it can be called that) is akin to Mush Bimbaugh …”, you could have fooled me. There are enough people on here that would gladly engage you in a civilized debate, but in this case, you reap what you sow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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