(Graph prepared by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg)
Michael Mann, of Hockey Stock infamy, is in Australia, and as usual is littering the landscape with nonsensical statements about the fate of our planet. He said
“Australia’s Wildfire Catastrophe Isn’t the “New Normal.” It’s Much Worse Than That. … These are the things that keep us up at night as climate scientists.”
Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts had enough of it, and gave a speech on the floor of the Australian Parliament which is reprinted in full beneath the fold. It’s to the point: Mann has no evidence of anything, and never has. Hardly anyone calls him out on it.
“How dare you, Michael Mann. I used tonight’s adjournment speech to challenge Michael Mann to a debate on climate science. Michael Mann is the fabricator of the completely discredited hockey stick temperature graph and is in Australia at the moment so logistics shouldn’t be a problem.
You come down here pretending you have evidence that CO2 from HUMAN activity affects climate and needs to be cut – when you have no such evidence. How do I know? Easy. You released papers that led to the infamous hockey-stick graph falsely fabricating high temperatures. Despite repeated requests from scientists you refused to hand over your data.
Scientifically, your claims should’ve been immediately dismissed. The state of Virginia’s Attorney General asked for your data from the University of Virginia because your research was reportedly taxpayer funded. Your Uni refused. No evidence. You sued Prof Tim Ball – a real scientist – and then in court refused to provide evidence to support your case.
Didn’t the court find you in contempt?
Regardless, your claim was dismissed. And you failed to provide any evidence yet Prof Ball’s team provided plenty of solid statements from internationally reputable scientists. You are the one in the Climategate scandals who wanted to hide the temperature decline, aren’t you?
Hide the evidence?
You have sued any person that dared to question you – to shut them down. To stop the evidence?
You now say Senator Molan as a policymaker should ask some unnamed great Australian scientists for their opinion – name any with evidence proving HUMAN CO2 affects climate variability.
After 21 years you still have not released data for your hockey stick graph fabricating high temps yet many people have debunked it.
My understanding is that fraud can include the presentation of something that is not true with the intention of personal gain. You claim you were awarded a Nobel Prize.
That is false.
You contributed to the UN’s climate body the IPCC that was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Note that was not for science. After the UN IPCC was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize it dropped your graph. And if that shonky political body dropped it that really kills your credibility.
You have a record of serially misrepresenting climate, serially misrepresenting science and serially misrepresenting humanity. The use of HC fuels such as gas, coal and oil has liberated humanity and saved the forests and whales that previously fuelled civilisation & Human Progress.
Your advocacy to stop their use is anti-human and anti-environment. It hurts our security and our sovereignty. Your host, the ABC, has been a blind supporter of and advocate for others misrepresenting climate and science – including Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Gavin Schmidt.
People advocating for cutting hydrocarbon fuels have branded those who dissent from your advocacy as climate criminals. I believe that in the very near future it is people like you who misrepresent science and climate who the public will see as climate criminals.
None of you have ever presented the empirical evidence proving HUMAN production of CO2 from our use of HC fuels hurts our environment and future. You’re here in Australia now so I challenge you to a public debate on climate science and the corruption of climate science.
All you need do is provide me with the specific location of the empirical scientific evidence, the hard validated data, within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect and I will retract this speech.
I need publication title, specific page numbers. No entity anywhere in the world has provided this: Don’t bother to smear me or get someone to smear me. That not only has no effect on me, I love it. I use it to prove that those who smear only do so because they lack hard scientific evidence.
How dare you Michael Mann. Provide the evidence.”
25 thoughts on “Manniacal Maddness”
The only thing scorched there is Michael Mann’s reputation. Wow. Can we as a blog buy Malcolm Roberts a drink or something?
Same BS here in Montana. Fire, insects and disease, oh my! The “timber industry” is perpetually lying through their teeth with the faux science and fuzzy math (economics). Once government-subsidized monopoly is achieved, it’s no holds barred to keep the sweet deal rolling for as long as possible. Eventually the end of the rope is reached, leaving a landscape of useless, depleted land that won’t support life. Ain’t neo-liberalism grand?
BTW, I am just making the connection to M&M in this one. Mighty Mesmerizing.
It’s a rousing speech, but after reading Roberts’ Wikipedia page, I’m left with serious doubts about his authenticity. It looks like his role may be to blackwash “climate deniers” specifically and “conspiracy theorists” generally, much as that incredibly talented and diverting reality show star in the White House has done. In fact, according to Wikipedia, he has expressed great enthusiasm for Trump. It looks like he says and does all kinds of outrageous things, many of them obviously contradictory, self-serving, and/or hypocritical, that the Australian media then gets itself worked into a froth about.
The speech taken by itself is cathartic for those of us who agree with its content. But Trump’s professed hatred of Amazon would have been too if I didn’t know what I know about him.
Would love to hear from POM’s Aussie contingent about this guy.
Yeah – I never heard of the guy before, didn’t look into him. You could be right. But calling out Mann like that, priceless.
After reading up on him a little more, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s on the shortlist to be Prime Minister one day, if the puppet masters decide Aussies need a similar show to the one now playing in America.
This fellow is a senator for the political movement here in Australia that caters to disaffected small ‘c’ conservatives (ie the self employed and small business owners, the save for a rainy day frugal, and the family and community oriented), the working classes and regional people. The groups most affected by political betrayal.
His party leader made a rather strange video a number of years ago saying people were out to kill her. She had earlier been jailed for electoral fraud, apparently, the only politician in living memory. The woman is known to talk the right talk but doesn’t always vote her talk. Australia has introduced some draconian legislation in recent years around freedom of speech and the record doesn’t show her party’s opposition.
The woman’s style attracts like minds. Her party does make noise about immigration, in particular that from Muslim countries. Which the media’ has no trouble projecting as racist. That they won’t, or can’t with conviction, switch the argument to economics leaves them open to the charge.
The Commonwealth of Australia ended in 1973, if it ever existed. Since then this country has lost close to everything: money; media, print and broadcast; telecommunications; manufacturing; transportation air and sea, rail and much road. Health care like everywhere is a subsidiary of pharma, farmlands are being handed to corporations, water the same, and the air we breathe will be sold even if in the form of a tax to pay the interest on the national debt.
To this senator’s credit he does make noise about global warming theory. But this scam is but one of the many brought to this country by globalism. And he and his party don’t do, or even say, anywhere near enough to support the concerns of their constituents. Until he does he is best left in the same category as all other politicians…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Listening to (officious goofball) Ron Elving on NPR this morning sum up the “lesson” of Iowa… The caucus system is “just too complicated”, too small a group of people, and the wrong sort of people, and so on… It suggests to me that maybe the Iowa debacle was intentional sabotage because it was hard to manage. Hard to manage a group of that many regular people with a tradition of close scrutiny and face-to-face interactions with candidates, who play an influential role in choosing the nominee.
I’m not saying they CAN’T manage them, or haven’t in the past. But maybe it was more trouble than it’s worth? So TPTB decided to scrap it this year, and going forward they won’t have to bother with it as much? Or it will be degraded into something more dumbed down.
Haven’t paid attention but your words remind me of Florida 2000, an ambitious deception used to justify passage of the Help America Vote Act, which placed electronic voting machines in every booth, and eliminated the threat of voter interference in elections.
Truly if there was an ulterior motive, for me it was to force Buttigieg to the top. The Iowa caucus has an improportionate impact on the race. I have noticed that Buttigieg is the guy getting that weird phantom “help” from the invisible forces. First, I thought that honor went to Beto, but he was so lousy they couldn’t even force him through. Now it’s Buttigieg. His winning Iowa cements him as a front-runner. Obviously these people are all pre-selected, and I get those vibes big time from Buttigieg. Let’s stay out of the political fray, but the idea that the election itself is being managed should be fair game.
Yes apparently he even has a military background. But if they were using Iowa to promote him, they could’ve done much better by making it a functional primary. He would have gotten much more boost with a clear cut victory quickly announced. Instead, he declared victory when it was still an open question, which makes him look kind of grasping and pushy.
More suspiciously… If they’re trying to help him, why name the botched app company Shadow Inc.? And then mainstream news stories about its ties to Hillary people and so on. Almost looks like they WANT to stoke Bernie’s people to conspiracy theories (which indeed I have heard from real people.)
Shadow Inc.’s unusual name derives from the result of “shining” light, according to the company’s website.
“When a light is shining, Shadows are a constant companion. We see ourselves as building a long-term, side-by-side ‘Shadow’ of tech infrastructure to the Democratic Party and the progressive community at large,” the company wrote on its website.
Sounds kind of… shady. Anyway these PR experts have to know better, so it seems designed as anti-PR. Maybe bloodying up the Dem party a bit to assure DT second term?
Very shady indeed. My feeling is that these types of things need to keep a veneer of legitimacy, and there is just a hidden thumb tipping the scale. Obviously complete sham would be more certain, but they promote candidates so that all they ultimately need to do is give one guy or another a little nudge here or there. This sounds like Adam Smith’s “Hidden Hand” of the market. We should use that phrase in alternative theory community…the “Hidden Thumb” on the scale of all events.
Relax, people of the United States, you do not elect the president, never have.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution established the Electoral College, the formal body of “electors” (appointed) which elects the President and Vice President of the United States. So it is written.
Count votes, depress votes, suppress votes, steal votes, disappear votes, it’s all for show my dear friends and countrymen.
The chart as the main image to this post is STUNNING. I had never thought twice about the fires in Australia and whether the media was leading us astray. It really has no end.
Any real drone footage’s of the affected areas in AU?
https://time.com/longform/pete-buttigieg-2020/ 2 1st ladies?
Is it too much to wonder how the first openly gay candidate has a name containing Peter and Butt (with two “t’s” no less)? And a “husband” named Chasten?
From what little I watched of the early debates (at a friends’ place, not something I would do on my own) he came across as less goofy than the others. Since these people are groomed for such roles, it seems like a set up.
Knowing it’s all a show keeps me sane (ish).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men”
-2 Samuel 7:14 (snickering)
Any time I see someone become a public figure who a parent with a Wikipedia page, I refuse to trust them. Pete Buttigieg being a recent case, and I found this out AFTER I felt he was being pushed by hidden forces.
I just read your comment and laughed … I am too stupid to live! Of course they were mocking us with this fake event. But I walked right through it back then, eyes wide open and clueless as hell.
Mark, as I recall, not one–but TWO–TV networks quickly slapped together TV movie dramatizations of the Fisher story. I didn’t watch either of them in their entirety, but I did catch a scene in one where a minor character mispronounced Joey Buttafuoco’s name and walking away. The scene ended with the actor calling out to the other person with self-posssessed pride and dignity: “BUTTAFUOCO!” I’ve always thought this was a case where the producers wanted to look like they were being unintentionally funny, even though there’s no way they weren’t laughing their heads off.
I was confusing him with John Wayne Bobbit. Both events are suspicious.
As are both names. Bobbitt’s a pretty hilarious name for a guy who gets his knob chopped off by a crazy woman. Those stories came out only a few years apart. Maybe they had the same writers.
BOB = Bend Over Boyfriend – current street definition, not sure if it was in use then.
Haha, I have no idea, never heard that before. But in the context of the story, the name always made me think of a disembodied penis bobbing around. Maybe that was just me.