Michael Mann Is So Concerned With Climate Change Induced Wildfires That He Took Long Fossil Fueled Trip

The “doom from wildfires” meme has grown stronger amongst Warmists, despite contradictory evidence, but, then, have Warmists ever relied on real world observations, facts, and science? Here’s Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann telling us what he did on his summer vacation

I did my best to get away from work last week while my family and I were on vacation visiting friends who live in Kalispell, the gateway to Montana’s Glacier National Park. But it wasn’t quite possible. You see, I’m a climate scientist. And the spectre of climate change stares you in the face as you tour the park.

He’s Very Concerned about melting glaciers and Pikas, along with wildfires. I wonder how Mike traveled all the way to Montana? I seriously doubt he walked or biked the 2,00o+ miles from Penn State to the park.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Michael Mann Is So Concerned With Climate Change Induced Wildfires That He Took Long Fossil Fueled Trip”

  1. Jeffery says:

    No matter how much you mock and ridicule climate scientists, the Earth continues to warm.

    I’m not surprised that you no longer argue climate science, and now rely strictly on ridicule. The scientific debate about global warming and its causes ended long ago.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    No matter how much you mock and ridicule climate scientists, the Earth continues to warm.

    Hypocrites should be mocked and ridiculed.

    I’m not surprised that you no longer argue climate science, and now rely strictly on ridicule.

    I am not surprised that you missed the articles that dealt with the science Jeffery.

    Anything that you disagree with doesn’t exist in your little myopic world of liberal hypocrisy.

    It is not surprising that you fail to condemn hypocrisy and a lack of morals. After all, that would mean condemning yourself and we all know liberals only care what others do, not what they do.

  3. Jl says:

    “The spectre of climate change stares you in the face as you tour the park.” Really? What did the “spectre” say to you as he/she starred at you? Funny that you don’t say what negative events have happened in the park that you can prove are the result of Mann-made Co2. Probably because there aren’t any.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Is that all you have left in the quiver? Name-calling?

    The Earth is warming because of CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. You never wish to discuss those facts.

    Mockery and ridicule is an effective trick for debaters to use. Alinsky’s rule 5.

  5. […] at Pirate’s Cove is blogging about this…“Michael Mann Is So Concerned With Climate Change Induced Wildfires That He Took […]

  6. Jeffery says:

    Guys (including Teach),

    Your semantic trick of erecting an impossible criteria for liberals to meet is transparent and also confirms your desperation.

    Your principle is now: Any fossil fuel use by a “warmist” falsifies the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    This is a well-understood logical fallacy used by the losing side in arguments.

    I’ve tried to illustrate this to you cementheads before by calling out your obvious Teabag hypocrisy for accepting federal subsidies such as Social Security, interstate highways, Medicare, Medicaid, clean water, clean air, unemployment payments and tax breaks.

    Is this your final stand? The theory of AGW is false because Michael Mann went on vacation?

    The Earth is warming from the CO2 we humans add to the atmosphere. Global ice is melting – the seas are rising – we are changing the short term weather patterns – we’re changing the growing seasons of plants – we’re changing the distribution of fresh water etc, etc.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Here’s how an actual scientist (hated “warmist” Dr. Gavin Schmidt) discusses the recent methane release research:

    “The problem with a lot of this research is that we don’t have a long baseline of observations. Therefore when scientists report a new observation, it’s impossible to tell whether it has always been there or whether it is genuinely new,” he wrote. “That goes for these observations in particular.”

    He explained that during two periods in the “relatively recent” past — first in the Early Holocene, six to eight thousand years ago, and then in the Eemian, 125,000 years ago — the Arctic was warmer than it is now due to “wobbles in the Earth’s orbit.” Ice core records show that during those warmer periods, the Earth did not release large amounts of methane.

    Because the Arctic is not as warm now as it was then, Schmidt wrote, we are not yet at the point where we should expect the Arctic’s frozen methane deposits to melt.

    But should today’s human-caused global warming cause the Arctic to warm beyond the high temperatures of the Early Holocene and Eemian periods, the tundra, oceans and ice caps might release methane in amounts never seen before. And that could be quite bad.

    As global warming continues, Schmidt wrote, “we will arrive at a point that is completely unprecedented within the last few million years, and at that point, I would be far less sanguine. We are, however, not yet there.”


    N.B. – Deniers, please note that Dr. Schmidt said the Arctic was warmer, not that the entire Earth was warmer in the early Holocene. He also did not call the other scientists abusive names even though he questions the overall relevance of their research.

    Obviously, Dr. Schmidt could have accepted the results of this research as supporting the theory of AGW (it does), but instead he questioned the conclusions. Have Watts, Monckton, “Goddard”, Teach, Hoft, Limbaugh or Morano ever criticized research that supported their anti-science viewpoint? Of course not. They are not scientists; they are political advocates. They argue like lawyers – to win. Actual scientists seek the truth.

  8. david7134 says:

    You must live in a terrible world. You are constantly afraid that the sky will fall. You have not posted a single thing that would cause concern. If methane is leaking from areas of the ocean, that means we need to drill there as it is likely a good gas or oil deposit. But somehow, in your world, if we are all taxed to death, our economy is destroyed, and we have to beg for carbon credits to drive to the store or run our houses, then that will instantly stop all the evil in the world.

  9. MPH says:

    “People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.”
    - George Will

  10. Jeffery says:


    I live in a delightful world! Children, grandchildren, great wife, love, joy, creature comforts, wonderful friends, a great career contributing to the betterment of society, good health and a solid golf game. I try not to be burdened with magical thinking or mythology. Only three things bother me a lot – shortsightedness, willful ignorance and cruelty – coincidentally, the three corners of a Teabagger’s hat.

    Global warming will not impact my life much at all. Unfortunately, my grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren will suffer from our lack of will.

    I will not suffer much from the ruinous economic policies of the right. My three children and 5 (soon to be 6) will not suffer much either. But the mass of Americans do and will continue to suffer.

    Islamic terrorists do not induce the pee-your-pants fright that we see in conservatives.

    The truth should be embraced not treated as a commodity.

    I recognize my good fortune in being born in the US.

    You are the one who seems to live a miserable existence – longing for the return of the seditious confederacy.

    Here are a few of your misstatements of fact:

    The methane deposits bubbling up from the cold oceans is not trapped deep underground but are “frozen” on and just under the ocean floor. As the oceans warm, the methane is released. If you can find a good way to recover it, good for you. No one is stopping you. You could read up on this. No one is stopping you.

    I’ve never once argued for taxing anyone to death, and am not sure it’s possible. History demonstrates that a strongly progressive income tax system works well to distribute capital resources. I don’t work nearly as hard as an elementary school teacher in an impoverished district(nor is my work as impactful) yet I make many times more. But I work much harder than Mitt Romney and make many times less. And I don’t bankrupt companies and ruin lives. The tax monies collected from the likes of lucky people like me and Romney can be used to build roads, universal health care and universal education.

    But most importantly we need to find a way for our economy to function for all Americans and not just the fortunate sons. The working poor and the middle class do not make enough. Any ideas?

    What policies have I advocated that would harm the economy, much less destroy it?

    Carbon cap and trade was a conservative Republican policy proposal until 2008 when the shortsighted Teabag mentality infected the GOP.

    Conservatives appear to live their lives in abject terror, largely because they understand so little of the world around them. Liberals are working to make the world better for everyone, conservatives are just trying to quell their fears.

  11. Nighthawk says:

    The CC hoaxers here continue to bleat about how all the CO2 that man is pumping into the atmosphere is causing the temps to rise. It has been pointed out time and again to these ‘people’ that rises in CO2 levels have ALWAY lagged temperature increases. They have NEVER preceded temperature rises. For some reason the cultists ignore this.

  12. Jeffery says:


    If I thought you’d listen and be open to the truth I would explain that to you.

    Are you?

  13. It’s hard to find well-informed people for this
    subject, but you seem like you know what you’re talking about!

Pirate's Cove