Excitable Michael Mann: Reviewing Climate Change Claims Is Totally Stalinist

If you search “failed climate predictions” you will find many, many, many links that list many, many, many failures. Here’s a good article to start. And a good video. But, investigating climate change claims is horrible, according to Michael “Robust Debate” Mann (via Watts Up With That?)

Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science

Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House to try to discredit the findings of mainstream climate science.

The Trump administration has already purged information about climate change from government websites, gagged federal experts and attempted to end funding for climate change programmes.

Now a group of hardcore climate change deniers and contrarians linked to the administration is organising a petition in support of a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.

The panel will consist of scientists who do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are behind climate change and its impacts. (snip)

The creation of the new panel of climate change deniers, and the recruitment of supporters to provide it with a veneer of legitimacy, echoes the campaign by Joseph Stalin’s regime to discredit the work of geneticists who disagreed with the disastrous pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko wrongly believed that acquired traits could be passed on by parents to their offspring. Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics.

Yikes! It looks like Michael and co-author Bob Ward, aren’t happy that their 30 years of failed prognostications based on shaky science, computer models, a few tree rings, and fear-mongering will be exposed. As Eric Worrall notes at Watts Up With That?

There are some differences between Lysenko and Will Happer. Lysenko didn’t just criticise his opponents, he had his opponents executed, or had them deported to socialist death camps.

As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone, though some people might suffer acute public embarrassment when Will Happer finds mistakes in their work.

Further, “scientists” like Mann are outraged that anyone would doublecheck their work, because no one should have their work check in Science, right? And they should be able to keep their data secret, right?

Really, one would think Mann and his Warmist cohorts would be thrilled to be given a public, presidential forum to prove to everyone once and for all that they are correct and that CO2 from mankind is the temperature control knob, right? I know that when I’m in the right I want everyone to know it.

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

37 Responses to “Excitable Michael Mann: Reviewing Climate Change Claims Is Totally Stalinist”

  1. Bill Bear says:

    Excitable Michael Mann: Reviewing Climate Change Claims Is Totally Stalinist

    Porter Good is, of course, lying. Michael Mann said nothing of the sort.

    If one takes the time to actually read the Guardian article that Good has liked to, one will discover the truth: The panel that the Trump administration is assembling will not be “reviewing” or “double-checking” any scientific work. The panel is being assembled for the express purpose of discrediting the work of climate scientists.

    As anyone who has read even a few of Porter Good’s posts on the topic of climate science, discrediting climate scientists involves ignoring inconvenient facts, misrepresenting the work of these scientists, and lying about what they have written. Good does this all the time, so of course he will cheer on an official panel that will be using his own tactics.

    The only questions is: Is Porter Good being paid to deny scientific fact, as William Happer has been (and likely still is)?

  2. Bill Bear says:

    Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science


    An undercover sting by Greenpeace has revealed that two prominent climate sceptics were available for hire by the hour to write reports casting doubt on the dangers posed by global warming.

    Posing as consultants to fossil fuel companies, Greenpeace approached professors at leading US universities to commission reports touting the benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels and the benefits of coal. The views of both academics are well outside mainstream climate science.

    The findings point to how paid-for information challenging the consensus on climate science could be placed into the public domain without the ultimate source of funding being revealed.

    They come as government ministers meet in Paris this week to try to reach an agreement to fight climate change, and one month after it emerged that ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy were under investigation in the state of New York over claims of misleading the public and investors about climate change.

    Over the course of their investigation, Greenpeace posed as the representative of a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian coal company. In the guise of a Beirut-based business consultant they asked William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions, according to email exchanges between the professor and the fake company.

    Happer is one of the most prominent climate sceptics in the US and on Tuesday was called to testify at a congressional hearing into climate “dogma” convened by Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential candidate and chair of the Senate science committee. He is also chairman of the George Marshal Institute in the US and an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK.

    Reacting to the sting at the UN climate talks in Paris, US secretary of state John Kerry was dismissive of the impact of such paid-for work. “One professor or one scientist is not going to negate peer-reviewed scientists by the thousands over many years and 97% of the scientists on the planet,” he said.

    The proposed report for the fake consultant was intended to highlight the negative aspects of the climate agreement being negotiated in Paris, he was told in the email approach. The physicist was receptive to the commission, and asked to donate his fee to the CO2 Coalition, a group founded this year to “shift the debate from the unjustified criticism of CO2 and fossil fuels”.

    “My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate change cult,” he wrote in an email. He did not respond to a request from the Guardian for comment.

    The campaign group assumed another false identity, posing as an Indonesian energy consultancy, to approach Frank Clemente, a retired sociologist formerly at Pennsylvania State University, to commission a report countering damaging studies on Indonesian coal deaths and promoting the benefits of coal, according to the email exchanges.

    In both cases, the professors discussed ways to obscure the funding for the reports, at the request of the fake companies. In Happer’s case, the CO2 Coalition which was to receive the fee suggested he reach out to a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust, in response to a request from the fake Greenpeace entity to keep the source of funds secret. Not disclosing funding in this way is not unlawful under US law.

    Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

    He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. “Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review,” he said. “I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

    Greenpeace said its investigation demonstrated how, unbeknownst to the public, the fossil fuel industry could inject paid-for views about climate change into the international debate, confusing the public and blocking prospects for strong action to avoid dangerous warming.

    “Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”

    Such practices are receiving greater scrutiny in academic circles after it emerged that Dr Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who rejects mainstream climate science, was financed almost entirely by fossil fuel companies and lobby groups and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. The Smithsonian .

    In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.

    Clemente, who was approached by the sham Indonesian firm to produce a report countering findings linking coal to high rates of premature death, said such a project fell within his skill set. He estimated a fee of about $15,000 for an eight-to-10-page paper, according to email correspondence released by Greenpeace. The professor said he charged $6,000 for writing newspaper opinion pieces.

    He said there was no problem quoting him as professor emeritus at Penn State, or obscuring the funding for the research. “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US. My research and writing has been supported by government agencies, trade associations, the university and private companies and all has been published under the rubric of me as an independent scholar – which I am.”

    Clemente told the Guardian that he acted as a consultant to “many industries that improve the human quality of life”.

    He added: “I fully stand behind every single statement I made in my emails. I am very proud of my research and believe that clean coal technologies are the pathway to reliable and affordable electricity, reduction of global energy poverty and a cleaner environment.”

    “I write is an independent scholar and University is not responsible for any of my work. This is called academic freedom in the United States,” he said.

    Greenpeace said it had approached a total of seven prominent figures in the US and UK climate denial movement. The other five declined, either citing time pressures and area of expertise, or just did not respond.

    Greenpeace argues its investigation offered a rare glimpse into the practice of clandestine industry funding of reports casting doubts about the threat of climate change. The campaign group argues that obscuring funding in this way dupes the public into thinking the reports are produced by the scholars independently with no financial interests at stake.

    Happer, who served as an energy adviser for former president George HW Bush, has long argued that rising carbon emissions are a net benefit for humanity.

    He returned to the point in his email exchanges with the fake entity, saying: “The Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world.”

    Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University and author of Merchants of Doubt, a book about the climate denial movement, said Happer had been deploying the same arguments that CO2 is good for agriculture for about 20 years – even though such claims have, she said, been thoroughly debunked. “He has been recycling refuted arguments for quite some time now,” she said.

    “Happer sits in the profile of people we wrote about in Merchants of Doubt,” she said. “I’ve always argued that for this group of people, cold war physicists, it’s not about money, it’s ideologically driven.”

    Meanwhile, Peabody Energy regularly cites Clemente’s research to make its case that expanding coal use to developing countries would help eliminate global poverty. That argument runs counter to the thinking of financial institutions such as the World Bank which has rejected the notion of coal as a poverty cure.

    Happer noted he had also donated an $8,000 fee from Peabody for testimony in a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide to the CO2 Coalition.

    Happer did not dispute the veracity of the emails, but refused to address questions.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    While Professor Mann continues to be right, TEACH, Tony Wuwt, tRump and Happer et al continue to be wrong. Existentially so.

    Lest we forget amid all the tRumpian distractions, our only Earth continues to warm at a rapid pace resulting from we humans adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by oxidizing fossil fuels. There is no good scientific reason to expect this period of rapid warming to stop any time soon. The floods, storms, typhoons, polar vortices, immigrants, crop failures, droughts, heat waves and sea level rise will continue.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Yep. Soooo catastrophic. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        In 2004 Professor Muller wrote an article discussing the McIntyre (mining consultant) and McKitrick (economist) piece purporting to find a math error in Professor Mann’s work that invalidated the hockey stick. In the article Muller even speculated that going forward it was just as likely to cool.

        This caused quite a brouhaha and even Congress got involved.

        The (USA) National Research Council responded to a request from Congress and concluded after a thorough study that the scientific evidence then available generally supported Mann’s analysis, noting in particular that the global warming of the last few decades exceeded that of any comparable period in the past 400 years, although less confidence could be placed on earlier periods.

        Unlike most other so-called skeptics, Professor Muller didn’t just spend his days carping at other scientists, but he actually conducted research, evaluating and re-evaluating the climate datasets. By 2011 his Berkeley (BEST) team concluded that the

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          current temperature datasets were largely accurate, even concluding that global warming was real.

          By 2012 Dr. Muller had concluded that human activities were to blame. McIntyre and McKitrick are old school deniers – arguing that the Earth wasn’t warming. That argument doesn’t hold up very well these days.

          Please expound on your CO2 “falling to the ground” hypothesis. It’s my understanding from scientists that CO2 levels near the top of the troposphere are around 400 ppm.

          • david7134 says:

            The earth may be warming, hard to say as it seems that you and the climate religion have issues with the truth. Other than correlation of data,not causation, and the words of an ancient scientist, who has not stood up to challenge, you have little. Then your only answer to keep us from dying in 12 years is for the U.S. to assume 3rd world status, not China or India, and then you would have world communism. So somehow world tyranny and a massive tax will save the world. I would rather be dead than accept your solution.

    • Jl says:

      Already shown you that’s it not any more rapid than earlier last century, and no proof of any more extreme weather. But you already knew that

    • Jl says:

      Speaking of Greenpeace trying to hide the truth, here’s one from earlier about trying to hide the settled data. https://twitter.com/tan123/status/1103425494408675328?s=21

  4. Pillage Idiot says:

    “Bill Bear” has excerpted his biggest set of lies ever!

    This is a whopper from Oreskes,

    “Happer had been deploying the same arguments that CO2 is good for agriculture for about 20 years – even though such claims have, she said, been thoroughly debunked.”

    CO2 is not only good for agriculture, it is essential for all photosynthesizing plants. Commercial greenhouses and pot growers add CO2 to enhance growth.

    Anyone who believes otherwise is a non-scientific moron – see Oreskes and Jeffy.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The aptly named “Idiot” is right that green plants use sunlight to convert atmospheric CO2 into complex carbohydrates. But lives up to her namesake by making the leap that more is always better.

    Clearly it doesn’t take the intellect of a Happer to understand that the Earth’s green plants aren’t using the CO2 we’re pumping into the air. How do we know? Because the CO2 levels are rising rapidly!! Duh.

    And the Idiot may not realize this, but CO2 isn’t the only raw material that green plants need! Plants also need the right temperature ranges, available water, certain insects and animals around to spread seeds and pollinate. Global warming is changing all that. And CO2 is lowering ocean pH (also a sign that ocean green plants – e.g., algae – are not sopping up all that CO2).

    So let’s concede that increased atmospheric CO2 is good for plants. So what? Smart people will stay think your “Carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD!!” sticker is as Idiotic as your Trump2020 sticker. And the Earth will continue to warm.

    • formwiz says:

      You’re the last one to point a finger and call someone else an idiot.

      Clearly it doesn’t take the intellect of a Happer to understand that the Earth’s green plants aren’t using the CO2 we’re pumping into the air. How do we know? Because the CO2 levels are rising rapidly!! Duh.

      We’ve got more people every day. They exhale all over the place


      And NASA says carbon dioxide is a cooling gas.

      Stinks to be you.

      Plants also need the right temperature ranges, available water, certain insects and animals around to spread seeds and pollinate

      To make the green leaves has nothing to do with pollination.


      And, if the chlorophyll and water’s there, plants love high temps. Rain forest ring a bell?

      Smart people will stay think your “Carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD!!” sticker is as Idiotic as your Trump2020 sticker.

      Smart people put Trump stickers on their cars. It’s the same idiots that kill their babies who think otherwise.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        the wiz typed: And NASA says carbon dioxide is a cooling gas.

        Anthony Watts says you’re full of sh1t. Just sayin’.


        Said Tony: “I’m writing this for the benefit of some who may have fallen into the trap of thinking the “slayers” interpretation was NASA’s position.

        The claim by the “slayers” is the worst form of science misinterpretation I’ve seen in a long time. By itself I would have ignored it, but some of our friends in other blogs have picked up the story, and because of the NASA link, thought it was credible example as the “slayers” framed it. It isn’t, it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way. To some extent it does, but the direction of the source of LWIR energy is reversed, and CO2 and other GHG’s impede the transfer of LWIR energy to the top of the atmosphere where it is finally re-radiated into space. Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold. (Updated: For those who doubt this, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony)”

        So both Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer think you’re nuts. Sucks to be you.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Oh formwiz…. where are youuuu?

          So both Tony Watts and Roy Spencer say you and your ilk have fallen for a load of crap – CO2 is a cooling gas!! LOL.

          This is the problem with lying liars such as you. You paint yourself into a corner with no one to rescue you.

          No, CO2 is not a cooling gas.

          Now would you be so kind to explain how CO2 falls to the Earth? Thanks.

    • Jl says:

      And still no proof that warming, whether it be natural or by man, is detrimental to the earth.

  6. david7134 says:


    As you do not have any intention of following the scientific method to justify your religion, I did it for you. Unfortunately, I had access to only one greenhouse but atmospheric condition were the exact same for both arms of the experiment. To counter your claim of blocking inbred waves, I added this element with lamps providing more indeed light waves in case they were blocked in some manner. CO2 concentrations were taken to 1000 parts per million in the variable arm. Result was impressive, no difference in temp between control and variable arms.

    Have you found the definition for existentialism?

  7. Professor Hale says:

    You should all be coming to the conclusion pretty soon now that on this topic, the lines are drawn. Each side has already chosen teams. No one cares about your information, your “facts” or your links. The number of links in this article alone should be telling you that there is absolutely nothing new to say on this topic and everyone is already familiar with the arguments on both sides. This is not a matter of ignorance, misinformation or “lying”. Neither side believes the other side.

    The only real difference is: The pro-global warming believers side wants to use force to steal trillions of dollars from the global warming deniers side. All the deniers side wants is to not have their money stolen from them. At some point, the pro warming side will stop talking and skip straight to force. It’s what they do.

    Also, the same logic in the first paragraph also applies to every other political difference between the Left and the anti-Left. Everyone has already heard every argument and neither side believe the other side or cares what they have to say. talking to each other is pointless because no one is listening. No one is capable of convincing anyone. No one is willing to be convinced.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “The pro-global warming believers side wants to use force to steal trillions of dollars from the global warming deniers side.”

      As usual, the only argument that the denier can come up with is to make ridiculous accusations unsupported by anything that resembles fact.

      Deniers lie. It’s what they do.

      • Professor Hale says:

        Heard it before. Thanks for proving my point. And I still don’t care what you have to say about anything, in case you have trouble with reading comprehension.

  8. formwiz says:

    I showed he did.

    formwiz still believes that repeating a lie will magically transform it into truth.

    He is still mistaken. Mann has never said that he is opposed to review of his work.

    Clearly he has, and in projecting her failed tactics onto me, Andy Pander only shows how demented she really is.

    Seek help.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “Clearly he has”

      Clearly formwiz is still lying.

      That is what liars do when their lies are exposed — they double down on the lies.

  9. formwiz says:

    No, I’m just saying if you want credibility, don’t expect it after you quote a Commie rag.

    In other words, formwiz is still afraid to discuss the fact that William Happer is a paid denier.

    IOW I said the piece had no evidence of it. I think Harvey in a bear suit is merely evidence she can no longer control her schizoid tendencies.

    And I see nothing in that screed you posted that says he is.

    And, formwiz is still lying. The article clearly states that Happer was willing to write climate denial material for pay.

    OK, why did he ask the money be given away? If you’re writing for money, you keep it.

    (can’t wait for the rationale on this one.)

  10. Bill Bear says:

    “IOW I said the piece had no evidence of it.”

    That is the lie that formwiz chose to repeat, yes.

    “If you’re writing for money, you keep it.”

    Happer offered to write the climate denial piece — for pay. That he would choose to donate that money afterwords does not change this fact.

    If you are writing for free, you do not charge for your writing in the first place. Happer is a paid denier.

Pirate's Cove