MEM

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics." Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology

Mother Nature continues to make Michael E. Mann irrelevant although with this piece in the NYT Opinion page MEM shoehorns himself into irrelevancy.

He relies on the old and irrelevant canard that there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it like reducing GHG emissions into the atmosphere. This implies that it is all our fault.

Was it Aquinas who advised: Ask not who made the claim ask if the claim is true? If we were able to resurrect Aquinas and bring him into our century he might want to add a corollary to his epithet. Ask not how many made the claim, ask if the claim is true. The who and how many are red herrings designed to draw our attention away from whether or not the claim is true. Who would use such an argument and why would they need to?

While the theory upon which CO2 based climate models have been founded failed to predict that Mother Nature would stop raising the global average temperature about 17 years ago MEM and fellow travelers like James Hansen continue to assert the power of heat trapping CO2 to change the climate. CO2 had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate the prowess of its heat trapping superpowers during the US heatwave and drought of summer 2012. And yet 2012 has been followed by a cool 2013. Are we to believe that CO2 has a hot/cold switch similar to a hot/cold faucet? So who/what turns it on or off? And where did all that 2012 heat from the ‘warmest year evah’ evaporate? Does the image of a hot air balloon provide a clue?

We are told by the ‘experts’ that we are creating a supercharged, overheated, CO2 laden atmosphere on steroids by burning our fossil fuels. Earlier this summer we read about the heatwave in Alaska which alarmists screamed was due to global warming. Now we read about people freezing to death in the streets of Fairbanks. Good job, CO2. Way to trap that heat.

Seems to me that either CO2 traps heat or it doesn’t. The behaviour of Mother Nature would seem to indicate that it does not trap enough heat to worry about and can just as easily rid itself of ‘excess’ heat as retain it. CO2 seems to be rather fickle that way. No wonder the climate models have fallen off the runway and lay in tears at the tears in their computer code. The climate models are broken and thus, so too, the theory behind them.

Mother Nature is elevating her middle finger at MEM and his ilk and hers is the only opinion that counts. They are wrong because Mother Nature never is. Our grandchildren may have to deal with a cooling world which might pose graver problems than a warming one.

Mother Nature is laughing at those who think that humans control the climate. Once upon a time we realized that we don't.

” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing

with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the

long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.

MEM thinks we can control the climate through managing our CO2 emissions. To avoid complete irrelevancy MEM must accept the challenge. It is what a scientist would do.

We are about to find out who is really full of hot air and who is really anti-science.

Ball is in your court, Michael. Whine or spine?