Michael Mann Scam Update 1-16-2024

This piece by ⁦@KathyConWom⁩ summarises the 12 years of legal prevarication leading up to today’s trial of ⁦@MarkSteynOnline⁩ for daring to speak out about one of the biggest #ClimateChange scams https://t.co/O78tnJPzIZ

— Prof Norman Fenton (@profnfenton) January 16, 2024

Read: Climate Bookshelf 2023

By Dr. Judith Curry

Climate Bookshelf 2023

2023 was a banner year for the publication of interesting climate-related books. Some excellent books for Xmas stockings, providing scientific insights, policy sanity and optimism for the 21st century.

Read: The West has been the real loser at COP28

By Joel Kotkin

The West has been the real loser at COP28
Handouts for the world and cuts back home – there's little for the rich North to celebrate

Read: The West is turning away from COP28’s green agenda

By Joel Kotkin

The West is turning away from COP28’s green agenda
The middle and working classes are tiring of draconian climate policies

Read: Will Reducing Parking Save the Planet?

By Randal O'Toole

Will Reducing Parking Save the Planet?

"As stated previously, I can’t take climate change seriously as long as people keep putting forward their wacko ideas that they had long before climate was an issue as “the solution.” The latest example is a claim that ending minimum parking requirements is “one solution to fight climate change.” I think the proponents of this idea are just totally confused."

Michael Mann Scam Update 11-16-2023

Climate hoax meltdown:

WaPo attacks 2022 Nobel physics prize winner John Clauser for saying there is no climate crisis.

Real funny:

WaPo @maxinejoselow quotes fake Nobelist and hokey stick inventor @MichaelEMann (multiple false claims of being a Nobel winner) as calling… pic.twitter.com/8srIJbVT7t

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) November 16, 2023

Read: Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on bad science

By Nicholas Lewis

Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on bad science

I do not consider that Hansen’s climate sensitivity estimation properly assesses and fairly reflects all the available relevant evidence. Unfortunately, unlike Sherwood et al.(2020), IPCC AR6 and Lewis (2023), Hansen et. al. (2023) estimates ECS using only paleoclimate proxy-derived evidence, which generally varies considerably according to the proxies involved and to the methods used to interpret them. This opens the door for biased (cherry picked) assessments. For instance, Hansen et. al. do not even mention any studies (e.g. Annan and Hargreaves (2013) and (2022)) that find a much lower LGM – preindustrial warming than their chosen value.

Although I respect Hansen’s ability and considerable scientific contributions, in my view papers he leads are increasingly strongly biased towards overheated projections and dire conclusions.[19] The “political recommendations” with great impact on the society in Hansen et al. (2023) cannot be justified because their foundation is very shaky, as shown here for climate sensitivity and, in relation to warming-in-the-pipeline and ocean heating, in Michael Mann’s critique.