Michael Mann was the Dr Fauci of the early 2000s. Everyone based their bogus climate change stance on his hockey stick graph, which being 2024 never happened. Once again “science” bent the knee to politics.
If you didn’t learn then and you didn’t learn from covid19, you probably think hedge funds are honest.
Before Fauci or Mann the rage is science was about chemical imbalances and manic depression. Of course they sold useless pills for that too. Profiteering isn’t science, it’s just lies with a science theme.
Let’s hope Fauci lands in jail. He lied to the world and is responsible to giving gain of function funding through an intermediary to Wuhan labs where covid 19 was created and released. He lied about the whole thing. He just made up social distancing at 6 feet and wearing masks. There was no science behind it. Or in his words those things “just appeared” and were based on nothing empirical.
But now that is has been 25 years since Michael Mann published his lies and predictions of a “hockey stick” rise in global temperature (that didn’t happen) let’s revisit the state propaganda of the early 2000s.
Climate Change is Political BS
- What chicken little climate alarmists did, and sometimes still do, was show you a graph from the 1860s to now and act like that little slice of the data is enough to infer the future. They show you some BS like this.
“Oh look things got warmer around industrialization thus based on correlation alone we must be the cause.”
- They don’t show you this
CO² might relate to temperature but that was going on before man existed and 99% of it is by natural causes.
- Natural cycles caused by the way the earth moves around the Sun cause these patterns like a heart beat. It cannot be man made if the same pattern was occurring before people existed.
- Many of the “scientist” who jumped on global warming said the Earth would freeze back in the 70s
- Michael Mann the lead author of the 1999 paper that made the “hockey stick” graph famous, also said the Earth was going to freeze in the 1970s
Dec 3 1973
- It was Michael Mann’s 1999 Hockey Stick paper that was sited in 2001 by the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change)
- We said they were wrong then and now everyone knows they were wrong.
- Mann weighted data by factor 390 times to make the graphs he wanted. So if Tree Rings in California were more fitting than Arizona, Georgia, etc he would just create an average based on the set that fit his desired conclusion.
- They did a 180 and neither sky is falling scenario was scientific. The world was not about to freeze or melt the ice caps
- People need to understand that politics and economics pollute everything including science and history
- Michael Mann was the Dr Fauci on the early 2000s. Every Eviro-mental-illness hung on his graphs and went around to schools promoting this garbage. And Hollywood got into it too.
- A population that thinks Noah’s Ark was literal rather than metaphorical is ripe to believe the end is near.
—In addition to Mann, the next Global Warming Guru was Al Gore
- 2006 Gore made a movie about global Warming called An Inconvenient Truth
In the movie Gore relies on Michael Mann’s lies.
- He also used CGI footage stolen from the opening credits scene from “The Day After Tomorrow” and tried to pass it off like it was real footage!
- It showed ice-caps collapsing but the entire thing was fake!
- He would do other comparisons of things like pictures of Mt Kilimanjaro from year to year and point to the lice changing, but neglected to say one is from the Summer and the other the Winter.
- It got an Oscar!
See Video ClipTHEY MAKE THIS STUFF UP AND THINK YOU’RE STUPID
*********key point*******
What the System does it is brands the opposition to it’s lies as that of the low class.They will allow a little opposition but only from “backwards redneck types” and pretend like those people don’t believe in “science”
They did the same thing with Covid19 by acting like the opposition was only the people saying viruses aren’t real.
This causes the posh wanna-bes to reject and dismiss information counter to the propaganda because it came from dumb country folk
- Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others all disagreed with Mann
- Ray Bradley co-author on the hockey stick paper was apologizing for Mann’s stance
- In 2006, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released a study concluding little confidence can be placed in Mann’s concluding the 1990s was likely the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years.
CLIMATE-GATE EMAILS
They sat there and talked about how to hide and lie about Data!
They blackballed others who would not get with their program!
- An email from Phil Jones, a CRU climatologist, to Dr. Mann and others dated Nov. 16, 1999, mentions Dr. Mann’s “trick” to hide Briffa’s 1960s’ temperature decline. “”I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline” It is is not misquoted. They have made excuses claiming the “trick” just meant clever method and “decline” had openly been discussed so… it’s ok to hide it? Wrong”The “trick” was a way of presenting the data in this one particular graph, namely to truncate the tree ring data at the point when it diverged.” This is incorrect. It’s “Mike’s Nature trick”. Mike (=Michael Mann) did not truncate any tree ring data in his publications (not specifically in his infamous 1998 Nature paper). Instead the “trick” is to add instrumental temperature series to the end of the reconstruction (to the truncated reconstruction in the case of Briffa’s series) prior to smoothing. This should be clear as the sentence continues “of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s”. Finally, the effect of this “trick” is to turn the end of the smoothed series upwards (instead of downwards as they would without adding in the instrumental series), and thus “to hide the decline”. –Jean Sullivain
While the inquiry did criticize the individual graph mentioned in the “trick” email, it found no evidence of CRU manipulating tree ring data or downplaying the uncertainties.” So what does ‘hide the decline’ mean in scientific terms then?? We know what ‘the decline’ is. It is the decline in tree ring proxy temperatures after about 1960. So why would anyone want to hide that fact which is supposedly well discussed in the specialist literature? So what would a reasonably intelligent layman make of these facts? Well how about this: CRU’s Jones used the word ‘hide’ in a private communication because that was his intent – to hide the awkward bit of data which did not fit the upward trajectory of the warming chart. “But this was one isolated instance that occurred more than a decade ago. –Ken Lambert
- Emails of March 11, 2003 between Dr. Mann and Jones, show their displeasure about Baliunas and Soon’s publication in “Climate Review.” Jones’ email threatened to shun Climate Research until “they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
- Echoing Jones, Dr. Mann responded to punish “Climate Research” by encouraging “our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Do not allow another Michael Man or Anthony Facui to become the Charlatan of the 2030s. If their was a third guy it’s Zelensky, the heroicized this actor and he has gotten over half a million peole killed in a pointless war. That’s for tomorrow
