Mark Serreze from NSIDC responds to Michael Mann’s scurrilous accusations, with even more scurrilous accusations.
“I’ve dealt with him before.”
He has dealt with me before. In 2008, Mark Serreze predicted an ice-free North Pole that summer.
North Pole could be ice free in 2008 | New Scientist
His prediction prompted me to write my first article about climate. “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered”
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered • The Register
His prediction didn’t fare well, with lots of ice around the North Pole on the minimum date of September 9, 2008.
N_20080909_extn_v3.0.png (420×500)
He did however inspire British swimmer Lewis Pugh to try to kayak to the North Pole.
“This year, for the first time, scientists predict that the North Pole could briefly be ice free and that has inspired Mr Pugh to try to find a way through.”
BBC NEWS | UK | Swimmer aims to kayak to N Pole
Needless to say, Pugh didn’t make it very far.
Explorer kayaks to 1,000 km from N.Pole | Reuters
Mark Serreze also predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Arctic Ice Continues Record Melting – ABC News
Since then, there has been no trend in the minimum, mean or maximum extent.
ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod_test/ice/index/v2p2/nh/osisaf_nh_sie_daily.txt
Mark and his friends have no clue what they are talking about, which is why they rely on insults rather than scientific debate.
Like I said. Just another lying POS!
Yep. Mann & Serreze are paid liars. And they’re good at their jobs because lying comes naturally to them. And because lying and being a POS goes hand in hand, they’re also both a POS (and they’re very good at that as well).
The Kayak guy seems to be so far the most successfull of the global warming cult,
as he missed his target by only 89 % while the rest,like
Serreze,who makes a living by predicting the polar version of the end of snow = ice free arctics, year after year can barely reach 1 % .
I once drove to within 3000 mile of the North Pole, while trying to show how little ice there was in the Arctic. Stopped to see some friends in Duluth Mn instead of continuing.
Theory fails to predict reality. Ergo, theory is crap. No amount of abuse or censorship will alter the fact.
Mark Serreze demonstrated his scientific bono fides when he claimed that the Arctic is “screaming”.
Ironic that funded natural climate change deniers are ubiquitous in labeling scientifically-minded people who actually rely on empirical data and science – people like Tony – as ‘climate change deniers’. The Arctic refused to bow to Mark Serreze’s 2008 prediction. It failed and was not tardy – the Arctic has gotten nowhere close to catastrophic melt every subsequent summer since 2008. What part of that does Mark Serreze not get?
We will be here in 2030, Mark – when your ‘reasonable’ estimate of an ice-free Arctic also falls flat. No amount of ridicule of those who continue to get right – that which you have proven you cannot do – will save the CO2-based, anti-scientific hypothesis on which you depend. You got it wrong, Mark. The theory on which you based your worthless predictions is wrong. It will always be wrong. The last laugh and ridicule will be heaped on all the arrogant, taxpayer-financed clowns like yourself, who have peddled your anti-CO2 junk science over the past three-and-a-half decades.
I’ve invited Mark Serreze to an informal climate debate. If he shows up, I’ll tease his brain out through a nostril, stretch it like Silly Putty, wrap it around his neck a few times, give the end a good yank, and send him spinning. LOL
He’s a geologist. He doesn’t understand thermodynamics, so he cannot understand that:
1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).
2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.
3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.
4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”. It is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.
————————-
To: serreze [at] kryos [dot] colorado [dot] edu
Title: Invitation…
Greetings.
You’re invited to an informal debate at the website below. Just show up, peruse the data, make a post in refutation if you’re able, and we’ll go from there.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
————————-
Let’s see if he’s got the guts to defend his stance. I’m betting not. Very few of the warmists do, and those who do get absolutely crushed.
Can’t argue with bog-standard thermodynamics, radiative theory, cavity theory, dimensional analysis, electrical theory and quantum theory straight from physics tomes. LOL
Looking forward to an update.
Remember when NOAA got in trouble with the US Navy, because they’d been telling the US Navy the same as they’d been telling the general populace… that Arctic sea ice was thin.
Two nuclear submarines were damaged trying to surface through ice that was excessively thick because of that, endangering the lives of approximately 200 men and two multi-billion dollar pieces of equipment. NOAA got caught in their lies, and were nearly defunded because of that.
Yeah, they solved that real quick… NOAA started sharing the actual sea ice thickness with the US Navy, while continuing to lie to the public.
It is funny when they ignore or forget what they said years ago about shrinking ice forecasts which makes it easy for you to make fools of them as they are clearly wrong.
Good work Tony!
Someone once said that, for most people, they will simply remember that they heard your name and not the context, hence another repeating your name is increasing your recognition. A good reason to refer to the Rodent obliquely, and don’t mention them when they mention you.
They are simply making more people aware of you. And there is a chance they will drop in, and learn something.
I understand what you are saying, but in this case I think it is good Tony calls them out by name, along with detailed exposure of their fraudulent claims, whether climate lies or lies and libelous slander they choose to spread about him. Even if a clime syndicate propagandist won’t read Tony’s takedown of them, I am sure it will get back to them.
Tony lets them know that they will be held accountable if they choose to play hardball with him. It is an opportunity to expose their manipulative lies. In doing so, the believer who may wander here as a result, will be exposed to a dose of reality. They may or may not have a clue who ‘the Rodent’ is. But they will see, by name, who the scammer is, and the tricks they are playing, explained with details, by Tony. When they go after Tony, the scammers are providing opportunity for their own exposure as bad actors.
I recently sat on a jury concerning a defamation suit of a public figure. The defendant lost, with much thinner evidence of public defamation than the scurrilous lies being published about Tony. Again, I understand your logic, but I disagree with it in this case. The liars need to be exposed. By name. If/when they provide the opportunity, I believe Tony will be happy to oblige them. JMHO
GUESS they have NO SHAME in lying as long as the $$$$$$$$$$ is flowing in