Mann ‘Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars’ presentation on Live stream

Live stream URL follows. 7PM EST tonight.  (event has passed)

©Jon Golden – used with permission at WUWT

BOONE—Climate scientist Michael E. Mann will speak March 21 at Appalachian State University. His address is a collaboration of the 24th anniversary of Appalachian’s Morgan Lecture Series in the Sciences, and cosponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences and the University Forum Series.

Mann’s talk, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,” begins at 7 p.m. in Plemmons Student Union’s Blue Ridge Ballroom. The talk is free and the public is invited. Parking is available in the campus parking decks after 5:30 p.m.

Mann is a distinguished professor of meteorology and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State. He is the author of the books “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming,” published in 2008, and “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,” published in 2012.

Mann is known for making climate science accessible to the layperson. Of Mann’s book “Dire Predictions,” environmentalist Bill McKibben said, “Here’s a powerful, straight-forward guide to how scientists, economists and engineers really understand the problem of global warming. It makes 20 years of research and consensus-building completely accessible to anyone who cares to know the truth – and to do something about it.”

Of “The Hockey Stick,” biologist Paul R. Ehrlich said, “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence and how critical it is to respond. In this gripping, personal, front-lines account of climate politics, Mann tells the ‘hockey stick’ story, exposing the forces behind the denialist rhetoric, refuting the charges of disinformation campaigns, and eloquently conveying the importance of both doing great science and communicating its societal implications to a wider public.”

The Morgan Lecture Series in the Sciences was created by an endowment from the G. William Morgan Family. Morgan was a 1934 graduate of Appalachian and a health physicist with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The lecture series helps stimulate scientific understanding and research among the sciences by bringing significant researchers to the Appalachian campus.

Previous speakers include evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould, population ecologist Paul Ehrlich, former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and oceanographer and underwater archaeologist Robert Ballard.

###

Michael Mann is speaking at Appalachian State University this evening (7:00 EST) and it will be streamed live at this URL:

http://streaming.appstate.edu/streams/2013/03/mann

h/t to Kevin Shaw

About these ads

150 thoughts on “Mann ‘Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars’ presentation on Live stream

  1. “… scientists, economists and engineers really understand the problem of global warming.”

    Too bad for them that the globe itself doesn’t seem to have the same understanding, with no warming for over a decade now despite ever increasing CO2 concentrations.

  2. It is a credit to WUWT that it reproduces objectively the news of this event featuring such an obnoxious, mendacious, misrepresentaitional CAGW fanatic.

  3. Well, if there is a replay let me know. I have a serious move teed up and will need some comedy later.

  4. Really, I think the picture should have been censored.

    A picture of the Tellytubbies would have been more palatable.

  5. Volcanoes are now responsible for the current decline what BS when is this guy going to be fired? Oh now its solar as well!

  6. Mann is pathetic. “Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.”

    He insults every veteran, every soldier that has taken to the front line to defend freedom.

    Being his own imaginary super hero with a big hockey stick is the stuff of wet dreams, not reality.

  7. Of “The Hockey Stick,” biologist Paul R. Ehrlich said, “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence and how critical it is to respond. In this gripping, personal, front-lines account of climate politics, Mann tells the ‘hockey stick’ story, exposing the forces behind the denialist rhetoric, refuting the charges of disinformation campaigns, and eloquently conveying the importance of both doing great science and communicating its societal implications to a wider public. Michael Mann is speaking at Appalachian State University this evening (7:00 EST)….

    Balls! What florid effluent that man can spew! It sounds like a 1950s back cover summary of a second third rate scifi novella or wannabe superhero. These guys need to be greeted at Appalachian State by a couple of buckets of well-flung rotten tomatoes, in the time honored Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn tradition of dissent.
    MtK

  8. There was a popular “game” show back in the 1960s in which female contestants were trotted out on stage to tell their stories of woe – catastrophic illness, storm-damaged home, runaway child, injured puppy – and the studio audience all had a good cry. And then they voted the –

    QUEEN FOR A DAY [cue applause]!!!

    The lucky “winner” would then get a crown, roses, a fur shawl, and an assortment of household appliances, along with some kind of redress of the poor-dear’s stated problem.

    Mikey is just the 21st century version, right down to the framed ersatz “Nobel Prize” participation plaque, the commensatory grant funds, and a teary, supportive audience of sycophants. Maybe he’ll get an Obama-phone.

    I think this time he should hold out for the crown.

  9. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,” published in 2012.

    I have this disturbing image in my head of Michael all dressed up in his WWII uniform galloping around his office on his broomstick horse as he tweets his latest dispatches to his adoring fans. A heavy burden indeed, Michael!

    And Ehrlich is certainly impressed as he describes the great general on his steed charging into battle: “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence and how critical it is to respond. In this gripping, personal, front-lines account of climate politics, Mann tells the ‘hockey stick’ story, exposing the forces….” etc.

    Courageous! Attacked! Forces! Responds! Front-lines account!

    Seriously????? Coming from people that are more familiar with slap-fights, this is some pretty tough talk.

  10. Previous speakers are a woeful collection of eco-fascists and failed Cassandra’s. “Brilliant and courageous” Michael measures up to that proud standard.

  11. biologist Paul R. Ehrlich said, “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann
    ====
    Now there’s an endorsement you can take home……………..

  12. Now he is pushing Marcott et al’s hockeyblade as ‘confirmation’, and even the upward Romm-extension of it into the future. And if he really means what he peddles, he really is beyond deluded … Just looking at Marcott’s blade, when it starts, shows that it does not do anything to close to what he claims.

  13. ‘It makes 20 years of research and consensus-building completely accessible to anyone who cares to know the truth – and to do something about it.”’

    Really? Do you mean that if I read this book I will understand the techniques of “consensus-building” employed by Michael Mann. If this is true then Mann could charge hundreds of dollars for the book and still have a best seller. I think I will look at some other reviews.

    Clearly, one of the techniques is to guarantee scientists that if they sign on to the consensus publicly then they will not be visited by McKibben.

  14. And he makes Sarah Palin’s misunderstanding of ‘Hide the Decline’ his centerpiece of the ‘defence’. As I often say: People usually use the best arguments they have (left) …

  15. “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence.” My check must be in the mail.

  16. In person I’ve heard Gould, Ballard, and Mann speak. Gould talked about how early scientists “mismeasured” man to confirm their racial biases. Ballard talked about how technology was opening up the deep sea to exploration and understanding of human seafaring. Mann recited a tale of how humans were stressing the planet. Gould and Ballard inspired their audiences by showing how we could use science and technology to learn and make life better. Mann smugly scolded those whom he considered enemies of the environment. Now, this self-serving narrative of his battles reminds me of Alger Hiss’s long efforts to clear his name by lecturing adoring college kids about how he had been innocent of espionage charges in the 1930s. Sycophants lapped it up, but the knowledgable saw it for what it was — a total lack of any humility.

  17. For a reality check see Hockey Stick Studies at ClimateAudit.org
    e.g. the detailed presentation: How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?
    Stephen McIntyre, Presentation at Ohio State University May 16, 2008

    We also observed that they had modified the principal components calculation so that it intentionally or unintentionally mined for hockey stick shaped series. It was so powerful in this respect that I could even produce a HS from random red noise. . . .
    In my opinion, there are serious and probably fatal problems with the main proxies used as supposed evidence against a warm MWP – the Graybill strip bark chronologies, Briffa’s adjustment to the Tornetrask series, the inconsistency between Briffa’s Yamal substitution and the updated Polar Urals series and so on. For every proxy that supposedly shows a MWP cooler than the present, there seems to be one that is just as good or better evidencing the opposite. . . .
    We are often told that the “Science is settled”. But engineers, of all people, know that, even if the “science is settled”, the engineering work may have just begun. One would hardly derive the parameters for a chemical process from an article in Nature without an engineering feasibility study. The most critical question in climate is the estimation of a parameter – is the sensitivity of climate to doubled CO2 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 deg C? Or could it be 6 deg C or 0.6 deg C? . . .
    One important difference is that climate scientists typically report their results in highly summarized
    form in journals like Nature, rather than in the 1000-page or 2000-page engineering studies that an aerospace engineering enterprise would produce.

    For trillion dollar policy decisions, we need the 2000 page engineering studies to verify, validate and quantify these issues! Lets hear it for the engineers.
    Especial kudos to Steve McIntyre for his incredible perseverance.

  18. I just tuned in for about 30 seconds. Dr. Mann was busy spouting the standard Alarmist line decrying “the denialists’ campaign,” but he is optimistic because there is substantial agreement “on both sides of the aisle” that “climate change is real.” So the question is “what policies do we need to put in place to deal with the problem?”

    I tuned out. All together now, let’s chant: “Climate change is REAL! Climate change is REAL! Climate change is REAL!” as if this litany had meaning. As of course it does. It means (all together now), “We will believe! The world is warming! Catastrophe is coming! We must tax carbon! We must let the UN run the world! Don’t listen to the evil denialists! They are heretics! We are the true Scientists! The denialists are false scientists! They are heretics! They deny the Hockey Stick! They should be burned at the stake! Gaia will burn them when she heats up! Call the Inquisitor!”

    Of course, Dr. Mann will not raise his voice. He will leave that to the McKibbens of the faith.

    /Mr Lynn

  19. The only useful presentation on “The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars, Dispatches from the Front Lines” that Micky Mann could provide….would be a demonstration on how to convert this pulp to spit wads….his closest lifetime contact to warfare.

  20. What? “Climate Wars?” I thought that the debate was over and the science was settled. I thought there was a consensus. What need has there been for war? Is he making an admission about this?

  21. And who exactly is paying for this tour? Mann was at U Vic early this month… travel expenses, accommodation etc…

  22. It sounded like the speech of an old soldier just fading away. This guy will not pose any threats in the future me thinks. basically they have lost. Especially by putting up the unadultared Marcott stick very dumb since that paper will be withdrawn.

  23. Well, you will be happy to know that it snowed last night in Boone and is in the mid-20’s (F) there now. I hope he took a warm jacket. Oh, the local ski slopes are still making snow and will be able to ski through Easter the way things are going.

  24. From Mann’s talk: “Even more important than RealClimate.org, I tweet” (and Mann then gave his Twitter tag/address/whatever).

  25. Unbelievable, Total ‘inversion’ of reality. I ‘sort of’ feel sorry for the guy – but less so when I realize that when climate and weather (y’know, the Big Picture) make mincemeat of his ‘predictions’, he’ll skate, saying, “it was factors we couldn’t have anticipated, and CO2/Fossil Fuels still bad”, etc etc.
    I caught only the tail end – questions – when he pointed out what a tragedy it was that, gone are the days when we’d simply Trust In Big Media, and that now folks can get all sorts of “misinformation” online.
    Right. This, in the age of LIBOR, Enron, MFGlobal, and too many, far too many examples to list, the ‘false flags’ (those proved, that is, usually after all participants are dead and gone), the stellar corruptions, the cult of personality and pap delivered to the lowest common denominator.
    This, is what he mourns.
    Right.

  26. Gee I wonder how question time will be handled?

    Anthony you would be a rich man if you got a $1 every time you got accused of being a well funded denialist.

  27. And the obligatory finger-pointing at Big Corporations (who are all Oil/Coal) influencing reportage in the MSM, as if his grants, fees and funding don’t flow equally and more ultimately from those very sources.
    In the Jewish Tradition, it’s asked “Who is Wise?” and answered – “He who learns from every man”, so in the that spirit I guess what we can learn from Micheal M is,
    ‘don’t be a mendacious hypocrite’. (or, giving much undue ‘benefit of doubt’ and positing he actually believes what he says – ‘don’t be insane’)

  28. They study political science in that School of Arts and Science. So Mann is playing politics telling his virtual “truth” that fits his agena.

  29. @ jbird –
    “What? “Climate Wars?” I thought that the debate was over and the science was settled. I thought there was a consensus. What need has there been for war? Is he making an admission about this?”
    Wow! Yes, I missed this completely! Right in one’s face!

  30. So what is the current story with Michael Mann? Is he a respected scientist? Or merely respected within a shrinking circle? Is he generally the laughingstock he is at places like WUWT? Or not?

  31. Ha! Another $10,000 snake oil presentation……………

    Capitalism hypocrite to say the least.

    Keep an eye on the money ! :-)

    .

  32. I keep waiting for the check to arrive.
    Will someone PLEASE tell them to hurry up with it.

    Oh wait…..well funded? I forgot, I am not pro AGW as the scientific evidence is lacking at this time. Maybe next year?

  33. Why, when you have a message that will save the world, would you hide behind FOID laws to conceal it ?
    sarc/

  34. Paul Erlich in the 60’s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 80’s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 90’s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 2000’s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 2010’s; Allow me to introduce Michael Mann who, like me, has been criticized for his predictions.
    Michael Mann; We’re all gonna die!
    Paul Erlich (whispers); you forgot part….
    Michael Mann; In ten years!

  35. Will he continue to promote Marcott’s remarkable paper, which confirmed his hockey stick by replacing cold modern temperatures with warm medieval temperatures ?

  36. Bill McKibben said, “Here’s a powerful, straight-forward guide to how scientists, economists and engineers really understand the problem of global warming.”

    Hey, leave the engineers out of this, who the H—L asked McKibben to speak for the engineers ?

    Did you ever wonder what the heck happens after they launch a whole bunch of tiny mirrors into space to reflect the sunlight away ? What if they get the “predictions” wrong and we freeze to death ? Are they then going to “geo-engineer” a system to pick them up back up ?

    This engineer really understands that mankind has yet to develop a detailed understanding of how the climate works and any predictions to the contrary are BS.

    Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

    Paul R. Ehrlich said, “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann…………..” What a stunning endorsement from someone who has been wrong 99% of the time over a time span of decades…… If everything I designed failed year after year for 40 or 50 years (yes, I’ve had a few clunkers along with many successes) I think I might consider a different occupation…..

    Cheers, Kevin (An engineer, in case you wondered)

  37. davidmhoffer: Two thumbs up, in ten years!
    Yeah a warm and cosy reception at Appalachian State University. no hard questions from these students or facility. A brace of see no evil, yes men for Mann and his doomsday cult!
    Oh what a night – Lol

  38. Even if we have 30 years of a dramatic drop in global temperatures , they will still be pedaling the same stuff. A new generation of climatologists will have to be the ones to reluctantly inform the world of the mistakes made by these guys. Psychologically they are incapable of ever facing their own errors and are destined to go down with the ship,still oblivious to reality.

  39. As the Conservative commentator, Dennis Prager says: “The more graduate education you have, the more insular you are from differing opinions..” Should we say in this case, ‘differing analyses’?

  40. “population ecologist”…..bwahahahahahahaha…….maybe shaman, snake-oil salesman, doomsday prophet……..

  41. Every picture of Mann has a smug and ever so slightly disdainful expression, as though to say “Who farted? It wasn’t me”. The expression is that of one who believes his own legend. A legend founded on blame and supported by brown-nosing. Eventually, the only expression one can exude after all of that, is disdain. Reality becomes an enemy, and one is always on guard against it, and the look of disdain comes from “why do I need to acknowledge reality?”….

    It seems that ever since Obummer unleashed his stealth climate policy, Mann and others are emboldened and ramping up their shaky rhetoric. And it is hard not to assume a disdainful look of my own!

  42. I wonder if he will be successful in repulsing the art students as well?
    May the mann keep on speaking, as Al Gore is to weather, the mann is to support for the cause.
    They both make it run cold.

  43. Quotes unlikely to make the presentation,

    “I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann’s without showing alternates. [...] It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses that Mann is an outlier” – Curtis Covey, Research Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year ‘reconstruction’.” – Ray Bradley, Contributing Author, IPCC (2001)

  44. It appears impossible to underestimate Michael Mann’s brazen arrogance. It does seem he made one mistake, though. When he wrote MBH98/99, he probably thought that no one would discern his lie, because, a) no one except Gavin Schmidt is as smart as he, and; b) his skill at obscurantism is fully nonpareil. He didn’t anticipate Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. What we’ve discovered since then, though, is that it didn’t matter whether he was caught in his lie, or not.

    Despite the completely transparent exposure of his fakery, he has been continually lionized on campuses and in the press, in the US and in Europe, by scientists and by intellectuals, and of course by eNGOs cynical opportunists and McKib nutcases. He has received honors and promotions, and has been supported by every single major scientific organization of any standing, virtually everywhere. Where not, there is discrete silence.

    Since the MBH’s we’ve had Yamal, upside-down Tiljander, contaminated Korttajarvi, all knowing abuses, all fully exposed, all roundly ignored. The take-home lesson seems to be that when a useful lie is offered in support of an ardently desired end, and ethics collides with means, there is a rush of highly educated and well-placed people to bestow honors and awards.

  45. geologyjim
    Queen for a day. Holy crap did you give me a moment there. The look on my poor mom’s face while she watched Queen for a day… “I coulda been a contenda!”

    Why aren’t you dead yet ye old gaffer?

    Just to keep it OnT, Mike looks like he won the prize!

  46. The author of that florid announcement must be the same fiction writer who wrote the Mann piece in the latest Yale Alumni Magazine. No wonder I stopped donating to them.

  47. Sorry I missed it. Any idea where can we get replay?

    It may be one for the history books soon, on how science can be so easily abused with the manipulation of “consensus”.

  48. “how scientists, economists and engineers really understand the problem of global warming”? If they thought we understood it, then why won’t they allow anyone but “climate scientists” examine the data and analysis and propose improvements?

    Climate modeling is probably the most stagnant field of science. No major improvements, discoveries, or changes in 20 years — that has got to be a record.

  49. Peter Miller
    Note that Paul Ehrlich seems to believe in eugenics and suggested in his 70’s book that a huge chunk of ice could fall off Antarctica causing a tsunami of unimagined proportions and Bill McKibben is, well, just the usual single minded big bad Bill.

  50. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Switzerland says:
    March 21, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    Every picture of Mann has a smug and ever so slightly disdainful expression, as though to say “Who farted? It wasn’t me”. The expression is that of one who believes his own legend.

    That look is a narcissistic trait.

  51. That endoresement from Ehrlich is a bit like a ringing endoresemt from Lysenko on a new paper on agricultural gentics!

    Gore, McKibben, Mann, Hansen, Ehrlich, Flannery etc – they’re all proven wrong over and over – zero credibility left. Actually, Hansen has one thing right – co-oincidentally he got the current climate trend modelled correctly in the 1988 models – unfortunately, he nailed it with the zero emissions scenario – whoops!

  52. Now, now, give him a chance to explain….

    “Space is COLD, and makes PHOTONs cold too. These cold PHOTONs have been found inside the ‘LHC’ in CERN, that’s the ‘Lucrative Hose of Cash’ for all you laypeople.
    These cold PHOTONs or FROSTY-TONS, really chill stuff quick. The Sun is the source of the FROSTY-TONS, and has been in a busy phase for the last 16 years, called the ‘Doubtful Momentum’, this has a direct link on the Worlds climate.
    If the Sun wasn’t so busy, the CO2 made by man, no-no-no not ME, other Man’s, would have evaporated all the polar-bears in the Himalaya’s by now.
    Lucky for us the Sun showers the earth in Cold rays constantly, or things would be getting very Ursine in the Hindu kush.

    See, that’s how science works.”

  53. Of course he looks smug. Consider that:

    1. He got caught using an algorithm that produces a hockey stick graph regardless of the data.
    2. He used the Tiljander data though he was advised that it was upside down, and then tried to claim it was OK because he put it in a footnote.
    3. He got caught along with Phil Jones substituting instrumental data for proxy data, wound up admitting that the proxy data doesn’t match the instrumental data for over a third of the instrumental record, but insists that the 1000 years prior to that are probably OK.
    4. The only major work prior to Marcott that corroborated his was Briffa’s, and that turned out to be based on just 12 trees from Siberia, with one of them weighted to be 50% of the data, no hockey stick in the other 11 at all, and the 1 with the hockey stick failed to match local temperature records. Plus, Briffa himself has now published a new reconstruction that debunks his original one.
    5. All of which left Mann with only a single corroborating study, which is Marcott’s. Turns out that Marcott’s thesis doesn’t match Marcott’s publication, and the publication version only corroborates Mann because it take positive anomalies from the past and moves them forward in time, plus lops negative anomalies off when they become inconvenient.

    If I had a career like that and could still collect $10K per day plus expenses for repeating the same bull over and over again, I’d look pretty damn smug too.

  54. geologyjim says:
    “There was a popular “game” show back in the 1960s in which female contestants were trotted out on stage to tell their stories of woe – catastrophic illness, storm-damaged home, runaway child, injured puppy – and the studio audience all had a good cry. And then they voted the –
    QUEEN FOR A DAY [cue applause]!!!…”

    That show extended back to the early 1950s as well. I watched my mother on “Queen for Day” hosted by Jack Bailey in 1951 or 1952 in Los Angeles. She had a sob story trying to get funds for her in-laws so that they could come to my dad’s graduation. (She only won a consolation prize – a carton of Old Gold cigarettes!)

  55. “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence”

    First of all, hyperbole is always hilarious and never scientific.
    Secondly, who are these “well-funded deniers”? I’d love to join that crowd and start cashing some checks! It would be nice if these idiots had real fact-checkers scrutinizing them.

  56. “Words are only as good as their definitions. Faulty definitions will inherently lead to faulty understandings and vice versa. This is especially true when a word and its definition are contentious.

    There is no word in any language which has been the subject of as much conflict, both in the realm of ideas and in the physical world as the word “god”. In that sense it is a dangerous topic to address, but it’s also an important topic for the same reason.”

    http://stormcloudsgathering.com/a-scientific-description-of-god

  57. Aw, come on WUWT Mods. There is nothing that David Appell could say that was OT. His hyperbole and non-sequitir would just finish out the evening just right. Any thread with our crazy uncle Mikey should be an open thread.

  58. davidmhoffer says:
    March 21, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Paul Erlich in the 60′s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 80′s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 90′s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 2000′s; We’re all gonna die! In ten years!
    Paul Erlich in the 2010′s; Allow me to introduce Michael Mann who, like me, has been criticized for his predictions.
    Michael Mann; We’re all gonna die!
    Paul Erlich (whispers); you forgot part….
    Michael Mann; In ten years!

    *

    LOL. What happened to the 70’s? Was he sick that decade? :D

  59. noaaprogrammer says:
    March 21, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    geologyjim says:
    “There was a popular “game” show back in the 1960s in which female contestants were trotted out on stage to tell their stories of woe – catastrophic illness, storm-damaged home, runaway child, injured puppy – and the studio audience all had a good cry. And then they voted the –
    QUEEN FOR A DAY [cue applause]!!!…”
    ________________________________
    My Nanny was a big fan of “Queen for a Day”- there was also one called “The Millionaire”, I believe, in which someone fictionally was given a million $bucks each week-it was a big deal because a $million now was like $!03.56 then, or something.

  60. Track where Mann makes his talks – U Vic; Penn State, Appalachian State, UVA, … and be sure not to send your children there as the administration is not capable of …

  61. McKibben says; “… It makes 20 years of research and consensus-building completely accessible to anyone who cares to know the truth – and to do something about it.”

    A consensus that needs a 20 year political effort to “build” is not a consensus.

    Of course, even after 20 years of “building” the consensus remains fiction built on rigged opinion polls

  62. Mann yesterday tweeted (or should it be ‘twat’) a link to this alarmist article:
    fb.me/2iJpROh6k

    But its such drivel, it reads as satire. He realy seems to have no sense of reality.

  63. Aww.. c’mon! Look at all the nice things they said about him. He must be all they’re cracked up to be ;)

  64. I watched a clip from the movie “Canadian Bacon” with John Candy just before reading this post. In the clip, a news anchor reports a rumor (originating from the White House) that Canada is secretly preparing to attack the U.S. In a serious tone, he then asks, “Do you want your children pledging allegiance to a maple leaf? Do you want to have Winter 11 months out of the year?”

    After watching the movie clip, I began reading this post. When I came to the quotes by McKibben and Ehrlich, I laughed out loud. The quotes are so farcical they sounded like they came from the movie clip I just watched. They might as well be trying to convince us that those vicious, well-funded Canadians are about to attack and it’s critical we respond.

    Of “The Hockey Stick,” biologist Paul R. Ehrlich said, “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence and how critical it is to respond.” …

  65. I just watched for a few moments. He was talking about James Hansen’s temperature forecasts.
    I am not certain be he still seemed to be displaying those graphs which conveniently stop showing comparative global temperatures in 2005. I thought these were exposed last time he talked

  66. I thought that oxygen thief Appell had been terminated here … nobody needs to be assailed by his BS.

  67. Of “The Hockey Stick,” biologist Paul R. Ehrlich said, “The brilliant and courageous climatologist Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence and how critical it is to respond. In this gripping, personal, front-lines account of climate politics, Mann tells the ‘hockey stick’ story, exposing the forces behind the denialist rhetoric, refuting the charges of disinformation campaigns, and eloquently conveying the importance of both doing great science and communicating its societal implications to a wider public. Michael Mann is speaking at Appalachian State University this evening (7:00 EST)….

    What a disgusting sycophant!

    Calling Mann courageous besmirches the good names and deeds of the truly courageous and selfless men and women of our armed forces. This self serving snake oil salesman is nothing but a charlatan.

  68. He must be petrified that the event has been given such wide coverage on WUWT.- a far wider coverage than the university could ever do. Surely the event will now be swamped with sceptics anxious to fire questions at the end: And surely someone will be able to take a quiet video so that we can all enjoy the lecture. How he must now wish the event was ‘Invitation Only’.

  69. more quotes that probably did not make it into Mikey’s speech:

    I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)

    — Keith Briffa —

    In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way
    that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when
    describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
    vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
    recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
    another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
    so.

    — Ed Cook —

    ========================================================================

    But he did delete emails after receiving Jones’ request. He says he deleted the emails cited in the request that Mann forwarded to him from Jones. In response to Jones’ request that Mann ask Wahl to delete emails. But — and here’s where us non-scientists are missing the boat, it seems — Jones’ request was to Mann. You see? To, well, to ask Wahl to do what Wahl did. In response to which Mann forwarded the request. From Jones.

    So, really, Mann never asked him to delete the emails, just like you can never be “alone” with someone in the White House. See?

    — Christopher Horner —

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/a-reply-to-michael-mann-and-eugene-wahl/#ixzz2OGDKvNfu

  70. I find it interesting that this thread of comments has resulted in more snips then any thread I remember. What is it about Michael Mann that raises such ir?. The list of answers to that question are many.

    I guess I’ll confirm the trend. Michael Mann is a [self snip].

  71. “Mann tells the ‘hockey stick’ story, exposing the forces behind the denialist rhetoric”
    So what did he say? Who are they? I’ve been trying to find this out for ages and there’s never anything substantive. Was there this time?

  72. Mann’s talk, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,”

    so its little more than a book selling gig
    ‘Mann is a distinguished professor of meteorology a’
    with perhaps some accidental comedy thrown in

    Lets take a get a bet on what will happen , an audience packed with ‘true believers’ with a Q&A carefully controlled so he has to only deal with the softest of questions and people telling him how ‘wonderful’ he is .
    One day Mann will find himself having to deal without a deck loaded in his favour and that will be bad day for Mann and good day for most of us, that day cannot come soon enough .
    By the way how are his court cases getting on ?

  73. Peter Miller says:
    March 21, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Anthony, this has got to be one of your spoofs.

    No one in the real world could possibly describe Mann in these terms.

    =========================================

    Not only true, but not the only one.

    My daughter attended Yale Med School and, as a result, I get the Yale Alumni Magazine delivered to my address. Last months issue had Dr Mann on the front cover, with the title, “The most hated climate scientist in the US fights back”

    Excerpts are “Michael Mann is taking a stand for science.” and a quote from Dr Mann regarding why he does not like to use the term ‘skeptic’ when referring to those that question his ‘science’. “Mann doesn’t like the word “skeptic” to describe Morano and others campaigning against him. He and other scientists point out that science encourages skepticism, asking pointed questions and looking for evidence again and again. “So much of climate denial comes from ideology,” Mann says, his voice hardening. “If you’re only voicing skepticism about science that goes against your ideology, then that’s not true skepticism.”

    Dr Mann is presented as, “Michael Mann is the scientist whose research produced, in 1999, the iconic and alarming “hockey stick” graph of average annual temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past thousand years. He is also the US scientist most affected by the 2009 “E-mailgate,” when climate contrarians hacked into a group of scientists’ e-mails, took them out of context, and made them a cause célèbre.”

    Personally, I’ve always enjoyed the label of ‘contrarian’. I sent a comment to the magazine asking for the evidence that the ‘climategate emails’ had been obtained by ‘climate contrarians’ via ‘hacking’, and, since they seemed to know that ‘climate contrarians’ had conducted the hacking, who those individuals might be, but received no answer.

    https://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3648

  74. Having, uhm… “interesting” people give lectures on a college campus is certainly not new. Back in the 70’s, my own (pretty conservative for the time) Georgia Tech hosted Dr. Timothy Leary for a lecture. I attended just because of his notoriety. He babbled on about mind expansion into other dimensions – priceless.
    Hopefully those App State folks will have similar thoughts about this presentation in coming years.

  75. In the “Climate Wars”, he is Sarumann, with Orkian hordes doing his bidding (he hopes).

  76. Bill Marsh says:
    March 22, 2013 at 4:43 am

    “If you’re only voicing skepticism about science that goes against your ideology, then that’s not true skepticism.”
    ===================================
    This implies that scepticism (one would prefer thay esteemed Nobel Prize time-sharers and University alumni periodicals could bloody well spell correctly…) is only allowed when you are challenging something you already believe (oops, that word again) in.

    “Sorry, you don’t believe in AGW so you’re not allowed to question my hockey-stick generator”

    *head explodes*

  77. I’m sorry -did you say it will be livestreamed at 7:00 tonight? Dang! It so happens I have a root canal scheduled then. Oh well.

  78. Another of many Mann PR events for his self-serving myth of Mann as wrongly persecuted mythic hero. Yawn.

    He is giving mythology a bad name. He needs professional help from the PR firms specializing in monomyth based PR.

    In August 2011 it was reported that Mann was on sabbatical from Penn State Univ.

    Question => Is he still on sabbatical? If not then when did his sabbatical end?

    Would appreciate if someone can provide that info.

    John

  79. “He Defrauded Me With Science”

    What’s all the the big commotion
    It snowed just yesterday
    And the rising of the ocean
    Is just dramatic overplay 
    They’re defrauding me with science
    Defrauding me with science!
    And ignoring simple history

    When he’s flying his Learjet
    Defrauding  me with science – Science
    They say  he’s leaving a  footprint
    Science
    Science

    But it’s all a big promotion
    When it snowed just yesterday 
    And I can see no rising of the ocean
    On the weak and old they prey
    But they defrauded me with science
    They defrauded me with science!
    And disregarded simple meteorology

    When Gore is flying  ever nearer
    Defrauding me with science-science
    Science
    I can see Al Jazeera
    Defrauding me with science-science
    Science

    I thought he had such devotion
    But now it seems he’s mocking me
    He sold out the Arctic Ocean
    To pump and dump Current Tv
    He defrauded me with science
    He defrauded  me with science!
    And got off on a technicality

    Good God Al Gore-
    You’re pitiful
    I don’t believe it
    There he goes again
    He’s hidden his dossier
    And I must get a FOIA
    To see his inner secrets
    And his little  pet tricks

    It’s simple harmonic motion
    So when it snowed just yesterday
    And the rising of the ocean
    A cycle repeated every day
    Mmm but he defrauded me with science
    He defrauded me with science!
    And failed in philanthropy

    He defrauded me – with science
    He defrauded me  with

  80. “Michael Mann knows what it’s like to be viciously attacked by the well-funded deniers of scientific evidence…” “The Hockey Stick,” biologist Paul R. Ehrlich said.”
    For God’s sake. WHAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE??
    Computer models surely are not evidence. Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, blizzards.
    None of these is evidence of AGW from CO2. None of them.
    We only have evidence of weather.
    I hate liars.

  81. It’s getting to the point where If I ever meet someone who calls themselves a “Climate Scientist”,
    I will simply scoff then walk away. Wait, scoff, slug him in the face, then walk away.
    And I’m a peaceful guy.

  82. Interesting how research is constantly updating and questionning the theory surrounding the Origin of the Universe and everyone applauds. But let anyone dare question the “theory of man-made climate change” and you are being likened to war criminals. My head hurts. I recently questionned a prominent columnist on his constant references to climate change and asked him what “science” he based his beliefs on before I made any comments. I was greeted with…..silence. I thought so. Thanks Anthony for all the hard work.

  83. ” They attempted to control thought and to suppress personal opinion. They tried to dictate personal conduct. They habitually distorted and disregarded and violated the truth. All this was crudely opposite of their claims of “democracy” and “the scientific approach.”

    – Elia Kazan talking about his brief membership in the Communist Party of America ”

    Is it just me or does anyone else see some parallels here? They really milk the victim routine for Dr. Mann and anyone else who is asked to defend their supposedly scientific opinion.

  84. Hockey sticks and Pooh sticks.

    Meanwhile in the real world, where the hockey stick is still a reality only it has been inverted and is pointing down, the annual Pooh-sticks championship in Oxford, England, has been postponed this week due to cold and snowy weather.

  85. This type of wrong headed thinking routinely gets top billing when funded by tax payers. And no amount of well-reasoned and unimpeachable protagonism can fight against it. Belief trumps data. Always has. Always will. Truth based on facts is often slaughtered. Way more often than spin is. If you seek to put the facts out there, you had better be able to stand the heat because it is heat hotter than hell. If you can’t stand the heat, you must be willing to swallow vomit. Those are the only two choices we have. And by the way, silence tastes like vomit. I have put my government job on the line in honor of facts more than once. You must be willing to lose not only your paycheck, but your computer, respect, reputation, and finally lose in the court of opinion. And you may not ever see a return of those things before you pass from this Earth. I know.

    Our history books are filled with such stories of the plight of humankind in search of truth. It is by and large an ugly history. We, here and now, are not a privileged class that will be able to escape such horrible consequences. If past history is any measure, truth is won through the number of wounded scars we carry, not the number of headline victories we accumulate.

  86. Pamela Gray says:
    March 22, 2013 at 10:24 am

    “If past history is any measure, truth is won through the number of wounded scars we carry, not the number of headline victories we accumulate.”

    In the olden days, which I experienced in person, you picked up plenty of scars for not telling the truth. And the scars you got in the principal’s office, you never reported to your father or another round of scars was added. Having evolved into a more enlightened folk, it is now the other way around.

  87. Mann is a distinguished professor of meteorology and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State.

    “Distinguished”? Yeah, he managed to distinguish himself as a fraudster who excelled at manipulating proxy tree-ring data while keeping a straight face as he lectured his intellectual betters about ethics.

  88. Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. – Ayn Rand

    Mike Mann is the modern day snake oil salesman/faith healer, driving from town to town, conning the gullible citizens that want sooooooo desperately to believe in the purported potency of his green elixirs, nostrums, and ‘laying of the hands’ to cure the original sin (pollution, real or perceived) of humanity.
    Hurry! Hurry! Step right up and see the overheated Planet! Hear the brilliant and courageous Climatologist tell you how YOU caused it all! Open your guilty hearts (and wallets!) to Save The Planet Now!
    MtK

  89. As much as I detest Mann, McKibben, and Eherlick there is one advantage they have. Mann was speaking before a room of young people that will now believe what he says and be motivated to act as advocates while we all sit on our collective butts in front of our computers typing snark. What are YOU (reader) doing to combat Mann in the public square? Are you speaking at colleges to counter their consensus lies? AGW is now being accepted in this years science standards for schools.

  90. “So much of climate (denial) science comes from ideology,” Mann says, his voice hardening. “If you (’re) only voice(ing) (skepticism about) science that (goes against) supports your ideology, then that’s not true (skepticism) science.”
    There, I fixed it for him.

  91. Alvin says:
    March 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm
    As much as I detest Mann, McKibben, and Eherlick there is one advantage they have. Mann was speaking before a room of young people that will now believe what he says and be motivated to act as advocates while we all sit on our collective butts in front of our computers typing snark. What are YOU (reader) doing to combat Mann in the public square? Are you speaking at colleges to counter their consensus lies? AGW is now being accepted in this years science standards for schools.

    Yes, as long as they have got the young, you won’t be able to defeat them. But I’m not sure the voices of science and reason can recapture the schools and colleges from the bottom up. The teachers are all just regurgitating the orthodox litany that they have been fed. It’s going to take a revolution at the highest levels of the scientific establishment and the academy. Mann’s support does not come just from his fellow ‘climate scientists’. Most of his peers accept the ‘conventional wisdom’ of AGW and the calumny spread by the Climatists that anyone who challenges them is a heretic and ‘anti-science’ kook. Those peers are the ones who have to be convinced. WUWT is certainly a start. But how many of them are here? We need a lot more like Professor Brown at Duke before the tide can turn, scientists willing to look at the empirical evidence and speak up.

    /Mr Lynn

  92. Did anybody watch?
    I know I couldn’t cause I was getting my nails done.
    Did no one watch and record it?
    I can’t listen to Mikey more than 13 seconds and I kill the sound.
    After 16 more seconds I have to exit the viewing.
    I have not seen anything and no one is posting comments about watching.
    cn

  93. Live stream URL follows. 7PM EST tonight. (event has passed)
    ============
    I’ll count my lucky stars. Never missed a Mann presentation in my life. Didn’t shown up for any, but never missed then.

  94. Chuck Nolan says:
    March 22, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    Did anybody watch?
    I know I couldn’t cause I was getting my nails done.
    =========
    i was going to watch but had to take a dump.

  95. Mr Lynn says:
    March 22, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    “Yes, as long as they have got the young, you won’t be able to defeat them. But I’m not sure the voices of science and reason can recapture the schools and colleges from the bottom up.”

    We cannot. Departments of Climate Science will grow just as Departments of Feminism have grown. So, no help there.

    The next iteration is that many Millennials are going to clamor that the government must make employers accept that a BA in Vaginal Politics does qualify one for most jobs. Our existing administration and its friends will support this initiative.

  96. @Alvin, thats true, initially the lies do shape the belief of those children.
    But reality and age have a way of correcting such misinformation.
    The upcoming increase in poverty and shrinkage of opportunity that university grads are enjoying and will enjoy for some time, will correct the delusions of most of them.
    And once they realize they have been used and abused, their resentment lingers.

  97. Mikey Mann will be responsible for the minds he fills with mush. The fact that he doesn’t recognize his eventual plight is firm evidence he’s clueless in more ways than one.

    And to Mikey (because everybody knows he sneaks peeks at these comments): Someday your name will be mud even though you currently believe the exact opposite. Enjoy your populatiryt now, because it won’t last forever. Indeed, future generations will recognize your notorious name among the most despicable of 20th Century liars and charlatans. (BTW, no Big Oil funds were used in formulating this opinion, sorry to disappoint you; I receive no such compensation other than the satisfaction of accurately describing you publicly.)

  98. “… scientists, economists and engineers really understand the problem of global warming.”

    Good thing that we’re bring the economists in to tackle the AGW issue. They’ll soon bring this unruly climate to heel.

  99. Mikey gave one of his talks last year at an SOS (Sustainable Operations Summit) Conference at Cornell. I imagine this one was pretty much a carbon copy:

    I haven’t watched all of it, but it’s pretty much the standard boilerplate Alarmist nonsense. The science, he says, is straightforward, and has been known for 2 centuries. The problem, according to him, is those pesky, Big Oil-funded, tobacco-science, climate de*iers (that’s us). We’re the fly in his climate ointment he’s so desperately peddling. Buzzzzzzz….

  100. Voicing exclusive skepticism of ‘science” that is contrary to your particular ideaolgy is bad (even though a skeptic isn’t actually trying to govern people like warmists are, and why would a person be up in arms if their ox isn’t being gored) However, advocacy and “consensus building” on the basis of ‘science’ that suits your ideaolgy is apparently OK at least according to Mikey mann.

  101. Anthony, I’ve noticed that you inadvertently lend some undue credence to the CO2 driven climate change theory:

    Oilprice.com: With all of this in mind, what should we be doing to address global warming? What SHOULDN’T we be doing?

    Anthony Watts: I think on the issue of energy-related CO2 right now, energy conservation and energy efficiency efforts will bring the most gains.

    Granted, you then proceed to give the caveats that the catastrophic climate change isn’t happening, but surely even if we destroyed all industry and sent humanity back to the stone age we would only save a degree or so per century, thus reducing our emissions by even a large percentage would be barely discernible in the climate trend. The trend shows no discernible human influence despite the rising CO2 output which shows definite negative feedbacks (ERBE satellite data shows OLR goes up with surface warming and low level cloud cover albedo effect, no mid tropospheric hotspot etc)

    Surely saying that CO2 has a negligible rather than partial effect would be more accurate. And being a lukewarmist implies more causality attribution to CO2 than it warrants.
    I really hope you don’t end up being controlled opposition gradually twisting the focus of the article towards the alarmist religion :). (I don’t think you are of course and appreciate everything you’ve done for scientific truth, but in the current political climate it pays to be vigilant)
    Perhaps you could clarify the role you believe CO2 plays in terms of percentage of warming resulting from CO2 and the percentage of man made warming from CO2 and the evidence for the figures, just to help us lay people debate the point with warmists.

  102. “Mann is known for making climate science accessible to the layperson.” Hmmm. Too bad he isn’t known for making his own data available to researchers trying to duplicate his bogus results. Just ask McIntyre and McKittrick about that, lol.

  103. Hahaha – Because of a lot of O/T comments, Anthony closed out discussion on “…Would a real scientist act this way?” so I am going try an end run on Anthony and to post my brief NOT O/T comment for that here:

    He kind of gives the term “idiot savant” a new meaning, doesn’t he?

    Steve Garcia

    p.s. Not to mention the old “Some village somewhere is missing its (social) idiot.” While Mann is not a real idiot ion the scientific sense, his social idiocy serves him ill, at best. Does that make him antisocial?

    Bullies on school playgrounds – antisocial? In the long term is this not idiocy?

    Hard-headed people who can’t accept that other people might reasonably disagree with them – antisocial? In the long term is this not idiocy?

    Seriously, I don’t think anybody “on this side of the aisle” would really apply such a label to, say, Phil Jones, or Keith Briffa – we see some civility in them, and in other circumstances might even totter down to a neighborhood pub and shoot the breeze with them. In time, perhaps even hale fellows well met.

    James Hansen? With his stridency might make some people think twice. NOT the sort to bend the elbow with.

    But Mann – WOW! learn some civility, dude! What? “It’s Not Paranoia If They Really Are Out to Get You” – that applies to you? Oh, pulleeez!. . .

  104. “Mann is a distinguished professor of meteorology and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State.”

    Maybe “distinguished” is the wrong word to use here…

  105. So this moderator simply deletes comments that challenge or disagree with his position? I’m sure he wouldn’t really enjoy it if this happened to his backers…

Comments are closed.