Mad Mann

From Dr. Michael Mann’s Twitter feed today:
Mann-mad-curry

What is he mad about? Probably the same thing a bunch of the same people were mad about last year when I was interviewed on PBS. How DARE they let somebody who has skeptical views speak? The comments from Joe Bastardi in Mann’s Twitter feed were ignored.

Here is Dr. Curry’s interview, it is well worth a read/listen. 

Curry-on-NPR

While the Obama administration presses forward with plans to deal with climate change, Congress remains steadfast against taking action. It’s not easy to find a scientist who will agree with that point of view. But Republicans have found an ally in a climate scientist by the name of Judith Curry.

Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she’s soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, “We just don’t know.”

More here: http://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=213894792

h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Michael E. Mann and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Mad Mann

  1. Kevin Ryan says:

    Shesh, it is a shame that the guy can be more mature. He is his own worst enemy.

  2. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Yep, Kevin, he’s a bold-faced baby by times. I haven’t read anything public from him that isn’t tinged with whining, insulting, or the attitude of a spoiled brat fed at the public teat for far too long.

  3. That that man calls himself a victim of bullying is pathetic.
    Bullying others is all he does these days.

  4. ZootCadillac says:

    Thought I’d look up Mann’s twitter feed to follow the conversation. I’m not allowed. it appears that I am blocked by Mann on twitter. having no recollection of any discourse or contact with him, ever, I’m a little bit proud of that. A nobody was considered enough of a somebody to be blocked from debate by a narcissist. Oh joy :)

  5. Fred says:

    Mann went past pathetic a long time ago.

    He went past Stuck on Stupid within recent memory.

    Now he is just acting like a spoiled little child that can’t understand why he can’t have all the candy.

    He is digging his legacy hole deeper and faster as the Poster Child for everything wrong with modern science and scientists.

    His simply a tragic mistake-in-action of a professor and a scientist.

  6. Grant says:

    Sad little Mann

  7. John another says:

    Judy; “I see this as a missed opportunity to discuss the science and the changing dynamics of the climate debate after climategate.”
    Richard Harris; “By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy. But like all of us, she does have a personal point of view. And hers, at root, is not about science; it’s about individualism.”
    Not to wax too offensive Judith, but I [snip that's over the top - Anthony]

  8. TomL says:

    Curry is a climate scientist who has had a long and distinguished academic career. Mann is notorious because he published one paper that got a lot of political press, and was pretty shortly discredited.

  9. GeneDoc says:

    And in what sense is this a puff piece? It’s chock full of snark imho.

  10. Walter Gasthoff says:

    I find it interesting that the fact that Judith Curry has apparently changed her mind is being used as a slur on her character and her integrity.

    I had always considered the ability to change one’s mind in the face of new facts to be a virtue, and something to be encouraged.

    Evidently in the oxymoron that is “climate science”, facts don’t matter, and reasoned response to changing circumstances and facts is anathema.

    In light of this, I wonder why we are spending billions of dollars on “climate science” research. If “the science is settled”, and we are not allowed to change our minds in response to new facts, why are we bothering with spending all that money on research?

  11. David L. says:

    She’s not part of the 97%. Not even the 95%. She’s definitely off Mann’s Christmas card list this year.

  12. Justthinkin says:

    Pathetic. Pathological, narcissistic, paranoid, emotionally stunted, ah heck. There are not enough terms in the practice of psychoanalysis to properly describe Mann.

  13. Pat says:

    There’s definitely something of “Falling Down” in the Twitter stream of the #hashtag #obsessed #egomaniac this week. Hopefully he doesn’t get stuck in a traffic jam.

  14. Joseph Bastardi says:

    I tweeted that because I can not believe that Dr Mann is attacking the CHAIR of a prominent university’s dept, because of what: she wrote something that many believe hit the nail on the head? Look, I understand why Dr. Mann would be sensitive to the attacks on his work. Suppose you worked at something for as long as he did, believe its right, and are under attack. Just put yourself in his shoes. So understand why he feels set upon. And dont write me and tell me I am defending him.. I am trying to explain how a person in his shoes is going to feel. As for me, with Dr Mann, All I want is to see him debate his ideas with other people that have published reputable papers, that can find no such hockey stick. Afterall If your work is going to be the banner, well guess what, the guy carrying the banner is going to be a target, but he should have chosen IMO to get out there debate this, look above the fray. My point is I have some sympathy for his position, its not easy. I may disagree up and down with him, but I can understand how he would feel bitter ( again I am not defending, I am explaining). BUT THIS SHOT IS WAY WAY BEYOND THAT, IMO. Dr Curry is not some propaganda spouting mouthpiece that I have seen that label every storm as a sign on climate change or warming or whatever they call it now, frighteningly ignorant of past storms to a point where I stare in disbelief that someone would actually say that. Dr Curry is not wandering around in some think tank ( not that they arent correct, but again we are talking about someone that given the academic and political climate today, has a position where it takes guts and conviction to state ones belief if it runs contrary), Someone saying these things about her is doing it, in my opinion, with the intent to damage her. Its a form of bullying. Its meant to silence her. So this was uncalled for IMO.

    I would hope Dr Mann would reconsider. As I tweeted 1) SInce when would NPR do a puff piece on a matter like this and 2) Why would a person in Dr Curry’s position spread distraction and confusion on this matter. THAT IS A HECK OF AN ACCUSATION AT A DEPT CHAIR OF A MAJOR UNIVERSITY, and is beyond he usual mud slinging this has become

    Its really getting weird watching these attempts to silence people… it is a form of soft tyranny

  15. JimS says:

    For a person to rewrite climate history, as did Mr. Mann, what else should we expect from him than what you see from him?

  16. This is good. Mann just doesn’t know when to stop digging. In the process, he is destroying his own reputation.

  17. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    The way NPRavda frames the report is toxic to serious journalism.

  18. dp says:

    Oohh – looks like somebody is showing symptoms of Napoleon Complex, aka Small Mann Complex. I wonder if he’s on the short list to replace that other small thinker, James Hansen. Somewhere a fairy tale is missing a little pig.

  19. Mr Lynn says:

    What is Mann complaining about? NPR’s Richard Harris made sure that Dr. Curry came off as weak-kneed, vague, and unscientific. “Well, we can’t predict the future, and anyway we can’t stop China and India from using fossil fuels” (paraphrase). Does she think that CO2 forcing is all it’s cracked up to be? Is CO2 a driver of global temperature at all? I suppose in Harris’s defense, Dr. Curry temporized to the point of incoherence, leaving him free to close with the smug,

    But leaving climate change actions to individuals will not solve the problem. You can’t affect global warming simply by buying a Prius and adjusting the thermostat. And there’s no uncertainty about that.

    Next week we’ll hear from a “mainstream,” i.e. real climate scientist. Who? Michael Mann? Good grief!

    /Mr Lynn

  20. Martin457 says:

    Why does this remind me of the old Life cereal commercials?

  21. Ryan Maue says:

    Kevin Trenberth is up tomorrow on NPR.

  22. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    I’m watching TV ads, it’s the Toyota Summer Clearance Event. They’re hawking their Prius, the selling points are headroom and $750 cash back. Not the mileage, which is middling. Not massive tax rebates, whose future is uncertain.

    Especially not how driving a Prius benefits the environment.

    Headroom, and a “cash back” of about 1/2 the Pennsylvania sales tax. They don’t even mention it’s a hybrid.

    I seem to remember Priuses (Prii?) were such a hot seller, there was a long waiting list. Now they have to put them on sale to clear out the old stock.

    Dear Dr. Mann, you have succeeded your way into defeat. You have kept so many so alarmed for so long, the people are numb. They have stopped caring. We have been repeatedly informed we are all doomed unless we unite to fight global warming. We can have a fist fight over the choice of pizza toppings. Deep down, the people knew they were doomed, there was no hope. They have stopped the preemptive fighting against the invisible enemy you told them was there. Now they wait to see how bad it really will be.

    Congratulations, Mann. You have won. You have lost. Hooray for you, and the rest of the Climate Advocates for Justice (the CAJ). You certainly did your part.

  23. _Jim says:

    lurker, passing through laughing says August 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    The way NPRavda frames the report is toxic to serious journalism.

    Take heart; few are listening but the already devoted …

    .

  24. Theo Goodwin says:

    I guess I am the only one who thinks NPR is “backing down” from CAGW. The fact that the interview seems dismissive of Dr. Curry shows that they do not want their listeners breaking down their doors.

    Having Trenberth on? Really? After his “randomly traveling hot spot” remark? I guess they have Gore on Saturday to talk about Cat 6 hurricanes.

  25. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Ryan Maue says:
    August 22, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    Kevin Trenberth is up tomorrow on NPR.

    So, NPR’s policy is what, balance today’s rationality with rampant stupidity tomorrow??

  26. TobiasN says:

    3-4 years ago I was a liberal (with 1 or 2 conservative opinions) who was sure Global Warming was true. Why not? -everyone said it was.

    I was at someone’s house and bored so I looked at one of their coffee table books. It sold itself as a book for ordinary people to read, explaining the science behind GW. It had high production values.

    At that point in my life I had never been exposed to any skeptical material. Never heard any names. Nothing.

    I leafed through the book. It was gibberish. I could hardly believe it. They were supposed to be the smart people. After maybe ten minutes of looking for something straightforward my experience in life kicked in: that someone who writes gibberish likely does not understand the topic as well as he thinks he does.

    It was after that I started reading material about the climate. I had decided to make up my own mind.

    Of course recently I went back to see what book it had been. I saw the front cover again and laughed. It was by Michael Mann! (the book “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming”).

    My point is, Mann senses people have a low opinion of him, and he thinks its because he is slandered by people he thinks of as denialists. Uh, no. I came to a low opinion of him just by looking at his book. He is such a clown he started me in the opposite direction he intended.

  27. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Joe Bastardi –
    I’d call it hard tyranny, not soft, The CAGW crowd are intent on much more than just winning an argument, more even than silencing skeptics. The argument itself is only the cover for the left’s agenda to destroy the Western economy and do away with civil liberties.

    The NPR commenters’ demands that the NPR not report stories on skeptics is an indicator of these people’s mindset.

    As for Michael Mann vs. Judith Curry, I would say that Mann’s comments paint a rather unsavory portrait of him.

  28. David says:

    Curry may be establishment controlled opposition, her goal appears to be to ally herself with the conservatives, make the misleading claim that humans are partly responsible (the better term is indiscernible in the natural noise and/or negligible) and represent the skeptics as people that admit the warmists are partly right but don’t think it’s worth losing our car upgrade.

    One should view her with suspicion as the data shows no discernible human input and CO2 has no net positive feedback when one takes into account the increase in OLR with increased surface temperature, the lack of a hotspot, the fact that CO2 radiates a significant amount of heat back into space from incoming solar rays, not to mention the lack of warming in the past 17 years with rising CO2 and increased human contribution.

    Anyone that claims to be a luke warmist must provide evidence that humans have influenced the climate in the data. If they can isolate it from the natural noise and explain the stall in warming that would be an achievement.

  29. Steve Oregon says:

    The last few sentences of the Curry article seem to take a shot at her while insisting more must be done.

    By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy. But like all of us, she does have a personal point of view. And hers, at root, is not about science; it’s about individualism.

    “I walk to work, I drive a Prius, I’m a fanatic about turning lights off and keeping air conditioning high and heating low, so I try to personally minimize my own carbon footprint. But in terms of telling other people what to do, I don’t have any big answers.”

    But leaving climate change actions to individuals will not solve the problem. You can’t affect global warming simply by buying a Prius and adjusting the thermostat. And there’s no uncertainty about that.

  30. Mann was interviewed last year by Ira Flatlow on Science Friday and it is very revealing. http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147815862/michael-mann-from-the-trenches-of-the-climate-war

    Mann went on about how Heartland wasn’t playing by fair rules and trying to “discredit the science” and it appeared Mann’s interview was part of an orchestrated attempt to hype the “leaked” Heartland papers ( but it was soon revealed that is comrade Dr. Peter Gleick had forged the leaks and it was the CO2 advocates not playing by the rules). But most revealing was Mann’s response to the first caller named David. David said he believed in climate change but that thought it was natural and then accurately described the well established temperature changes in GISP2 ice core. Mann’s reply?

    “Yeah. Unfortunately, the gentleman has his facts just about all wrong!”

    Denying the GISP2 record would make Mann both a science denier as well as a Natural Variation Denier.

  31. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    THE HOCKEY STICK

    There was a crooked Mann
    Who played a crooked trick
    And had a crooked plan
    To make a crooked stick

    By using crooked math
    That favored crooked lines
    Lysenko’s crooked path
    Led thru the crooked pines

    And all his crooked friends
    Applaud what crooked seems
    But all that crooked ends
    Derives from crooked means

    Eugene WR Gallun

    I think you all misunderstand Mann. Just as white collar criminals know what they are — Mann knows what he is. White collar criminals behave criminally because they believe they can get away with it. Mann once believed he could get away with what he has been pedaling. But there comes the time of the (climate) audit and what seemed such a blissful surefire scheme suddenly displays all its holes. The reality is that Michael Mann is sweating his ass off. Better than anyone he sees what the future holds for him. And what is doubly funny is that when end game comes Michael Mann is going to suddenly realize that he does not have a single friend in the world.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  32. Jim Steele says:

    @Joe Bastardi “All I want is to see him debate his ideas with other people that have published reputable papers, that can find no such hockey stick.”

    I agree that any scientist, who’s life work, status and funding depends on their hypothesis being right, will not act like Feynman’s good scientist trying to prove himself wrong as quickly as possible, but will act to defend their work by any means necessary. Unfortunately the science has devolved into “intellectual drive-by shootings” instead of respectful debate.

    A public debate would indeed be enlightening for all, but Mann and Trenberth have further defiled the science by refusing to debate because as Trenberth said “it gives credibility to alternative views”. To refuse to debate and then argue the debate is over, defiles the scientific process. Mann now tries to argue any questioning against his hypotheses is an attack on science itself, and his fearful followers repeat that mantra. Long gone are the days of Newton and the Royal Society scientific motto ” Nullius in Verba” or “Take nobody’s word for it.” Mann’s high hubris believes his word is science. We shaky authority is challenged, then all challengers become infidels, heretics or deniers.

  33. Kaboom says:

    So sad what happens when little sandbox tyrants grow up without getting smacked on the way.

  34. ATheoK says:

    “David says: August 22, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    Anyone that claims to be a luke warmist must provide evidence that humans have influenced the climate in the data. If they can isolate it from the natural noise and explain the stall in warming that would be an achievement.”

     
    Eh? You’ve defined what is and what isn’t a ‘luke warmer’? That is rather impudent on your part.
     
    I don’t buy your attempt at minimizing Dr. Curry’s work along with the work, attention and interest of so many other luke warmers. Dr. Curry made the leap and become more aligned with the skeptics against the climate bully ‘team’ and their consensus insistence; and she performed this action during some of the darkest times of climate science when the doom shriekers actively sought to ruin lives and careers. Dr. Curry deserves her position and is entitled to her interpretation of science.
     
    I am a luke warmer. It is my understanding that a luke warmer believes in the physics of CO2. Whether man’s contribution of CO2 really makes much of a temperature difference is for the scientists to prove. A task which they’ve failed to accomplish to date. CO2 physics is still there, but what the climastrologists keep overlooking is the ghg gorilla in the atmosphere, water vapor.

  35. Poor little Mann.

    He had his brief shining moment in the sun in 2001 (a Spaced out Odyssey?!) But in the intervening years, he has failed to learn that (apart from his sidekick, Schmidt and various and sundry dedicated groupies, e.g. the TreeHut gang at SkS) most of the the rest of us live on a planet that does not revolve around Mann and his mindless mantras.

  36. MangoChutney says:

    @ZootCadillac August 22, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Thought I’d look up Mann’s twitter feed to follow the conversation. I’m not allowed. it appears that I am blocked by Mann on twitter.

    You can’t be considered a fully paid up member of the denier club unless you’ve been blocked by Mann’s twitter feed ;)

  37. KNR says:

    As I said before once Mann falls , and his own ego will lead him there , we will surprised to see who lines up to kick him on the way down . Such is the ‘quality’ of the man, the self appointed ‘god ‘ of AGW.

  38. Txomin says:

    When all this falls apart, most of the people responsible will have long fled. Mann is one of the few that will be made to pay. His fear is real.

  39. Toto says:

    There should be a link here to Judith’s comments about the interview.
    Mann must not have time to read Climate Etc. because he is so busy twiting.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/22/jc-on-npr/

  40. Brian H says:

    The reason debating skeptics gives credibility to alternative views is that the warmists get their butts kicked in any such debates. Trenberth is wise, if disingenuous, to avoid them.

  41. M Courtney says:

    TomL says at August 22, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    Mann is notorious because he published one paper that got a lot of political press, and was pretty shortly discredited.

    At first glance that seems incredibly harsh.
    But there is an element of truth in that. He has been hawking the same debunked nonsense for a decade.
    How much longer can he keep it up without debaitng his critics?

  42. Brian H says:

    He’ll never “debait” his critics; they have an unending supply of valid taunts to bait him with.

    That’s why he won’t debate them.

  43. Ursus Augustus says:

    Michael Mann’s worst nightmare is slowly enveloping his reality. He is being drawn inexorably into the vortex of reality that emanates from the black hole that resides at the sphincter of his own fraud.

    Bye, byyye Mike ….. we’ll see you on the ooootthheeer siiiide. NOT. (nyuk,nyuk, nyuk)

  44. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    If you haven’t already, you should read Judith Curry’s own comments about the interview, to which Toto above helpfully posted a link.

    Basically, Richard Harris (NPR) conducted approximately 8 hours of direct one-on-one interviews with Judith Curry (on her vacation!) over two days and condensed it into an approximately 7 minute audio segment.

    There’s an old joke about a distinguished scientist who is asked to give an in-depth presentation on his specialty before an influential audience. The scientist offers three options: the all day presentation, the half day presentation and the one hour presentation. When asked what the difference would be the scientist replies: “well, the all day lecture I can give any time. The half day lecture takes a couple of days to prepare. But the one hour lecture takes two weeks to prepare.”

    If you could spend 8 hours with JC discussing the current state of the science in climate research to distil that into a 1,200 word article, wouldn’t you be in a cold sweat? It is a phenomenally difficult thing to do — to condense the thoughts of an already highly knowledgeable and articulate person and present them to a lay audience.

    So back to RIchard Harris’ challenge in reducing 8 hours of conversation into 7 minutes of audio for an NPR audience: he can be forgiven for leaving things out or skimping on essential detail. However, JC recalls:

    So I was rather surprised when I read the article on the NPR web site. It was mostly about politics and policy, which constituted a small fraction of our conversation and the few statements that I made in regard to policy were in response to pointed questions, not points that I was trying to make.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Harris had his interview written before he ever spoke with JC; he just needed some actual words of hers to drop into his narrative. In other words, he reported what he thought and believed, not what the putative subject of his interview tried to express.

    People on this blog often express frustration with how the press reports climate issues, noting they do an exceptionally bad job of it. I believe rather their performance on the climate debate is no worse than on any other subject they cover; they are this bad on everything. At least that has been my experience whenever I read about any topic on which I have significant first-hand knowledge.

  45. Bruce Cobb says:

    ATheoK says:
    August 22, 2013 at 11:04 pm
    It is my understanding that a luke warmer believes in the physics of CO2. Whether man’s contribution of CO2 really makes much of a temperature difference is for the scientists to prove.

    You’ve pretty much defined the basic position of all skeptics or climate realists. We know that C02 is a ghg, and has a warming effect, although that effect is logarithmic. We also know that nature doesn’t behave like a laboratory. There are far too many variables and unknowns. Clouds, for example, are a huge unknown. And yes, scientists need to show that man’s C02 is indeed having an effect on climate. They have not done that, though they claim to.
    My understanding of the lukewarm position is that it’s nothing more than fence-sitting. It’s a cop-out, really from the null hypothesis, which is that natural variation is driving climate. Unless and until it can be shown that man is having a discernible effect on climate, it is all just positioning and hand-waving. Admirable though JC may be, she is simply playing politics.

  46. Jimbo says:

    I read in the above post:

    Dr. Judith Curry
    “We just don’t know.”

    Which reminded me of these great quotes from the celebrated physicist Dr. Richard Feynman

    Dr. Richard Feynman
    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
    ______________
    “Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science.”
    ______________
    I don’t have to know an answer, I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose,
    ______________
    I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.

    http://blog.iandavis.com/2012/07/12/feynman-on-science/

    Yet there is a consensus and we must tow the IPCC line. History will remember the likes of Hansen, Mann, The Royal Society et. al. in a very bad light.

  47. Steve B says:

    Joseph Bastardi says:
    August 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    I tweeted that because I can not believe that Dr Mann is attacking the CHAIR of a prominent university’s dept, because of what: she wrote something that many believe hit the nail on the head? Look, I understand why Dr. Mann would be sensitive to the attacks on his work. Suppose you worked at something for as long as he did, believe its right, and are under attack. Just put yourself in his shoes.
    *******************************************************************************************************************
    I don’t agree with this analysis. The IPCC wanted to get rid of the MWP, they found a patsy in MM and he agreed to it. What Mann didn’t realize was that he was used and abused and instead of backing down he is being an attack dog. He knows his work is 3rd rate, heck he wouldn’t share his data or methods so he know it was shonky and when M&M finally got their hands on it they found it badly wanting.

  48. Stephen Richards says:

    This is from one of mann’s little poodles.

    Dana Nuccitelli ‏@dana1981 10 h
    @MichaelEMann I just depuffed the @NPR Judith Curry glorification http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure

    Retweeté par Ryan Maue

  49. Stacey says:

    If it looks like a twit, acts like a twit and talks like a twit then it must be that obnoxious twitterer Michel Mann, Junk and Junkett scientist. A Walter Mitty character who believes he is in the front line?

  50. JPS says:

    TobiasN, 9:08:

    “I leafed through the book. It was gibberish. I could hardly believe it. They were supposed to be the smart people.”

    I was skeptical of human-induced global warming from the start. Later I essentially threw up my hands and said, OK, I believe it.

    After doing so, I became much more skeptical than I’d been in the first place. Because after buying into the theory somewhat, I felt implicated by the awful science and politicized bullying often used to promote it. By the incredibly unscientific reasoning, like the habit of pointing to any weather-related disaster and yelling, YOU SEE? WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED?!” (see e.g. Russian heat wave, continental US drought, Super Storm Sandy). To point to declining Arctic sea ice and demand, “What else could be causing this?” (I forget who said, in another context, that the correct answer to this question is, Anything in the world that you don’t understand.)

    Back to the topic: Some puff piece: The Obama administration wants to Do Something; Congress (Boo!) is standing in the way, and Republicans have an ally in Judy Curry. I guess Mann’s just pissed off that she gets any even minimally respectful public hearing of her heretical views. She wouldn’t, if it were up to him, and to a couple of climate scientists I happen to know.

  51. Luther Wu says:

    _Jim says:
    August 22, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    lurker, passing through laughing says August 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    The way NPRavda frames the report is toxic to serious journalism.

    Take heart; few are listening but the already devoted …
    ____________________________
    I listened to NPR over the course of a day, about a week ago. I was surprised that so much of their broadcast was clearly propaganda. The experience became surreal. I came away thinking of them as “Government Radio” and an unknown “news reader” as Winston Smith.

    The sad thing is that there are so many within “the government” who now act solely for the expansion of power over the citizenry and who believe themselves immune to the repercussions of lying to us so blatantly.

    No wonder ALL Gore so recently said, “… as the conversation is won on global warming — and it’s not won yet but it’s very nearly won…”. They believe that their control is very nearly complete.

  52. Mr Lynn says:

    Toto says:
    August 22, 2013 at 11:57 pm
    There should be a link here to Judith’s comments about the interview.
    Mann must not have time to read Climate Etc. because he is so busy twiting.
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/22/jc-on-npr/

    It is encouraging to read on Dr. Curry’s blog that she spent many hours discussing the science with Richard Harris over his two-day (!) visit, and it is discouraging to see that he left it all on the cutting-room floor. In the process, as I suggested above, he made Dr. Curry out to be maundering and incoherent. Since she is anything but, I knew even before reading her post on the interview that the fault was entirely Richard Harris’s. He should be ashamed. But I suppose he won’t be, as the results support the agenda, which is nothing if not anti-science.

    Hey Republicans—if you can’t bring yourselves to defund Obamacare, at least defund NPR!

    /Mr Lynn

  53. Mike Lewis says:

    Pathetic is an accurate adjective but it applies to the Mann himself. What a pompous gas bag. I apologize for name calling but that Mann really rankles me. A scientist?? Not that Mann.

  54. climatebeagle says:

    Mann is now a comedian on Twitter: “A robust & critical discussion can be found in the comment thread of my facebook post”

    How can it be a robust & critical discussion when he seems to block any one who disagrees with him? I simply pointed out his Facebook profile still said he was a Nobel prize winner and since then I can no longer post comments on his wall.

  55. John Whitman says:

    PSU Professor Michael E. Mann should be encouraged to send such tweets of his intellectual limitations frequently and widely.

    I think the reason Mann publically acts so small in the realm of professional integrity is he knows himself.

    Does Gavin Schmidt aspire to be a copy cat of Mann’s PR smallness? There is a tendency.

    John

  56. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    TobiasN says:
    August 22, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    “I leafed through the book. It was gibberish. I could hardly believe it. They were supposed to be the smart people. After maybe ten minutes of looking for something straightforward my experience in life kicked in: that someone who writes gibberish likely does not understand the topic as well as he thinks he does.
    …Of course recently I went back to see what book it had been. I saw the front cover again and laughed. It was by Michael Mann! (the book “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming”).”

    You are absolutely correct! Michael Mann’s writing is intentionally dense and obtuse. Trying to decipher / translate his gibberish papers into layman’s terms is on par with translating Gaddafi’s speeches:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_EAHR9j2jHOt8Y6TFRhrcQM

  57. BBould says:

    I thought the interview portion was heavily edited but simply the fact Dr. Curry was interviewed is a step in the right direction. Having an opposite view on NPR is almost unheard of.

  58. Theo Goodwin says:

    Luther Wu says:
    August 23, 2013 at 6:02 am

    I am sad to report that all left leaning professors who regularly listen to radio listen to NPR exclusively. They view NPR as holding the commonsense position. By the way, the vast majority of local NPR stations are located on college campuses.

  59. gene says:

    Mann has had his fifteen minutes of infamy – time to let him fade away while we continue pursuing the truth.

  60. Eugene says:

    I did not care for the editorial comment by NPR’s team at the very end. But it does confirm that NPR thinks Curry is wrong. No real surprise there.

    I continue to applaud Judith Curry for her reasonableness, he willingness to keep a dialogue open with those outside the climate-change-is-caused-by-humans groupthink.

  61. ATheoK says:

    “Bruce Cobb says: August 23, 2013 at 4:57 am

    ATheoK says:
    August 22, 2013 at 11:04 pm
    It is my understanding that a luke warmer believes in the physics of CO2. Whether man’s contribution of CO2 really makes much of a temperature difference is for the scientists to prove.


    My understanding of the lukewarm position is that it’s nothing more than fence-sitting. It’s a cop-out, really from the null hypothesis, which is that natural variation is driving climate. Unless and until it can be shown that man is having a discernible effect on climate, it is all just positioning and hand-waving. Admirable though JC may be, she is simply playing politics.”

     
    I fail to understand a difference between my description of a lukewarmer and yours; except you throw in a null hypothesis and natural variation. Neither of which are in my comment. Plus you’ve added political spin then proceeded to imply my lack of politicking and slam Dr. Curry’s as political because she testified before Congress and suffered a horrible NPR interview that falsely implies she plays politics and doesn’t conduct science.
     
    Which translates to that you’ve changed what I said and then proceeded to use your words to demean mine and others positions.
     
    I’ve also yet to read, or listen to any of Dr. Curry’s writings where she is a political animal. Seven hours of interview chopped into seven minutes so the alarmist MSM can pretend they’ve represented her views. You’re using the NPR’s misrepresentation of Dr. Curry to also demean her work, incorrectly. Manniacal louse above puts more politics into a few tweets than Dr. Curry puts into Congressional testimony.

  62. ATheoK says:

    “Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says: August 23, 2013 at 4:52 am

    If you haven’t already, you should read Judith Curry’s own comments about the interview, to which Toto above helpfully posted a link.

    Basically, Richard Harris (NPR) conducted approximately 8 hours of direct one-on-one interviews with Judith Curry (on her vacation!) over two days and condensed it into an approximately 7 minute audio segment…”

     
    I’m not sure an FOIA request would be honored for us as NPR may claim it’s protected personal information about Dr. Curry; but a FOIA request from Dr, Curry should be, though NPR will probably fight it’s full release tooth and nail.
    By full release I’m referring to all drafts and meeting notes NPR prepared for the planned interview with Dr. Curry, all notes of discussions during the editing process, all communications, (phone, cell, email, verbal agreements) relevant to or regarding the interview and editorial process, and a full copy of the unedited interview.
     
    I for one am curious about how and why Richard Harris conducted eight hours of interview and then chopped it down to publicly release a complete misrepresentation of Dr. Curry. Think he discussed the edit cuts with anybody? The full tape would go far on YouTube to place NPR’s misrepresentation in the public eye.
     
    I’d be willing to donate some of my sparse cash to support her FOIA costs.

  63. DavidG says:

    , Jim Steele you’re dead wrong. If someone is a , he has to take more than a passing try at refuting his own work, or someone else will. That’s the way it goes;Feynman is right.

  64. DavidG says:

    Sorry, left out the word scientist, just as the word is losing all value today.

  65. Pamela Gray says:

    I believe the mainstream expert they said would be on next is that senator who announced that Guam will tip over.

  66. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ATheoK,
    Again, no one disputes the bit about C02 being a ghg, so why even mention it? And, when you stated “Whether man’s contribution of CO2 really makes much of a temperature difference is for the scientists to prove”, you were essentially re-stating the null hypothesis. It’s up to scientists to show what effect if any man has had on climate. They have failed. The null hypothesis stands.
    Saying “we don’t know” is posturing. Basically, you are saying that man “could/maybe/might” be responsible for some of the warming. Of course he could be. And the Yeti and Loch Ness monsters could be real, along with aliens and Atlantis.

  67. Jim Steele says:

    @DavidG “Jim Steele you’re dead wrong. If someone is a , he has to take more than a passing try at refuting his own work”

    I am sure we all would like to believe that scientists practice Feynman’s ideal. If you were right, then there would not be the orchestrated effort to avoid debate.

    My experience in academia suggests once a scientists gains any notoriety they protect their status. I tried to replicate Parmesan’s iconic Climate and Species Range that suggested warming was forcing the checkerspot butterfly northward and upward, but she has refused to provide the data. It is similar a story told many times over as Steve McIntyre and others know as they needed legal FOI leverage to access raw data to replicate climate claims. When Mann’s work was challenged by Soon and Baliunas, Mann’s team went all out to denigrate their work and character by any means necessary.

    I also suggest you read The Truth Wears Off http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

    Most research is not replicated and when it is replicated, the results are not verified. As Stanford University epidemiologist John loannidis determined “for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias .” Trenberth and Mann know that to be true for climate science as well.

  68. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 23, 2013 at 11:52 am

    I believe the mainstream expert they said would be on next is that senator who announced that Guam will tip over.

    Hank Johnson is a Congressman, not a Senator; to be precise he is my Congressman. When people make fun of him I rise to his defence by noting that he is better than the representative he replaced: Cynthia McKinney.

    It’s a rather weak defence I know, but I do feel obligated to point out that things could be worse.

  69. George Daddis says:

    A minor bit of added info re the interview that Harris reduced from 8 hours to 7 minutes of on-air time. Of those 7 minutes, Dr. Curry was allotted fewer than 60 seconds.
    Of course none of that minute included any of her responses on the subject for which he declared he flew out west to get her opinion; the 16 year lull in temps over the last 15 years.

  70. George Daddis says:

    Oops, even the preview option doesn’t help.
    There should be a contest about what my last phrase REALLY means.

  71. Kevin Schurig says:

    How soon before he announces that he is taking all his toys and going home? Every time he responds it is a view into a small mind collapsing upon itself. Hmmm, people we may have the first human created black hole.

  72. Mardler says:

    “…Michael Mann’s writing is intentionally dense…”

    In my experience, ALL writing by warmists is deliberately dense. There was a classic case of a UEA prof who wrote a paragraph in an extract summary that is yet to be deciphered by any English speaker. This same prof, when asked by my MP (about a non climate matter) if he realised that he was not believed and that he should consider telling the truth, said “it depends what you mean by truth”. I kid you not (and I have the evidence).

    Maybe here lies the warmist problem: apart from their junk science they really do have a different understanding of truth.

    As for Harris’s “interview” with Curry I’m not surprised; what does surprise me is her naivety in thinking she would get a fair hearing. She should have insisted on prior audition of the published material.

  73. Jeff Mitchell says:

    Item 1

    “Wayne Delbeke says:
    August 22, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    This is good. Mann just doesn’t know when to stop digging. In the process, he is destroying his own reputation.”

    Never stop an enemy when he is self destructing.

    Item 2

    2a: About the 8 hour interview to the 7 minute report: Always make your own tape.
    2b: Don’t let them waste your time. Get the questions in advance, then make a limit of 1 hour to ask them..

    Item 3

    I would be well if we could get someone with promotional skills to promote a public debate on the subject of climate change in such manner that not showing up will amount to forfeit. It would be fun to put on such a show. If they don’t show up, the show can still go on by having stand ins for all the principals and quote from their own literature. If they won’t defend themselves, we should over run them. If they won’t set up the debates, we should.

  74. Ed_B says:

    NPR is paid to be warmist, so JC should not be surprised to get trashed:

    The Washington Times reports: “Senior Vice President of NPR Ron Schiller met with individuals he believed to be potential donors. However, undercover video was running during this meeting. In the following clip, Mr. Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers those who deny climate change is happening. Ms. Liley talks about a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those who believe climate change is not happening…”

  75. Edward says:

    We all know about Mr. M. Mann or is it Dr. M. Mann. He couldn’t get his dissertation through the first university he was attending so they (the powers that are pushing the carbon tax) made sure that the second university he attended gave him his doctorates. Six months later he was the head or semi-head honcho of technical aspects relating to ‘global warming’. If you care, you can hear more about the IPPC, and Mr M. Mann at TheWanderingMind dot com. Listen to Prof. Tim Ball and many others on the subject of ‘global warming’. When you base your theory on dendrochronology you are basically asking people to accept that an amputation will not hurt.

  76. Edward says:

    Sorry, let this read:”TheMindRenewed” dot com. The WonderingMind is for Michael Mann.

Comments are closed.