This post was published while I am on an airplane headed back to California (isn’t technology wonderful?). I am very indebted to all of my good friends in the UK, and especially Nic Lewis, who arranged an extraordinary meeting while I was there. That one event will bear more fruit than any other part of the trip. The other meetings, such as the Mann and Cook meetings, were far less extraordinary, and mostly “heard it all before”. The Mann meeting was little more than an hour long dissertation on some out of date science plus a LOT of politics, complete with an “enemies list” of head-shot visuals, followed by what looked to be a prearranged Q&A sequence of 5 questions from the audience (with audience microphone privileges orchestrated from the stage by Stephan Lewandowsky who looked like a traffic cop pointing out who got to ask questions), followed by a book signing with a University police guard (I kid you not).
Readers in attendance are welcome to post their recollection and experiences here.
I’ve somehow lost my USB data cable for my phone, so I can’t get the photos off until I return home. It appears the Cabot Institute filmed the entire event, and when/if that video is available, I will advise. Again, my sincere thanks to the Cabot Institute for their assistance with my hearing impairment.
One thing that really stuck in my craw was that at the end of his lecture, Dr. Mann put up a photo of his daughter with a polar bear behind glass at a zoo, citing the usual “we must do this for the future and our children” meme and then commented that “this [photo] will probably be up on blogs within hours”.
No, Dr. Mann it won’t, at least not here, nor would it ever have been. While you may not have scruples about using that photo as a prop for public discourse in the first place, I most certainly do.
Josh was there and did a live-tooning of the event, and I expect he’ll have his new cartoon ready after colorization on Thursday. And, my sincere thanks to him for the lift from Bristol to Heathrow as well as for the “bangers and mash”, which was splendid. Richard Drake deserves my thanks for his tour assistance on my one day off, Monday, where I was able to stand on the prime meridian at Greenwich, something I wanted to do since primary school. Also thanks to Caroline K, for opening her home to a small horde of skeptics for a pre-Mann event meeting.
And last but not least, I thank the readers of WUWT, for enabling me to get there in the first place.
——————————————————————–
WUWT reader *Loudzoo* wrote in with these impressions, which I concur with.
Initial impressions of Mann’s lecture in Bristol on Tuesday 23rd September 2014
Having attended Professor Michael Mann’s lecture at Bristol University on Tuesday I thought I’d summarize some immediate views on the event.
On the slides presented:
I was astonished that Mann continues to use such old, inappropriate data. On his chart of climate model performance vs recorded temperature his data only went up to 2005 and he used land based thermometer readings – not the satellite record. Very weak given how widely available up-to-date data are. I suspect he did not want to highlight the current hiatus in positive annual mean temperature anomalies and divergence from climate models
He glossed merrily over the “established science” of the greenhouse effect. No comment on positive and negative feedbacks, transitory sensitivity, the role of evapotranspiration, water vapour, clouds, ozone etc. I guess that’s because nobody has good parameters for these variables . . . and they fatally undermine the paradigm of the “established science” being simple and uncontroversial.
He presented no proxy data before 1000 CE. Presumably the Roman Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Climatic Optimum would have undermined his argument.
He referenced all the normal claptrap on extreme weather, drought, heatwaves, flooding unprecedented sea level rise, arctic ice melt (no mention of the Antarctic – other than the west Antarctic ice shelf) but presented no data on this. He also inferred that climate change is loading the dice in favour of extreme weather but made no mention of land use, water management, agriculture etc. As a Geography graduate of Oxford University where I specialised in Climatology and Quaternary Environments I find this bizarre. On the basis of this presentation Prof Mann would not pass Geography degree finals examinations!
There was very little discussion on the hockey stick graph itself (what the proxies were, how there were selected, what statistical methods were used, how the proxies were calibrated etc.) The divergence problem in tree ring analysis was mentioned but was glossed over and used as an excuse for the “hide the decline” comment in the Climategate emails.
There was a huge emphasis on his battles with Republican politicians. This is all very well but not a contribution to the science of climate change. Quite frankly, as a Brit I didn’t pay much attention to this part of his presentation.
Where I did wake-up again was where he revealed his victim-complex when numerously subpoenaed for his email, and research notes. Having had a career in finance for the last 17 years I find it very strange that he thought this was unfair. The organisations (mostly governmental) funding research with huge socio-political implications should have access to emails and research notes. The regulators of the finance industry have access to the equivalent in the banking industry by law!
There were at least two slides involving pictures of polar bears floating on small icebergs. Whilst he did say that such appeals hadn’t helped the public realise how close to home the impacts of climate change might be – he still used them!
The Q&A session:
This was a joke! Unless I got confused Prof Stephan Lewandowsky was in charge of selecting which people could ask questions!! Surprisingly enough he managed to pick people who were entirely sympathetic: One regarding the inconsistency of the actions of Republican Christian Right vs their religious views as caretakers of God’s creation; one on how to deal with / debate climate sceptics and the final one was from a chap who works for Avaaz (who organised the ”peoples’” climate marches last weekend). As someone who has had to plant and harvest questions at presentations throughout my career – I can fairly say this was an amateur job. It was so obvious!
All of this was a shame if for no other reason that Rich Pancost (the Director of the Cabot Institute) who’d enthusiastically made the presentation introduction did seem genuinely keen for a discussion. Sadly that was never really on the agenda.
Some Concluding thoughts:
There was nothing new or controversial here – but alluding to Anthony’s report on the Cook Lecture it was very interesting to be in the room and see the Mann in the flesh. It has reinforced something I’ve had an emerging view on for some time. Whilst there may well be small pockets of collusion and conspiracy in the field of climatology this is not the reason why the “science” has been so abused. Furthermore, I’m sure the competition for research grants is fierce and that can play into the reinforcement of an incorrect scientific paradigm. But what I took away from this lecture more than anything else is that Mann genuinely believes he is right and that his work will save the world. It seems that this is far more powerful motive for him (and I suspect many of the front line academics, politicians and activists) to ignore the evidence against, the problems and the holes in his hypothesis / theory.
They genuinely believe the Earth needs saving and that they are the ones to do it irrespective of the cost. In human history this combination of beliefs has often been exceptionally dangerous to the public in general but in particular to the poorest and neediest.
As others may have said before the story of CAGW will one day be told in the same breath as the fables of The Emperor’s New Clothes, and of King Canute (even if the latter is commonly completely misrepresented!)
UPDATE: Bishop Hill has some thoughts http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/9/24/mann-at-the-cabot.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The earth needs saving from those who wish to save the earth.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H. L. Mencken
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Louis Brandeis, in Olmstead v. United States (1928).
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”
Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788
“It’s always the good men who do the most harm in the world.”
Henry Adams
“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil. ”
Robert A. Heinlein
H.L. Mencken is a distant past relative of mine. While I always find it pleasant to see him quoted, I’ve read his examination of the Pyramids and it is sorely lacking in scientific rigor.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis
Dead on
‘Save the Earth Syndrome’ is becoming increasingly dangerous to the health of our planet.
If you have any doubt, just look at the people who have got it.
If they truly believe they are saving the planet, they are dumber and more filled with hubris than I thought. Hard to believe they could be so unaware of climate history. So hard in fact that I am still persuaded that they are aware of the hoax and their profit in pushing it against all empirical evidence.
They aren’t really taught history, climate or otherwise. TWC used to include the record highs and lows for the day in the Weather on the 8’s. Not anymore.
spot on!
Johan, you don’t know how true that is.
Just leave them. Their actions and Words are their political cause worst enemies?
We need saving. The earth will be fine.
That statement is more interesting than I think you comprehend.
It certainly has for 4.6Billion years.
“Mann genuinely believes he is right and that his work will save the world…”
Brings to mind the saying “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.
This conviction that he has to save the world is the guiding light for Mann and his kind. Other scientists put their fevor into the verity of their work and so try to establish themselves in the eyes of the scientific community. Saving the world is not their guiding light.
My feeling is a little different. Communist will say or do anything, and outright believe anything to gain control. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be ‘headshots’ of people that disagree with them or the nature of the rancor of this debate. If you can call it that. Since the science is settled.
Only communists? All communists?
A despot by any other name would still be as odious… a new economic order? What is that? That’s what they are advocating. We aren’t talking about dictators, kings, emperors , which is some cases be not bad. The guise of communists is to kill people, lots of people. Equality under communists is an illusion. Don’t wander away from the caravan in the desert.
Paraphrasing Mencken — the desire to save the world is most often a disguise for the desire to rule.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
~Leo Tolstoy
A perfect description of people like Mann. To admit he was wrong and caused pain and suffering for millions of people (and even death) would destroy him psychologically.
” On the basis of this presentation Prof Mann would not pass Geography degree finals examinations!”
On the basis of his published papers, “Nobel Laureate” Mann would not pass physics degree final examinations!
Not my class for certain.
“They genuinely believe the Earth needs saving and that they are the ones to do it irrespective of the cost”.
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”…… Pres Obama
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”…… Pres Obama
Too bad there was nobody there.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions…”
And bad analysis. That’s the way I always heard it in engineering…
It’s paved with lots of things.
– – – – – – – – – –
I think what ‘loudzoo’ wrote is correct for Mann and also correct for even all the IPCC Bureau’s intellectual leadership; they believe that they are saving the earth from fossil fuels. I do not think, as the majority of skeptics appear to think, that their cause is at all based on political agendas but based on their self-styled savior mythology. They actually believe the mythology that they have created. Politics is merely considered by them as just one of the forceful means for their possible success at being the saviors. The scientists among them make their science conform to the savior mythology.
It is a mistake, in my view, to fundamentally base an intellectual strategy against them on their use of politics merely as a means to their savior fulfillment. That would be only a secondary or tertiary level intellectual strategy to use in intellectual arguing with them. The primary intellectual strategy should focus on exposing their mythology as mere mythology instead of being applied reasoning about the real world.
John
They actually believe the mythology that they have created. …
Be careful ! Aren’t you describing some personality disorder here?
Hey, perhaps people with certain predispositions gravitate towards certain professions.
Paul: “perhaps people with certain predispositions gravitate towards certain professions”
Nature/nurture. Be very careful with the genetic expansion of your idea it can lead to ostracism and unemployment.
– – – – – – – –
Johan,
Sorry that I can’t go with you on your intellectual journey into dialog on whether belief in mythology should be viewed as a mental disorder. Following is the reason I can’t journey with you down that intellectual road.
The comparative religious and comparative mythology studies like the works of Frazer (one of which is his ‘The Golden Bough’) and the works of Campbell (one of which is his ‘The Hero with a Thousand Faces’) show there is an intrinsic human story that appears to need telling for humans as humans; story telling that is needed even today.
They make a comprehensive study that places religion/myth as a special human story telling (especially Campbell) which teaches us about some basic need of humans for a very basic story about ourselves. But it is myth (story telling) and not applied reasoning about reality. Mann and the IPCC Bureau’s intellectual leaders are telling some self-created (and self-serving) myths, they provide in support adjusted applied reasoning about the real world to suit their myth. Are Mann’s and IPCC Bureau leadership’s myths like the ones in the above mentioned comparative studies? No, Mann’s myths are below even third rate comic book stuff and also likely so are the myths of the IPCC Bureau’s intellectual leadership. They need someone like George Lucas to write their myth for them.
John
I was once at a lecture given by Dr. Campbell. He was a brilliant, brilliant man.
I think you’re much too generous. I can agree with you that these guys’ belief in their self-created BS myth is not mental disorder in the technical sense. I further agree that humans apparently have an intrinsic need to explain the universe in the form of hero narratives. Keep in mind, however, that these guys are not bronze age nomads creating fairy tales because they’re 100% ignorant of how the world around them actually works.
The pseudo-scientific basis of their myth has already been falsified. Still they keep pushing it. They politicized it, and we have to deal with it on that level, like it or not.
– – – – – – – –
stan stendera,
I envy you. I never met him or saw him lecture live. His books and his videos were all very very interesting to me.
John
E.O Wilson Quotes
Science and religion are the two most powerful forces in the world. Having them at odds… is not productive.
People need a sacred narrative. They must have a sense of larger purpose, in one form or another, however intellectualized. They will find a way to keep ancestral spirits alive
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/10/climate-change-hysteria-and-the-madness-of-crowds/#comment-1683050
To better understand UNESCO, consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:
“The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent… It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture.”
From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and our western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans?
But there’s more. Mr. Huxley goes on to state that perhaps eugenics, the so-called science of creating better people through genetic manipulation, is not so bad after all:
“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years…politically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst093002.html
Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975)
He saw Humanism as a replacement ‘religion’, and as such represented an important strand in post-war humanist thought. In a speech given to a conference in 1965 he spoke of the need for “a religiously and socially effective system of humanism.” And in his book Religion Without Revelation, he wrote:
“What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organized and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion.” The book ends with the concept of “transhumanism”– “man remaining man, but transcending himself by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature”.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/31/open-thread-weekend-30/#comment-373005
– – – – – – – –
Michael Wassil,
As you appear to concur somewhat that there seems to some mythological elemental basis for their ideas and behaviors, then a strategy to use that weakness would be in order.
Calling, as I do, their climate focused position a mythology and a third rate comic book version of inane mythology isn’t generous . N’est ce pas.
Re Politics: Politics is still useful for them to achieve their mythos of themselves as saviors, I just think it is it is just a sometime expedient means for them to use in enforcing their mythology on others who reject it. That is why I think critics of Mann and his associates shouldn’t focus on politics as a primary strategy to use intellectually to counter them, but a secondary or lower strategy.
Finally, to this day in Western Europe, USA, Canada, in NZ/Australia, there mythologies held by large and significant populations that are even more naïve than Bronze Age myth. It just isn’t applied reasoning (science), it is a story telling that seems to satisfy the human condition in some way.
John
I really have a problem with your response:
Myth telling is not equivalent to science. At the least, science requires falsifiable predictions; religion is pure philosophy.
PhD scientists who don’t understand and honor this difference open themselves up to charges of creating an academic/scientific fraud. Conflating Mann’s behavior with religion is simply disingenuous.
I don’t know where the line is drawn for insanity is, but absolute denial appears to be down that path.
Mann can believe in whatever philosophy he wants, but he needs to do science by the scientific methodology…and the rest of us need to hold him accountable.
brent on September 24, 2014 at 5:53 pm
– – – – – – – –
brent,
That is an Interesting point on humanism and religion / myth. And I think that the 2500 yr plus intense and widespread dialog throughout the whole of Western civilization that was attempting to use applied reasoning to understand the nature of the human condition wasn’t an attempt at myth/ story-telling. Do you agree?
John
John Whitman September 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm
When I said you’re too generous, it was not about the myth. I suspect we both appreciate the power of myth and maybe sometime can discuss Campbell and Jung. People are only dissuaded of their myths when facts diverge so far they can no longer be denied or explained away. I think the CAGW myth has reached that point for many, due in part to start of the 18th year of the so-called ‘pause’. I think also in part due to the persistence of critical thinkers who refused to be cowed into silence by the shamans of CAGW.
I really don’t care whether or not these guys have a messianic complex to save the world from capitalism and impose a socialist/communist utopia. That was bound to fail even as it failed so totally in the 20th century. Their actions have discredited an entire branch of science and tarred most of the rest. I don’t think the full costs in treasure and energy pissed away chasing fairy dust will be calculated for decades to come, nor the true cost in human misery. Fortunately, the planet refused to cooperate long enough and whatever the real agenda was, it is failing and will fail totally. I hope soon.
The guys who started this knew from day one the data did not and could not support their claims. If they ever took a geology course they saw the graph of temperatures and CO2 over geologic time upon which every introductory course in geology expends at least one lecture. The evidence is getting conclusive they purposely set out to deceive and provide a ‘plausible science cover’ for a political agenda.
For that, they should not be cut any slack.
John
I think you’re only partly right here. They might believe they’re saving the earth, but the corruption of science is absolutely derived from what they perceive is necessary to carry out the political necessities of getting people to live the lifestyles that they wish to dictate. It started perhaps in the 60’s but the atmospheric threat was created in the early 70’s and it was absolutely to drive political agendas, mostly about population control.
That they have ended up being diagnosed with Noble Cause corruption is a very mild rebuke for an awfully corrupt agenda. The IPCC and others are the willingly paid “scientists” who simply showed up because they like the original cause, which is actually rooted in morality and self-indulgence/greed. We’re all taught these are not nice attributes, but free-market capitalism delivers lots of opportunity to wallow in it. The AGW killing the planet meme is a bit of self-flagellation in penance of that. You must control your urges and capitalism needs to be dismantled to save us all.
You might like to read this 1975 article on the Margaret Mead organized conference to start this atmospheric alarmist ball rolling. The usual suspects were all high profile attendees – John Holdren, Stephen Schneider, Paul Ehrlich, George Woodwell, James Lovelock etc. And all went on to very influential political positions.
These people were not interested in actual factual results; they were/are interested in the political outcome they wished to pursue. So you will not get anywhere with them in factual, scientific discussion – as they have a “cause” to pursue and you’re just kicking tires. The odd one will see the truth, but most already aren’t really interested. AGW is just a convenient horse to ride to political influence and power because they have a belief fervor.
You’ll only derail the momentum of this political outcome by electing a government that doesn’t see its future as hanging from this theory. And perhaps, some more years of cold weather, but they’ve already managed to twist cold weather from a warming earth, so lets just say they have more twists than a bag of snakes, and are equally hard to wrestle.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Snakes is a good description, or it would be if snakes were not so useful and necessary.
mikegeo on September 24, 2014 at 11:16 am
@ur momisugly John Whitman
– – – – – – – –
mikegeo,
I think the self-created and self-serving mythology of Mann and the IPCC Bureaus intellectual leaders is malevolent in its very core. Is it trying to displace benign / benevolent mythologies? Maybe or maybe not, but I think it is accomplishing that to some limited extent.
John
Then why the desire to demonize and silence any and all debate? They are communist and view the world as theirs to save but not from climatic disaster but from free will. They believe man is evil and needs to be controlled, the science is the excuse and the rational, the belief is in their own megalomaniac superiority of understanding and knowledge about nature and man and their own destiny to save man from himself and nature from man. They want us all to be prehistoric caveman that they nurture and sit and watch over like benevolent gods, no matter how many millions have to suffer and die to reach their goals.
– – – – – – –
Bod Boder,
An explanation could be that they want to enforce their myth on those who do not accept it. They do not have a benevolent myth, it prima fascia appears malevolent and distasteful. Perhaps they know it won’t stick in our culture without using a stick.
John
– – – – – – – –
Chip Javert,
I agree with the main thrust of your comment. I say I agree because I have been suggesting in my above comments that It appears that Mann holds a myth (story) and it has commanded his so called ‘science’.
John
John;
It is not mythology it is religion, it is center on the general goodness of everything non-man and the inherent evil that is man unchecked. Free will is their devil and returning man to his primitive state is their salvation and they see them selves as Messiahs humble and persecuted but undeterred because only they can see the truth and only they can tell the story.
Bob Boder on September 25, 2014 at 9:18 am
– – – – – – – – –
The two are inherently bound to each other as Frazer and Campbell document. Myth forms into religion. Religion relies on myth.
John
Mythology is a set of stories or histories that give people a common reference, Religion is when man places himself in the middle of the Mythology.
“Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism.” —CG Jung
True, the scientists do not seem to be political but they are beholden to the politicians to get their work realized. They must work together and politicians of a certain type are clearly drawn to this issue.
Did he mention me?
That made my day. thx
If it is any consolation to you elmer, my kids know your song by heart, and I loved their surprised expression when they heard the original “Draggin’ the Line” single for the first time. They also love “Frozen Wasteland.”
It is always wonderful to give our children better music than we had to suffer through. (:
Thanks for the kind words, thinking about doing another one.
Frozen Wasteland isn’t M4GW’s best effort, but I fear it will play much better next January.
Split an extra cord this fall!
Love your work, Elmer, and encourage you to do more of your creative music 😉
I hope Mann can appreciate the fact that he was able to speak his mind freely without concern for his safety or fear of negative repercussions from a hostile press. For this is something that he would deny to people who do not agree with his (warped) world view…
Obviously Mann and Lewandowsky and Cook have left the realm of science for the realm of
activism because they all have inflated egos and, being mentally impaired, know they are not
capable of making their mark in science.
Dr. Mann’s biggest challenge will be getting his message of selfless service heard by the members of the Nobel committee.
“I was astonished that Mann continues to use such old, inappropriate data. On his chart of climate model performance vs recorded temperature his data only went up to 2005 and he used land based thermometer readings – not the satellite record. Very weak given how widely available up-to-date data are. I suspect he did not want to highlight the current hiatus in positive annual mean temperature anomalies and divergence from climate models”
“Astonished” is a good word to use here.
It is exceptionally telling that he can’t use current data to substantiate his claims and he feels he must use older, misleading information.
We’ve said it here many times before but the CAGW modus operandi is, when the data does not match the pre-conceived belief, the CAGW folks merely ignore the data.
Hell no, he was simply presenting the work that earned him the Nobel price.
I am not “astonished” at all. Have you not been reading WUWT, JoNova, CA, etc? “Nauseous” maybe, ….
I experienced the same at an AIChE section meeting with Trenbre(a) th up at CU-Boulder, who used such old data and didn’t seem to be aware of the so-called “divergence issue.” Very underwhelming.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
–- Upton Sinclair
“Cabot Institute @cabotinstitute
Our pledges @bgreencapital @Bristol2015UK: Carbon neutral campus by 2030; reduce transport footprint; education for sustainable development.”
“The Cabot Institute brings together world-class expertise, developing truly multidisciplinary research programmes to tackle the challenges of uncertain environmental change.”
“Jonathan Bamber appears on the Emmy Award winning Brian Lehrer Show to talk about sea level rise and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
“University of Bristol commits to delivery and legacy of European Green Capital 2015. Image credit Klafubra.”
“Understand the fundamentals of climate change science and its links to policy and policymakers with our masters programme.”
What is being offered here is not education by any stretch of the imagination.
“Understand the fundamentals of climate change science and its links to policy and policymakers with our masters programme.”
Yes, it is their Master’s programme, they just don’t say who their masters are.
Who was the majority of the audience?
Academics, politicians, environmentalists?
Mencken says it all about people believing they need to save the world:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
Sums this whole charade up nicely.. And by the way, here is why Mann ETAL wont look past 2005:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
which means he is either ignorant of this data or he knows it and choses not to show it which is deceptive given the downward turn in temps and the effect it has on stopping a trend in 2005.. 7 years, rather than 17 plus
can’t access the link
Yep – get a “forbidden” message trying to access that link
What I really find hard to understand is how this site (and other lukewarmer sites) pay ANY attention to this Mann. A complete F###. Not a real scientist by any measure.
People pay attention to him because he remains very influential and his hockey stick remains an icon.
Until we manage to definitively demolish it he will remain so
Tonyb
Anyone influenced by this second class mind is truly pathetic, and worthy of pity.
Here’s why we pay attention to him and his ilk:
(1) He may not be a real scientist (we agree on that), but politicians use his material to justify annual spending of hundreds of billions of tax dollars (if published reports are accurate). Doesn’t take too long to be talking trillions…
(2) These guys want to tax much more so they can spend more.
(3) Due to lack of energy, hundreds of millions of people either die of starvation or are horribly malnourished.
(4) These guys don’t want to save you – they want to control you.
It’s not a complete list, but it’s a good reason to pay attention and defeat this crowd.
Perhaps what was deserved, even needed, what the audience laughing long and hard every time Manniacal strayed from current clean science.
At exactly 21:00 minutes into this very interesting video the narrator drops a bomb shell of self-evident truth.
The earth knows nothing and for sure man kind is not a thing of importance to the earth.
Then this Mann creature is only 1/400 billionth of less than zeor to the earth and his lies the number is infininty and beyond.
First we must know ourselves.
No people do so much harm as those who go about doing good. -Mandell Creighton
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. – H.L. Mencken
Given the whackos out there (I am talking pedophiles, not alarmists), who in their right mind uses their child as a stage prop?
Every politician who ever ran for election…oops, you qualified your statement with “…in their right mind…”.
Ok, no one in their right mind.