There’s been a fair amount of niggling in social media over my presence at the Mann talk at Bristol. I find it humorous that there seems to be almost as much interest in my presence there as the Mann talk itself. It all started with this tweet from Leo Hickman at the event:
You can see just how far separated the audience was from Dr. Mann, as I was seated in the front row in a seat reserved for me. You can also see the band of the hearing assistance headset I was wearing, graciously and at extra expense, provided by the Cabot Institute when I informed them of my disability. Kudos and my sincere thanks to them. Also, thanks to director Rich Pancost for his openness with me.
In a Tweet from Dr. Mann, taken from the balcony seating you can see just how isolated Dr. Mann was from the audience. The stage extended so far forward that you can’t even see the first row of people on the ground floor. You can also see the video production crewman and camera. Rich Pancost promises me the video of both the Cook and Mann talks will be made available.
Obviously from his tweet and photo of me from behind, Leo Hickman expected some “fireworks”. Perhaps though, he missed my tweet earlier on the day of the Mann talk:
For all attending the Michael Mann lecture tonight, remember that we are guests, there to listen and observe. Be respectful of the venue.
— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) September 23, 2014
The reason I sent that was that in my opinion, for climate skeptics, almost any public interaction with Dr. Mann would be a “no-win” situation. Given the track record of hostility that has been on display from Dr. Mann (and blowback from skeptics too), I felt that if tough questions were asked, we’d be vilified for “badgering” Dr. Mann or being “out of order” in a polite venue. Since Dr. Mann framed the venue as “Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” I thought that taking the advice of WOPR in the movie “War Games” was likely the only winning move:
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
One commenter, the pundit known as “Climate Nuremberg” had a response to my suggestion that would later prove to be prescient:
@wattsupwiththat I bet when hordes of deniers turn up and listen courteously, you'll be accused of sending us there for that exact purpose!
— Climate Nuremberg (@BradPKeyes) September 23, 2014
Indeed, and that’s what happened. Leo Hickman got a question in the thread he started from behind me from the known unknown known as “and then there’s physics”, who used to run a blog that had nothing but “Watt about…” in the titles. He changed to the new theme/name when he realized how stupid he looked.
Dr. Richard Betts (who I met for the first time at the extraordinary meeting prior to the Mann talk) also wondered why skeptics had been so quiet. I tried to locate that Tweet today, but it seems to have shuffled off the digital coil, perhaps one of the readers has saved it or can locate it. It said essentially:
Richard Betts provided it in comments, added for accuracy rather than my one from memory:
@cartoonsbyjosh @barryjwoods @leohickman @lucialiljegren @nmrqip But why no sceptic hands up? It's the quietest I've ever seen you guys 😉
— Richard Betts (@richardabetts) September 24, 2014
Dr. Mann himself responded to a question posed by GISS employee Chris Colose on Dr. Mann’s Facebook page, asking if there had been any “disruption” of his talk:
Note my response at the bottom, we’ll get back to that in a moment. First I want to address Dr. Mann’s “tinfoil hat” assertion.
My opinion is that the environment at the Mann talk contributed greatly to the lack of interaction from the other climate skeptics present. Though Barry Woods notes that he and “Katabasis” both had their hands up during the Q&A period. Even so, from my perspective, asking a question at the Mann talk was an exercise in futility, due to the choice of Q&A moderator, Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky. He is seen in these two photos below standing on the stage, watching for questions, and directing the microphone bearers:
Here, Dr. Lewandowsky directs a microphone bearer to a person in the balcony:
Here is one of the microphone bearers from the Cabot Institute going to one of the Lewandowsky selected persons:
Note the empty seats, despite Dr. Mann’s assertion of a “full capacity crowd”, it clearly was not. There were empty seats directly behind me also. As one might expect in a packed lecture, there were no people standing along the walls or near the doors, other than the security guards.
The Q&A session was short, about 5 questions, all softballs, and much shorter than the Cook lecture, where the majority of questions were in fact from climate skeptics. After the short Q&A, Dr. Mann was immediately whisked away to his book signing table, complete with a policeman standing guard. The line was rather short as I walked by and snapped this photo:
The Mann talk seemed much more tense to me with the addition of police.
While I had stated clearly in a tweet earlier that I was there to “listen and observe” imagine if I had tried to ask a question.
These thoughts went through my mind.
1. Lewandowsky knows me and knows where I’m sitting, would he even call on me if I raised my hand? Doubtful. At the Cook talk, I did not see Dr. Lewandowsky directing microphone bearers, and the majority of questions were in fact from climate skeptics. The Mann talk had an entirely different vibe, and seemed much more tense than the Cook talk as I describe here. Director of the Cabot Institute, Richard Pancost said in a tweet today that Lewandowsky was directing microphone bearers at the Cook talk too, but I sure didn’t see it.
2. If Lewandowsky did call on me, would he do so only for the purpose of spite, and do something like announce “here’s a question from Arch-denier Anthony Watts, whose ‘conspiracy ideation’ I’ve written about in my paper Recursive Fury.” I could only wonder, especially since I lodged a complaint that aided in getting that horrid, spiteful, and ethically irresponsible paper retracted.
3. Would Dr. Mann preface his response to my question with something similar, such as saying I’m funded by the ‘Koch machine’ to be there and harass him with questions, much like he did when I sent him a free Christmas Calendar on my own dime? This sort of worry is evidenced by Dr. Mann’s response to the discussion today on Twitter:
4. If Dr. Mann responded to my question with a question of his own (a typical tactic when inconvenient questions are asked) would I even be able to hear him correctly and respond? If I misheard him, would I accidentally make a fool of myself due to my hearing issue? The crowd would not know of my difficulty, and I’d be laughed at. Despite the hearing assistance device being graciously provided by the Cabot Institute, it had issues and would only work correctly if held away from my body due to the loop circuit having a fairly weak signal. I had email discussions with Cabot about this after the Cook talk, but there wasn’t much they could do. They tried though, and I give them props for doing so.
So, in effect, asking a question was very likely a no-win situation for me. I knew this going in, but with a Q&A moderator documented to be hostile toward skeptics (Lewandowsky) directing the Q&A session, it was even more of a losing proposition. I don’t think the director of the Cabot Institute, Richard Pancost realized how intimidating it was to have a person who had named and shamed climate skeptics in peer reviewed paper, only to have it retracted by complaints from climate skeptics, and then to have the journal defend the rights of climate skeptics as unwilling “human test subjects”.
I can imagine the reticence of many other climate skeptics present, seeing Lewandowsky up there on stage pointing, wondering if asking a question was worth the risk. As I said, the advice from WOPR “The only winning move is not to play.” seemed best.
But, as indicated by the responses of Dr. Mann and company, they weren’t happy with that either. We are damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Now back to the other issue raised earlier. On Dr. Mann’s Facebook page, he lamented that I didn’t ask a question, so I asked permission to ask one of him then. However, it seems that Dr. Mann has BLOCKED my question from appearing to him and others, as I soon found out, nobody else could see it:
@wattsupwiththat Can't find it! Must be doing something wrong…
— John Dunton-Downer (@doubledee3) September 26, 2014
and…
@wattsupwiththat @tan123 @MarkSteynOnline All I can see on that link… pic.twitter.com/zp6oFs99mC
— Уинстън смифф (@AndyMeanie) September 27, 2014
My Facebook question was also made known in a Twitter post, and it has been over 24 hours and no response from Dr. Mann. I know that some climate skeptics wanted to ask why Dr. Mann chose to cherry pick surface temperature data only to 2005, with the suggestion that it might be so he could “hide the pause”. It is a valid question, especially since Dr. Mann had been called out on the tactic two years ago by Steve McIntyre when he saw the same slides at the 2012 AGU Fall Meeting. We also have a discussion about it at WUWT here.
Imagine if a climate skeptic did the same thing at a Cabot Institute lecture, they’d be vilified.
But clearly by his actions, Dr. Mann has shown that such questions are off the table. Dr. Mann doesn’t want honest questions, he only wants to play at denigration, as evidenced by his use of labels like “deniers”, “tin foil hats”, and “Koch machine”.
My mind was made up going in that I wasn’t going to engage. The humorous fixation on social media over my not asking a question at the lecture seems to be little more than a brouhaha of their own making. Wikipedia says:
Typically, a brouhaha is marked by controversy and fuss that can seem, afterwards, to have been pointless or irrational.
Indeed.
But it seems, the tide is turning against Dr. Mann, and the support for these sorts of unprofessional actions is waning, as Andrew Montford summed up:
As we waited in our seats for Michael Mann’s lecture at the Cabot Institute to begin, I was struck by the sight of the great man alone at the side of the stage. He stood there for several minutes, ignored by everyone, as the last of the audience appeared and the Cabot Institute people, Lewandowsky among them, scurried about making final arrangements. I couldn’t help but be reminded of Mark Steyn’s comments about climatologists’ stark failure to make any amici submissions to the DC court on Mann’s behalf. The other day I also heard a story about a room full of paleo people rolling their eyes and groaning at the mere mention of his name. Somehow the Cabot Institute’s abandonment of the honoured speaker at the side of the stage seemed to epitomise this growing isolation. Even the scientivists seemed to be abandoning him.
Probably the most valuable thing we can do, is simply to ignore Dr. Mann and his rants about climate skeptics being tinfoil hat wearers, Koch shills, or deniers. We are none of those.
But most important, and on full display now, is the fact that if Dr. Mann can’t even be bothered to update his slides with current global temperature data. In that failing, he has already become irrelevant to the climate debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why even attend at all? Seems like a total waste of time.
I agree, it was mostly a complete waste of time to listen to the Mann lecture. In fact, the day of the lecture I actually had discussions about not attending. However, meeting other skeptics was very important, and this meeting made everything worthwhile: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/23/an-extraordinary-meeting-of-climate-skeptics-and-climate-scientists-in-bath/
While Dr. Mann was ranting on about deniers and tinfoil hats, climate scientists and climate skeptics were having a polite and meaningful discussion, and that was far more important than anything Mann or Cook was doing.
I totally agree with the decision re: why go at all. Sea changes that correct past errors in proxy and observational records requires willingness to park barriers held by “camps” at the door and seriously work together to dissect data archives. This step cannot happen from the podium of a lecture venue expounding the correctness of one’s favored view.
Surely though any question asked especially by you would have revealed something; whether you was ignored or treated rudely or even answered in a courteous manner would have told us something? Imagine if you had asked a question and Lewandowsky totally ignored you? Then that would have spoken volumes but now we will never know.
This “buffer zone” is hilarious, like a regular Mann-ty Python episode. You should tell Mann you didn’t ask any questions because you forgot to bring your smoke signal kit and your semaphores.
I get a feeling sometimes that Mann’s existence would diminish to nothing but not for our attentions…
Anthony, you should have raised your hand and asked if you could take a bathroom break.
First, it would have tested whether Lewandowsky would have even called on you, and
Second, it would have brought the house down.
At least the skeptics would see the humor in it. (“Teacher, teacher–I need to use the bathroom”.)
(I apologize for my irreverence, but not very much.)
dr mann and his comrades use classic alinsky tactics: they refuse real debate and hurl mud.
There is no sense attending Mann’s lectures because they are propaganda not science. Why would they want deniers to be in the audience? Props. If you speak, they will ridicule you. If you keep quiet, they will claim victory. See no objections. The deniers are afraid to speak because they will lose the debate. IMO speak or don’t be part of the show. If you want to meet climate scientists and skeptics, attend the Heartland Institute and AMS conferences.
“Brute
September 28, 2014 at 2:37 pm
I get a feeling sometimes that Mann’s existence would diminish to nothing but not for our attentions…”
I went to a scientific retreat last month, where a very esteemed scientist was the keynote speaker. One of the things he said was to cherish your critics, because they are the ones that follow your research most closely. I think Mann would have already faded into obscurity after so much of his work has been refuted and debunked, if not for the passionate personal contempt he has for his critics, and their contempt in return.
I see it quite simply: Anthony was there as a reporter, to let us know what was said at this presentation. He wasn’t there to be part of the show, or to cause a ruckus. He was there to observe and report on anything new that was presented. He would only need to ask a question if he did not understand what was being presented. Since M. Mann presented no new information or data, Anthony had no need to ask any questions.
Similar to the ‘Guilty Remnant’ in the Leftovers novel and TV series, willing skeptics could bear silent witness at future alarmist events.
Perhaps that may unmann them a little.
It was important to attend and not do anything. Made more of an impression than not attending (nothing to talk about) and made more of an impression than making a scene (negative to our side). As it is, the attending and being quiet and courteous made the other side react negatively – so our side wins.
Great point. The reaction from the other side attacking Anthony, shows where their focus is.
Possibly the worst action would have been to ask a question in this environment. There are many good questions that could have been asked but if you think that any question Anthony asked would have been handled any differently than how these men have handled all the other good questions that surround their work in recent years, then what planet are you living on?
Using computer models, they have the answer to almost every question there is. They have a great theory and it works on paper and can explain everything……. answer all questions.
When the real world acts differently, new convincing sounding theories easily explain why the main theory is still correct but temporarily being suppressed by this new element.
They can never be wrong, when the evidence is based on a computer model programmed with mathematical equations to represent the theory, then, making adjustments(new damage control theories) to explain the difference between the theory and observations.
Even massive increases in plant growth and record crop yields/world food production from increasing CO2 the past few decades from the indisputable law of photosynthesis is negated……….by providing model projections that indicate our future climate will reduce crop yields.
You can NEVER be wrong on anything if it’s based on a model projection for a time frame in the future that has not arrived.
Again, the theory has not been wrong the past 15 years because any errors can be accounted for by new pet theories that explain conditions that are temporarily masking the effects of the main theory.
Ok, so Koch’s are allegedly backers of skeptics,in the minds of warmists. While the backers of warmists are Steyer, Rockefellers, Soros, Gates, Branson, and on and on. Which is obviously not a problem for warmists at all.
So what they want is 100% domination; every billionaire backing them; not one of them having a different opinion. Understood.
Warmists are totalitarian. They loudly proclaim it every day.
Well GOOD LUCK BOYS.
What was your question? Can’t seem to find it in the above.
We’ll have to wait on Dr. Mann to acknowledge my polite, yet simple question. Otherwise I don’t plan to reveal it.
Don’t know the question until we open the envelope (Mighty Carnac style), but the answer is:
“Why should I answer the question of a tin-foil hat-wearing denier funded by the Koch brothers?”
Hickman and Betts showing their true colours it appears.What a shame they appeared so pleasant a day or two earlier. No surprises there. Your behaviour and demeanour puts Mann and his followers to shame.
John
I don’t see what the problem is with my tweet. I just asked Josh and Barry why there were (I thought) no sceptic hands up*, and noted it seemed out of character (especially for those 2 guys, who I know fairly well now, at least online.) That’s a perfectly reasonably question, and I even put a smiley in to show it was good-humoured and not malicious.
This illustrates why the dinner on the Sunday evening was useful. Online it is very easy for written statements to be misinterpreted (or even misrepresented), especially when the tone is not clear. Much better to talk face-to-face. I think this is part of the reason the climate discussion has got so heated and polarised – much of it has been conducted online.
It was a shame that, for whatever reason, there was no involvement of sceptics in the Q&A after Mike Mann’s talk. Maybe all that has gone before would have made it a less than constructive exchange …. but I guess we’ll never know.
*It turns out Barry did put his hand up, but I couldn’t see him from where I was sitting. I didn’t know Katabasis by sight.
Richard Betts tweet was an honest question. Perhaps many thought we were all there to raise a ruckus, and were understandably disappointed when we didn’t.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
(This is meant as more of a general response rather than a “reply”.)
If you see that the deck is stacked against you, why play the game?
From what has been said of Cook’s Q&A, he fell back on prepared answers that may or or may not have addressed the actual question that was asked. Politicians do that in press conferences and debates all the time. The question is used as a launching pad to say what they want rather than give an answer.
If whatever question Anthony might have asked would not be allowed a rebuttal (because the science is settled), why bother?
Mann is too cowardly to engage in any exchange that would approach anything resembling a debate…unless he got to choose who was on the other side. Even on facebook and twitter it seems.
Richard Betts says:
It was a shame that, for whatever reason, there was no involvement of sceptics in the Q&A after Mike Mann’s talk.
I am chomping at the bit to ask Mann, Lewandowski, and any other defender of ctastrophic AGW some serious questions. But the fact is that they all run and hide from questions or debates held in any neutral venue. As it was, Lewandowsky was clearly running interference for Mann, and the people asking questions were obvious plants.
It is hard to imagine anyone in the public eye worse than those two. Lewandowsky uses his academic position to vilify anyone with a different scientific opinion, using his debunked peer reviewed papers. Mann uses his tweets and carefully scripted public appearances to take potshots at all of his percevied ‘enemies’, who include anyone with a different scientific opinion than his.
Mann is avidly reading this, there is no doubt. So here is a challenge: instead of constantly tucking your tails between your quivering rear thighs and running yelping for the hills every time the prospect of a fair exchange comes up, offer to engage a scientific skeptic of Anthony’s choosing in a fair, moderated debate held in a neutral venue. No scripted questions, and no plants in the audience. Stand up for what you say you believe. If you do believe what you are always saying, you will come across looking good. You have knowledge of the subject, and plenty of experience in front of crowds.
But of course, tucking tail and running is your M.O. You will never agree to debate on those terms, as fair to both sides as they are. The reason is obvious: you have no credible science that would withstand simple scrutiny. You are a charlatan, Mr. Mann; the Elmer Gantry of climate science. You are terrified of a fair debate. You won’t answer questions unless you know what they are beforehand, and unless they come from one of your hand-picked cohorts. You know the truth about yourself, and you prepare for it like you did here.
Way back when, you banned me from commenting at your blog, realclimate, when I posted this chart without comment. I have never been back there since. There is an old saying in politics: Never unnecessarily expand your circle of enemies. Mann, you stuck it to me then, for simply expressing my honest opinion. I won’t forget that.
On Leo Hickman of the Guardian and banning – they wonder why no sceptical questions yet I have been banned from commenting at the Guardian over a dozen times for posting peer reviewed abstracts. These guys are jokers.
Brilliant take-down of the Mann previously known as a scientist.
His reputation as a scientist is greatly exaggerated. And defended repeatedly in court, if you’re wondering.
It seems to me that the questions to be asked were well known. And the answers (such as they are) are also well known. A number of people in the audience don’t know that of course, but they also don’t have the years of context behind both.
“The only winning move is not to play.”
That, and getting together with people that could only be done if you or all them went on a long journey. You won. Thanks and congratulations.
It’s unclear to me what “winning” means in this context.
But it is evident that there is no question that Mann is capable of answering in any manner that would be scientifically interesting.
A distance kept between the audience and Mann is not strange. Any closer and he would have difficult to avoid eye contact …
The distance of the audience from Dr. Mann reminds me of what the the NBC network did when demonstrating the first color television broadcast to the media. Before the media’s arrival NBC decided that the picture quality was not satisfactory so they decided to remove the first 2 rows of seats, decreasing the odds that the poor quality would be noticed. The same scenario could work for climate change demonstrations as well.
Good article, not that you owed anyone an explanation to begin with, Anthony. 🙂 I knew your hearing would be a factor—I have a family member with the same issues, who wouldn’t even think of trying to engage in an adversarial Q & A—I just wish I’d gone for double “pundit”* points by predicting the reason before you said so! 🙂
* That’s the nicest thing anyone’s called me!
Give a Mann enough rope and he will hang himself. The pretend Nobel Laureate’s ego will expose his “science” for what it is by hinself. Skeptics do not need to question him he does so well with his outbursts.
Even if you wanted to ask a question I am sure Dr. Lewandowsky would have “missed” seeing you.The choreography would have prohibited any embarrassing question. Michaell Mann never permits critical or searching questions.
I can’t resist: If Mann were to hang himself, would that be an example of “suspension of disbelief”?
Kobayashi Maru Anthony.
Pointman
No. Cheating, by changing the inner workings of the test, is NEVER justified.
If you’re not going to be a player, why turn up for the game?
Pointman
Quiet observation is its own reward. One can learn even more simply by being a good listener, rather than a participant.
Perhaps I’m a grubby creature of a less noble God. At some point I believe we have to actually do something and that’s a decision I took long ago. We have different viewpoints and I respect that and hope it’s reciprocated but I’m on a clock and it’s always ticking.
“They’re just numbers, numbers, imaginary numbers. Dead imaginary numbers. The square roots of negative numbers we are obliged to invent a comfortable contrivance for, so we don’t have to think too much more deeply about them. But each one of them had a way about them that was uniquely theirs; their own smile, a way of walking, a certain look, a tilt of the head that was theirs alone, they loved and were loved by someone and now they’re dead and gone and will be forgotten.
They were somebody’s child or someone’s man or someone’s woman or someone’s lover or simply just a friend. They were your baby with that magic eye contact and their milky smile. It is needless, preventable, human waste on an industrial, genocidal and unimaginable scale. It shouldn’t ever be happening.”
Tickety tock, tickety tock.
Pointman
“Say little but think much”
IMO, there is something to be said for attending lectures like these for the sole purpose of witnessing, with your own eyes and ears, what is said and how it is said.
You know, that “take no one’s word for it” thing that scientists are supposed to do.
You also get to witness the reaction of the crowd. All of this is important first-hand knowledge to have.
Showing up is being a player. Whether he decided to ask questions or not, point goes to the man in the front row who can stare at Mann all evening, and leave him wondering and worrying what was to come. Better even, that all of the sceptics were quiet. As you can see, the twitterverse is now trying to draw out what the sceptics were up to. They’re warmists are still nervous… Forensic Interview Skills 101.
In my branch of science, it’s considered poor form to give a lecture that fails to include new, unpublished data. Perhaps Anthony hoped to see something new from Professor Mann.
Alas, it was apparently all review of published work. Leads me to wonder: What is he working on lately?
[Very old work. Very, very old work. .mod]
One cannot listen and talk at the same time and of the two listening is the most productive. HOWEVER, I detest the lot of them, the Betts, Slingo, Colose, Mann, Hansen, Bradley — the whole lot. Two faces is not enough for them. Yuk
Incidently, I am also completely deaf in one ear and partially so in the other (after several in a pop band of the 60s) so I completely inderstand where Anthony is coming from in this case.
Steve, there is little point in detesting them all, many of “them” are as sincere in their beliefs as we are in ours, and, in my case at least, much nicer people. What division where you in in Martlesham, we may have come across each other?
That’s quite a lecture hall. Do they make telephoto lenses for cell phone cameras?
If one plans to hurl something at a speaker so far away, he should practice up first.
The fact that you would make the effort to see Cook, Mann, etc. live and watch their demeanor while they spoke about their “religion”, and do it in a respectful manner, is laudatory.
Glad to hear you found the trip to be fruitful even if Cook and Mann may not have.
Have to agree with you on that Anthony. You did the right thing.
Anthony, I think you were very wise, I would hazard a guess that the questions that were asked were from “plants” who had their questions pre-submitted to Mann. To be honest, I think Lewandosky would have ignored you, if not, Mann would have mumbled to take an unfair advantage of your hearing problem.
Like I have said elsewhere on WUWT, there was no science involved in his lecture.
The discourteous names like “d*niers” and “tin hat wearer” and calling James Delingpole a clown sum up Mann’s scientific credentials.
In Mannian math, by a process of interpolation between occupied seats, unoccupied seats also appear occupied.
No, that’s homogenization, like making up station data for closed stations, turning them into “zombies” for example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
Actually, that’s filnet.
Can you imagine doing that with seed plots and then marketing the new seed variety as the best EVA?????
The Mann is invaluable.
Keep stroking his ego, if you can.
The safer he feels the greater damage he inflicts upon this weird art of Climatology.
I agree you would have been wasting your time asking any questions at that presentation, just your presence has unnerved the faithful more than is reasonable.
However the Zealots of the C.C.C cannot restrain themselves, their self worth is totally dependant on believing themselves to be the smartest, most caring persons on the planet.
With such a fragile reality they get the vapours with each change of the wind.
The staged event is very revealing, segregated from the audience, no eye contact, data cut off 9 years ago, but that same absolutism.
Sand castles before the incoming tide comes to mind.
I think even the mann can feel the bus approaching.
Michael E. Mann [just a note: If you have a habit of making false, inflammatory, and/or defamatory statements about climate scientists in public, then, no, you’re not welcome at this facebook page there are other outlets for you in that case. Thanks!]
Wednesday at 17.04 facebook
So by Mann’s own criteria, he should not be posting on his own facebook page.
I noted that post was only the second post after Mann called Delingpole a clown. But note that Mann is only discouraging inflammatory statements about climate scientists; apparently, skeptics are fair game.
That is apparently a result of Barry Woods attempting to ask a question, discussed here http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/26/watts-up-with-mann.html#comments about halfway down.
Barry Woods provides two links to screenshots of the attempt at dialogue.
http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/m-mann-facebook.jpg?w=891
and
http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/m-mann-facebook2.jpg?w=801
Mick.
I am puzzled.
Mann knows that he has in his audience some of the key people he has vilified as belonging to the conspiracy against him.
He has a superb opportunity to take on and humiliate those who speak against his work in a public forum where he is in full control.
And what does he do? He ignores them and effectively prevents them from asking any questions.
Ask yourselves one question.
Is that the behaviour of a man who is convinced he is right, or of a liar and a coward?
The answer speaks volumes.
The best result of these two events at the Cabot is probably that it acted as a catalyst to bring calmer and clearer people together in pubs and private houses, and to allow some of them to speak directly with climate campaigners. I say ‘probably’ because there is also the possibility that even more influential people attended the lectures and were appalled by them. I hope so, but I know that good is coming from the meetings of kindred spirits opposed to facile, self-serving, irresponsible, and destructive alarmism over our CO2. Well done Anthony for travelling across a continent and an ocean to be there.
+10
Good day Mr. Watts,
Please read this with all the respect I have for you and your work. While some things you talk about do go over my head, as I am not a climate scientist, there is a lot I have learned here. I am and energy and environmental expert, which means I am an engineer that relies heavily on common sense, thus why the whole CAGW scam is one of my pet peeves. I have learned loads from you and a few other scientists.
I would just like to caution you on how personal you sometimes tend to take some of the clowns that make a very comfy living out of this scam. While they tend to attack you on a personal basis, which is most unprofessional, I encourage you not to heed to their base level and reply. It is similar to when a rig manager barks at you for doing your job better than he can understand (ok, personal ranting but rampant issue in the oilpatch). Just let it fly, they are not worth of your time.
While I understand how it feels when they attempt at being sarcastic and offend, remember that only someone that is above you can offend you and, when such a person talks to you, he/she will never even attempt to do so.
Exposing them, though, it is always good. Just goes to show what kind of people they are. Thus the reason the type of people that still show support (i.e. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/26/friday-funny-the-de-evolution-of-climate-activism ).
Please receive my most kind regards.
FF
Thank you.
I was one of the first to stand and put my hand up. ‘Sir’ (didn’t know or care at that point, that it was the eedjit) saw me and pointed the mic guy my way then chose someone downstairs for the first q. When he came back to upstairs the mic guy had homed in on the Avaaz mouthpiece (who, admittedly, was on the same diagonal as myself vis-a-vis lewpaper’s viewpoint.). This twat asked two qs so soft you could see the caramel spurting out of his skull from where I was.
Mic guy never came my way when lewpaper started gesticulating and pointing downstairs.
I was going to be polite, along the lines of…
‘Ben Santer’s team said in 2011 “… that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes …” and Phil Jones said in 2005 ” “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has, but it is only seven years of data …”.
In the light of Ross McKitrick’s recent paper claiming “…there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere.” how can you claim that the science is settled and show us slides that only show data to 2005?
I actually wanted to shout out, several times, what I think of this arsehole and his lies but heeded AW’s request to remain polite.
Just as well you didn’t get an opportunity to ask the question. (1) It’s far too long; (2) It’s far too complex; (3) It would have been too easily flipped off thus: “You should take that question up with Ben Santer and Phil Jones. Next!”
Henry, I think you put a lie to Mann’s faux surprise that there were no “skeptic” questioners as he knew bloody well that it was manipulated to appear that way and by your description they had to work pretty hard to do it! I would think anyone who attended would have seen the obvious sham.
Hi Anthony
My tweet is here
Thanks Richard, I’ll amend the body of the text to include it to be fully accurate.
Anthony, I commend you for your decision not to play their game. It was truly a no-win situation.
I also did not ask a question when Mann spoke in Victoria last year.
But some of you might be interested in what can happen when the deck is not stacked like this – when asking a speaker a challenging question can make a difference.
I’ve just published, for the first time, my account of an incident that took place in 2009, when I asked a polar bear biologist a seemingly innocuous question at a scientific workshop called “Global Warming and Arctic Marine Mammals.”
See what you think – but note, I’m absolutely sure this strategy would not have worked at a Mann lecture and it would probably not work for me today (now that the polar bear crowd knows who I am).
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/09/24/in-2009-i-asked-a-polar-bear-biologist-a-challenging-question-at-a-global-warming-workshop/
Susan Crockford, PolarBearScience
Thanks Susan
This might be a good time, again, to suggest a link to the polarbearscience.com website.
Ditto. She does good work and actually opened my eyes a time or five.
Your experience provides a good illustration of Occam’s Broom at work. Where would climate alarmism be without it?
Thanks John, I had not heard that expression before! I’ll make note of it for the future.
My Google search revealed:
“Ockham’s broom is an implement conceived by Sydney Brenner as the device whereby inconvenient facts are swept under the carpet.
This is common practice in biological research where the facts often cannot be explained all at once; but in due course the edge of the carpet must be lifted and the untidy reality confronted.
… (Ockham’s broom should not be confused with the more familiar Ockham’s razor which inspired this less philosophically correct concept.)”
[from http://philosophicalquest.blogspot.ca/2012/08/occams-broom.html%5D
Susan
An example of Occam’s Broom.
I was really impressed with Lily Peacock’s response to my question: Question are far easier to answer when all you have to do is tell the truth.
But, Great question Susan. To have thought of that at that moment and to have formed it in that way was exceptional.
Thanks Stephen.
The point is, a really good question rarely comes to you in the heat of the moment – the ones you think of 20 minutes later, or in the middle of the following night (Oh, I’m good at those!), just don’t cut it.
Hmmm…. I sense disappointment on the CAGW side that Anthony didn’t ask a question. Spoiled their party, perhaps? 😉