Out-Manned, but what happened to the science?

Mann, it's like like a bad episode of the Matrix

From the agenda of the 2011 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting in Minneapolis (9–12 October 2011)


MANN, Michael E., Dept. of Meteorology and Earth and Environ. Systems Institute, Penn State University, Walker Building, University Park, PA 16827

Climate scientists have an important role to play in informing the public discourse on human-caused climate change. Our scientific expertise provides us a unique, informed perspective, and despite recent high profile attacks against climate science, the public still affords climate scientists the greatest trust to deliver an honest, unbiased assessment of the potential threats posed by climate changes. Yet, as with all areas of science where powerful special interests perceive themselves as threatened by the findings of science, scientists enter the public fray at our peril.

Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.

Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.

h/t Tom Nelson


I’m sorry Dr. Mann, just one look at the cash cow your buddy James Hansen gets, and what you got via the recent stimulus funding tell me your claims of being “out-funded” are pure fantasy. Even the Wall Street Journal took note:

As for stimulus jobs—whether “saved” or “created”—we thought readers might be interested to know whose employment they are sustaining. More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

And, what happened to it being about the science, and not the money?

A few points via Jo Nova

  • The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
  • Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
  • Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
  • Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
  • The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Full report here:

Climate Money Paper


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Maybe need a separate page here to list all of the pro CAGW funding !!

Brian Johnson uk

Surely these warmest know they are lying about mankind’s contribution to the myth of global warming and its effect on the planet’s atmosphere and yet they gamble with billions of dollars and the pseudo politico scientists grab even more dollars to continue their lies and line their pockets with ill gotten gains and it has got to stop and sooner rather than later. The Gore-Mann-Hansen-Jones et al manbearpig is due for a roasting.
Oh Yes!

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Stop whining, Michael Mann. You sound EXACTLY like a two-bit layperson reciting the meme in a blog post. Not very becoming I must say.


As far as I can tell, the massive, well-organized disinformation campaign consists of a few blogs and some hot air from politicians. Where is all the TV time? The best-selling books? The prize-winning documentaries? Oh, wait…
The climate alarmists must be really incompetent if they’re losing to a nearly invisible PR campaign.


I seriously wonder what color the sky is in Mann’s world… literally, what color? Here in my world, it’s blue due to H2O… what color is CO2?
Mann apparently isn’t even aware that he’s been outed and discredited, and is known to millions as a charlatan and a fraud. And it seems unlikely that he could possibly still believe the junk “science” he’s peddling.


shell & BP have been funding CRU for decades, see here yet more rubbish from mann made good, nasty

Eyal Porat

To translate from Hebrew saying:
Tears of the Aligator.

John F. Hultquist

Facts are stubborn things requiring great effort to overcome. Thus, these experts (Mann and “The Team”) have job security. I don’t mean tenure, although I suspect they all do have that. I mean they are funded to produce ever more outlandish models, using undecipherable methods, questionable data, and tendentious reasoning.

More Soylent Green!

Can we call them to the carpet about the claim of well-funded, highly organized disinformation campaign? Make them back that up. Show is the money. Show us the conspiracy.
Put up or shut up.


These are just inconvenient facts… nothing to see here, move along please.


“the public still affords climate scientists the greatest trust”
That public does not include the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who in his final Conference address to the Conservative Party today managed not to mention climate change in his 50 minute speech which covered almost every facet of government.
His only reference that obliquely touched the subject was “green engineering” in a long list of areas of oportunity to trade our way up from the slough of stagnation that is our economy today.
Not yet full blooded denial on his part , but methinks I heard a cockerel stirring in his sleep and perhaps clearing his throat in preparation for three loud crows in a fast approaching dawn.


How do you find the words to describe this guy’s delusions? If he’s not deluded, and he knows only too well the reality of the situation, then his cynicism and capacity for lying is so dark I don’t even want to think about it. He has run this narrative before, yet never provided any evidence to support it. What has reduced him and the Team to laughing stock status on numerous occasions is not a “well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort” of his fantasies, but the complete and utter opposite – the diligent number-crunching of unorganized bloggers whose only source of “funding” is a tip-jar.
An old Fawlty Towers quote comes to mind in which a psychiatrist says of Basil:- “there’s enough material there for an entire conference”.

Jeff in Calgary

Anthony, this must have come as quite a shock to you to find out how well funded you are! What do you plan on doing with your newly found funding?


[ “Mann, it’s like like a bad episode of the Matrix” ] Ha Ha Ha Ha
Dr Mann…if you tried using such logic to your wife / girl friend, when caught – she’d knock you to the floor. 🙂


Let’s see Exxon-Mobil has dished out about $100 million to the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University, BP dished out about $20 to Princeton. So where does this leave the meme that the fossil fuel industry is leading a disinformation effort?
As to the skeptics are the “a well-funded, highly organized disinformtion effort”???
Well, I thought that the name of that organization was the IPCC, which is hardly a skeptically led effort.

Ospite Scherzoso

Let’s admit that science is settled, that’s no absurdity, since it’s all cheer reviewed.
But if climate change is undisputably anthropogenic, then every penny given to climate research is wasted money.
We know it all already.
So it’s time to act!
Give the all the money to Solyndrians, or else the world gets it, ok fella?

Jeff D

Over the last 2 weeks I have noticed a huge increase in the pro-agw articles being listed in the Google science news section. Most but not all of these comment on the “deniers” and how horrid they are for confusing the public. The only thing I can think of is that is has to do with the political campaign or that there is a concerted effort to hype up the theory before negatives come to light with the Mann case and the EPA spanking, or maybe a combination of both. What I can say for sure is that there is only 1 article to every 20 against CAGW. Even though science may prevail one day on this subject will we ever know?
It saddens me to think that science has become a political religion yet again.


Please don’t post that picture before lunch time. Totally ruins my appetite.


Every time I read anything produced by Mann, including his legal pleadings in the UVA FOI case, I just can’t get my head round how deluded and hubristic this man is.
I think he actually believes that he is brilliant.
Go figure.


Click onto the headline and you get the GSA pre-print or whatever it is, where Mann says “These attacks are rarely fought in legitimate scientific circles such as the peer-reviewed scientific literature “. No, because Mann and the Team keep out as much as they can; shout down, rather than legitimately fight out the arguments; make editors resign; wheel up instant peer reviewed rebuttal papers. Mann’s problem is he doesn’t want to fight the attacks, he doesn’t want to prove detractors wrong, and doesn’t want to argue his case. He just wants everyone who disagrees to shut up and go away. If he had wanted to fight the attacks ….. in the peer reviewed literature, why wouldn’t he have disclosed his code and everything else, so that people could see exactly what he had done, and, perhaps, he would have had the pleasure of seeing them all eat humble pie, admitting that old Mikey was right all along. But he just didn’t do that.

Robert Austin

The Mann lies willfully and with seeming impunity; he must feel invincible after his “exonerations”. It is one thing to wage intellectual war over obscure and dubious scientific and statistical methods. It is a completely different thing to make claims not related to science that are easily investigated, understood by the layman, and easily refuted. It is rather elementary to lay out comparative funding for the “consensus” faction side by side with funding for the skeptical faction. And yet Mann shows only offensive strategy, sort of like the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge. Throw everything you have at the enemy under heavy overcast weather conditions and in spite of a severe fuel shortage. Make rapid gains for a short time. Then their fuel runs out and the skies clear. Exposed to overwhelming Allied air supremacy. Kaput.


He knows exactly what he’s doing – don’t fool yourselves for one second that he doesn’t. Whatever one’s feelings about the man (it is my opinion that he massages the data in whatever way he sees fit to support his intended outcome… but that’s just my opinion ;), you should admire his ability to stick to the maxim, “A good defense is a strong offense”. He just keeps plugging away – sue this, complain about that, imply the other. He’s very good. Wrong, but very good.

Evil Denier

I suspect that Mann cannot even spell ‘junk’.
That’s as in ‘science’ (for the avoidance of doubt).


Did Denial Inc. also hide the missing heat?

Don Keiller

Mann’s statement is beyond parody.
Joseph would be proud.


The collapse of the Carbon market after it was touted to become the largest by 2020 for me suggests that ordinary citizens are not buying the propaganda. Mann can go on forever but should note that even Obama the great cheerleader has begun to understand that he was cheering US jobs away. AGW proponents must know that there is a limit to how far propaganda can get them. You need to back it up with the science

Steve Oregon

Mann is like any other over paid, sleazy bureaucrat or politician who’s entire approach to everything involves perpetual adolescent behavior and chronic dishonesty.
However, just as many here in Oregon are facing the growing turmoil of the Internet exposing them to the masses for what they are, Mann is ramping up his misbehavior and whoppers.
In this case he is scurrilously attempting to (again) misrepresent the grass roots, shoe string budget skeptics as exactly what his own alarmists ilk are.
How typical. I see this same stunt occurring more every day here in Oregon.
Caught officials trying to repel the inevitable with any sleaze they can cough up.
But I am amazed at how easy it is becoming for even a single person to thwart their efforts.
It is taking very little time and essentiall no money to do bring damage to their schemes.
In some respects Freedom is becoming nearly Free and the scoundrels just can’t stand it that regular people can interupt their plans.

Frank Black

Used to be that the GSA was about geology. But I guess that was a long time ago.


Like I said on the Dr Hansen post, enjoy all your money Dr Mann because history will last a lot longer and boy I don’t think you’ll be going down in the history books as a leading light in the science world, more a seller of souls to the great green back (No not That Baron Greenback).


I think this is just all part of a big PR push that Mann has going on right now. I’d love to know who is paying for all of his PR strategy. He is now operating a lot like advocacy groups like WWF and Greenpeace — use controversy as an opportunity for fund raising. We know he is fund raising for his legal fees. The question is: did he set up a non-profit organization such that he can raise money for political advocacy as well.

Brandon Caswell

The greatest damage done to AGW has been done by the climate scientists themselves. Big oil didn’t write the climategate emails, they don’t force you to make mistakes in your science, they don’t force journals to not publish disenting work. They don’t force you claim you predicted the snow and cold, when you didn’t. But the average Joe is not stupid, no matter what they think, and can smell BS when it happenes.
The second most damage has been done by mother nature not following your precious models. You can claim how smart you are endlessly, but everyone can plainly see your models don’t work.
Number three on the list of damages, is people like Watts, M and M, and other unpaid volunteers who are nice enough to actually double check your work, since you can’t be bothered, and find all those “accidental” mistakes that make your work more alarming.
Mann, is just an egomainiac who can’t imagine why anyone would disagree with him unless they were paid to do it.

“….opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.”
Mann does a nice job of regurgitating a variation of the words from the inside dust jacket sleeve of anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan’s 1997 “The Heat is On”. Mann said of Gelbspan over at RealClimate ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/ ), “Ross Gelbspan who has set the standard for investigative reporting when it comes to the climate change denial campaign…”
And in a 2003 ClimateGate email ( http://web.archive.org/web/20100922180431/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=365&filename=1065206624.txt ), Mann said this in response to an inquiry for rebuttal to criticism by the Idsos: “An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information.”
Entertaining how a Time magazine article out only yesterday titled “Who’s Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?” ( http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html ) says, “climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science”.
Back in 2009 at a HuffPo op-ed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/facts-are-stubborn-things_b_170657.html ), Senator John Kerry said, “A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time..”
Just goes to show ya, Mann got the memo……….

Tom Rowan

[snip – over the top on Dr. Mann – Anthony]

Gail Combs

Mann (I refuse to give him the honor of the title Dr. since he does not deserve it) stated
“…the public still affords climate scientists the greatest trust to deliver an honest, unbiased assessment of the potential threats posed by climate changes….”
And another easily proven lie from his mouth:
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
…While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs….
Update as of today
61% Say Global Warming Serious Problem
Most voters continue to believe global warming is a serious problem, but they still have mixed views on what the primary cause of climate change is….
And the Gallup Polls (March 11, 2010)
“>Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated
Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question….”
Even this biased report shows CAGW is losing ground.
August 26, 2011
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149207/World-Top-Emitters-No-Aware-Climate-Change-2010.aspx?ref=more“>World’s Top-Emitters No More Aware of Climate Change in 2010
Sizable numbers at least partly blame humans
by Julie Ray and Anita Pugliese
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Residents in the top five greenhouse gas-emitting countries are no more aware of global warming or climate change than they were a few years ago. Majorities in all five countries Gallup surveyed in 2010 — except India — continue to say they know at least something about the issue.
….Over the past several years, international leaders have unsuccessfully tried to hash out a climate deal before the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. Meetings later this year are not expected to result in a new deal. Japan, Russia, and the U.S. recently confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement and China and India contend that developed nations should act first…..
“…Although the U.S. never signed on to the Kyoto protocol, like the Japanese, most Americans (96%) are aware of global warming and climate change. While their knowledge level has not changed in the past few years, the threat Americans feel from global warming has dissipated. Fifty-five percent of Americans who are aware of climate change view it as a serious personal threat, down from 64% in 2007 and 2008. They are also now less likely to attribute global warming to human causes, but half (50%) still at least partly blame humans….”
Mann’s easily verified lies in this report are not going to improve the standing of Climate Scientists especially as people are waking up to the fact that their leaders are selling off their children’s futures to the highest bidder. A crashed economy is a really big wake-up call from the green dreams many were lulled into.

Gail Combs

OOPS, the link was http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx for Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

More Soylent Green!

I thought us climate change [D-Word]* were supposed to be the ones who believed in a grand global warming conspiracy. Turns out it’s the true believers who have a conspiracy against them!
* Dissidents

Al Gored

Looks like Mann’s moment is coming.
John O’Sullivan: Michael ‘Climategate’ Mann Suffers Three Legal Blows in Court Escapade
Posted by Co2sceptic on Oct 4th 2011

Roger Knights

Mann claims:
“Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.

“Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.”

It’s likely that this same argument was used by activists trying to persuade the world’s scientific societies to endorse Global Warming-Alarmism (GWA), and that it was very successful. It is a variation of “Which Side Are You On?”

I never received a penny for my public service!

Frank K.

“Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.”
Outfunded? Outmanned? You’ve got to be joking!
The real truth here is his statement “…and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines.” Basically, he knows that the game is up and public funding for climate “science” will be drying up starting next year. So he’s going on the offensive to try to stem the funding losses. His attempt at trying to sound like a reasonable scientist is pretty pathetic, really.
But enough of that … onto the big questions!
A: Ben “beat ’em up in a dark alley” Santer, of course!


Surely, if the science is settled, future research is pointless and we can stop funding those scientists who make the claim!


If you tell a lie often enough…


Winners never whine, whiners never win…neener..neener:)


mpaul says:
October 5, 2011 at 10:00 am
“I think this is just all part of a big PR push that Mann has going on right now. I’d love to know who is paying for all of his PR strategy. ”
Soros’ OSI via TIDES, would be my guess.

Karen D

I laughed when I read the whining statement “scientists enter the public fray at our peril”. Being asked to show your work is not an attack. Unless you’re a magician … or a forger (and I don’t mean pig iron).

Gail Combs

Frank K. says: @ October 5, 2011 at 10:38 am
But enough of that … onto the big questions!
A: Ben “beat ‘em up in a dark alley” Santer, of course!
Of Course since it is a DARK alley he might find it was the wrong CAGW skeptic he was about to pick on and find it is Hurricane Joe: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2011/02/joe-bastardi-explains-why-the-cold-miser-is-winning-the-climate-change-showdown/_jcr_content/par/cn_contentwell/par-main/cn_blogpost/cn_float_container/cn_image_0.size.bastardi-460.jpg

Bloke down the pub

I saw the heading Who’s got our backs? and presumed the typist had put the ‘a’ in by mistake.

Roger Knights

Here’s a re-posting of a slightly edited version of my Notes From Skull Island:
Brian Martin, in his wonderful online booklet Strip the Experts, wrote that if your opponents:

have a financial interest in what they are promoting, exposing it can be very damaging.

This line of attack on skeptics has been very successful for the warmists in the past, which is why they constantly recur to it. But the recent skeptical attack has been mostly an indignant, blogger-led populist revolt against increased and unnecessary taxation and regulation (fewer barbecues, etc.) and against elitist presumption.
If our side were well funded and well organized, it would have the following characteristics:
1. There’d be a slick umbrella site like HufPo under which all dissident bloggers could shelter, cutting their costs, increasing ad revenue, and simplifying and standardizing the process of surfing the deviationist blogosphere, especially for visiting journalists. The effect would be to considerably “amplify” the dissenters’ voices.
2. Failing that, there’d be enough $ for individual sites to ensure that, for instance, Climate Audit would have been able to handle to traffic-surge in the wake of Climategate, instead of being overwhelmed. (How’s that unpreparedness agree with “well organized”?)
3. There’d be a PR agency to “package” stories emerging from the blogosphere and articles in scientific journals or contrarian columnists and feed them to media sources in easy-to-read, pre-edited form. (Or at least an unincorporated online network of funded individuals performing a PR function.) This is a topic that is so complex and filled with jargon that it desperately needs such pre-chewing to get the MSM to swallow it. But what do we have? Only Climate Depot, which provides leads, but no packaging.

As Mike Haseler wrote, “it’s blatantly obvious to me that the press need to be fed stories almost ready for publication, you can’t expect them to take highly technical writing and try and make sense of it!”
BTW, another contra-factual is Climategate. There was no pre-planned media-coordination involved in the matter. There was no campaign to alert them to its importance, nor any professional packaging of the story for them. No one gave Fox a heads-up. As a result, MSM coverage of the event was nil.
(As for the idea that the leak was “timed” to disrupt Copenhagen, that’s equally absurd. The story gained no MSM coverage at all for the first two weeks, because that’s how long it took to ascertain that the e-mails were legit and to untangle the rat’s nest of e-mails and shed some light on them and the Read_Me file. It took about four weeks for the scandal to really heat up, with outraged commentary finally appearing in some middle-of-the-road venues. Any professional media consultant would have advised leaking the documents six to eight weeks earlier than Nov. 20. By that time, attendees reservations and trip-plans were cast in concrete.)

4. There’d be a centralized, regularly updated, annotated, topically divided, web-wide index of useful “ammo” skeptical or skeptic-supporting articles. If I, or anyone, were cat-herder in chief, this would be one of the top items on the agenda.
5. There’d be a REPOSITORY for “quotes of the day” from blog commenters. (These get lost in the noise after a week or so otherwise.) Here’s an example, from Willis:

“First, my thanks to all the prospective henchdudes and henchbabes out there, a map to my hollow volcano lair will be emailed to you as soon as I get one. Well-funded mercilessness roolz! I demand a volcano lair!”

6. There’d be extensive book tours for every skeptical book published, to gain exposure in multiple markets via interviews in the local press, etc. Such tours could be extended for many months, well beyond any rational “payback” in book sales, if the real aim were to get media exposure – for instance by challenging local warmists to debates on the premises of the newspaper or broadcaster, etc. The funding for such a tour could easily be concealed.
7. Certain fringe or off-topic comments would be “moderated” out, because they step on people’s toes and don’t play well in Peoria. E.g., New World Order theorizing, bolshy bashing, boot-the-UN and tar-and-feather-‘em remarks, and most attribution-of-motives comments. Populist “venting” of all sorts would be toned down; instead the stress would be on sweet reasonableness and out-reaching to the average citizen and opinion-leader. Any media pro would advise that course, especially one with a big funder behind him (who wouldn’t want to be tarred by association with tin-foil-hat opinions (if news of a link ever came out)). Such a “mainstream” tone and mindset would be the fingerprint of any top-down campaign on a scientific topic.
8. Not only would there be more stylistic similarity, but the content would be less idiosyncratic as well. There’d be evidence of a “script” or list of talking points that skeptic commenters were following, instead of the typical home-brew assemblage of arguments.
9. There’d be an astro-turfed tag-team of high-stamina commenters assigned to Win the War for Wikipedia by out-shouting and out-censoring Connolley and Co. They’d also go en masse to Amazon and give warmist books a thumbs-down and engage in comment-combats there as well. But the dissenters in such venues have been an outnumbered, disorganized rabble.
10. There’d be much more stress on arguments that would move the masses and that don’t take a degree to understand. I.e., arguments about the costliness, technical impracticality, and political unenforceability of mitigation strategies, and about the ineffectiveness of massive CO2 emission-reduction in the atmosphere even if all those obstacles were of no account.
If skeptics were truly Machiavellian, or guided by political “pros” behind the scenes, they’d be hitting these popular hot buttons. Those are where the warmists’ case is shakiest — and it’s always a good strategy to focus on the opponents’ weakest points and pound on them endlessly. Instead, these topics make up only 10% or so of the skeptical thrust. Most dissenters devote most of their energy to talking about weather events, dissing believers, and arguing about technical and scientific matters.
11. There’d be an extensive online collection of opposition research, such as warmist predictions waiting to be shot down by contrary events. Such opposition research is so valuable a tactic (as is now being shown) that no political or PR consultant would have failed to insist on it.
E.g., a score of warmist predictions of less snowfall would have been at hand to counter Gore’s claim that the models predicted more snowfall. Similarly, the IPCC’s Assessment Reports would have been scoured for flaws and nits long ago. Instead, it wasn’t until Glaciergate that we got on its case in any semi-organized fashion.
12. There’d be an online point-by-point rebuttal of all the “How to Talk to A Skeptic” talking points, not just scattered counterpoints to a few of them. And there’d be a Wikipedia discussing those points and more in fuller detail. Lucy Skywalker is trying to assemble these, but it’s obviously an unfunded effort.
13. The Oregon Petition Project would have been handled professionally. I.e., there’d have been no short-sighted tactics such as use of NAS-lookalike typography, no claim that the signers constituted “a meaningful representation” (let alone that the consensus was on the skeptics’ side), no claim that all the signers were scientists (when some were technologists and dentists, etc.), and no implication that the signers had all been vetted. A skilled propagandist, such as one hired by King Coal, would have avoided such a transparent over-reaching, which threw away the petition’s effectiveness by handing the opposition a chance to counterpunch effectively.
14. There’d be a place for the reposting of the “highlights” of WUWT and other skeptic sites, and also such sites would have editors who would retroactively (after a month or so) work on a “sister site” consisting of “Highlights of WUWT,” in which outstanding paragraphs would be flagged and/or highlighted. This would make it easier for newcomers and journalists to effectively skim it and notice our better arguments and facts.
Such editorial work could be done by people who have good judgment and lots of knowledge of the issues, like Pamela Gray, Lucy Skywalker, etc.
15. There’d be a reposting of “negative highlights” from warmists’ sites in which the unsavory qualities of their leading lights and hatchetmen were on display. Call it, maybe, “Quoted Without Comment” or “Get a Load of This.” It would make an impact on fence-sitters.
16. There’d be a spiffy ad campaign consisting of short spots (20 to 40 seconds) that would focus on making one quick jab at the warmists. There should be a standard format for these ads, such as a common tag-line, music, lead-in, graphics style, etc. The touch should be light, with the aim of making the spots entertaining, such as by including little bits of silly rhymes, etc. The ads should also be “different,” to get around viewers’ defenses, and to make the message “sticky.” Care should be taken to avoid overstatement, and to make qualifications where necessary, to forestall counterpunches.
One easy target, because of its good “visuals” and absence of technical obscurity, would be to show non-performing wind turbines and weed-overgrown solar-panel farms. The failure of these ventures (relative to the promises that were made about them), and the fraud associated with them abroad, would be a benchmark against which other swarmist claims could be judged.
17. There’d be a copy editing & peer review service to vet our side’s books prior to publication, since any flubs will be seized on by warmists to discredit the entire work, as happened to Plimer’s book. Instead, dissenting books continue to be produced in an amateurish fashion. For instance, in Steve Goreham’s just-out (and excellent) Climatism!, I found two obvious spelling errors in just an hour’s skimming. (“Forego” for “forgo” and “principle” used where “principal” was needed.)
Big Oil? Baby Oil is more like it. Ologeneous overlords? My companions and I on Skull Island laugh until we vomit.

Brian M. Flynn

“…the public still affords climate scientists the greatest trust to deliver an honest, unbiased assessment of the potential threats posed by climate changes.”
Mann should check the stats (and his premise) with Rasmussen:
“69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research”
See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research

Jeff D

Looks like John’s article was picked up by these guys:
Take care who’s fingers you step on in the journey of life.