From the agenda of the 2011 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting in Minneapolis (9–12 October 2011)
CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN THE PUBLIC ARENA: WHO’S GOT OUR BACKS?
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:
Mann should switch gears careers and write fiction novels. Or maybe work for a PR firm making up spin stories for politicians caught doing stuff they shouldn’t be doing and need a great line to run the innocent scam . . . ” I did NOT have sexual relations with that tree ring”
Quite the imagination.
What always gets left out all the hype about who is funding who in this controversy, I can’t really call it a debate, is the trillions in “in-kind” aid provided to the warmist side by worldwide information and entertainment media. Broadcast and cable TV news, newspapers, films and TV entertainment programming and virtually every other major element of the information spectrum have been pimping the alarmist viewpoint for decades, often in a much more hyperbolic and hysterical manner than even Gore or Hansen would attempt. Corporations, seeing which way the herd was moving, felt compelled to overlay the “green” message on their marketing campaigns and corporate structures rather than face the PR disaster of being perceived as not being properly concerned about “saving the planet”. In terms of marketing the ideas this all adds up , not to millions or even billions, but to trillions of dollars of free advocacy.
Anthony can be rightfully proud of having the world’s most viewed climate site, but even his seemingly impressive daily hit count is dwarfed by the number of viewers for a nightly newscast on a local TV station in any midsize metro market. He may still be beating Olby on Algore’s CurrentTV network, I haven’t checked lately, but the battle between the catastrophists and the skeptics has always been an elephant versus an ant. The fact that they are still losing it so badly is positive proof of the terrible job that they’ ve done with both their science and their logic.
Speaking of the “jobs saved/created” stimulus: I just turned in my report where I’m happy to announce that 4.4% of my job was saved. (It would have been less if I didn’t [luckily] have the paperwork to fill out).
The least we could do is turn his little hurricane around….
…might as well have it spinning the wrong way too
In other words, if leading scientific organizations remain neutral, true science will eventually prevail and false science will lose. That is the last thing Mann and his cronies want to happen. The idea that “scientists are unbiased observers who use the scientific method to conclusively confirm and conclusively falsify various theories” is being destroyed by the politics involved in government funding of the sciences.
Methinks (Mann) doth protest too much.
His actions are so over-the-top that they are counter-productive. He actually increases the audience for his detractors. Between believing the doubtful, hiding the basis of his work at incredible cost in money, effort, and credibility, and instantly publicly threatening anyone that publicly disagrees with him with lawsuits, IMHO, the man has psychological problems. When the pressure gets too great he may crack, embarrassing a whole hoard of people. He’s getting close.
The gall of the Mann. He attempts to take the moral highground:
translation: we are the high priests – mere mortals do not have the intellect to comprehend what we comprehend.
Unbiased – puhlease! Honest – well, show us your data, Mann!
And the coup-de-grace:
Playing the underdog card. Wow. Just wow.
I think Mann just outmanned himself.
I see it snowed this morning on the hills to the Southeast of me, and on the mountains to my West. I take this to be more Mann-made coldwarm coming from the Gulf of Alaska, possibly a sign of maturing global warming ?
Mann will go down in history as a BIGGER FRAUD than those that found the “piltdown man:”!
We know the “manmade global warming” idea has been around well be fore Mann98. Schneider had inhereted this idea, and passed it on to Mann. This idea has long been seen as a money-maker. Ken Lay had a major role in developing the carbon-trading idea, if only it could be “sold” broadly to countries internationally.
The money-making scheme goes like this:
First, bankroll a bunch of researchers to inbvestigate the threats of “global climate change.” All over the place, the “change” is addressed as if it is a done deal. That way, it seems like academics ar just responding to some observed phenomenon.
With the legitimacy of this science to now go an sell, there are a couple “get in while the gettin is good,” “get in on the ground floor” scams. We are all vulnerable.
One is: carbon trading. Every country saw the green, and saw their country as the one to make money. Most countries are able, by fiat, to drop energy use. Certainly drop 5% lower than the previous year. Plenty of ways to do this.
So, everyone who signed on had the dream of raking in big bucks when they sold their credits. That idea was very big money. Who is gonna buy in knowing they will be the credit-buyer? So, that market would have had few buyers and lots of sellers. Who wins? The funded scientists and the deal brokers,
The second idea is underway: pushing green investment by countries. This can be in two forms:
First: go green. Get butane vehicles, solar panels, etc.
Second: throw your investment capital into the “green” economy. The profiteers went to the U.N. and sold them on this idea. The United Nations developed the UNPRI “UN Principles of Responsible Investing.” Go look up UNPRI. Basically, the UN goes to each country, and says, “Hey, invest in green.” They use the “get in on the ground floor” idea again. So, whether manmade global warming is true or not, each country stands to make money AS LONG AS THE GREEN IDEA CARRIES ON. So, each country one-by-one gets bought-over to want AGW to be true. Or at least true enough to ensure lively green business is going on. UNPRI has all of this info on their website.
So, nation by nation, each nation’s favor is bought thru the get-in-on-the-ground-floor idea. Of course, the money managers for the various nations are not trained scientists, and so the legitimacy of IPCC is convincing.
It is recognized that the BBC has their retirement funds invested heavily in green. What do you think they will portray in the news?
You can use Al Gore and his company “Generations Investment Management, LLC” as your broker. That is big big money: they claim $5 Billion in assets managed.
Folks, that is where the big money is.
Big Oil is limited by competition. From the other big oil companies, by our personal changes in consumption per our price sensitivity (as we have seen in the recession), and by competing energy sources. Big Oil are no angels. I am aware that what they are doing in Kenya they could oonly dream of in the U.S. But at least they can be regulated, country by coutry, and have to aanswer to competition: get bad PR, lose business. Another coul plant comes online, lose business.
The AGW scam has no competition. They get control of all energy consumption of the planet, or nothing.
————————-
Al Gored,
Thank you for that link.
That link to O’Sullivan was useful for legal overview of the many circumstances related to Mann‘s intervention in the Virginia court’s agreement between ATI and UVa.
John
And don’t forget the EU contributions to AGW and climate change, which are in the 10’s or 100’s of millions…
This line about massive funding of skeptics is a constant refrain among all warmist groups. It’s really strange to watch supposedly serious people (as in academia – and not the PC fruitcakes) trot this line out when it’s so easily refuted. It’s probably descended from the leftwing refrain about being marginal players – when in fact they’ve taken over many of the major funding institutions, mainstream media, etc. I don’t know about Mann, but in most cases I don’t think it’s done with full knowledge that it is false; it’s much more irrational than that.
This is significant because it’s such a weak point; this is where pressure should be applied – such as, asking for a detailed account of who’s doing the funding and how much money is involved. If an answer is proffered (and I’m sure it will be), then ask for the evidence. Etc.
Too big(headed) to fail.
Note also the similarity to the explanations for the Tea Party movement – “it’s being funded by the Koch brothers”, etc. I think that, basically, these people are clinging to straws; they don’t have a clue as to why the world isn’t dancing to their tunes and they’ll seize upon any self-serving explanation. (It’s pathetic, but happily I’m now completely heartless when it comes to these types and their antics.)
Now that I think of it, I’m surprised that we haven’t seen the phrase “false consciousness” used yet. Maybe we will.
Who is funding Mann? (from the WSJ quote):
“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.”
As Pogo said, long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
The $79 billion figure regarding U.S. government funding includes money to coal, oil and natural gas companies which makes up the largest portion of it. The amount spent on climate research is a small fraction of the $79 billion figure and includes a diverse range of activities including money for the National Weather Service. The $79 billion figure is misleading as are many figures reported on internet blogs.
REPLY: How about looking into that “97 percent of climate scientists believe…” figure and get back to us on that? – Anthony
The greenest ever government seen in the UK is quietly walking away from MMCC. At the Tory conference climate change hasn’t been mentioned as an issue and Osbourne has given briefings that the UK would introduce no unilateral reductions in CO2 emissions that would destroy the UK economy. OK, we still have a lot of green taxes already but I believe we are seeing the end game.
Is it too late for the Australians to avoid their Carbon tax?
Here are some examples of big business funding disinformation campaigns:
http://www.windbyte.co.uk/tricks.html
Trouble with Mann’s argument is that it is Greenpeace and their friends that are receiving the funding.
Michael Mann has a lot in common with a lady of my acquaintance who styles herself for business purposes as Madame ZsaZsa The Tea-leaf Lady. Both have a genuine, but entirely irrational belief in their ability to predict future events. Dear Madame ZsaZsa doesn’t understand that the chaotic arrangement of the tea-leaves has no relationship of any kind with future chaotic events, and Michael Mann does not understand that no computer model will ever be devised that will successfully predict the future. To believe otherwise is simply due to an inability to understand the meaning of the word ‘chaotic’.
A problem that will not yield to algebra will not yield at all.
What leading scientific organizations and institutions are on the sidelines? Could we have a list?
Are HadCrut and GISS on the sidelines? RSS and UAH? NASA? USGS? American Physical Society? IPCC? Greenpeace? WWF? the MET Office? Union of Concerned Scientists? World Climate Report? The Economist? The Wall Street Journal? EPA? Energy Secretary Steven Chu? United Nations Clean Development Mechanism? The Telegraph? Al Gore? CSIRO? SIERRA Club? European Commission Joint Research Center? American Geophysical Union? Nature? Science? the Gaurdian? the BBC? Forbes? American Association for Advancement of Science?
Who? What leading scientific organization and/or institution is on the sidelines?
Hint: Sorry, but the judicial system doesn’t count.
So, essentially, can I now label ’em as climate communist schizoid hippies in the best form of pop psychology, I wonder, for it is true that there are only two types of schizoid types, the clinically insane and the propagandist. The former is mentally ill, the propagandist is one of the only few who are the only ones who considers themselves to be perfectly sane. The former is mostly rational enough not to be violent, the propagandist is mostly irrational to want everyone to act violently against what alarms him. The former struggles alone in their insanity, the propagandist wants everyone else to struggle for his insanity.
I think the end game that M.M. has chosen has two prongs of outcome should his intervention case fail to stop the ATI from in camera review of Mann’s info from his days at UVa.
The first outcome is that if he is exposed for committing wrongdoing by the possible UVa info release ordered by the VA courts, then he would initiate a cascade of exposure of fellow academics (the Team & the IPCC). I think there would be a sort of a scorched earth policy by him.
The second outcome is that if he is exposed for committing wrongdoing by the possible UVa info release ordered by the VA courts, then the previous exonerating inquiries (PSU, UEA and NSF) will be pressured to re-investigate based on the new info coming out of the released UVa info.
Also, if he is exposed for committing wrongdoing by the UVa info release ordered by the VA courts, he would likely be brought before Congressional hearings. Congress would have highly skeptical and very critical views of the IPCC AR4 and for its current preparations for AR5.
John
Let us not forget that British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell [Oil] were initial sponsors creating the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Rarely do the AGW enthusiasts point out they are funded by Big Oil.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
Roger Knights says: October 5, 2011 at 11:15 am
…If our side were well funded and well organized… [points 1-15]
Brilliant list Roger. I think this would make a good Minnesotans 4GW number, you know, along the lines of their “If we had some global warming”.
And thx for the compliment. Am busy elsewhere but with words like yours I’m looking again to see what might be possible.
re: “…WHO’S GOT OUR BACK?”
iN MY High School English class, ca. 1963, the above construct would have been circled in red and any decent grade on the paper probably would have been reduced to an F! Are PhDs immune from using proper English???!!! Sheeeesh!!!