MANNx TEDx and all that

The Mann at TEDx PSU (Penn State) video is now available. There’s no political content warning unfortunately, as Mann spends more time standing if front of giant faces of politicians and political pundits he hates than graphs and data. This TEDx is light on science, heavy on political trash talk. He even manages to work a photo of a child with a polar bear in at the end. The best part of the video is that it is only 16 minutes long. Video below. From the YouTube description:

TEDxPSU – Michael Mann – A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future

Michael Mann is a professor in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, a climatologist, and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. Michael is best known for his extensive background and research in the field of paleoclimatology. This work led to Michael’s graph of temperature trends over the last thousand years, popularly coined as the “hockey stick graph” because of its resemblance to the sporting equipment. The graph has received acclaim and criticism since its publishing. He has received many awards and honors including, but not limited to, the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by NOAA in 2002 and also was named one of the 50 Leading Visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American. Michael is also one of the founders of RealClimate.org, a highly acclaimed climate science website that was chosen in 2005 as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American and as one of the top 15 “green” websites by Time Magazine in 2008. Michael’s educational background includes an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

Note: you can click on the YouTube Logo in the lower right to like/dislike the video.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

(sarc on)Oh sure, I produce a YouTube video…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/the-ipcc-says-the-video-part-1/
…and now Michael Mann has to make one too. (sarc off)

RealClimate.org, a highly acclaimed climate science website that was chosen in 2005 as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American

So not, like, “Best Science Blog” or anything, eh? And not voted by real people or anything, eh?
I have not seen the video, as I am not sure I could keep my temper while doing so, I’m afraid.

Otter

That was almost, Almost as good as Nixon’s 18 minutes of Silence.

Skiphil

Mann tells us about all the evil politicans he hates but there’s remarkably little serious content for 16 min.
It is most “interesting” that he quotes Sarah Palin (regarding her own emails released in Alaska) to endorse the idea that FOI released emails must not be read “out of context” — because any thinking person should then notice that….
(1) The Team would not even cooperate with legally mandated FOI releases, regardless of putting them in ‘context’ or not, and,
(2) putting your whines about out-of-context emails on a par with Palin’s should hardly be the way to show the great scientific and intellectual superiority of The Team.
That was unintentionally quite revealing….

Dave

Just painted my basement… I need to go watch it dry now…

Skiphil

to supplement my comment on the IRONY of Mann’s reliance upon the Palin quote, we only got to see The Team’s “FOI” release because the secretive “FOIA” provided them in the face of radical intransigence from The Team…. i.e., at least Palin’s emails were released according to law, whereas The Team did everyone they could to obstruct and defy FOI law.

Bill Illis

Hansen’s 1988 predictions are apparently right on.
Only a very confident fibber would dare show that fake chart and think they could get away with it.

RobW

And exactly how did anyone actually watch the entire video? Personally I did not watch any of it. In keeping with warmista critiques I guess that means I should critique it [sarc off]

Honest ABE

I like how he cuts off the temp.data in 2005 before it splits from Hansen’s “middle emissions” model and then declares it “spot on.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if he altered the CO2 inputs too since, IIRC, I think that’s what they do at skeptical science to “prove” how great Hansen’s models are.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. … These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The[y] … provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

An attempt at ‘brand control’; they are off to a good start (sarc) showcasing ‘The Mann’ …
.

NotTheAussiePhilM

Still ‘Hiding the Decline’, still claiming 12 spaghetti plots done by a handful of people, using the same data are ‘independent’.
– when you know what they’re doing, it’s really interesting to watch them tying to pull it off time & again!

Present ratings for this video (26 total) :
4 . . . Likes
22 . . Dis-likes.
It should be noted, most ‘producer’ accounts at YouTube could look at the metrics for their videos and see when in their videos like/dislikes etc were clicked, so, word to the wise, WATCH a bit of the video first before simply rendering a like/dislike verdict …
Any one needs help, check out the usage of Maalox (heartburn remedy).
.

nofreewind

At 2:34 when discussing Hansen’s prediction he stops the temperature data line at 2005. If he had continued the line to the present he it would have been just above the pink link or reduced emission scenario, which has absolutely not occurred. Instead since 1990, human CO2 emission has increased by 30% while global temperatures by all accounts have basically flat lined. These so-called scientists are always playing slight of hand tricks and here you can plainly see one at 2:34.

nofreewind
nofreewind

Before anyone gives one bit of credibility to Mann’s video, I think you should read his climate science colleagues emails regarding his work.
http://junkscience.com/2011/12/06/team-knew-hockey-stick-reconstruction-was-wrong/

jorgekafkazar

I must go floss.

David Falkner

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7322820/penn-state-nittany-lions-chief-rodney-erickson-tries-soothe-faculty-fears-inquiry
Irony. I never thought an ESPN story would be relevant on this blog, but I must ask the obvious. Why are faculty, specifically, worried about a whitewash in an investigation by Penn State higher ups? It seems such an odd thing to just blurt out. What are they afreud of?

David Falkner

Also, if the case is so straight forward, why is it the Lasic et al was the first paper I’ve seen that tries to tie it all together? Albeit, badly.

Hey now. The introductions was good.

At the 5 min 30 sec point, he has a slide of both the Hoggan/Littlemore and Oreskes/Conway anti-skeptic books. As I pointed out in my piece last year http://climatechangedispatch.com/editorials/7568-circuitous-attempts-to-smear-agw-skeptic-scientists , Hoggan and Oreskes rely on a single source for their accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupt. That would be anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, who has never had the courage to show his central bit of “smoking gun” evidence in its full context, or told how he ‘obtained’ it. Try looking into all the aspects of his accusation, and instead of seeing what he claims is a fossil fuel industry / skeptic scientists conspiracy to confuse the public, what you see instead ends up looking like highly questionable efforts by a few enviro-activists to marginalize AGW critics by any means possible.

Here, and in the Wall Street Journal, Mann apparently remains in a time warp circa 2003 when big oil backed, tobacco-like campaign (let alone the lead-in-petrol scare!) would have been believable, arguable, tenable. In this time warp has gathered a hockey league of data confirming that ‘recent warming is anomalous as far back as we can extend these sorts of estimates.’ (hmmm…what sorts of estimates? Tree rings? or Ice cores?). What we now know from the Climategate II emails is that the ego-armour around his beloved hockey stick was as impervious to peer criticism as was later to the criticism of McIntyre.
It is at times like these where ordinary folk will retreat cautious, doubtful and a little embarrassed, while the likes of Mann and Santer will stride to the fore heroic.
WSJ letter here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068211662483248.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket#articleTabs%3Darticle

Ken Methven

Scientization of politics? well at least we can see who he thinks should be in the driver’s seat….pure charachter assassination, innuendo and bravura. I am not glad I wasted the 16 minutes listening to him….won’t do that again.

Spector

RE: Ken Methven: (December 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm)
“Scientization of politics?”
Of course, the real issue appears to be the mobilization of science for political purposes. A statement that 97% of scientists agree with ‘Global Warming’ sounds a lot like the result of a Soviet style election.

Pamela Gray

Have something so much more important to do. Need to watch ice crystals form on my car window. Should take all night and into the early morning hours. Sooooo…no can do re: video

CraigR

All he did was attack his so called attackers ….if he has nothing to hide why not give up his data and methods …. No brainer really.

Manfred

Welcome to the North Korea of Climate Science.

Doubting Thomas

“I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make [the hockey-stick graph] a central icon of the climate change debate,” Mann told the BBC, back in 2010 when being investigated for his roll in climategate #1.
He’s seem to have changed his mind … Again.

Hey, he didn’t mention me!

Up to 4 likes, 54 dislikes.

Yet another video from the Bullshit Department.
But… maybe if you play that video backward, you will hear the passphrase for the protected FIOA files?

Spector

RE: nofreewind: (December 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm)
“… since 2000 CO2 emissions have increased by 30% while temperatures have flat lined.”
For an understanding of why that might be the case you might like to check out a plot showing the raw difference in ‘radiative forcing’ when the total CO2 in the atmosphere is increased from 300 PPM to 600 PPM. So far, from a 19th century reference of 280 PPM, we have increased the CO2 level to just over 396 PPM, a square root of 2 multiple, or 41% increase. The plot shows the minimal effect of a 100% increase:
File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png

He is not doing so well on You Tube:
That graph he shows from Hansen is not the original one published in 1988! It’s been adjusted to more closely match what actually happened. They say they’re just using updated values for the CO2 sensitivity. Which they get, essentially, by comparing model projections like this to what actually happened.
Totally circular logic.
Really? TED has started covering religion now?
The Church of Global Warming has a wide reach indeed…
Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and Michael Mann is a major perp. He deserves long stay in a cold cell with a big, bum-raping cellmate.
snarfgibble 38 minutes ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
This guy is a scientist? Sounds like an emotional zealot to me. He wants us to change our public policy based upon computer models? Models that go out 100 years. Hmmmm.
hwantx 45 minutes ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
Wow, I dont think I’ll be watching any more TedX presentations if pseudoscience like this is touted as truth and cutting edge. Computer models say whatever you want them to say Mr Professor. And ending the first slide at 2004, ignoring 7 years of declining temperatures which would disprove your models is quite inconvenient. Very little science is discussed in this video too but alot of alarming predictions are made. Think of the children and the white brown bear which lives in the Artic. Doom!
blastzilla4 1 hour ago 2
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
After reading few of the Climategate 1 and Climategate 2. You Mr.Mann you should hide under the rock. You are a horrible person.
317system 1 hour ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
It’s a travesty! Still pushing his cherry picked bogus hockey stick. Was that a bristlecone he was playing with?
randoneur 2 hours ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
As Al Gore fades into irrelevancy, along comes Mann, trying to salvage his career before the same happens to him.
pinroot 2 hours ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
When he shows the Hockey Stick he doesn’t show the massive error bars, the fact that he cuts off the proxy data that has gone down and the fact that he added instrumental data onto the end to show the huge uptick even when his proxy data shows the opposite.
The fact of the matter is that his chart is utterly bogus. His proxies can’t even replicate modern temperature data much less temps from a 1000 years ago.
Look at his emails – he is a sociopath who tries to eliminate anyone in his way.
thegoodlocust 2 hours ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
@glenncz Actually it would’ve been below that since they tend to fiddle with Hansen’s carbon numbers before showing his graphs.

G. Karst

The only way I can look at a photo of Mann is if I imagine vertical steel bars in the image, and a number on his back. I haven’t figured out a way to watch more than 30 s of video with sound. GK

wermet

This mann is a liar from his very first sentence. I have no doubt that he believes his lies, but that does not make them true.
I’m actually sorry that I watched it. I truly wish that I had those 16 minutes back. I am truly worse off and feel less intelligent for having watched it. (I actually feel dirty after having watched it!)
For the sake of Penn State, they should shut this guy up. After the Jerry Sandusky/Joe Paterno scandal, only Micheal Mann could make Penn State look even less ethical.

Ray

I’m like most people, I can’t get myself to push the play button. I don’t want to have a sudden fit of AGW induced nausea… anyway, it seems that even 30 years from now they will still be showing graphs ending at most around 2005.

Pat Moffitt

What did he do with with the 1988 Hansen “prediction?”

Alex Heyworth

In that brief CV they forgot to mention his BBS (Bachelor of Bullshit), his DD (Doctorate of doctoring) and his Advanced Diploma in Coercion and Browbeating.

Independent

1. Start presentation with blatant lies about carbon dioxide emission levels and observed temperatures vis-a-vis Hansen’s predictions, which are demonstrably not even close to observations.
2. Move on to a litany of attacks on politicians who disagree with you, while readily quoting scientific know-nothings Henry Waxman and Al Gore (not to mention loads of ultra-liberal newspaper editors and political cartoonists).
3. What could go wrong? Surely this will convince everyone!

It appears that Mann did not present the ‘agreement’ between Hansen’s model and the subsequent actual temperature measurements accurately:
1) Mann truncated actual temperatures at 2005 (strange given the fact that the talk was recorded on 13 November 2011)
2) Mann says that the ‘medium model’ was ‘pretty much spot on’. Actually the ‘low model’ was as close to observation as the ‘medium model’ – and including years after 2005 shows that the ‘low’ model is in better agreement with observation.
3) Mann misrepresented the ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ models. These were actually assuming increased, constant, or reduced CO2 output. The low model assumes reduced CO2 output. We have not reduced CO2 output since 1988 (quite the opposite) so the appropriate model for comparison would be what Mann called the ‘high model’.
See http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/2011/12/manngling-models.html

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta

Well… I could watch Mike’s little you-tube thing but then I never watched Joseph Goebbels’ you-tube explanation of his own personal awesomeness either and I wouldn’t want to show favoritism to one hate-filled, uber-propagandist over another. And I’m out of kaopectate.

Roger Knights

BernieL says:
December 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Here, and in the Wall Street Journal, Mann apparently remains in a time warp circa 2003 when big oil backed, tobacco-like campaign (let alone the lead-in-petrol scare!) would have been believable, arguable, tenable.

Here’s a response, titled “Notes from Skull Island,” I posted to the theory that our side is run under the aegis of a well-funded, well-organized campaign. It’s a list of things that would be happening, but aren’t, if that were true.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/out-manned-but-what-happened-to-the-science/#comment-760039
From a couple of clues I’ve read online, Mann is a far-leftist of the Orestes type, so the meme of scheming-capitalists-behind-the-scenes fits his mental template.

richardK

Look, everyone needs to watch this video before mouthing off on something you have never seen. I suggest that someone uses the video and produce a point/counter point.

AGW_Skeptic

richardK says – “I suggest that someone uses the video and produce a point/counter point.”
GREAT idea. I hope someone does ASAP.

James Bull

When I logged my dislike of this video the score stood at 6 likes and 90 dislikes. It makes you feel nauseous watching the whole thing but we must suffer for our science? It reminds me of actors doing party political broadcasts in the UK.

Shevva

Proof if ever needed that this Man(n) is not a scientist but a wannabe politician.
If I was connected to Penn state I would be ashamed, then again all the news stories coming out of there lately seem to show a complete lack of ethics.
I’m trying to think of the biggest clown figure in history to compare him to but no-one even comes close, so i guess bozo the clown :- http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/bozo-the-clown.jpg

Well, you call Mann a liar but really do not show what is the lie ! Here is one example ..
First he say the models is VERIFYED, later he say we really can’t say what the warming will be 3-5 or 5-7 because the models are uncertain. So what is it ? Due to uncertainty maybe it’s zero due to CO2 ? (Just as likely as anything). At least it will turn out the models is NOT verifyed or really show me where and how ! If he can not he is really a liar !

cui bono

OK, I watched it. Could someone medical explain why we always seem to heave up bits of tomato, even when we haven’t eaten any tomatoes?

cui bono

Eeek! This short video is probably the primer for his book next year! Hundreds of pages of politics, whining about being persecuted, naff science, and ‘naming the guilty men’ who blasphemed against the Cause.
I hope you have many happy citations in the index Mr Watts!

John Silver

“He even manages to work a photo of a child with a polar bear in at the end”
LOL
(I don’t have the stomach to watch the video)

Bad Manners

vomit
sorry, couldn’t help myself.