The AGU Chapman gabfest is being streamed live. Up this AM, are two notable alarmists who will surely provide back to back entertainment. Times are U.S. Mountain.
| 10:05 a.m. — 10:25 a.m. | Scientific Uncertainty in Public Discourse: The Case for Leakage Into the Scientific Community Stephan Lewandowsky |
| 10:25 a.m. — 10:45 a.m. | The Battle to Communicate Climate Change: Lessons from The Front Lines Michael Mann |
Gleick will be up at 3:40 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. with Grand Challenges at the Interface of Climate, Hydrology and Water Systems
I’d say his biggest “grand challenge” is overcoming his self admitted crime. Though, AGU doesn’t seem to care.
You can watch online, details follow.
Full schedule here: http://chapman.agu.org/climatescience/live-web-session-schedule/
Watch live online: http://chapman.agu.org/climatescience/virtual-meeting/
They ask for your name and email address to watch, likely so they can solicit you for membership later. But, it seems any name/email address will do.
Or, you might just try skipping direct to the live link they presented to me after registration:
http://chapman.agu.org/climatescience/virtual-meeting/live-video/
Supposedly, you can submit questions to the speakers. We’ll see.
I’m waiting for the surprise appearance of Anthony Weiner who will take about protecting underage girls in the internet age.
The Warmunistas problem is not a failure to communicate but the failure of their anti-scientific program.
just asked a question
“do you those who commit fraud in science should be prosecuted”
Unable to watch all of the broadcast, so could some who can tell WUWT if the question was asked and answered?
“The Battle to Communicate Climate Change”
The temperature doesn’t change much at all for a 1,000 years or so, then it whoooshes up.
How difficult could it be to communicate that ??
Heh heh heh
Michael Mann and his “Steady State Theory”. Earth was in a “Steady State” for 1,000’s of years until evil man[n] came along and made it a hockey stick.
So how much do they get for speaking fees? Not counting reimbursement for travel.
Warm and Warmerer.
I’m watching the video feed, it’s having trouble keeping up with the load.
I’m getting the sense it’s part support group to help everyone keep the faith. Sure doesn’t look like a bunch of geologists I’ve seen.
Then again, the beer probably doesn’t come out until lunch.
While waiting, take this quiz. Note the appeal to consensus.
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/
Sorry. Not interested. I get enough of this kind of inappropriate application of statistical analysis (and outright just plain kindergarten level of understanding) and political maneuvering in the public educational system. It discourages me greatly to see how wide spread it is in other disciplines.
My tweets to Chapman. None answered satisfactorily.
$omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 6m
@ClimateOfGavin Why is ocean not rising now if co2 sole driver? #climatechapman http://sealevel.Colorado.edu
View conversation
Reply
Delete
Favorite
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 7m
@ClimateOfGavin Partially true. Increase stems not from co2 alone and you know it #climatechapman
View conversation
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 9m
@PeterGleick Wrong Peter, and arrogantly calling ppl who disagree stupid is not a communication strategy #climatechapman
View conversation
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 11m
@RebekahDJones If you want to win the #climate argument I am the guy you need to convince, using actual scientific facts #climatechapman
View conversation
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 12m
@RebekahDJones Trolling? Attempting to discuss the actual science is trolling? #Climatechapman
View conversation
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 20m
@windbarb Ocean temps increased much less than IPCC models predicted. Why isnt that the discussion? #climatechapman
View conversation
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 20m
@windbarb Completely wrongOxygen a contaminant in the atmosphere, created by photosynthesisY not go back to that atmosphere? #climatechapman
View conversation
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 29m
#ClimateChapman misses the point, science does NOT support #climatechange craziness. THAT is the issue. Different baselines, diferent facts.
Expand
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 32m
Can someone at #climatechapman ask why carbon dioxide levels within geologic norms is dangerous? #SciencePlease
Expand
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 32m
Can someone at #climatechapman ask about the fact that temp has not increased in last 16 years?
Expand
$omaticHypermutation $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation 34m
Communicating #climatechange requires facts and a winning scientific argument. Nothing helps until you actually have that. #climatechapman
I’m watching the video feed, it’s having trouble keeping up with the load.
Load of what? Oh wait, nevermind.
Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line says:
June 9, 2013 at 8:44 am
> While waiting, take this quiz. Note the appeal to consensus.
> http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/
Judging from the results, most people taking the test have never heard of the consensus.
20% of the test sample got “Which gas makes up most of the Earth’s atmosphere?” right. Sigh. I assume the answer most often chosen was oxygen (20%), but I suppose it could have been CO2 (400ppm). Bigger number and all that….
Anthony and climate audit got kudos with last speaker. Anthony on surface stations project.
Tuned in for about an hour so far. It seems to me quite appropriate that this is occurring on a Sunday morning. It really had the feel of a Sunday Go To Meetingcom. Pastors and congregation. They even recently announced a heretic was on Twitter with a little sunny symbol.
I never really got into the whole revival/congregation thing. Logging out.
Gotta love the quote” … I conflabulated….at the drop of a non-existent needle.”
Michael Mann’s multiple illusions : a runaway warming Earth, whose causes Mann is valiantly
fighting , virtually alone (despite his 97% majority), battling Big Oil (read : Arab forces),
providing himself with high ranking (but phony) title (Nobel laureate). And now, with
static temps, a severe lack of ammunition. It’s tough out there, boys, says the battle-
hardened Mann, but I won’t rest as long as my govt welfare funding holds out.
What a man, that Mann.
Numb and Numberer.
Michael Mann on now. I’ve never heard him before. Whether he’s right or wrong he seems awfully smug.
Are not reruns of the three stooges outlawed in the US?
As I continue to listen, I feel that smug’s too mild a word. Isn’t all he’s saying just ad hom attacks?
Ric Werme – says – June 9, 2013 at 8:58 am:::
“20% of the test sample got “Which gas makes up most of the Earth’s atmosphere?” right. ”
As of now it’s still 20% – I would dearly love to know what people are giving as a response – more than likely O – but wouldn’t it be interesting if it were CO2?
I’ve never heard him either, and as everyone knows, I’m not a scientist. But listening to Mann’s Lysenko bit and political carbon tax argument right now, I feel as if I’m listening to a public relations guerrilla workshop on how to get an idea across.
Actually, this is an amazing discussion. This is how these people operate and think? Complaints that they have to open up their code to justify their hypotheses?
You’re (ha ha ha … just having a little fun centered on the word ‘your’ now!) direct link worked for me:
http://chapman.agu.org/climatescience/virtual-meeting/live-video/
.
The general public ought to hear this. They are doing themselves no favors with this sort of discussion.
Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line says:
June 9, 2013 at 8:44 am
While waiting, take this quiz. Note the appeal to consensus.
4/5 of participants got the predominant gas in the atmosphere wrong. Explains a lot about our recent elections.
Did MM just outright lie about the Heartland document thefts last year?
“‘… funded’ interests fighting against climate change? ”
Huh?
What does Michael Mann call himself – AN “UNFuINDED” interest? WHo pays him? And with what – “shelled peanuts”?
.
Could Lewandowsky and Mann be termed, ahem, ‘climate whores’ or is that going too far?
Michael “Broken Hokey Stick” Mann sure has some brass b*lls, now says future ‘hearings’ will vindicate his position when internal fossil fuel industry memos are ‘released’ …
And there’s the obligatory Nazi analogy from one of the shills in the audience. Amazing. Can’t watch any more, the shark was jumped.
I see a MASSIVE amount of ‘projection’ in this Michael Mann fellow, massive amounts …
Apparently my parody link of Mad Men does not work anymore (Green men of climate alarmism). So i posted at another link…
http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s96ob6.jpg
After watching this video today, these folks anger me even more. Tie deniers to smoking. Mike seems to have defamed heartland in his response to one question IMO.
questioner: ‘ … a matter of believing in science …’
Okay … so she is saying “facts are not sufficient”?
Lewandowsky seems to think so … “underscoring the consensus helps”
Count me out, Steve-boy.
.
I watched about an hour and I felt insulted intellectually — and I’m just a knowledgeable lay person who put out a bit of effort to learn the truth after the consensus started to smell fishy to me, well before climategate.
“Watch Mann and Lewandowsky make fools of themselves live”
Thanks, but I’m busy watching my grass grow.
“A hierarchy of science?”
I am now twice as worried about the future of humanity than I was an hour ago.
To summarize what has been said so far:
“WHY won’t they believe me – why won’t people listen?
I’m ONLY trying to save them, don’t they understand that?
Don’t they understand … ”
ALL too well, I would say.
.
Lest it is forgotten, MM is the author of the original ‘we must “hide the decline”:
That is WELL DONE Go Home! Well done!
The Green men of Climate Alarmism!
.
_Jim says:
June 9, 2013 at 10:11 am
{I}Michael “Broken Hokey Stick” Mann sure has some brass b*lls, now says future ‘hearings’ will vindicate his position when internal fossil fuel industry memos are ‘released’ …
{/I}
Vindicated from what ? Climate science depends on memos in the corridors of Big Oil because it is only that that can vindicate him? …. Me no understand Please explain
Looking into the Bizarro world of Michael Mann, from our standpoint, there is no ‘logic’ there … if I could explain his rationale and you understood it, we would both be as deluded and insane as he is. Thank your lucky stars.
PS. He was trying to draw the analogy between ‘big tobacco’ and big oil and that years later … well, that’s his nuttiness on display anyway on that subject (“Everything is a conspiracy/they’re out to get me!”) Insane. If he were to approach this with any amount of logic and real science he would lose and his glory-grabbing days would be SO OVAH.
.
More people need to know what a Delphi group/study is before they start throwing around “consensus”.
It’s bewildering how such intelligent people, with so much altruism, such a good and important story to tell and all the media to tell it with, can be so misunderstood. Its bewildering that such a malleable public isnt getting it.
clearly the problem is communication …..it can’t be anything else can it ?
Fox … henhouse .. heh …
Michael Mann … overseeing the climate … Ha!
.
13/13 in the Pew quiz. They should have listed Water Vapor in question #12
Don says:
June 9, 2013 at 9:44 am
Ah, there’s an analysis at http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/22/publics-knowledge-of-science-and-technology/
I don’t remember what the other choices were.
The reason you are seeing Mann try to draw similarities to Tobacco is this study (full of strawmen as it is) trying to link the tobacco battles of the 90’s to the Tea Party – http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hottopics/msg0213060615278.html
I read the study, if that is what you can actually call it, and found myself laughing as this is what passes for peer review now. If you read their methods in the abstract you can wonder to yourself if using propaganda is a proper reference material.
But there is Mann’s source, a politically biased cadre of non-profits dedicated to attacking conservative groups. I wonder if they had trouble getting their 501 (c) 3 from the IRS?
http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html
Jim Says …. [i]well, that’s his nuttiness … [/]
Is this his new title, as in ‘Her Majesty’ ? Ahh … was that how he was introduced on the program ? … ‘please welcome his nuttiness,’ ….
/sarc
Remember that noted UFO, umm, “expert”, and nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman thinks that people who do not accept his version of reality regarding ETs are “unscientific”. It seems like certain types of people are cut from the same cloth. I often think that some people deserve to be Buzz Aldrined.
Alvin says:
June 9, 2013 at 11:18 am
13/13 in the Pew quiz. They should have listed Water Vapor in question #12
—
Yeah, me too. I think they should also have qualified the CO2 question with ‘nearly all climate scientists’ and not ‘nearly all scientists’
I went over the results and analysis page but could not find how many thought that co2 “makes up most of the Earth’s atmosphere“. I wonder what percentage thought this given all the endless propaganda around ‘dangerous’ co2???
“About the Quiz: Chemical Reactions, Control Groups and CO2”
http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/22/publics-knowledge-of-science-and-technology/
This is junk !
Alley up now and uses a mischaracterization of Plate Tectonics to support his assertion that Climate ‘Science’ and its ‘Predictions’ are better. Did I hear “infinitely better’? He uses a slide with a time-line from Fourier (Greenhouse Effect), Tyndall and Arrhenius THEN puts in Plank, Einstein and Wegener [really does not belong because he got a lot of physics wrong that was explained in the 1960’s by a lot of physicists].
I’m getting sea-sick from the spin that’s gushing here.
I had to stop. No point in watching further.
It’s just junk !
I’m knowing now that my 23-year membership with AGU is dead.
That would make them the Apathetic Gleickian Union.
Can we please stop teasing Michael Mann, he did not ask to be a public figure.
His TV appearances, paid speaking engagements, hiring of a publicist, and newspaper article were all entirely involuntary. He was forced, against his will, to do all these things.
“10:25 a.m. — 10:45 a.m. The Battle to Communicate Climate Change: Lessons from The Front Lines Michael Mann”
What we have here is a failure to communicate common sense.
Astounding, Lewandowsky Michael Mann’s warmup band. And it closes out with Gleik.
What a loserfest.
Liarpalooza?
Lewandowsky writes false alarmist science and he’s on the money train with the rest.
Please feel free to snip this but it is already the filtered version of what I’m thinking.
Is Peter typing more “internal” memos? Who did he pretend to be this time?
You mean that his arm is bent behind his back painfully during the sham scam poor pitiful me mannian love fest?
If it is, I rather think that maniacal’s reaching back to pat his fat wallet would be the real cause for any arm malformation?
I would dare say they all three met their Peter Principal levels… They have certainly shown their level of incompetence.
Blimey its a packed out event – go to the livestream feed, number in the top right is 74 watching atm.. I reckon most of them are from WUWT.
Got a poor chap on atm getting all depressed over climate change – I know how he feels…
Hmmm … Gleick (sp?) would like to debate the Heartland Institute on the topic/subject of “Ethics” …
Rather hypocritical of Mann to diss Big Oil when the alarmies are getting a lot of their money from BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, etc. But also quite in character for him.
Or, you might just try skipping direct to the live link they presented to me after registration:
http://chapman.agu.org/climatescience/virtual-meeting/live-video/
=========================
I just watched the last 20 minutes (all in a row).
Interesting.
Ok, in that last 20 minutes, methane raised its ugly head, and Gleick avoided a pointed question.
Go Home says:
June 9, 2013 at 8:27 am
And all their expenses are tax deductible. That’s why academics travel so much. It is also why you will find them giving a lecture to one friend.
Jeff Condon says:
June 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Mann has given up all pretense of science. Gleick, Lewandowsky, and Mann are now the three stooges of climate science.
Man Bearpig says:
June 9, 2013 at 12:06 pm
=============================
Interesting idea.
97% of climate scientists believe ……. whatever it is we’re supposed to have been told they believe and ….
……. 97% of real scientists believe they’re full of shit
Leakage? Yuck.
Mann’s got Lewandowsky as his warm up act? Well if you’re a loser back home Down Under then try the Big Apple of losers I suppose-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/sceptics-put-heat-on-climate-change/story-e6frg6xf-1226660995986
@Theo Goodwin. Unfortunately, not true.
“These people” (they have no scientific stance) are totally deluded. They only seek to “engage” in the confused over “Climate Change”. They know full well those who have lived the lies for no outcome.
You cannot lie to someone who knows better however, they admit its easy to delude the babes in the woods.