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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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