He’s still pushing the same old stuff; Mannian certified hockey sticks, evil skeptics, and a persecution complex to make up for his own lack of transparency.
This is from the AGU Chapman conference, where most all of the leading alarmists got together and provided a support group for each other. Apparently, they’ll let anyone give a presentation, as such notables a self admitted document thief Peter Gleick, Crock of the Week guy Peter Sinclair, and UK policy wonk Bob Ward all gave presentations.
You can see the complete list here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos/videos
I welcome readers extracting some key points of interest.
Of course, I was denied the opportunity to present as I never was notified of the event signup until it was too late, even though I’m a member of AGU. Just as well, they probably would not have let me finish anything I presented.
Caleb says: July 5, 2013 at 11:03 am
It appears Mann was just finishing his graph when he hiccuped.
Did Mann mention Briffa’s new graph, or Briffa at all?
Hi
Not, in the reference documents
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2009b/mann2009b.html
I ‘de-trended’ his data from 1860 onwards
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_manna.txt
it wasn’t a hiccup, more likely a ‘defibrillator shock’
http://climexp.knmi.nl/ps2pdf.cgi?file=data/iamo_mann.eps.gz
Michael who?
Wasn’t there a climatologist by that name who did something bizarre and unnatural with trees a while back? Also played hockey I think.
I wonder whatever happened to him – vanished without trace …..
First, DeLorean- now, da laureate.
“lack of transparency.”
poor choice of words. lack of ability and/or lack of intellect would be far more accurate.
disgraceful individual is their Mr Mann..
regards
Channeling Moshpit: Mann is personality type IDJT
The Fat Mann is singing!
Opera climax coming.
Thank you. Eight minutes was as much as I could manage.
“..so this curve which is essentially irrelevant.” He asserted that more than once, then continued to present it as meaningful “as far back as we can go”.
“unprecedented”
“unprecedented”
“as far back as we can go”
drone drone drone…
tobacco industry
drone drone drone…
Although in the midst of a holiday weekend in the U.S., I think it revealing that only 32 comments have appeared as of this posting in response to this thread on Mann and colleagues’s presentations. Might this portend a growing insignificance of this physicist, in the eyes of those who frequent this and similar sites?
Yes, I often hear the science is settled. I’ve asked different people to quantify the “amount” settled and have gotten from 75% and up. However, no corresponding decrease in funding is considered necessary.
If the science is settled, where is all the money going?
If you put 20 screaming fanatics in a room with 80 calm balanced and reasonable people, the screaming fanatics are likely to end up running the show.
Dr. Mann was given an opportunity for a presentation by the AGU. He used this opportunity to present a political diatribe.
Where was the science?
Sad that scientists were exposed to this drivel and even sadder that some applauded at the end.
I wonder the same thing, Steven Curry. He’s not getting support from the clean-up hitters, just the low end of the lineup amongst the alarmist commentariat.
==================
I can’t listen. How can a so called scientist drone on without any reference to data or evidence? He is completely irrelevant.
Has Mann not yet noticed that the future temperatures predicted by his hockey stick have failed to materialise? It was OK when he was predicting the future but now that that time has come and gone….!!
Just one of those unlucky soldiers who were on the “Front lines” during the “climate wars” and never quite got over it. Forever yearning for the good old days when the year 2000 was in the future.
No thanks. I’ll skip watching it. My doctor told me to cut down on apoplexy.
I turned off as soon as he started claiming that people were denying climate change is occurring. How can we get it into the thick skulls of these people that very, very few of us deny that the climate is changing; I have little doubt we all acknowledge that it is changing – as it has over the many millennia of the life of this planet – what we doubt (i.e. are sceptical about) is that this change has been caused solely by human use of fossil fuels. If they cannot get that simple fact right, how can we trust them to get more complicated facts right?
Well, he’s getting better at this. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the subject matter could be sucked in.
For any “newbies” to the subject that might be lurking about here’s a few of the things wrong with the presentation (yes, I watched the whole thing):
1) He misrepresents the consensus from the general to the specific and even onto the desired response. Yes, there is a consensus based on physics and chemistry that generally increased CO2 should cause some warming, but there’s no consensus that that warming would be of any particular magnitude or how much warming is truly attributable to man’s activities or certainly not what (if anything) we should do about it.
2) He continues to promulgate the myth that there is a well-organized and funded climate denial machine funded by of all things the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry couldn’t care less; they will not be harmed by any sort of regulations attempting to curb CO2. They’ll just transfer the cost to customers. No, the real losers in these schemes to reduce CO2 emissions are always the poor. The people standing up against this nonsense are champions for the poor and get little to no (most likely negative) payment for their trouble, not to mention ridiculed fallaciously.
3) He confounds tobacco smoking with second hand smoke. Patrick Michaels and some others that are saying global warming isn’t as bad as some people are making it out to be rightly pointed out that second (and third) hand smoke isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be.
4) He doesn’t mention the Wegman report which completely destroys the methodology used to produce the hockey stick. A solid report “discredited” by finding some material irrelevant to the conclusions within its introduction that wasn’t properly cited.
5) He keeps using the word unprecedented with respect to at most a couple thousand years as if it has any meaning in geologic time scales. Come on. It’s not even a blink of an eye to the grand scheme of things.
6) He characterizes Oklahoma as the “hottest state”. Uh, no, it doesn’t even make the top ten. Perhaps it has had the greatest anomaly from some previous period, but that’s not what he says; that’s demonstrated inaccuracy in communication of facts (not trustworthy).
I shouldn’t have left off:
7) The whole Delingpole calls for my murder absurdity continues undaunted by truth, facts, or logic.
http://junkscience.com/2013/04/07/michael-mann-still-trying-to-silence-critics-wants-opinion-writer-fired-from-newspaper-for-joke-about-warmist-industry-tried-by-hanging-judge/
Undoubtedly, Mann supports Obama’s climate change policies which will probably add a couple of trillion dollars to the national debt. Out grand children will be faced with not only a hundred thousand broken, unrepairable windmills and millions of worn out solar cells, but they will be so far in debt that they won’t be able to afford coal. And after the last windmill breaks down, will your grand children ever see birds again?
[Snip. This poster is persona non grata here. ~mod.]
Bob Hope’s signature song was “Thanks for the Memories.” Bing Crosby’s signature song was “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas.” Without a doubt, Michael Mann’s signature and theme song, which should be played prior to one of his speeches, is “Send in the Clowns.” Now I ask you, could any lyrics more accurately introduce a Mikey presentation than those of Send in the Clowns?
Don’t you love farce? My fault I fear
I thought that you’d want what I want
Sorry my dear but where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns, quick send in the clowns
What a surprise, who could foresee?
I’ve come to feel about you what you felt about me
Why only now when I see that you’ve drifted away
What a surprise, what a cliché?
Isn’t it rich, isn’t it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career
And where are the clowns? Quick send in the clowns
Don’t bother they’re here
Russell says:
“What you say is largely contradicted by the video”
Technically, what I said largely contradicts the video. There’s a difference.
Please provide citation or link to where Delingpole calls for Mann’s execution as Mann claims in the video. You realize, of course, the absence of such a citation or link would contradict the video or as you seem to view the world be contradicted by the video.
[Reply: Sorry, but ‘Russell’ will not be providing any citations. He is persona non grata here due to his many vile comments in the past. ~mod.]
Thanks, for posting how scientists, and science in general, has been under assault. Interference of personal beliefs, and politics, should not factor in how the science is conducted and debated. And the persecution of these scientists is ridiculous.
Dr. Mann reminds me of some college acquaintences, the ubiquitous “smartest guy in the room”, well presented in the movie Good Will Hunting, available at the above link.
This a late post, so maybe no one will notice it.
In the Mann AGU presentation, he presents his infamous 1998/99 hockey-stick graph alongside Marcott and Sakun’s recent graph derived from ocean and lake sediments, which also has a sharp 20th-century hockey stick. However, Steve MacIntryre demolished M & S’s paper thoroughly a couple of months ago. I guess Mikey didn’t notice.