From Dr. Michael Mann’s Twitter feed today:
What is he mad about? Probably the same thing a bunch of the same people were mad about last year when I was interviewed on PBS. How DARE they let somebody who has skeptical views speak? The comments from Joe Bastardi in Mann’s Twitter feed were ignored.
Here is Dr. Curry’s interview, it is well worth a read/listen.
While the Obama administration presses forward with plans to deal with climate change, Congress remains steadfast against taking action. It’s not easy to find a scientist who will agree with that point of view. But Republicans have found an ally in a climate scientist by the name of Judith Curry.
Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she’s soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, “We just don’t know.”
More here: http://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=213894792
h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue
TobiasN, 9:08:
“I leafed through the book. It was gibberish. I could hardly believe it. They were supposed to be the smart people.”
I was skeptical of human-induced global warming from the start. Later I essentially threw up my hands and said, OK, I believe it.
After doing so, I became much more skeptical than I’d been in the first place. Because after buying into the theory somewhat, I felt implicated by the awful science and politicized bullying often used to promote it. By the incredibly unscientific reasoning, like the habit of pointing to any weather-related disaster and yelling, YOU SEE? WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED?!” (see e.g. Russian heat wave, continental US drought, Super Storm Sandy). To point to declining Arctic sea ice and demand, “What else could be causing this?” (I forget who said, in another context, that the correct answer to this question is, Anything in the world that you don’t understand.)
Back to the topic: Some puff piece: The Obama administration wants to Do Something; Congress (Boo!) is standing in the way, and Republicans have an ally in Judy Curry. I guess Mann’s just pissed off that she gets any even minimally respectful public hearing of her heretical views. She wouldn’t, if it were up to him, and to a couple of climate scientists I happen to know.
_Jim says:
August 22, 2013 at 9:01 pm
lurker, passing through laughing says August 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm
The way NPRavda frames the report is toxic to serious journalism.
Take heart; few are listening but the already devoted …
____________________________
I listened to NPR over the course of a day, about a week ago. I was surprised that so much of their broadcast was clearly propaganda. The experience became surreal. I came away thinking of them as “Government Radio” and an unknown “news reader” as Winston Smith.
The sad thing is that there are so many within “the government” who now act solely for the expansion of power over the citizenry and who believe themselves immune to the repercussions of lying to us so blatantly.
No wonder ALL Gore so recently said, “… as the conversation is won on global warming — and it’s not won yet but it’s very nearly won…”. They believe that their control is very nearly complete.
It is encouraging to read on Dr. Curry’s blog that she spent many hours discussing the science with Richard Harris over his two-day (!) visit, and it is discouraging to see that he left it all on the cutting-room floor. In the process, as I suggested above, he made Dr. Curry out to be maundering and incoherent. Since she is anything but, I knew even before reading her post on the interview that the fault was entirely Richard Harris’s. He should be ashamed. But I suppose he won’t be, as the results support the agenda, which is nothing if not anti-science.
Hey Republicans—if you can’t bring yourselves to defund Obamacare, at least defund NPR!
/Mr Lynn
Pathetic is an accurate adjective but it applies to the Mann himself. What a pompous gas bag. I apologize for name calling but that Mann really rankles me. A scientist?? Not that Mann.
Mann is now a comedian on Twitter: “A robust & critical discussion can be found in the comment thread of my facebook post”
How can it be a robust & critical discussion when he seems to block any one who disagrees with him? I simply pointed out his Facebook profile still said he was a Nobel prize winner and since then I can no longer post comments on his wall.
PSU Professor Michael E. Mann should be encouraged to send such tweets of his intellectual limitations frequently and widely.
I think the reason Mann publically acts so small in the realm of professional integrity is he knows himself.
Does Gavin Schmidt aspire to be a copy cat of Mann’s PR smallness? There is a tendency.
John
TobiasN says:
August 22, 2013 at 9:08 pm
“I leafed through the book. It was gibberish. I could hardly believe it. They were supposed to be the smart people. After maybe ten minutes of looking for something straightforward my experience in life kicked in: that someone who writes gibberish likely does not understand the topic as well as he thinks he does.
…Of course recently I went back to see what book it had been. I saw the front cover again and laughed. It was by Michael Mann! (the book “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming”).”
You are absolutely correct! Michael Mann’s writing is intentionally dense and obtuse. Trying to decipher / translate his gibberish papers into layman’s terms is on par with translating Gaddafi’s speeches:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_EAHR9j2jHOt8Y6TFRhrcQM
I thought the interview portion was heavily edited but simply the fact Dr. Curry was interviewed is a step in the right direction. Having an opposite view on NPR is almost unheard of.
Luther Wu says:
August 23, 2013 at 6:02 am
I am sad to report that all left leaning professors who regularly listen to radio listen to NPR exclusively. They view NPR as holding the commonsense position. By the way, the vast majority of local NPR stations are located on college campuses.
Mann has had his fifteen minutes of infamy – time to let him fade away while we continue pursuing the truth.
I did not care for the editorial comment by NPR’s team at the very end. But it does confirm that NPR thinks Curry is wrong. No real surprise there.
I continue to applaud Judith Curry for her reasonableness, he willingness to keep a dialogue open with those outside the climate-change-is-caused-by-humans groupthink.
I fail to understand a difference between my description of a lukewarmer and yours; except you throw in a null hypothesis and natural variation. Neither of which are in my comment. Plus you’ve added political spin then proceeded to imply my lack of politicking and slam Dr. Curry’s as political because she testified before Congress and suffered a horrible NPR interview that falsely implies she plays politics and doesn’t conduct science.
Which translates to that you’ve changed what I said and then proceeded to use your words to demean mine and others positions.
I’ve also yet to read, or listen to any of Dr. Curry’s writings where she is a political animal. Seven hours of interview chopped into seven minutes so the alarmist MSM can pretend they’ve represented her views. You’re using the NPR’s misrepresentation of Dr. Curry to also demean her work, incorrectly. Manniacal louse above puts more politics into a few tweets than Dr. Curry puts into Congressional testimony.
I’m not sure an FOIA request would be honored for us as NPR may claim it’s protected personal information about Dr. Curry; but a FOIA request from Dr, Curry should be, though NPR will probably fight it’s full release tooth and nail.
By full release I’m referring to all drafts and meeting notes NPR prepared for the planned interview with Dr. Curry, all notes of discussions during the editing process, all communications, (phone, cell, email, verbal agreements) relevant to or regarding the interview and editorial process, and a full copy of the unedited interview.
I for one am curious about how and why Richard Harris conducted eight hours of interview and then chopped it down to publicly release a complete misrepresentation of Dr. Curry. Think he discussed the edit cuts with anybody? The full tape would go far on YouTube to place NPR’s misrepresentation in the public eye.
I’d be willing to donate some of my sparse cash to support her FOIA costs.
, Jim Steele you’re dead wrong. If someone is a , he has to take more than a passing try at refuting his own work, or someone else will. That’s the way it goes;Feynman is right.
Sorry, left out the word scientist, just as the word is losing all value today.
I believe the mainstream expert they said would be on next is that senator who announced that Guam will tip over.
@ATheoK,
Again, no one disputes the bit about C02 being a ghg, so why even mention it? And, when you stated “Whether man’s contribution of CO2 really makes much of a temperature difference is for the scientists to prove”, you were essentially re-stating the null hypothesis. It’s up to scientists to show what effect if any man has had on climate. They have failed. The null hypothesis stands.
Saying “we don’t know” is posturing. Basically, you are saying that man “could/maybe/might” be responsible for some of the warming. Of course he could be. And the Yeti and Loch Ness monsters could be real, along with aliens and Atlantis.
@DavidG “Jim Steele you’re dead wrong. If someone is a , he has to take more than a passing try at refuting his own work”
I am sure we all would like to believe that scientists practice Feynman’s ideal. If you were right, then there would not be the orchestrated effort to avoid debate.
My experience in academia suggests once a scientists gains any notoriety they protect their status. I tried to replicate Parmesan’s iconic Climate and Species Range that suggested warming was forcing the checkerspot butterfly northward and upward, but she has refused to provide the data. It is similar a story told many times over as Steve McIntyre and others know as they needed legal FOI leverage to access raw data to replicate climate claims. When Mann’s work was challenged by Soon and Baliunas, Mann’s team went all out to denigrate their work and character by any means necessary.
I also suggest you read The Truth Wears Off http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
Most research is not replicated and when it is replicated, the results are not verified. As Stanford University epidemiologist John loannidis determined “for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias .” Trenberth and Mann know that to be true for climate science as well.
Pamela Gray says:
August 23, 2013 at 11:52 am
Hank Johnson is a Congressman, not a Senator; to be precise he is my Congressman. When people make fun of him I rise to his defence by noting that he is better than the representative he replaced: Cynthia McKinney.
It’s a rather weak defence I know, but I do feel obligated to point out that things could be worse.
A minor bit of added info re the interview that Harris reduced from 8 hours to 7 minutes of on-air time. Of those 7 minutes, Dr. Curry was allotted fewer than 60 seconds.
Of course none of that minute included any of her responses on the subject for which he declared he flew out west to get her opinion; the 16 year lull in temps over the last 15 years.
Oops, even the preview option doesn’t help.
There should be a contest about what my last phrase REALLY means.
How soon before he announces that he is taking all his toys and going home? Every time he responds it is a view into a small mind collapsing upon itself. Hmmm, people we may have the first human created black hole.
“…Michael Mann’s writing is intentionally dense…”
In my experience, ALL writing by warmists is deliberately dense. There was a classic case of a UEA prof who wrote a paragraph in an extract summary that is yet to be deciphered by any English speaker. This same prof, when asked by my MP (about a non climate matter) if he realised that he was not believed and that he should consider telling the truth, said “it depends what you mean by truth”. I kid you not (and I have the evidence).
Maybe here lies the warmist problem: apart from their junk science they really do have a different understanding of truth.
As for Harris’s “interview” with Curry I’m not surprised; what does surprise me is her naivety in thinking she would get a fair hearing. She should have insisted on prior audition of the published material.
Item 1
“Wayne Delbeke says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:21 pm
This is good. Mann just doesn’t know when to stop digging. In the process, he is destroying his own reputation.”
Never stop an enemy when he is self destructing.
Item 2
2a: About the 8 hour interview to the 7 minute report: Always make your own tape.
2b: Don’t let them waste your time. Get the questions in advance, then make a limit of 1 hour to ask them..
Item 3
I would be well if we could get someone with promotional skills to promote a public debate on the subject of climate change in such manner that not showing up will amount to forfeit. It would be fun to put on such a show. If they don’t show up, the show can still go on by having stand ins for all the principals and quote from their own literature. If they won’t defend themselves, we should over run them. If they won’t set up the debates, we should.
NPR is paid to be warmist, so JC should not be surprised to get trashed:
The Washington Times reports: “Senior Vice President of NPR Ron Schiller met with individuals he believed to be potential donors. However, undercover video was running during this meeting. In the following clip, Mr. Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers those who deny climate change is happening. Ms. Liley talks about a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those who believe climate change is not happening…”