![UBristolCabot[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ubristolcabot1.png?quality=75)
This post was published while I am on an airplane headed back to California (isn’t technology wonderful?). I am very indebted to all of my good friends in the UK, and especially Nic Lewis, who arranged an extraordinary meeting while I was there. That one event will bear more fruit than any other part of the trip. The other meetings, such as the Mann and Cook meetings, were far less extraordinary, and mostly “heard it all before”. The Mann meeting was little more than an hour long dissertation on some out of date science plus a LOT of politics, complete with an “enemies list” of head-shot visuals, followed by what looked to be a prearranged Q&A sequence of 5 questions from the audience (with audience microphone privileges orchestrated from the stage by Stephan Lewandowsky who looked like a traffic cop pointing out who got to ask questions), followed by a book signing with a University police guard (I kid you not).
Readers in attendance are welcome to post their recollection and experiences here.
I’ve somehow lost my USB data cable for my phone, so I can’t get the photos off until I return home. It appears the Cabot Institute filmed the entire event, and when/if that video is available, I will advise. Again, my sincere thanks to the Cabot Institute for their assistance with my hearing impairment.
One thing that really stuck in my craw was that at the end of his lecture, Dr. Mann put up a photo of his daughter with a polar bear behind glass at a zoo, citing the usual “we must do this for the future and our children” meme and then commented that “this [photo] will probably be up on blogs within hours”.
No, Dr. Mann it won’t, at least not here, nor would it ever have been. While you may not have scruples about using that photo as a prop for public discourse in the first place, I most certainly do.
Josh was there and did a live-tooning of the event, and I expect he’ll have his new cartoon ready after colorization on Thursday. And, my sincere thanks to him for the lift from Bristol to Heathrow as well as for the “bangers and mash”, which was splendid. Richard Drake deserves my thanks for his tour assistance on my one day off, Monday, where I was able to stand on the prime meridian at Greenwich, something I wanted to do since primary school. Also thanks to Caroline K, for opening her home to a small horde of skeptics for a pre-Mann event meeting.
And last but not least, I thank the readers of WUWT, for enabling me to get there in the first place.
——————————————————————–
WUWT reader *Loudzoo* wrote in with these impressions, which I concur with.
Initial impressions of Mann’s lecture in Bristol on Tuesday 23rd September 2014
Having attended Professor Michael Mann’s lecture at Bristol University on Tuesday I thought I’d summarize some immediate views on the event.
On the slides presented:
I was astonished that Mann continues to use such old, inappropriate data. On his chart of climate model performance vs recorded temperature his data only went up to 2005 and he used land based thermometer readings – not the satellite record. Very weak given how widely available up-to-date data are. I suspect he did not want to highlight the current hiatus in positive annual mean temperature anomalies and divergence from climate models
He glossed merrily over the “established science” of the greenhouse effect. No comment on positive and negative feedbacks, transitory sensitivity, the role of evapotranspiration, water vapour, clouds, ozone etc. I guess that’s because nobody has good parameters for these variables . . . and they fatally undermine the paradigm of the “established science” being simple and uncontroversial.
He presented no proxy data before 1000 CE. Presumably the Roman Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Climatic Optimum would have undermined his argument.
He referenced all the normal claptrap on extreme weather, drought, heatwaves, flooding unprecedented sea level rise, arctic ice melt (no mention of the Antarctic – other than the west Antarctic ice shelf) but presented no data on this. He also inferred that climate change is loading the dice in favour of extreme weather but made no mention of land use, water management, agriculture etc. As a Geography graduate of Oxford University where I specialised in Climatology and Quaternary Environments I find this bizarre. On the basis of this presentation Prof Mann would not pass Geography degree finals examinations!
There was very little discussion on the hockey stick graph itself (what the proxies were, how there were selected, what statistical methods were used, how the proxies were calibrated etc.) The divergence problem in tree ring analysis was mentioned but was glossed over and used as an excuse for the “hide the decline” comment in the Climategate emails.
There was a huge emphasis on his battles with Republican politicians. This is all very well but not a contribution to the science of climate change. Quite frankly, as a Brit I didn’t pay much attention to this part of his presentation.
Where I did wake-up again was where he revealed his victim-complex when numerously subpoenaed for his email, and research notes. Having had a career in finance for the last 17 years I find it very strange that he thought this was unfair. The organisations (mostly governmental) funding research with huge socio-political implications should have access to emails and research notes. The regulators of the finance industry have access to the equivalent in the banking industry by law!
There were at least two slides involving pictures of polar bears floating on small icebergs. Whilst he did say that such appeals hadn’t helped the public realise how close to home the impacts of climate change might be – he still used them!
The Q&A session:
This was a joke! Unless I got confused Prof Stephan Lewandowsky was in charge of selecting which people could ask questions!! Surprisingly enough he managed to pick people who were entirely sympathetic: One regarding the inconsistency of the actions of Republican Christian Right vs their religious views as caretakers of God’s creation; one on how to deal with / debate climate sceptics and the final one was from a chap who works for Avaaz (who organised the ”peoples’” climate marches last weekend). As someone who has had to plant and harvest questions at presentations throughout my career – I can fairly say this was an amateur job. It was so obvious!
All of this was a shame if for no other reason that Rich Pancost (the Director of the Cabot Institute) who’d enthusiastically made the presentation introduction did seem genuinely keen for a discussion. Sadly that was never really on the agenda.
Some Concluding thoughts:
There was nothing new or controversial here – but alluding to Anthony’s report on the Cook Lecture it was very interesting to be in the room and see the Mann in the flesh. It has reinforced something I’ve had an emerging view on for some time. Whilst there may well be small pockets of collusion and conspiracy in the field of climatology this is not the reason why the “science” has been so abused. Furthermore, I’m sure the competition for research grants is fierce and that can play into the reinforcement of an incorrect scientific paradigm. But what I took away from this lecture more than anything else is that Mann genuinely believes he is right and that his work will save the world. It seems that this is far more powerful motive for him (and I suspect many of the front line academics, politicians and activists) to ignore the evidence against, the problems and the holes in his hypothesis / theory.
They genuinely believe the Earth needs saving and that they are the ones to do it irrespective of the cost. In human history this combination of beliefs has often been exceptionally dangerous to the public in general but in particular to the poorest and neediest.
As others may have said before the story of CAGW will one day be told in the same breath as the fables of The Emperor’s New Clothes, and of King Canute (even if the latter is commonly completely misrepresented!)
UPDATE: Bishop Hill has some thoughts http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/9/24/mann-at-the-cabot.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Adolf -itler also worked so hard to make the world a better place. Fanatics are dangerous.
Having Lewandowsky involved in something that purports to be a scientific presentation pretty much says everything that needs to be said.
“His [Mann’s] data only went up to 2005…”
You’re [fooling] me.
For someone that claims to be a climate warrior (as evidenced by the title of his book), Mann displays an enormous amount of cowardice.
Moderator: The image posted by Joe Bastardi is giving an Access Forbidden error at the WeatherBell site. Perhaps you can let him know?
[nothing we can do about it, all users would need an account -mod]
Thanks, it helps to see just how far these chaps have strayed from science and science process into orchestrated political science. It also helps to understand that the pseudo science models were crafted to begin with and not some shoddy research effort that is being vigorously defended afterward. It was designed to be bad all along, up to and including the blaming and finger pointing today. Does Penn State know it really has at least two funded Political Science Departments operating on its campus?
Resourceguy says, “Thanks, it helps to see just how far these chaps have strayed from science and science process into orchestrated political science.”
And now they are taking up theology as well:
(Said the Boomer Mythmakers, who are twisting science to fit their environmentalism, and supplanting education with Sustainability activism.)
And now, must we also suffer their erudite, eye-crossingly selective and manipulative interpretations of Scriptures? I have even seen the systematic greening and reinvention of other peoples’ beliefs as well, and the use of Natives by foreign NGOs to claim they represent local people in opposing electricity generation and modern agriculture.
Zeke, I know that Boomers is a statement of denigration, but could you find a description that doesn’t lump me in with the GW Mythmakers?
/One of the first Boomers.
Mike H,
Believe it or not, I am actually trying to help the Baby Boomers, if that is possible, to recognize the paradigms which they have developed for the past five decades.
The Anthropocene Age Paradigm, with its “tipping points” (including AGW), is the full embodiment of the Boomer generation’s philosophies and attitudes. To illustrate my meaning, their views on the following subjects are now considered unassailable and scientifically incontrovertible:
1. overpopulation
2. organic-only agriculture
3. Vegetarianism
4. Veganism, and the desirability destroying the widespread use of domesticated animals such as beef and dairy cattle, chickens, etc.
5. hatred of oil, personal transportation, and electricity as “materialistic consumerism”
6. atheism and animosity towards Christianity, particularly enforced in educational settings
7. powerful anti-US sentiments, and close alignments with foreign interests and ideologies.
8. incurring great national debt in order to provide programs – this time in trillions.
9. all economic activity and use of chemicals or metals is considered to be harmful to the environment, and studies or “research” always confirm this paradigm
10. hatred of mass production, which has made the most items affordable to the most people.
11. animus towards economic freedom
12. disdain for the middle class, and contempt for marriage and having children
13. returning the land to nature Inre: the Wildness Project
14. drug use and sexual debauchery is not only portrayed as equal to, but in many cases, replacing, the classic individual liberties – freedom of speech, conscience, and freedom of association (esp. in commercial activity) (Comes in under the rubric of “Human Rights”)
15. the harmful effects of narcotics (including pot) on the brain and central nervous system, and on schools and local communities, are repressed and swept under the rug studiously.
The fact that these priorities are now being used as an excuse for forced participation in the World Empire (the “UN”) is something which, for some reason, I think it would helpful for the Boomers to recognize. So that is my definition of the Boomers. If you can help me improve this list of unchallengable Boomer beliefs, I would be grateful. I acknowledge that all Boomers do not hold all of these beliefs all of the time, but I have found they do expect society and science to conform to their preferences on several, or many, of them.
By the way, since the routine denigration of others for their beliefs and practices (“religious”) is considered fair game, then let’s be even handed and include the Boomer Fundamentalists in the mix.
Zeke,
I would expand #5 to include all fossil fuels. Anything that has made life easier, better, healthier, or made for longer life is, or will be targeted. Natural gas gets a pass for now. But if coal and oil were banned, is there any doubt NatGas would be next?
Add: tribalism. Divide and conquer. Obama is the master.
Vaccinations. Good for people, therfore, sow suspicion and distrust.
Global warming. We know all about that hoax here.
The list is long. Try to simmer it down to a common thread that everyone can relate to… for what good it will do.
I have no doubt the old KGB [new FSB; same players] is behind a very long term, detailed plan to undermine and destroy everything that has made America strong. It is working. In a History class a few years ago we watched a 1930’s newsreel of the Depression. There was a big mob waving signs that said: SMASH THE BOY SCOUTS!!
I asked the prof why they would protest the scouts? He claimed he didn’t know. But I do.
The Boy Scouts are moral. They are an extremely strong moral force in society. It’s true. Our boy was an Eagle Scout. He was hired by Siemens at $120K/yr. No degree, and he’s not even 30. The guy who hired him told him later that the deciding factor among several dozen applicants, almost all with degrees, was his Eagle Scout achievement. So a big international company puts a lot of emphasis on morality. Thus: Smash the Boy Scouts.
A moral society is a strong society. So the Soviets targeted morality. Look at the way things are now. Morality is ridiculed throughout the media, 24/7/365. Listen to the words in rap music. You’re a virgin? You dope. Dweeb. You’re not ‘in’. You’re stupid. No one wants you around. Etc. Imagine the pressure on kids. In Oakland, near where I live, girls no more than 11–12 are on offer. Lots and lots of them. If/when they have kids, the gov’t pays for everything. They don’t need Dad around. Most couldn’t identify Dad.
Barring a miracle, it’s over, Zeke. The cycle must complete. There will be a consolidation, and eventually one world gov’t. It will loot the productive and buy support, until it has total power, then eventually, far down the road, there will be a king again. Not in name, but in fact. In the worst of all possible worlds, there will be a committee instead. Even Marx warned against an unaccountable bureaucracy.
Humanity is based on the headman concept. It’s in our genes. When Caesar was crossing the Alps and they came upon a dirt poor village, one of his lieutenants jokingly said, Caesar, how would you like to be the headman here?
Caesar replied: Better headman here than second man in Rome.
There will be a king eventually. Diocletian will probably be the template. Feudalism works. It worked for more than a thousand years. How long has democracy been around?
It is very depressing. But the handwriting is on the wall. The old Soviets were/are experts at understanding human nature and motivations. They make very long term plans. Those plans are working — and now Obama fell into their laps like a plum; an unexpected surprise. Obama moved up their timetable by a generation.
Everything is on track. The UN has no army, but they own the media; that’s better. An army might be defeated. Their PR is accepted by the mindless masses. In reality, they are thoroughly corrupt criminals. But that doesn’t matter. They are amassing power, step by step. The old Soviets learned in 1949 – 50 that the UN was the future. They made long term plans to demoralize the West. It is working to perfection. Not much could stop it now. Only a miracle — and I don’t believe in miracles.
It’s over. Democracy was a flash in the pan. The Enlightenment was nice, but it’s over. It’s over.
DBStealey, I read your post several times. There is a lot of depth and detail to what you are saying, and I thank you. I believe in marriage love, the innocence, happiness, and instruction of children, just recompense, sobriety, and His Love. Once these are removed from society, it is nothing but an empty shell. And an empty shell cannot persist for long. Soon, even the few public restraints on personal behavior there are, are removed from society and hell releases on earth. Why is that so hard to understand, knowing what happened under Stalin and Mao, etc.?
It is like the parable of the empty, cleaned room.
“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.” Matt 12
Whoa!
I haven’t been so touched by such moving vocals since Dr. Hook sang “Ah, that’s beautiful” after the guitar solo on “Cover of the Rolling Stone”.
Posted at Bishop Hill after the fact…..
KNR has it right.
The ‘talk’ was a stream of self-delusion peppered with ad-homs, slander, appeals to authority, groupthink and lies. There were worse broaches of our trust but I swore to be gentle 🙂
By the last slide I didn’t even believe him when he said (I paraphrase) “I love my daughter and fear for her future… ”
The audience was full of – well, those types of people who revel in eschatology and laying the blame for their being born, well fed, educated (to a point), the availability of hospitals, transport, central heating, their iphones and laptops on the eeeEEevil 1%.
The mess was gate-kept by Satan himself. As was, Anthony told me, the cook shindig on Friday last.
So, with lew-paper choosing who would be graced with ‘questioning’ the bald one it should be no surprise that not a single difficult bump appeared to divert him from the old straight track.
I nearly got one in but the guy with the mic homed in on an Avaaz junkie whose oleaginous sycophancy dripped with abasement and fear-for-the-future and floated two diaphanous whimsies into mann’s grateful lap.
Still, I didn’t go for the thrill of baiting the deluded and their congregation. I attended to know mine enemy. I met AW and that is enough. The Bishop was there but in a rush to get to a watering-hole which, being pressed for time, I had to forego – drat.. I think I laid eyes on Myles Allen also.
I guess there were 20+ skeptics present, some of whom had questions, none of whom were asked to voice the same.
Oh, yeah, I was going to ask; Why, out of the dozens of excuses for the halt in GW was Anthropogenic CO2 never found innocent of the crimes it is accused of and the models’ output never dismissed? More in hopes of forcing (see what I did there) just one of the faithful present to study the subject beyond twitter and facebook than momentarily disconcerting the now proven (to my satisfaction) delusional mouthpiece for all the greenwashed yolks we labour under.
Still, you can’t win ’em all.
This sceptic dies and goes to heaven. As he is wandering around he hears a few preachers claiming great powers
He stops to listen to one.
‘I will save the planet. My children, the polar bears, the ice, sea levels. I will defeat Steyn, get a nobbly prize and prove that ‘one tree to rule them all’ is fact not fiction. I will invent a new method of statistical analysis that will boggle the minds of all sceptics.’
the sceptic is awestruck ‘ wow. he must be THE mikey Mann’
‘No’ says a passing angel.
‘Thats God. he just imagines he is Mikey Mann’
Reminds me of the definition of a fanatic:
“Someone who does what God would do were God in possession of all the facts.”
The Q&A was has expected and it gives further proof that Mann will do all he can to avoid court where he could not load the basis in his favour in such a way. Which is shame has seeing him go bang in a big way and then have to deal with the legal consequences would be fun to see.
But it’s not just ‘saving the planet ‘ that drives them , both professional and personally the reality is they have done very well out of their work for ‘the cause’ they gone from the minors, struggling to get any notice or funding , to the majors with honours and cash a plenty to go with it . Moreover, doing this without actual doing any science worth a dam. So it not just ‘belief’ that drives them but knowledge that without AGW they would not even get back to the minors but end up like the guy propping up a bar in some run down third rate inn, boring everyone about how they used to be ‘big men ‘ that had the presidents ear has they down their third beer of the day at 10:00 am .
After the Cook lecture I was very much looking forward to this. My train was delayed so ended up running across Bristol and in the rush left my pen in the hotel so couldn’t take any notes and forgot to grab some sandwiches so by the end felt too hungry and demoralised to face trying to ask a question or going straight to the pub. By the time I’d got back to my room and had some food very much regretted not having made the effort to join the pub meeting.
I commented near the end of the Cook talk thread saying I was disappointed by the lack of information but it was still an interesting event I enjoyed. The Mann lecture was disappointing for me, again, nothing new. At several points I thought great, he might address some of the things I was hoping to hear more about; he briefly mentioned the decline but I was hoping to hear more about his understanding of or justification for ‘hiding the decline’. He showed a graph of temperatures measured and modelled so I was hoping to learn more about that and the pause from his perspective, but I think his graph was too out of date to fully show the current pause. The Q&A at the end seemed rather short and was lacking in useful questions, by which I mean even if you’re a firm believer I think you should be asking questions to make sure you understand and can spread the message accurately, so the questions should be similar whether they come from a sceptic or a believer.
I’m bemused why so many seem to so readily accept it. I’d like to think many years in engineering have taught me to see through the presentation style to the real, or lack of, answer. It’s like someone tells a joke and everyone laughs, you don’t get it and ask someone to explain it but they can’t, it was the way the joke was presented and some people laughing that made everyone else think it was funny and laugh too. Is that a similar reason why so many people believe the CO2 AGW theory? Does the lack of scientific questions from others confirm that thought – I’m used to asking lots of questions to make sure I can understand something, but it feels in the climate issue that to ask such questions is not welcome. Such things add to my scepticism. Is it also, as Mann pointed out near the end a great fear of the outcome like tipping points, that makes people think well, even if it’s wrong we can’t afford not to at least take it seriously in case it is right. As a group it’s easier to take the risk of being wrong; shared blame, on your own the risks to you of being wrong are far greater. But I strongly believe we must not let such worries distort the science, it must remain objective, if it is wrong we may fail to recognise an equally serious different climate disaster unfolding or be decades behind in our longrange forecasting abilities at huge cost to us all.
Mann started by saying it was simple chemistry we have understood for a very long time. Maybe he is right, maybe it is that simple, I think we could all go down the lab and confirm the relevant chemical/physical/thermodynamic processes including radiation emission and absorption for gases with total agreement. But how do we build that into a model of the real world, it seems to me it gets surprisingly complex. I read the realclimate type explanations, I’m usually left thinking why did they do it that way, I think I would have gone about it a different way. I read alternative explanations by other professors, physicists etc who get a totally different answer. My eyes glaze over, it seems to me it is so complex it could be totally random whether any of them could pass peer review or not (before the consensus) or represent reality. And that’s before you even think about feedbacks.
He showed a graph of temperatures measured and modelled. Am I supposed to beconvinced? I don’t know, maybe I am supposed to be, but there is so much I don’t know about what I am looking at, particularly the modelled results, and of course it would be better if this was right up to date. Sounds like the APS earlier this year had lots of similar questions, has there been any answers yet to their questions, what’s happening with that?
I think he mentioned the GWPF was funded by big oil, but I was losing interest by this stage so may have misunderstood. If he did I have no idea if he was right but wanted to thoroughly question him to understand his justification for this. If where the money comes makes a difference, presumably that cuts both ways.
He mentioned extreme weather events. The summer of 2003 in the UK: I remember that year, from my recollection it was blue skies with hardly a cloud in sight week after week, that’s why it was so hot, I don’t think the CO2 theory predicted the cloudless skies did it? I think he forgot to mention any of the cold snaps worldwide. He also mentioned the winter 2013/14 in UK, I remember that well, one storm after another with strong winds and heavy rain, but they said that was down to the jet stream behaving differently, Julia Slingo blamed the winter weather on CO2 but didn’t Mat Collins ( a modeller) say the models don’t say anything about Jetstream behaviour. How many of those other events Mann mentioned were due to changes in the Jetstream behaviour?
I am not saying the CO2 theory is wrong, neither am I saying it is right, I do not know enough, but alarm bells keep ringing. I want to find out more, but it seems virtually impossible to be able to do the necessary digging, whoever you are. I can’t believe the rest of the scientific community did not react more to the lack of archiving or providing on request the relevant data and methods for verification. In engineering we have lots of ways in which we are audited including fully independent audits, I’m not seeing anything similar in climate, other than peer review, meetings, etc which are not fully independent, or is there? Face to face meetings with climate scientists seems a good way forward, Q&A sessions like these talks are totally inadequate. I was pleased to read of the Bath meeting, wish I could go to a meeting like that.
For me the Cook event was well worth going to, I didn’t feel the same about the Mann lecture (not meant as a criticism of anyone), I had to go otherwise I’d regret not going and at least I can say I am making an effort to listen to what they have to say.
“Mann genuinely believes he is right and that his work will save the world”
I have to respectfully disagree, why would he spend so much effort cooking the books if he thought it was real?
Who knows what his true motivation is but scientific excellence is definitely not it.
When you are in the “right”, every action you take you consider noble. Put another way, you can do no wrong when you are in right. This by the way is not a very scientific or rational approach, it is though what commonly happens in religion and politics.
Elmer,
You ask, “I have to respectfully disagree, why would he spend so much effort cooking the books if he thought it was real?”
For the sake of argument; if one believes they are right, then naturally the books need some cooking so they agree with what “everybody knows” to be right.
But actually, I’m inclined to agree with your take, since his presentation is frozen in time at 2005. However, I’m willing to change my opinion if his next presentation is updated to the latest data, including the satellite data.
I tend to think that he believes in the goals the (broken) hockey stick is levering into place. Or he’s just so full of himself (that “pride” thing) that he can’t bear the thought that he was wrong.
All the lawsuits point to the latter. Those paying for the lawsuits points to the former. Or maybe he’s just their useful idiot? That would point to the latter. For me, the jury is still out.
But I don’t think the pseudo Q&A session was done the way it was because of Cook’s Q&A. It was likely a precondition of him even agreeing to have one at all.
And honesty isn’t his forte, either. He’s so full of himself I’m surprised he doesn’t weigh 2,000 lbs.
This is what is happening in climate science right now.
There is quite a bit of new information, shedding light on global climate, natural cycles and related items.
One side is anxious to take the path that is leading us into uncharted territory regarding our understanding in this rapidly evolving field.
One side wants to continue with a theory, data and understanding from 2 decades ago, rejecting the new information, even using old data.
Ironically, the scientists giving greatest weight to the latest observations and knowledge are being called “Deniers” by the side that wants our understanding to remain where it was in the 1990’s.
Clearly, advancement in climate science can’t be the objective, if they are rejecting new research/understanding.
Mike Maguire on September 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm
– – – – – – – – –
Good job contrasting seemingly stagnant dogma versus evolved/evolving understanding in climate focused science. Thanks.
John
“I was astonished that Mann continues to use such old, inappropriate data. “
– Why? It would be more astonishing if Mann showed character and integrity.
“Dr. Mann put up a photo of his daughter with a polar bear behind glass at a zoo, citing the usual “we must do this for the future and our children””
– Well it would have been better if he put up slides of starving children in third world counties caused by proposed “save the plant” energy policies. I guess he wasn’t up for it.
“He referenced all the normal claptrap on extreme weather, drought, heatwaves, flooding unprecedented sea level rise, arctic ice … but presented no data on this.”
– Data? Who needs data when you can just make stuff up and get grants.
“…pictures of polar bears floating on small icebergs.”
– An OMG moment, just plain idiocy. There is zero scientific evidence of polar bear populations diminishing, Note to Mann, random pictures of polar bears floating on small icebergs does not qualify as scientific evidence.
“The Q&A session: This was a joke!”
– I know like Mann has become.
“Mann genuinely believes he is right and that his work will save the world.”
– Great, but instead of being a scientist maybe he should become an evangelical and save the world through Jesus.
Jesus wouldn’t put up with such a disciple. Honest!
“As others may have said before the story of CAGW will one day be told in the same breath as the fables of The Emperor’s New Clothes, and of King Canute (even if the latter is commonly completely misrepresented!)”
I predict a fierce fight for the ownership of the “climate crises” in the future, between the historians of science and the historians of religion.
I predict that the historians of hoaxes and frauds will own them in the end. Lysenko, Rachel Carson, and Mann can feature in succeeding chapters of the book that’s needed to be published for a long time.
I would like to think you’re right, and that this whole sorry business will get a thorough and accurate airing in the future, but I’m not so sure.
From the beginning of the 20th century right through to 1989, academics, writers, journalists and artists in west showed an astonishing degree of sympathy for state socialism. They called it scientific, rational, inevitable, just, and humane. Intellectuals in the west largely enabled, or in many cases directly caused, the death of 100 million people and enslaved billions. Where have they been called to account?
Mona Charen wrote a book called “Useful Idiots” which does tell the story, but by and large the left-wing historians of today have whited out the disasters caused by the left-wing historians of yesterday. It is not at all clear to me that tomorrow’s historians will do a better job with the global warming debacle.
Post after post you are dead on
After studying the history of dictatorial personalities (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini), I have come to a conclusion about the progression of the love for power:
First: egomania (“I am the most important thing in the world.”), which becomes sociopathy
Second: megalomania (“I am the world.”)
Third: solipsism (“Whatever I think, is the world.”), which ordinarily is considered insanity
Solipsistic thinkers, like Michael Mann, live for the potential to make their dreams come true. Actually, for them, the dreams have come true. It is just that they insist on making it true for others. And, in order to make it true, they cut up people’s lives as carelessly as they would cut up scrap paper.
Adolf Hitler started out as a student with a dream of being an architect and gloriously re-shaping the city of Linz, where he grew up. His success was long in coming and covered a lot of territory…
Cut Mann any slack and he will fashion a noose from it, around your neck.
“Her intentions are good,” she said.
“And her information is bad,” Kenner said. “A prescription for disaster.”
‘State of Fear’, Michael Crichton.
Perfect.
Whilst I might criticise M Mann’s comment assuming his photo’s might be up on blogs within hours (it shows that doesn’t know that people would not do this) ie we are all ‘evil’.
I won’t criticise him for mentioning his daughter, as I do see that as genuine, as I believe M Mann sincerely believes everything he said (how ever impossible some may find that to believe.. After all I mentioned my daughter in an article here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/27/the-science-was-settled-enough-from-the-book-culture-and-climate-changenarratives/
as I would hope Mann or others would not question my sincerity, and most people would think vice versa (though of course they have every right to say I’m wrong about things – explaining why would be nice to go with that) we may be stuck with everyone believes they are doing the right thing, but think others ideas are so nuts – therefore their must be some ulterior motive, trap. Or we can try and work towards and build more meetings like this:
WUWT: An extraordinary meeting of climate sceptics and climate scientist in Bath
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/23/an-extraordinary-meeting-of-climate-skeptics-and-climate-scientists-in-bath/
it wasn’t that extraordinary to me, as I have met and know a number of the scientists there quite well.. trust takes time and effort, however.
I agree Barry.
Overall, though, it was remarkable how the appearance of the Mann star over Bristol became a sign, not least because of Anthony’s decision to come ‘on a whim’, of major developments in so many ways. History in the making. Even those of us with minor walk-on parts can get a thrill from that.
Sounds like a cracking good time was had by all in Bristol.
Anthony should be starting to consider an overseas trip next year – partially funded by us, of course.
I suggest Australia for his next visit – it is, after all, just an island, and it might be completely covered by sea water if he waits too long before visiting . Maybe that lunatic university there will hold a conference of some sort next year he can attend.
As I understand it, we only need cover the cost of the absolute basic essentials, meaning plane tickets there and back; the price of lodging; and beer. I think that’s it. I might have the essentials listed in the wrong order of importance.
Anthony should get a trip every year on us, as a big thank you for fighting the good fight
I too was deeply dismayed at the Mann presentation. Narcissist is the only way I can describe his demeanour. When he realises that his talk coincided with the publication of a PNAS paper that says recent California weather is _not_ due to CAGW his head may explode. As for question time, this was a very low point in the history of the Cabot institute. I did not applaud but I noted the presence of many sycophants who did.
Thank you to all skeptics who attended. It takes courage to walk into the maw and take notes. I’d like to think that Anthony’s presence caused many undergarments in that room to twist, even just a little.
Judging by what has been written about the presentation, it is no wonder debate is avoided at all cost.
Any of the WUWT regular commenters would mop the floor with him.
Anthony says:
I was able to stand on the prime meridian at Greenwich
What time was that? ☺
He was in Greenwich. So it must have been Tea time.
Is Michael Mann Al Gore’s “twin” as in the Schwartzenegger/de Vito movie Twins?
His own hockey stick turns into an alarm diffusing bowl when the math is corrected, so the idea that he is a true believer in bad math sounds like an oxymoron. I
vote for good acting and criminal sociopathy over sincerity, thus.
I was surprised that Dr Mann did not speak about a revelation he made for John Cook’s “Consensus Project“, published earlier this month.
Backing for this claim would have been a major boost for Ban Ki Moon’s climate talks, and even got Dr Mann on the front page of the Guardian. Strange that he should pass up this opportunity.