Mann on the Lack of MSM Climate Coverage: "One has to wonder if television networks are compromised…"


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Michael Mann, inventor of the iconic Hockey Stick Graph, is concerned that TV networks might have been “compromised” into downplaying the climate crisis.

Why has climate change been ignored in the presidential debates?

While we rake over Clinton’s emails and Trump’s late-night tweets, climate has been the elephant in the room, leaving scientists and campaigners asking why there hasn’t been a single direct question about the crisis.

“I’ve been shocked at the lack of questions on climate change. It really is fiddling while the world burns,” said Kerry Emanuel, a leading climate scientist. “This is the great issue of our time and we are skirting around it. I’m just baffled by it.”

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have yet to face a moderator question on climate change during two debates in which time was found to grill Clinton repeatedly over her use of emails and to ask Trump about a series of late-night tweets he sent about a former Miss Universe’s sex tape. Lester Holt, the moderator of the first debate, was reportedly set to ask a climate question but ran out of time.

“It’s like a sort of collective cowardice,” said Emanuel of the omission. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, added: “One has to wonder if television networks are compromised by the millions of advertising dollars they take from fossil fuel interests.

Read more:

Mann is not alone in wondering whether the media have been bought off – high profile British climate commentator George Monbiot asked the same question back in August.

Like many climate hypothesis, this conspiracy doesn’t hold water when you examine the evidence. There are plenty of hardcore greens in the media, including high profile presenters who have no qualms about embracing green extremism, who would vehemently reject any attempt to buy them off on climate issues. For example, back in 2014 MSNBC seriously discussed forced reeducation courses for “deniers”.

The real reason climate doesn’t attract more media attention is rather mundane, not nearly as exciting as Mann’s dark criminal fantasies. Back in 2014, senior NBC executive Patrick Burkey offered the following explanation.

“Weather coverage can drive ratings,” Burkey said, but “you have to be careful that you’re not covering weather stories that aren’t real news every night. It’s an easy way to lose the trust of the audience about what is really an important weather story.”

Read more:

Bottom line, if climate advocates want more airtime, they need to make an effort to say something newsworthy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 19, 2016 5:33 pm

The MSM has broadcast so much BS against Trump and so much BS for Hillary that they’ve simply run out of BS. Not even the tiniest little bit of bovine scat left over for climate change BS.

Reply to  Allencic
October 19, 2016 6:58 pm

Dr Mann regurgitates a literally unsupportable talking point. The weeknightly PBS NewsHour is a case in point on easily quantifiable bias on the AGW issue – it’s a bit of a chore to go through their online broadcast archives all the way to 1996, but I’ve done that. On the ratio of IPCC/NOAA/NASA scientists offering detailed viewpoints on the topic vs skeptics scientists, it’s 34 to zero ( ). From my own overall ongoing file, there’s been approaching 600 discussions / significant mentions of AGW on the NewsHour from the present back to 1996, and out of that number, just five of those instances had an indication of what’s found in skeptic science assessments, with one of those being the taped September 17, 2012 appearance of Anthony Watts.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
October 20, 2016 7:30 am

PBS (and NPR) are broadcast apparatus of the Ministry of Information.
Thanks, Russell for your research.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
October 20, 2016 8:27 am

That sounds like an interesting research project. You should consider submitting it as a guest post here.

Reply to  Allencic
October 19, 2016 9:27 pm

Ah! Finally! Have we have reached peak BS…?

Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 19, 2016 10:06 pm

“Simply run out of BS” implies actual depletion of a resource. Which occurs long after the peak.
I assume that therefore peak BS occurred some time earlier, at the top of the mythical Hubbert Curve of BS.
But, don’t worry because we can just recycle all the old BS and nobody will notice the difference.
Nobody cares anymore. Disinformation leads to demoralization leads to apathy and disinterest.
Fabricated stories about fabrications – which themselves turn out to have been fabricated.
In the end people just shrug and walk away from the whole sordid affair. Expect a low voter turn out.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 19, 2016 10:27 pm

A.D. Everard — Nice one! — Eugene WR Gallun

John in Oz
Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 19, 2016 10:38 pm

To indefatigablefrog: Does “we can just recycle all the old BS” mean the greens have the perfect renewable resource – BS?

Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 19, 2016 10:46 pm

Most ‘peak’ claims are projections based on known exploitable resources. With legions of well-meaning alarmists and “concerned scientists” on the job don’t be surprised if the end up discovering some new, exploitable BS resources.

Lucius von Steinkaninchen
Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 20, 2016 8:13 am

Peak Bullshit probably occurred at the time of ClimateGate and the Conpenhagen Summit. Now I think that we are on the decline of climate BS.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 20, 2016 3:19 pm

@Lucius von Steinkaninchen
“Conpenhagen Summit”
I see what you did there.

M Seward
Reply to  Allencic
October 20, 2016 2:58 am

“…climate has been the elephant in the room, leaving scientists and campaigners asking why there hasn’t been a single direct question about the crisis.”
Er guys, maybe its because ‘climate’ is the mouse in the room

Reply to  M Seward
October 20, 2016 4:25 am

“maybe its because ‘climate’ is the mouse in the room”
Or a fly in the room? You know, the one that landed on Hillary’s face.

October 19, 2016 5:37 pm

The Qu’ardian will publish any damned rot at all.

Reply to  karabar
October 19, 2016 10:48 pm

A pretty stupid slur, since a good proportion of the Guardian staff seem of jewish origin.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Greg
October 20, 2016 1:16 am

What did I miss. That went from damned rot to jewish origin in one comment. The grauniad does produce a lot of rot and will print anything green without even the basic checks and ballances

Reply to  Greg
October 20, 2016 2:36 am

Your attempt to connect making fun of The Guardian to anti Semitism seems contrived at best.

Reply to  Greg
October 20, 2016 6:15 am

In your opinion, Jews will only produce pro-Jewish news?

October 19, 2016 5:38 pm

You have to feel sorry for Mann, Emmanuel, et al. They truly believe they have discovered the key and hold the future of mankind in their hands. That is pretty heady stuff. It’s tough being a prophet, if only in your own mind.

October 19, 2016 5:40 pm

Oh, well, Pennsylvania State University professors have gone out on strike, so he will not be busy commenting on this matter for some time.

Reply to  starzmom
October 19, 2016 5:54 pm

Let’s hope they stay on strike for awhile!

Reply to  starzmom
October 20, 2016 1:31 am

So, there is a chance some real education might happen while they are out ?

michael hart
Reply to  Felflames
October 20, 2016 5:40 am

If he’s officially on strike then I guess Michael Mann must now be climate-whingeing in his free time.

michael hart
Reply to  Felflames
October 20, 2016 5:56 am

Actually, I see Penn State opted out.

Reply to  starzmom
October 20, 2016 10:41 am

Incorrect. The unions at the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) schools are on strike. Penn State is not part of PASSHE. These used to be known as State Teachers Colleges. Think Slippery Rock State Teachers College.

October 19, 2016 5:43 pm

The best way to control a nation is to control information (MSM) and knowledge (schooling) so what we end up with is propaganda. ” Propaganda is information, especially of a biased nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.”

October 19, 2016 5:47 pm

Dear Mr Mann,
The climate issue has not been ignored. Its just that it hasn’t been hyped.
The reason it hasn’t been hyped is that the hype would harm Hillary, with respect to the votes she would lose if she had to talk about it.

Reply to  DonM
October 19, 2016 11:06 pm

Mann is not alone in wondering whether the media have been bought off – high profile British climate commentator George Monbiot asked the same question back in August.

Sounds like pretty clear signs of psychological denial. Hey the game’s over, the rest of the world has realised that there are more pressing issues. You really need to try to come to terms with that.

“I’ve been shocked at the lack of questions on climate change. It really is fiddling while the world burns,” said Kerry Emanuel, a leading climate scientist. “This is the great issue of our time and we are skirting around it. I’m just baffled by it.”

Sorry guys, your area of special academic interest is not the centre of the universe. Even if it made you feel very important for a little while.
The possibility of one or two degrees warming in a hundred years time probably does not seem like “while the world burns” to the hundreds of thousands of people in east Aleppo. Europe is flooded with refugees and they are not coming because it is 0.1 deg warmer than it was in 1990.
Half the world is in armed conflict. We’ll get back to you about “dangers” of climate change later.

Reply to  Greg
October 20, 2016 10:01 am

But didn’t Monbiot claim that thermogeddon had already happened and the MSM were covering it up?

Thomas Graney
October 19, 2016 5:54 pm

It’s clearly untrue that you can’t judge a book by its cover.

Reply to  Thomas Graney
October 20, 2016 7:07 am

Dang, now that was.. cold.

Bill Illis
October 19, 2016 5:55 pm

Both sides think it is too risky to bring up climate change as a major issue.
The Democrats pander to their base by putting out a low media response climate change policy that means nothing and the Republicans put out a low media response policy about energy that means nothing.
Does that signal that the public is really 50:50 on the issue or is it 25:25 with a :50 don’t care at all. Pushing it means losing several points from one of the bases without gaining anything on the other side.
This is a mistake for Republicans. They should push the left to stake out a real position so that several points are lost for the “interventionist” Dems. Just don’t get caught by being labelled as a den1er but more of a accept climate change but energy and jobs are more important for now position. Viola, gain 2 points in the polls which is all one needs in the partisan 50:50 split amongst voters in the US.
When the Republicans or the Democrats actually gain power by winning elections, that is when the real climate change philosophy/political position becomes evident. Republicans have failed to gain the margin to 52:48 by ignoring the climate change issue.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 19, 2016 6:44 pm

Exactly. The alarmists are very careful to avoid debates because they usually lose.
If CAGW became an election issue, it would be almost impossible to avoid debating the issue. It’s better for them if they keep their mouths shut until the election is over.

Reply to  commieBob
October 19, 2016 9:12 pm

True Bob they always win. When has a believer in GHE/AGW won any debate? Every time one of them has spoken up it’s been a swift race to get behind some kind of censorship capability and hide like a shaking rat caught eating good grain.
The AGW/GHE crowd *invented* driving scientists out of the main debate on their own sciences and installing thermodynamically illiterate hacks who can’t connect-the-dots about the simplest phase of matter: gases. Compressible fluids.
For decades believers in the fraud called GHE/AGW have done their best to keep people from talking about the fact that there’s actually a separate law for solving temperature of gases;
and their fraud refuses to obey that law, and solve for the density of the atmosphere.
The entire scam is fake math that refuses to do the process right; claiming to solve the temperature of compressible fluids without taking into account the compression.
Everybody go look up, ” 33 degrees green house effect ”
then go look up right here on WUWT, ”Hyperventilating on Venus” and ”Venus Envy”.
These two threads, are where one of the world’s bloggers on GHE decided to simply check the story that there’s a green house effect in solving temperature of atmospheric volumes; on Venus, also here on earth.
Also see ‘Harry D Huffman: No Green House Effect on Venus’.
It’s a scam.
It’s thermodynamic law violating fraud. Blatantly. Everybody you meet who claims they believe it’s possible is an intellectual wreck – and in actual fact – everyone knows
it’s believers- not the real scientists who said the entire thing is a fraudulent crock – are the
sole reason
for that arm of pseudo-science to be the reputation sewer of the earth.

Reply to  commieBob
October 20, 2016 6:36 am

Wait Dr.Mann! That’s not true! I watched the 3rd debate, and somewhere in the middle, in one of her long, droning policy wonk meanderings, Hillary actually said something like “climate change, which is a very important subject” and then immediately veered off the topic onto something else. You got your 12 seconds of exposure. What more do you want? She has REAL challenges to deal with, like deleted e-mails and such.

October 19, 2016 5:55 pm

A short video explaining Media and Democracy..

Tom Halla
October 19, 2016 5:59 pm

The problem is making Mann and friends look like fanatics, which should not be hard.

October 19, 2016 6:05 pm

Micheal has to pay attention to the real world.
– Hillary is pushing climate change as a political point (see also Podesta’s leaked e-mails)
– the MSM is biased in FAVOR of Hillary’s talking points
– HRC and the DNC are driven by focus groups
Climate change must be REALLY low on the scale to get no MSM attention

October 19, 2016 6:06 pm

WAKE ME WHEN IT’S OVER (no tune in mind)
everything we do leads to disaster – in time
if it’s whirling down the vortex ever faster, then fiiiiiiine
i finally got it- it’s worse than we thought
it’s the biggest crisis of all time!
so fine, let it blow cuz it’s time to get it over!
i’m tired of it preying on my mind.
when the end of the world just won’t stop being nigh!
ya know, i think i’ll just go do whatever i usuallly do and
wait for it…
hmm – what if the apocalypse came and went – and i never knew it?
i mean – what if armageddon happened… and i just sorta slept thru it?
hey- so wake me when oblivion is over- okay?
it’s hard to whip a fervor to a froth every day.
i’m not your hurry, see- so nothing’s gonna worry me-
listen to me when i say:
i’m yawning from catastrophe fatigue in a very big way.
so wake me when it’s over and done.
when it’s time for doing something interesting and fun.
a second coming’s just another rerun
i’d like to give a fuck but i don’t have a free one-
so wake me when it’s over and you’re gone, gone, gone!
wake me when it’s over and you’re gone!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  gnomish
October 20, 2016 1:27 am

“gnomish October 19, 2016 at 6:06 pm
it’s hard to whip a fervor to a froth every day.”
I dunno, Griff, Simon, Gore, Mann et al seem to do a good job.

Jerry Henson
October 19, 2016 6:06 pm

Lack of audiance interest probably has a big influence. A poll last week listed only 6% being
very much concerned about climate change.

October 19, 2016 6:07 pm

Presidential debates are staged events with topics covered agreed upon prior to the debates.
These are only question and answer events and not real debates.

October 19, 2016 6:15 pm

Are they afraid that we won’t save the planet or are they afraid we won’t save the flow of their generous research grants?

Rhoda R
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 19, 2016 8:31 pm

The latter. Do you really have to ask that question or was it rhetorical?

October 19, 2016 6:16 pm

Television networks compromised? Seems to be the least of your problems over there …

Reply to  AJB
October 20, 2016 8:54 am

But then there’s …
[yes, the website makes fake clickbait articles, it isn’t an actual news source -mod]

Reply to  AJB
October 20, 2016 9:14 am

Not sure which site you’re talking about. The BBC is an actual news source [of sorts] …

October 19, 2016 6:36 pm

A proper case cannot be made for CAGW. That’s the reason the Leftwing Media don’t concentrate on climate. If they thought they had a good enough case, they would go after skeptics fullbore, but they know if they do then their sham will be exposed for what it is. So they stay away from debating the subject. They only make proclamations, they don’t want to argue the subject.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  TA
October 19, 2016 6:54 pm

TA – agreed. The problem they face when “convincing the public” CAGW is a real threat is it is so easy to convince the public otherwise, particularly compared with all the other risks we face.
The alarmist main response to this social fact is a claim that the public is too ignorant to be allowed to form their own opinions. Executive action is required, and that means getting into the position of that executive – or creating a new post with new powers. Doesn’t that all sound familiar? Read the Copenhagen Agreement – the proposed text. It is enough to arouse the (politically) dead to speed from their sepulchres.
Isn’t that what elitist rule is all about? If people are to dumb to understand climate how can they possibly understand the need for pointless perpetual wars or the need to go fund-raising by pushing cocaine and crack onto a troublesome portion of the population? I mean if you had real democracy they would be electing all sorts of fools whose minions would be appointed to every post of influence down to the grass roots, right?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
October 20, 2016 8:04 am

Sheesh, give it a rest.
Just because you believe the nonsense that if the West stopped defending itself, that all fighting would stop, doesn’t make it true.
And the lie about government pushing drugs on the black community has been refuted more times than the climate change nonsense.

Reply to  TA
October 19, 2016 10:36 pm

They’re hoping that disinterest by most voters means they’ve got their eye off the ball, and Obama can make an “executive order” calling for carbon taxes, banning coal, mandating CO2 capture, and the full dysfunctional panoply of warmist Lysenkoism.

Reply to  TA
October 20, 2016 4:49 am

Here is a timely article:
I suppose Hillary could have brought the subject up if she so desired. Nothing to prevent her from doing so. No, they don’t want to discuss this subject.

Michael Jankowski
October 19, 2016 6:38 pm

Conspiracy Theorist Michael Mann…

October 19, 2016 6:42 pm

Actually, there isn’t an “elephant in the room” – it is only a mouse.

October 19, 2016 6:42 pm

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once described writers as “the engineers of the human soul.”
“The production of souls is more important than the production of tanks,”

October 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Mickey Mann get so much cash from Green government lobbyists that he does not need to strike for higher wages like his “peers” and he does not need to fill IRS tax returns or State tax returns.
Actually Mickey does not consider professors of chemistry, geology, geophysics, mathematics, meteorology and physics, and certainly not computer science and engineering, his peers. They are beneath his genus.

October 19, 2016 6:46 pm

Call him Ishmael.
Anthony Watts, that is. That’s not an elephant in the room but a whale an obsessed man will chase to his demise.
Ishmael sets the record straight.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
October 19, 2016 6:47 pm

“…say something newsworthy …” How about saying something that is both true and believable?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
October 19, 2016 9:32 pm

That would be newsworthy.

October 19, 2016 6:57 pm

Is this dude kidding? What color do you think the sky is in his world? Unbelievable.

Reply to  Logos_wrench
October 20, 2016 8:05 am

My guess is green.

Dave N
October 19, 2016 6:57 pm

Lewandowsky should be all over Mann and his conspiracy ideations

Non Nomen
Reply to  Dave N
October 20, 2016 1:19 pm

May God help us, that would make things much worse than all of us could possibly think. Put Psycho-dad and the Nerd in one room and the end of this world is nigh.

October 19, 2016 7:12 pm

Poor little Mikey….
He has apparently forgotten the lesson of Aesop’s fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”….
CAGW rent seekers have been crying wolf for 30 years, and the villagers have finally had enough…
There hasn’t been a discernible global warming trend in 20 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years, NASA admitted last year (after sitting on the data 22 years) that Antarctic land ice is growing at 100 billion tons/yr, there have been no increasing global trends of severe weather incidence nor severity over the past 60~100 years, sea level rise has been stuck at 6~7″/CENTURY since 1800, ocean pH is stuck at 8.1, etc…
NONE of CAGW’s doom and gloom predictions are come CLOSE to reflecting reality.
Moreover, satellite data and peer-review studies show manmade CO2’s fertilization effect has increased global greening by almost 40% since 1980, and increased crop yields 25% since 1800.
Under the rules of the scientific method, CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis.
In 5~7 years, the disparity between CAGW projections vs. reality will exceed 3+ standard deviations for 25 years, at which point CAGW will be laughed at.
The reason there is so little interest in CAGW is because it has become a joke.

Steve O
October 19, 2016 7:13 pm

Trump has gone on record saying “climate change is the biggest scientific scam in the world”. I’m not sure Hillary really wants to debate climate science with a hard core denier on the big stage. Climate change has not been a top ten issue for the American electorate since… the late nineties… the start of the Pause, so I think Hilly just wants to sneak into power with a “implied environmental mandate” before she espouses a carbon tax to the peeps.

October 19, 2016 7:29 pm

The reason it is not a big issue in the election campaign, is they realise the public is not really interested, it always comes down the bottom of the list in polls about peoples concerns.

Reply to  stuartlarge
October 19, 2016 8:51 pm

Speaking of polls, the latest Fox News poll (yesterday) showed Hillary with a six point lead over Trump. Which was an increase over the previous week’s poll.
But they showed a breakdown of that poll on tv, and listed the top 10 concerns of people, and it showed “climate change” at number five, and “immigration” at number eight. There is no way that is correct, immigration is much higher on the concern list of any other poll than is climate change, so that makes me question the rest of the poll results.

Reply to  TA
October 19, 2016 10:17 pm

Leftists simply wish to exhibit virtue POSTURING, in blindly repeating the meme, “Saving the earth from manmade global warming”, but aren’t willing to actually PAY the $10’s of TRILLIONS Leftist political hacks wish to steal on this CAGW scam…
Leftist political hacks try to create the false narrative that “saving the earth from CAGW” will create jobs, but even the most braindead Leftist realizes the absurdity of this claim…
Leftist hacks simply want to steal $10’s of TRILLIONS of taxpayers’ money and to create the false polarizing narrative of those “for saving the planet” and those that want to “destroy the planet”…
CAGW is simply the biggest and most expensive Leftist scam in human history. It’s a political phenomenon, not a physical one….

Reed Coray
October 19, 2016 7:39 pm

Anthony, I know you’re trying to be fair and report the ramblings of the anointed one. That’s fine. Could you please, however, not show a picture of his visage. Every time I see his face, I waste valuable time wondering how anyone can smirk with a mouthful of nuts.

Phil R
Reply to  Reed Coray
October 20, 2016 7:11 am

Whose nuts?

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Phil R
October 20, 2016 1:28 pm

Deez nuts.

Reply to  Reed Coray
October 20, 2016 7:18 am

That’s not funny, that’s mean.
Wait, what?
This is under review.
Upon further review, the initial ruling is overturned,
The comment is found to be funny AND mean. .00015 deducted, skeptics retain possession.

October 19, 2016 7:45 pm

So… they don’t like not being the center of attention. Got it. After all, fame brings big bucks and feeds massive egos. Meanwhile, the politicians are seeing that climate whatever-it-is-this-week is a vote-loser and don’t want to talk about it in public, although they’ll be back to saving-the-planet once the will of the people is out of the way again for a bit, I’m sure.
Maybe those leading climate scientists ought to run it through their big expensive supercomputers and work out if their halos are tarnishing, you know, due to global-warming-weather-weirding.

October 19, 2016 8:22 pm

A man with severely compromised integrity claims others are compromised. Meanwhile after decades of being bombarded with BS about disasters that never materialize they wonder why more people aren’t taking their claims seriously?
I mean the Children of the UK still know what snow is and there is evidence of new glacier formation in the Scot highlands. People are still driving on the West Side Highway in NYC. Texas is wetter and cooler than usual and certainly not in a permanent drought. The Arctic is not ice free, even when measured in Wadhams. The ski resorts in the Rockies have had great snow for their seasons. Atlantic hurricanes are running at average or below incidence and intensity. The interior of the Antarctic is colder and seeing increased snow fall while the Western Ice shelf remains intact despite geothermal activity. The Greenland ice cap is still there and not showing signs of going anywhere fast. Several countries in S. America saw record lows during their winter this year. etc, etc, etc. And these people wonder why they and their warnings are not being taken seriously?

Phil R
Reply to  RAH
October 20, 2016 7:14 am

A man with severely compromised integrity claims others are compromised.

You have to have integrity before it can be compromised. He has no integrity whatsoever.

October 19, 2016 8:26 pm

These Greenies have obviously not been watching any of the BBC’s nature programmes fronted by Attenborough recently. They spout the CAGW line regularly, and he appears to have ignored how much good the increasing levels of CO2 are doing for plant life. And now, having called for public suggestions for the new UK icebreaker, they have deliberately ignored the clear winner and instead will call it after this senile buffoon. Maybe he should be called BoatyFace, instead of the ship!

Stan on the Brazos
October 19, 2016 8:38 pm

As I sit here in my Nittany Lions tee shirt after a successful career in engineering, I have to admit I’m embarrassed for my alma mater hiring Mann, once the Canadian showed the lie on the hockey stick that should have been the end of Mann but no the idiots now dominate.

October 19, 2016 9:05 pm

Emanuel and Mann are to climate science as Joseph Mercola is to medical science.

October 19, 2016 9:23 pm

Come to The Netherlands where the media are preaching climate end of the world this week.

Joe Abramson
October 19, 2016 9:41 pm

It’s because none of the slack-jawed shirt-drooling believers in the hillbilly pseudo-physics and fraudulent mathematics can bear much more public spotlight where people check their dipstick-with-a-keyboard factor.
The entire fraudulent group of government administrators like Mann were revealed lying, cheating, stealing, and faking warming since the year 1998.
The biggest email to hit the news from Climate Gate was when Mann, Jones, Trenberth, et al, were designing the destruction of a reporter’s career: because he was saying, what the very same email batch revealed: that they knew it stopped warming in 1998.
”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Just three months after Climate Gate that same Phil Jones, who had suggested with Mann, that they do to the BBC reporter what they had done to ”the other one” – destroy his career in science reporting through calling his boss and threatening him –
admitted in his Feb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview, that – he didn’t know what the C.R.U. was going to do with him – he had been on suspension facing possible jail if he didn’t confess all and truly to the BBC in that very interview – but he did know that –
yep – he’d been right in 2005 when he told scientist John Christy the world cooled,
and he was sure then – when on suspension in 2010 – that the world had not warmed since 1998 but had in fact cooled some.
It’s fraud. Just because people prosecute people for pot being like heroin doesn’t mean the federal governmet’s chemistry scam about that is real science.
Just because government employees like this criminal hack keep sqealing the laws of thermodynamics don’t work in gubmunt signts,
doesn’t mean that we all haven’t found out how much sheer criminality is involved with their fraudulent destruction of scientific credibility in the weather and climate fields.

October 19, 2016 9:43 pm

I seems absurd to suggest that a single conspiracy involving a small number of individuals could have been responsible for the demise in trust in the advocacy of climate alarmism.
If Mann would like to find such a conspiracy then he should have a look at his own history.
He and his pals were the only conspiracy. A conspiracy of fools.
Trust was eroded. “Scientific fact” was called into question, into dispute and then into disrepute.
All because of the excesses of a small gang of ego-maniacs fighting against reasonable and quite justifiable skeptical enquiry and attempted replication of their purported findings.
He has been a gift to climate skepticism. An emblem of rotten science. The pig at the grant trough.
He should hold himself responsible for everything that has gone wrong for the alarmists.
I was an alarmist once. I thank Mann for awakening me from my National Geographic and Guardian induced slumbers.
Also, he is blessed with a perfect face for cartoon parody.
Except that if he lost a few pounds we might mistake him for Gavin Schmidt.
Never has a man done so much damage to the cause which he claims to advocate.
It’s been a joy to behold. Let’s send him our thanks.

F. Ross
October 19, 2016 9:46 pm


F. Ross
Reply to  F. Ross
October 19, 2016 9:49 pm

Retracted as unkind.

Reply to  F. Ross
October 19, 2016 9:54 pm

You have posted that single word following my comment, which is awaiting moderation, in which I describe “the pig at the grant trough”. Since you can’t see my comment yet, I thought that I’d let you know that your singular “oink!” is going to be provided with additional context, when I emerge from moderation.
I accidentally used an automatically moderated word, in my joyful celebration of the achievements of the master of scientific and statistical incompetence.

F. Ross
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 19, 2016 10:40 pm

Your 9:43pm post expresses the truth about Mann and his ilk much better than mine.

Eugene WR Gallun
October 19, 2016 10:51 pm

Michael Man and
The Hockey Stick
There was a crooked Mann
Who played a crooked trick
And had a crooked plan
To make a crooked stick
By using crooked math
That favored crooked line
Lysenko’s crooked path
Led through the crooked pines
And all his crooked friends
Applaud what crooked seems
But all that crooked ends
Derives from crooked means
Eugene WR Gallun

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
October 20, 2016 8:41 am

Excellent, Eugene, keep ’em coming.

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
October 20, 2016 1:05 pm

I love that one. 🙂

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
October 19, 2016 11:58 pm

Because, you blustering marshmallow, we are simply tired of hearing about it.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
October 20, 2016 8:45 am

Maybe if he’s that worried about media exposure he should buy some commercial time.
Or, he could always debate Christy or Curry on national TV if he wants attention drawn to his agenda…

October 20, 2016 12:10 am

Meanwhile i wonder if there’s a media conspiracy to avoid asking questions about Obama’s policy towards the Castro dictatorship, which allows the unrestricted import of cancer causing Cuban cigars, which generate huge profits for the communist regime. Like Dr Mann I’m obsessed with MY particular pet subject, and I simply can’t swallow why the media is engaged in this conspiracy to annoy me.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 20, 2016 12:41 am

It is not the media that are compromised. Mike should look much closer, to the body part connected to his neck.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 20, 2016 8:11 am

The thorax?

Mike Maguire
October 20, 2016 3:12 am

Climate change is a “save the planet issue” requiring more sacrifices/penalties to US citizens than to the rest of the world. It does not play well for Clinton to try to sell a global mentality position in an election focused on maximizing benefits that give Americans benefits in world competition.
Trump is pretty uninformed about climate change and has made some dumb statements even if he might have the right idea. He would dig a hole for himself discussing something he knows nothing about on a topic where a good understanding is needed to defend a position that is not shared by many……and with the risk of appearing to not care about the environment. .

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 20, 2016 3:20 am

“Mike Maguire October 20, 2016 at 3:12 am
Climate change is a “save the planet issue” requiring more sacrifices/penalties to US citizens than to the rest of the world.”
Are you sure about that? I think you will find the 350 or so million people in the EU are waaaaaayyyyyy ahead of the US in terms of “carbon taxes” than the US.

George Lawson
October 20, 2016 4:24 am

“leaving scientists and campaigners asking why there hasn’t been a single direct question about the crisis”
The answer is simple. There is no crisis, and the vast majority of people across the world realise that there is no crisis. Only the AGW fanatics like Michael Mann and Kerry Emanuel, who continually try to revive a lost cause in order to save their rapidly diminishing reputations, still believe in the crisis. They will all end their careers wondering how the hell they ever got involved in such inept scientific enquiry.

October 20, 2016 4:42 am

Bottom line is that people are bored by global warming.
They have been told daily that the sky is falling on their heads, but when they look around them in their normal lives, they find this is not so. And then they have been told that global warming will result in flood-droughts, calm-windys, misty-clears, hot-colds, serene-storms, and rain-drys.
The Mann has cried ‘Wolf’ once too often, so it is not surprising that people have switched off.

Reply to  ralfellis
October 20, 2016 8:12 am

More than once too often. Way more.

Tom in Florida
October 20, 2016 4:53 am

Perhaps it is as simple as his bank account being very low.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 20, 2016 6:58 am

And let us not forget about Steyn v. Mann and the way the Federal Court system is moving at a pace slower then any known glacier in proceeding with this case. It’s about time this stone walling by the court in this important 1st amendment case don’t you think?

Bruce Cobb
October 20, 2016 5:26 am

There must be some other MSM we don’t know about, because the MSM we know about has been a mouthpiece for the CAGW ideology and Mannian pseudoscience all along.
Perhaps it’s the MSM on whatever planet he’s from.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 20, 2016 8:13 am

If you aren’t sufficiently generous in your praise of Trump, there are many who will declare that you want Hillary to win.

October 20, 2016 5:58 am

“Michael Mann, inventor of the iconic Hockey Stick Graph, is concerned that TV networks might have been “compromised” into downplaying the climate crisis.”
Yeah, just like YOU have “compromised” the application of scientific theory for the sake of your government grant money……………M0R0N!

October 20, 2016 6:00 am

Hilarious. Hasn’t he been watching any television? Watched the idiotic Weather Channel?

October 20, 2016 6:36 am

Mann has got his latest propaganda piece into today’s UK Daily Mail…WITHOUT btl comments allowed. I didn’t read it in detail because the headlines were enough to give his game away. Besides it’s entirely in keeping with the climate industry’s one-way propaganda with no challenging dissent allowed.

October 20, 2016 6:56 am

The main reason might be that climate change has dropped off the map on the public opinion polls. Although the mainstream media tends toward the left of the political spectrum they follow the polls like its their bible. So they dropped the issue. The trend is now on the climate skeptics side, not Mr. Mann’s (and the catastrophe will never come regardless).

October 20, 2016 7:13 am

Mann is correct- the media are compromised. Only they are compromised to help him peddle his self serving apocalyptic clap trap. So even when Mann happens to be right, he finds a way to still be wrong.

October 20, 2016 7:18 am

It is mostly because poll after poll shows it is the voter’s least concern. Who wants to campaign on something the voters don’t care about? Hillary has probably been campaigning too much about it, but it is a sop to the ultra left, so they don’t do something crazy like vote for Jill Stein.
I think after 20 years of nothing happening, people have completely lost interest.

October 20, 2016 8:00 am

Unlike government, media doesn’t have a captive audience.
If they continually bore/offend their audience, the audience will leave.

October 20, 2016 8:20 am

Mann is a salesman, like Bill Nye, they are kind of like Ghostbusters. You have to believe in the problem they are selling solutions for in order for them to make any money. They see an existing overall public disdain for big oil companies, and the simple scientific phenomenon of the green house gas effect, and they package it into a fear sales pitch. They know the media will eat it up and spread the fear for them because they love a good story with a hate-able bad guy and a message that we need to “take care of our planet”, what a feel good story! So they get free commercials from the media, but the more they get the better off they are, so they have to keep egging them on. They could pay for their own commercials but that hurts their bottom line too much, so they egg on the media, saying they are cowards, etc., trying to get more free commercials. Their Ghostbuster business is paid speeches, government grants, sales of articles and books instead of catching ghosts and putting them into those little boxes, but its the same idea. They are GlobalWarming Busters. And they are a business. Who ya gonna call!

Jeff in Calgary
October 20, 2016 8:33 am

How I see it. The MSM has been railing on about CAGW for years. Whenever there is a weather extreme, they link it in to ‘climate change’. However, for the last year, the MSM has been singularly focused on Trump vs Clinton. Trump doesn’t appear to believe in CAGW, so doesn’t bring it up much, and Clinton knows that it is very low on most peoples priority list, and if it is going to cost them money, they don’t support the fix. So she is not widely discussing her plans. She mentioned it after Hurricane Mathew, but that was about it.
Once the election is over, and the Clinton love it is over (assuming she wins), expect the MSM to resume there CAGW propaganda.

October 20, 2016 8:52 am

LOL….could it because climate change barely registers on polls asking people what is most important to them?

October 20, 2016 9:03 am

Boo hoo….I threw a climate party and nobody came.

October 20, 2016 9:41 am

Those who promote the green/progressive movement are many things, but they’re not stupid. Mann might wonder why Hillary and the Democrats haven’t made climate change a focus of the debate, but their approach is smart and cautious. With so many undecided/independent voters tuning in, there’s a real chance that the Green Climate Fund would be examined in detail. People might roll their eyes at “10 meter sea level rise”, but privately they might still think that the issue is a real problem even if it is being exaggerated. The GCF, however, is different. The idea of sending $1 Trillion per decade to the UN to be redistributed to countries like Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan and Venezuela, might inspire some to abandon the Democrat’s agenda entirely.
Best to leave that issue alone and focus on things that don’t sound quite so ludicrous.

October 20, 2016 1:15 pm

Interest will pick up again when the court cases begin and various “leading climate scientists” (the ones shouting “Wolf!” the loudest) are in the dock. That’s what I’m waiting for.

October 20, 2016 2:21 pm

The media knows the result of the UN’s online “My World Poll” showing climate change to be dead last as an issue of concern out of 16 issues raised, and a Pew Research showing climate change is an issue of concern to the American electorate. Hence, the issue will not attract readers or viewers.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

October 20, 2016 2:22 pm

Correction: Pew r\Research Poll shows Climate CHange is an issue of MINR concern to Americaneletorate

tony mcleod
October 20, 2016 11:23 pm

Of course Michael Mann and his hockey stick have become the poster child of denailers…the irony is that the characterisation of temperature, CO2 increase, CH4, population and a hundred other metrics as “hockey-stick” shaped are quite accurate.
And of course there is the reverse hockey stick like Arctic ice extent, which BTW, along with Antarctic ice extent are at there lowest extents evah for this time of the year. But please, ignore and continue to demonise a piece of wood.

October 21, 2016 12:56 am

Perhaps Mann could start his own TV channel, but he may find that like Gore’s Earth Day tv event, no one will be bothered to watch.

Reply to  ilma630
October 22, 2016 2:57 am

Oh they get their propaganda out there plenty. The National Geographic Channel is getting ready to feature
‘Years of Living Dangerously’

October 21, 2016 11:41 am

I suggest Mann and company visit WUWT, we cover global warming/climate change every day.

Harold Helbock
October 26, 2016 7:16 pm

Look at him ! Would you buy a used car from this guy? His hockey stick is pure BS.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights