Climate showdown of the decade?

This manntastic event looms large. With the irascible Dr. Mann pitted against Moore and Curry, fireworks are almost guaranteed. Titley is a lightweight and he’ll be overshadowed by Mann’s huge ego and need to control the conversation. Their idea to hear a “collegial and balanced” discussion may very well be a pipe dream, especially after what happened the last time when Mann and Curry were testifying before congress.

The event is open to the public.

Here are the details from the website:


Climate change is undeniable. But is human activity causing it, and if so, to what degree? How are current public policies helping or hurting the situation? All these questions and more will be addressed at Spilman Thomas & Battle’s Environmental Forum: Conversations on Climate Change.

We’re thrilled to be bringing world-renowned scientists and policy experts in the field to the stage at the University of Charleston to discuss these issues from both sides of the table–expect an exciting exchange of ideas on the causes and effects of climate change, the prognosis for the future, and what can and should be done to prepare for those changes. We’ll hear from those whose research leads them to believe human activity is having a dangerous impact on the climate, as well as those who believe such theories are overblown and unsupported by the science.

Join us for this unique opportunity to see scientists who rarely share the same stage, presenting a balanced discussion about this important topic affecting our planet, our lives, and our businesses.

  • Dr. Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University
  • Dr. David W. Titley, Rear Admiral USN (ret.), Professor of Practice in Meteorology; Professor, Pennsylvania State School of International Affairs; and Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk
  • Dr. Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
  • Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

 Tickets are $15 per person, $20 if purchased after May 29.

When

Tuesday, June 12, 2018 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM EDT

Where

Geary Auditorium, University of Charleston

2300 MacCorkle Avenue SE

Charleston, WV 25304


If any WUWT reader plans to attend, I would welcome a summary to be published here.
Advertisements

257 thoughts on “Climate showdown of the decade?

    • He did well in his testimony at the Congressional Hearing. He expressed absolute certainty and nobody effectively rebutted his whoppers. Many people would have seen the other witnesses expressing proper scientific doubt. They would have concluded that Mann must be right.
      Mann also exhibits an ego that rivals that of Zaphod Beeblebrox. I bet he isn’t worried.

      • Correct Bob. It’s embarrassing … Curry is slow on the draw and hasn’t formulated the bite-sized rebuttals in advance necessary in live formats… I love her but she just doesn’t get it. By contrast, Mann is slick and figures out his moves in advance and how to structure such debates to his advantage. No doubt, he is effective in such forums.

        • Somebody ought to point out that in the Climategate emails even his conspirators thought his hockey stick was garbage.

      • I wish “Big Joe” was in the lineup. In a fair debate, Dr. Curry would kick Mann’s ass.
        I have a feeling this will be more of an unmoderated barroom brawl… Where Mann will have an advantage over Dr. Curry.

      • I think Dr Moore will do well in countering Dr Mann’s whopper’s. I think Dr Curry will probably not do very well again (I watched the entire Congressional Hearing). Although I have utmost respect for Dr Curry, her arguments are too nuanced and she seems to shy away from attacking/rebutting the heart of claims made by the climatastrophists. Need to use their data against them and their theory more specifically, clearly and concisely. No real trends lately in extreme weather events, droughts, etc in the last two decades in spite of huge amounts of man-made CO2 (dreaded carbon pollution, a.k.a. plant-food) released during that time. No tropical hot-spot, penguins are doing great, polar bears are doing great, etc., etc.

      • If you’re speaking of the same congressional testimony I saw, I think Dr. Christy won. He was the only one to present data showing measured temperatures vs models. The measured temps were much lower than the model temps.

      • It should be remembered that, before Congress, written testimony is submitted beforehand and, I’m sure, his friends gave him the questions they would ask him (or vice-versa).
        Will that happen here?

      • Commie Bob I think you have it exactly right. If you are aware of the issues, Christy and Curry were the better scientists, however that handicapped their responses and they showed indecisiveness. Mann on the other hand played to the general public (also politicians) and was fearless in his defence of CAGW. In my experience such Shameless Self Promoters take the day.
        My hopes lie with Patrick Moore because he has played the political side of the game for so long. Hope there is a posted video.

      • “I think Dr Curry will probably not do very well again (I watched the entire Congressional Hearing).”
        Dr. Curry’s claims had the greatest scientific grounding, though. It is true that there is too much noise in the climate data to formulate public policy. Twentieth century anthropogenic climate change might have been caused by changes in land use (which reduce aggregate photosynthesis and increase the “heat island” effect). The CO2 “hot spot,” however, has been thoroughly debunked.

      • “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
        Of course its worse than that. Mann is not a scientist in this context, he’s a cunning, sly and deceitful snake oil salesman meets preacher and his rhetoric is designed to deceive the unaware and win arguments, not to prove his point on the facts – because he can’t, of course. Ipso facto.
        Curry and Moore need some simple graphs such as Brian Cox,a well practised deceiver for the BBC, uses to mislead audiences using selective scales and suppressed axes that appear to show the opposite of the facts re CO2 and temperature, etc, – only designed honestly to show reality.
        This is asymetric warfare, as the scientists are not trained to handle confrontation and debate judged on the trust of a lay audience, which likes certainty and prefers fear to trust, and easy belief in sim[ple assertion to complexity and understanding.
        Of course those academeics who are prepared to explain the truth are immediately attacked by their own institutions if they attack false or unproven consensus science that the establishment approves of, and any celebrity presnter would soon lose their work if they started telling the people the truth vs the BBC line. So not many get the practise they need. Training is required.

      • First of all, Mann should shave his head. That way, if anything catches fire, it won’t be him. Also, it might make him look vaguely virile. (Stop that giggling!) And you all know how hippie chicks groove on guys who look virile.
        2nd: I don’t see anything that says they’ll allow dissenting opinions, which they should have made clear. It means that wankers and loud mouths like me can attend and make statements that rankle Mann’s ego. Or is that rumple?
        Third: Nothing about refreshments, either. Always a mistake. “Refreshments included” will always draw a bigger crowd.
        Forbushth: If I want to bring my next door neighbor who is a velociraptor, is there going to be room for questions from those who have already been through climate change on a massive scale? I was also going to include the apatasaurus family down the street, but they’re kind of big. Why can’t it be held outside?

      • Not having enough room for the Apatosaurus family is obviously species-ist. We need to bring clubs and rocks and cover our faces because of the tremendous hate that these organizers have for the Apatosauruses who, after all, are victims of mammal oppression.
        We shall never rest until reparations are made by the mammalian Apatosaurus haters. If we can’t find enough Apatosaurs to distribute the money to, the money should be distributed to me.

      • @sarastro92
        Don’t forget RealClimate.org was orginally bank rolled by Environmental Media Services, now privacy protected. Man probably receives coaching.

      • Here’s what Curry says about the comments here:
        “Apparently there is a ‘consensus’ that I am too ‘nice’, too ‘wimpy’ and too ‘uncertain’ to take on Mann.”
        Here’s what people here say:
        “her arguments are too nuanced and she seems to shy away from attacking/rebutting the heart of claims made by the climatastrophists.”
        “Nice, wimpy and uncertain” basically describe personality and character.
        “Too nuanced”, “shying away from rebuttal of the heart of claims” etc refer to debating strategy.
        Whilst personality may well influence debating style, they are still two different things, and Curry seem to conflate the two. It is perfectly possible to maintain civilised grace and courtesy at the same time as offering intellectual steel – see Jordan Peterson for master-classes – but not if you think the one is in conflict with the other. I hope Curry does not make this mistake.
        Curry also remarks:
        “I much prefer the format of the APS Workshop — serious scientists prepared serious arguments and were questioned by serious scientists for almost a full day.”
        Amen to that, well may you prefer it, but it’s not what is on offer.

      • It’s not that important to win the PR event — this isn’t an election debate or a sales pitch, it’s a scientific debate. Let Mann strut around if he wants. Safe bet that Curry’s presentation will be more factually accurate and more persuasive to serious listeners who hew to scientific principles.

        • The average reporter who covers the debate will not be a serious listener. He/she has his/her mind made up and will take Mann’s soundbites and more assured, fast-talking delivery as confirmation that he is correct that the sky is falling.

    • I was wondering on the over/under for the length of time it will take Mann to start hurling insults.

    • I wonder what the over/under is on AGW extremists chanting any time anyone other than Mann is speaking, and generally ruining the event… Can’t allow dissent after all!

  1. Dr. Mann will claim that climate science is as solid as the law of gravity.
    People won’t be able to tell that he’s full of it. There needs to be a good solid rebuttal. It has to be delivered immediately. It has to be pithy and not confusing.
    Any ideas?

    • Which is funny, because the law of gravity as we think we know it has been seriously questioned and heavily revised in the past (Einstein over Newton), and is being seriously questioned again at the present time. Nobody is claiming that “the science is settled” about gravity and just blowing these current questions off, either.

    • “Dr. Mann will claim .. climate change”
      Everyone else will say “of course there’s climate change”
      bang…..sound bite….end of the same old story again

      • Thanks for that sophomoric analogy Scott! Let’s examine the fallacies of your analogy, shall we?
        The human body has a normal internal operating range of just a few degrees F. Two degrees increase above 98.6F internal body temperature to a human is a ‘fever’.
        But normal seasonal and climate variability on most of the earth is not constrained to such a narrow operating range, is it?
        To illustrate, a few years back I happened to be in Wisconsin on both the highest temperature (104F) and the lowest temp (-32F) days of the year. That is a delta 136F annual operating range for that typical WI location. A 2F change in temperature at that WI location is just a 1.47% change within the delta 136F annual operating range. On a -32F day in WI, a 2F temperature increase is below the range of most humans perception. Minus 30F or -32F? Phhhhttt! It’s just too damn cold! Same thing is true on a 99F day, with 90% humidity! It’s just too damn hot! A 2F change is nearly imperceptible. And yet, the adaptable Wisconsin human being dresses appropriately for the daily conditions and operates efficiently across the full 136F annual temperature range. It is their everyday experience base of changing temperatures in Wisconsin’s part of the world and they adapt to it continuously.
        This is the experience-based fact that David Middleton’s graph so clearly illustrates. It is easily understood, from the everyday experience base of most people on planet earth. The claimed ‘catastrophic global warming’ is imperceptible, both to normal seasonal/climactic variability and to human perceptions. What we are left with are claims of an imperceptible ‘catastrophe’ imagined in a dodgy science future, entirely deserving of the pithy derision that it garners! Just like dodgy comparisons of the narrow internal operating temp range for human bodies to the large range of normal planetary seasonal and climactic temperature changes……..

      • JMac: yes, the putative AGW signal they’re looking for is orders of magnitude smaller than the diurnal range. Global warming science sees fairy footprints where elephants dance.

      • J Mac,
        I live in SE Virginia, Which has a relatively decent climate (not going to take the time to look it up right now). In January a few years ago, and one of the first times I had heard about the polar vortex, our temperature dropped 52 °F in less that 24 hours, from the mid-60’s in the afternoon to a low of (I think) 14 °F in the early morning. Guess what? we survived. Even most of my plants in the garden did. the ones I had in containers I put in the garage. Talk about instant adaptation…

      • Instead of trying to convince the 25 or so tweedy academics who’ll show up to this thing with their minds already made up, all that has to happen is to get to Trump and explain the stupidity of the Endangerment Clause to him. Sink that and the Chicken Littles can scrabble around after their sinking grant money to eternity for all anyone cares. 30 years of data is IN, the atmosphere is not a “greenhouse,” a trace gas with a half-life of 5 years is not causing anything to overheat, and the long-term trend is totally unremarkable.
        That’s all the POTUS and Congress need to know! The rest, frankly, is science fiction with no more significance in the real world than the Planet of the Apes crowd screeching and smacking each other with bones. However good a popcorn movie that (and this!) might be . . .

      • Goldrider you cannot explain the Endangerment Clause to Trump. The word “endangerment” is much to big for him to comprehend/understand because it is not in his vocabulary. This is the problem one has with someone with the vocabulary of a fifth grader.

      • Anyone who still thinks Trump is an idiot is clearly projecting their own inadequacies.

    • Yes! David Middleton’s “Context For The Contextually Impaired” graph of HADCRUT4 data with a thermometer imposed behind the data line is an exceedingly clear, immediately understandable, and nonverbally pithy statement of the trivial significance of ‘climate change’. It should be displayed every time the Mann-Titley pair refer to ‘extreme’ or ‘catastrophic’ man made climate change.
      Also, with good reason, have the heating/air conditioning set to 66F for the venue and secured to prevent mann-made tampering.
      https://i1.wp.com/debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/context2.png

      • The same sophomoric mapping of body temp in Kelvin is enough proof for some that a fever is nothing to worry about.

      • Shelley, jayman
        20 centigrade is the recommended temperature your house should be heated to in winter, at least down here in NZ. I personally find it a little cool.

      • “The same sophomoric mapping of body temp in Kelvin is enough proof for some that a fever is nothing to worry about.”
        Incredibly misleading analogy, Scott, but perhaps that’s a compliment in your world.
        Do human body temperatures normally fluctuate up and down by 15°F as the average daily temperatures do in Chicago?
        Do human body temperatures normally fluctuate up and down by 49°F as annual average temperatures do in Chicago?
        In other words, you are offering an extremely fallacious argument, as pointed out in more detail in the J Mac May 28, 2018 at 2:52 pm posting above.

      • +10
        Is this excellent and honest graphic available as coffee mugs or tee shirts?
        If not, why not?

      • Thanks for the ‘redirect’ Ralph Westfall. Don’t know why my reply post to Scott Koontz post ended up above…. but Thanks!

      • I think the 20C level is a marker to highlight the average global temp of 15 – 16C, which hasn’t changed in modern times.

      • Sure, because it’s common practice to choose absolute Y axis limits that are 50 times the range of the variable being plotted! This may be an effective technique when your audience is third graders, but not for adults.

    • Keep it simple. Ask how a trace gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere controls atmospheric warming. Are you convinced that the overwhelming and highly variable conc of atmospheric water vapor, a more effective GHG, is properly modelled in climate simulations.

      • I don’t think that the use of the fact that CO2 is a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere should be an argument for its benignity. After all, many in the audience may be predisposed to thinking of it as a pollutant, ie as a toxin or poison, which is the association that the CAGW proponents have successfully implanted in uncritical minds. And poisons can be lethal in concentrations that make 400ppm look huge. Rather, it makes sense IMHO, to start out with the emphatic pronouncement that, in the entire history of mankind on earth, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are today, followed immediately by the fact that there is nothing in our experience of climate and weather of the past 50 years that has not already occurred during the past 20,000 years. The claims of extreme weather events must be put into their proper historical and statistical context. Some examples should be provided, e.g. the century – long droughts which California experienced twice in the past two millenia, the Sacramento flood of 1862. Records of great forest fires etc. Then an explanation that the cost of storm damage is a consequence of poorly sited infrastructure, not evidence of increasingly powerful storms. Sandy was labeled a ‘superstorm’, misleadingly implying that it was a giant, beyond the normal hurricane categories.
        Then a question about sea level. How is that coral atoll islands even exist when we know that global sea level was about 140 meters below current levels, less than 20,000 years ago, when Chicago was under two kilometers of continental ice? Doesn’t every school kid know that coral depends on sunlight? Clearly this means that atolls have kept pace with natural seal level change. Then mention the recent measurements reported on WUWT of Tuvalu (? if I remember correctly ) actually growing in area.
        It wouldn’t hurt to mention the Yamal tree data and the fact that the latter part of the ‘hockey stick’ was pruned of tree ring data because it did not support the GW contention. I’m sure many other facts, from polar bear population to mention of Little Ice Age glaciers destroying Alpine villages 500 years ago, to vineyards in Britain in Roman times, to settlement of Iceland and Greenland in the MWP along with the abandonment of Greenland by its Nordic settlers in the first half of the 15th century due to the LIA and the fact that the world temperature still recovering from that cold spell (though perhaps the American audience might find the ‘ice in the Potomac’ story more familiar).
        On the science side of the argument, the importance of the tropical troposphere hotspot to the ‘GHG’ model must be emphasized and contrasted with the lack of support for this crucial element in the satellite and balloon data.

      • greg
        ” in the entire history of mankind on earth, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are today,”
        NOT TRUE. CO2 levels were much higher 50 million years ago.

        • Ummm, mankind was around 50 Million years ago? I was aware that Royer & Beerling 2011 show level of 800 ppm 30 odd MYA and Cambrian levels may have been as high as 7000 ppm, but for all practical purposes ‘Mankind’ has only been around for a few hundred thousand years and evidence of significant manmade structures (Göbekli Tepe) some 12 thousand years.

      • Unless you want to argue that the presence of man influences how CO2 behaves, the “history of man” is not a relevant.

      • Greg Strebel
        “ie as a toxin or poison, which is the association that the CAGW proponents have successfully implanted in uncritical minds. And poisons can be lethal in concentrations that make 400ppm look huge.”
        CO2 is not a toxin, it’s an easy comparison to refute.
        Similarly, the ridiculous comparison with bacteria, which is a self replicating organism, is also easily refuted. CO2 doesn’t self replicate, nor is it toxic until it reaches levels of many thousands of parts per million.

    • I’d like to see Moore pull a mouth muscle just before and have to call in Mark Steyn as a sub.
      Please God! I don’t bother you often!

      • The sub I’d like to see is the very impressive R.G. Brown of Duke. He provides heavy artillery and a good grasp of the philosophy of science. Too bad he’s been away for so long.

    • “Dr. Mann will claim that climate science is as solid as the law of gravity.”
      …and Dr Curry will agree:
      With regards to the IPCC AR5 conclusion:
      “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [humans]. The best estimate of the human induced contribution is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
      To which she says:
      “I agree that it is extremely likely that fossil fuel emissions have contributed to the warming observed since 1951.”
      https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/09/what-are-the-main-sources-of-heat-that-account-for-the-incremental-rise-in-temperature-on-earth/

      • Have ANY OF YOU THOUGHT about making CONTACT WITH DR CURRY
        and PRIMING HER ????????????????????
        YOU seem to have ALL THE ANSWERS ,even to ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS…………..
        so what about DOING SOMETHING PRACTICAL and
        OFFERING TO ASSIST HER ??????????
        This WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE if she could persuade someone
        POWERFUL who is now “fence-sitting” that CO2 IS NOT THE PROBLEM
        That the PROBLEM IS ACTUALLY MICHAEL MANN and AL GORE !!

      • zazove
        The problem is that Judith Curry, thanks to her intellect, is a lukewarmer. Which means she’s reasonable enough to see both sides of the argument. She also presents both sides of the argument honestly.
        Mann is a fanatic and therefore delivers nothing but his one sided opinion of the argument.
        The problem is, the media loves a sound bite debate and JC isn’t that type of person.
        However, she has acknowledged the criticism levelled at her from many on this site and as a learned woman may well take the criticism on board and respond to Mann appropriately.
        JC didn’t get to where she is today by cow towing.
        Moore, on the other hand, is a sound bite master. And coming from where he did as a ‘green fanatic’ to a position of condemning Greenpeace as a terrorist organisation, this could get interesting!

    • Commie bob asks for ideas in response to Dr. Mann’s killer opening re: law of gravity. My idea: “gravity” is a “law” because it has been studied enough to make predictions that come true. We know the math well enough to predict the fall rate of a cannon ball and a feather-in a vacuum. Even with that firm predictability, we can’t predict the fall rate of the feather in this room if we don’t know the air density or currents. Outdoors? We could measure air density and currents, but those would change dramatically just a few feet from where we measured. Nevertheless, gravity continues to pull (?!) on the feather at a very predictable rate.
      Dr. Mann’s “law” of climate science makes predictions about CO2 and temperatures. Those predictions have not come true. His law has not been tested in the atmosphere, or even in this room, and he has not begun to measure atmospheric conditions that affect the fall of his feather. Therefore, it’s not a law, it is not understood like gravity.

  2. Wow this is great! Glad to see something like this happening. Long overdue. We should be able to have debates like this ( not 3 minute sound bite TV stuff), I know our side is always up for it and glad to see Dr. Mann and Dr. Titley step up here. Always thought traveling debates would be something great! Bravo

    • I’ll vote for Joe to do the moderating !!!
      Who is moderating it? That will determine whether or not it’s a meaningful event.

    • “Glad to see something like this happening. Long overdue.”
      I wonder what has held it up. Presumably lecture-booking services, which colleges use, and which sometimes provide a pair of debaters, have attempted to get colleges to indicate their interest in such an offering, and they also have likely tried to get warmists to agree to participate in such a debate-series, if one were to be held. Similarly, probably some persons working in the assembly club at colleges must have tried to get the whole group to sponsor such a confrontation.
      I can understand SOME resistance and foot-dragging to occur. But the nearly total shutdown is so remarkable that an investigatory journalist or three should lo into it. He/she should also look into the similar blackout of televised or radio-broadcast debates. The charts and graphs that are such an integral part of the subject make it ideal for TV—it’s not just talking heads.

    • Personally I don’t see the point the world has already voted loud and clear that if you accept CAGW is true the world isn’t going to curve emissions. Emission reached records in 2017 and are up 4% first quarter of 2018. Italy just voted to lurch right and now even Macron is in trouble in France with his popularity.
      Personally it’s a waste of time and money flogging a dead horse, whatever the real answer is.

  3. Mann got soundly beaten by NASA’s Hal Doiron in a California debate last September. In fact is was almost embarrassing for the moderator, as Doiron ran rings around him!
    Expect the same with Curry and Moore. They should advertise the event as a comedy, and maybe Mann will pull out a Rolling Stone article again as he did in his defense at the California debate!!!

  4. “Climate change is undeniable”
    ….and somehow they have convinced a whole lot of people to be afraid of it

    • As if anyone ever denied climate change….Oh wait, don’t warmists claim the climate was perpetually perfect until humans fouled up the climate by inventing industry?
      SR

    • Saturday it was 91F here. By Sunday evening it was down to 48F. Nobody died. Tomorrow it’s supposed to be 85F again, then down to 61F. Haven’t heard any officials posting “adaptation warnings.” My 88-year old father not only hiked around my steep, hilly pasture in the morning, he played golf with his grandson all afternoon on Saturday in said 91F, humid heat. I’d say 1.5C since 1850 (if global avg. temp. is even a “thing”) should inspire yawns, not terror. I mean, somewhere there’s some paint to watch drying, right?

  5. Drs. Moore and Curry will need to be more aggressive and emphatic in their assertions of low/no human contributions to ‘climate change’, if they hope to counter balance Michael Mann’s stage craft. Milquetoast rebuttals of Mann’s emphatic assertions just don’t cut it.

    • The weight will be on Dr. Curry. She and Mann will be the only “climate” scientists on stage.

      • Don’t underestimate Mann. Prior to developing a persecution complex over the shredding of his hockey schtick, he exhibited a fair bit of competence. Couple that with him being an obnoxious lout, and he could dominate a poorly moderated “debate.”

      • Mosh will tell you the wiggly line is going up and how confident he is of it. He can’t tell you why it’s going up or what it means with any sort of science so not sure he is helpful.
        I think the bigger picture is the universities need to be discussing, since the world isn’t got to cut emissions if CAGW is real what is plan B. The emission cut plan is dead in the water politically and has a near zero chance of working.

      • Prior to developing a persecution complex over the shredding of his hockey schtick, [Mann] exhibited a fair bit of competence.
        He is mathematically competent. His work itself is pseudo-science, which is no indicator of competence.
        His paleo-temperature reconstructions are not grounded in physics. They are statistical constructs with no particular physical meaning.
        All he’s done is use his competence with mathematics to snow the rubes. There’s an accomplishment.
        The real offense is that the physics establishment has let him get away with it.

  6. Is there an exclusive popcorn selling franchise? If so, I want it.
    This is a long, long overdue exercise.

  7. Unless the “debate” is well-moderated, the loudmouth cretin will dominate the stage… Doctors Moore, Curry and Admiral Tetley won’t get a word in edgewise, not that Tetley ever says anything worth listening to.

    • Why not go for the trifecta, make it Mann, Steyer, and McKibben and let them babble their full-on hysterical nonsense with feeling. Then, fertheluvagawd, SOMEONE distill the real observations into a soundbite even the Facebook zombies can understand? Somebody around here needs to memorize the Alinsky playbook and learn how to turn it against them.

  8. I prefer written form for discussions of science. There is more thought and consideration.

    • That was what made the Dutch “Climate Dialogue” site so good. Too bad it’s now defunct.

  9. Unfortunately all 4 of them are wrong when it comes to understanding how the atmosphere really works. So I suspect this will go down in history as an irrelevance.

      • Women are more likely to believe in CAGW and Judith is certainly more sympathetic than the abusive, loud moth Mann, so maybe it sways women to the sceptic side.

  10. especially after what happened the last time when Mann and Curry were testifying before congress.

    I watched the congressional hearings.
    Mann was able to effectively shout down J. Curry on a couple of occasions. On two of those occasions, Mark Steyn jumped into the fray and basically rescued Curry. Without Steyn’s efforts, things would have gotten even worse than they already were.
    Curry, for her part, talked much about the uncertainties in the field.
    She talked about the “Uncertainty Monster”.
    She talked about the uncertainties in the temperature record.
    She talked about the uncertainties in the climate models.
    But, she seemed to be very uncertain about all of what she was saying. She seemed to be not sure of anything, not even the uncertainty.
    Mann and Titley, on the other hand, were sure. They were sure about *everything*.
    I do hope Curry has been able to strengthen her debating style. Otherwise Mann already knows how to effectively shut her down.

    • If only Mark Steyn could be in the audience. I predict somethink akin to Dyson/Peterson Munk debate with plenty of “hucksterish snake oil pulpit talk” (Stephen Fry) from Mann.

      • Sommer: It was very effective in revealing the weakness of the PC case and the obnoxiousness of Dyson who was so brilliantly skewered by Fry with that line. A ‘Newman Moment’ for Dyson I hope.

      • I saw some of that debate. Michael Dyson used 50 cent words without a penny’s worth of substance.

    • Maybe in this debate she can point out the uncertainties in Mann’s arrogant assertions.

    • We have the wrong game plan. We are trying to play a game called Facts and Logic. But people like Mann, Flannery and Oreskes all know that the game is called The End of the World. Which one do you think sounds more exciting to the punters out there?

    • It’s not idiotic, it’s very clever, and it was presumably written by a warmist. “Climate change” should be a meaningless term, but without clarifying what the writer means, leaves us with the standard alarmist message that climate is changing – for the worse, and look at all these “unprecedented” cyclones, floods, droughts, heatwaves, blizzards, and on and on. They (the warmists) are already starting to control the debate before it’s even started.

      • I’m one of the attorneys who helped put this together. I assure I am not warmist (I published a highly critical law review article about the warmist claims in 2012). The point of that phrase is that climate has changed many times over history, is now, and always will (at least until the sun dies). The issue is whether anthropogenic activity is contributing in any meaningful way to natural occurring climate fluctuation.

      • No one knows, JCM. Climate models have no predictive value.
        None of those people knows what they’re arguing about. Paper here.

    • Notice how seldom ‘man-made,’ or ‘human caused,’ or anthropogenic is ever mentioned these days. It’s not generally presented as if all ‘climate change’ is caused by man.
      We should always question those – even from the skeptical side – who only use the terms ‘climate change,’ or ‘global warming.’

      • The more amorphous the source of fear, the more non-specific the terminology used to define it,that the left can generate the better for their purposes: fearful people easily manipulated, easily led, infectious vectors in spreading it, longing to be part of the protective herd of true believers, their only solace, belonging to a group, consenting to poor decisions made in their name, that neither solve the problem nor seem to improve anything.

    • Well, of course, it’s undeniable. it’s in the geologic record. It’s happened repeatedly for a few billion years now.
      It’s the nonsensical arguments about what causes it, promoted by people with agendas, that make a mockery of the whole thing.

  11. I wonder if they will live-stream this? Or at least have it available online after the fact.

  12. “Dr. Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
    Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology”
    Am I the only one who sees this billing as slighting both Patrick and Judy? I hope they get to state their positions before Mann gets going. But he is going to be playing to a tough crowd in the middle of coal country!

  13. without Professor Murry Salby, Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Ian Plimer the three top climate scientists in the world the meeting will lack authority.
    Terri Jackson Msc MPhil http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk
    Terri
    On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
    > Anthony Watts posted: “This manntastic event looms large. With the > irascible Dr. Mann pitted against Moore and Curry, fireworks are almost > guaranteed. Titley is a lightweight and he’ll be overshadowed by Mann’s > huge ego and need to control the conversation. Their idea to hear a” >

  14. Mann knows that debating someone that really knows their stuff and is aggressive in rebuttals will overwhelm his fantasy interpretation of reality. After the Doiron debacle, I am surprised that Mann still wants to debate this topic. He obviously thinks that Curry is a pushover and that since Moore doesnt have the scientific PhD ;that he will overwhelm them with bravado. Doiron isnt the most aggressive debater and he still overwhelmed Mann because Doiron has the fundamental PhD engineering knowledge to counter anything that Mann said.
    Unfortunately Moore and Curry are poor debaters and Mann will get out of this unscathed.

  15. Need to start the debate with an education that “Climate” is changing, has changed and will always “change”.

  16. We have the climate debate right here on this site and it is much more polarized and comprehensive then any other debate could ever be.
    This is where it is at.

  17. A prestigious ‘Intelligence Squared’ debate between three climate science experts and three sceptics.
    The scientists lost heavily, they didn’t realise the audience and sceptics were smarter than they were. The number of sceptics in the audience almost doubled from 30 to 57 percent.
    One of the sceptics was novelist Michael Crichton who put his case brilliantly. On the other side, head of NASA climate Gavin Schmidt who basically said ‘we’re right, the science is settled, we win’.

    • At least Gavin is entertaining. He scores two own-goals in a row, at around 30 – 35 minutes. First he compares himself to a TV CSI drama, which is of course mostly fiction and razzle-dazzle, just like his precious climate models.
      He follows that up by comparing himself to medical doctors with claims about how great they are at diagnosis. Well, actually, most doctors suck at diagnosis. They are great at memorizing stuff – not so great at applying the concepts to real people.

  18. Judith Curry’s “It’s in your written testimony, go read it again!” response to Mann’s denial of denier name calling was pretty sharp, that’s encouraging I think.

      • She should have simply said “I will read what you wrote and then proceed to read it.” This would have shown that he lied. She is a poor debater, unfortunately.

      • rd50: It wasn’t a debate, it was testimony before US Congress. No opportunity for retorical flourishes, just time for the stiletto which she used superbly.

  19. “Dr. Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University
    and noted Climate Liar with a dino-sized ego”. There, fixed.

    • “Walk toward the fire” — might be misguided on some legal issues, but definitely doing what is right. Deserves support.

  20. Titley is a lightweight and he’ll be overshadowed…

    There are benefits to being dignified and staying above the fray.
    Do not underestimate the Admiral.
    The fireworks may catch the soundbites.
    But the policy movements will be led by the influencers who care enough to watch all the speeches.

  21. The previous event was a disaster for the realist camp, run away with by Mann. Mann ran thu’ his list of qualifications and no-one asked if he was still claiming to be a Nobel prize winner (nb not ‘Peace’). During the name-calling exchange no-one asked if he had called Steve McIntire ‘a shill for the oil industry ‘ – he did. Have you been sued yet?

  22. I would begin every reply/rebuttal to Mann in one of two ways:
    “Mike, if the physics is so simple and the science is all settled, please explain how/why . . .”
    or
    “Mike, do you deny the abundant evidence that . . .”
    I would pound the geologic evidence that nothing today is “unprecedented” or “out of the ordinary”, that Earth and life have survived far greater change than we see today, that there has never been a “tipping point” despite millions of years of far higher CO2 concentrations, etc.
    I would also point out the obvious facts that fossil fuels have been hugely beneficial to mankind, and that people have always suffered more during times of cold than times of warmth. Energy poverty harms poor people disproportionately, “So, Mike, why do you so dislike poor brown people?”
    And I’d call him “Mike” just to watch him twitch (heh-heh)

  23. The ad for the event claims that these four individuals are “world-renowned climate change scientists”. This is arguably the case for Mann and Curry, but definitely not for Titley and Moore. That claim destroys the credibility of the event. But the phrase claiming this will somehow be a “collegial and balanced discussion” borders on the hilariously delusional, given past performances by Mann and Titley. It fits Curry perfectly, however. Not sure how Moore will perform.

  24. Any bets Mann pulls a Commey … stuck in traffic ?
    In any event good on the University and the panelists for attending .
    Long long over due .
    I hope they go out for dinner later and build on common ground instead of this 20 year peeing contest .

  25. It is very difficult to debate anyone who is willing to tell one lie after another and media bias is guaranteed to slobber all over Mann. I’m sorry, but I am not very optimistic.

  26. “Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”
    This should come up in the debate.

      • Because it seems to be a sticking point for so many people. We know the earth is warming, that CO2 percentage is going up, and burning fossil fuels is the reason for the CO2 climb. Getting some to say something so simple as “CO2 will contribute to a warming planet” seems to be the first step to understanding basic climate science. All four panelists know the quote to be true.

      • It should come up, then smoked by Curry and Moore.
        The warming found in a test tube 140 years ago is not evidence that it operates in the atmosphere at 0.04% total volume.
        There is no other evidence that CO2 has any effect on the atmosphere.
        Warming has been happening since the little ice age (1645–1715). Which means that the continuation of that warming today, means little.
        etc.

      • Greg, that a really cool theory you have. You should test it against the world’s climate scientists, who say otherwise.
        Why are so many comments based on gut feelings?

      • That the earth is warming and CO2 is going up are undeniable.
        That the burning of fossil fuels is the sole cause is not.
        Are you really as simple as the above post makes you seem?

      • We know the earth is warming, that CO2 percentage is going up, and burning fossil fuels is the reason for the CO2 climb.
        Correlation isn’t causation, Scott. Spurious correlations.
        Early last century G. Udny Yule famously showed a 0.95 correlation between the British death-rate and Church of England marriages. Your logic would require banning marriage to save lives.

    • Scott K ==> “Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”
      OK, but on this planet all other things are never equal. All those other things are constantly changing in ways that also effect temperature. There is ample evidence that changes in “all other things” makes the influence of miniscule carbon dioxide concentrations negligible.

      • “There is ample evidence that…”
        To the contrary. This is the crux of the matter. The evidence points to CO2 as the primary forcing, full stop.

      • Scott,
        There is no evidence to that effect. Zero. Zip. Nada.
        All the evidence in the world has repeatedly falsified that baseless assertion.
        CO2 rose steadily from 1945 until 1977, all the while Earth cooled dramatically, so much so that scientists feared global cooling leading to the next ice sheet advance. Then the PDO flipped, leading to 20 years of slight, barely detectable, indeed so negligible as to be immeasurable, warming, and beneficial if real, followed by 20 years of flat temperature, despite continued steady increases in CO2 levels.

      • “There is no evidence to that effect. Zero. Zip. Nada.”
        I guess you forgot to read the science. Stay on this site and feel better about your gut feelings.

      • “The evidence points to CO2 as the primary forcing, full stop.”
        So far. IOW, AGW is true. But CAGW doesn’t necessarily follow, because it requires positive water vapor feedback. The evidence points against that.
        None the evidence points against CO2 sensitivity being high or medium, which limits the effect of even unamplified increases in CO2. (Besides which, increases are subject to diminishing returns, their effects being logarithmic.)

      • Ooops—I meant to say, “None the evidence points TO CO2 sensitivity being high or medium …”

      • Scott Koontz May 28, 2018 at 7:45 pm
        I’m sure that I’ve read a lot more real climatology than have you.
        Please cite the evidence which you imagine supports the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or climate change.
        You can’t, because there isn’t any.

      • Just ask Judith:
        “I agree that it is extremely likely that fossil fuel emissions have contributed to the warming observed since 1951.”

      • None of you seems to understand that the quote is from Curry. You can’t be a scientist who knows something about climate science and say otherwise. Only zazove caught this.

      • Where is this evidence?
        Over the last 100 years, temperatures have gone up, gone down, and stayed steady for over 20 years, all while CO2 rose steadily.
        If your simplistic model was actually correct, temperatures should also have gone up steadily.
        In the past, CO2 levels have been over 10 times greater than today, while temperatures were much lower.
        1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 years ago, temperatures spiked to well over what we see today, yet CO2 levels were lower.
        If your simplistic model was actually correct, that could not have happened.

      • zazove, so what? There’s a big difference between having an influence as Dr. Curry stated, and being the primary driver that you trolls always trot out.

      • Scott, “The evidence points to CO2 as the primary forcing, full stop.
        There is no such evidence. Climate models have no predictive value. The effect, if any, of CO2 on climate is not known and presently not knowable. A physical theory of terrestrial climate does not exist.
        You go on complaining about “gut feelings” among others Scott, but gut feeling is all you operate on.

    • How about this? There is no evidence in Earth history for runaway warming even with 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. This proves the existence and power of negative feedbacks that AGW science pretends doesn’t exist and refuses to look for.

    • ““There is no evidence to that effect. Zero. Zip. Nada.”
      I guess you forgot to read the science. Stay on this site and feel better about your gut feelings.”
      Scott, since Felix set you up with a fantastic opportunity to present the evidence, why did you choose not to?
      (You don’t need to respond. It’s hardly a secret)

      • Are 99% of all science papers good enough for you, or are you pretending that the one paper from Monckton is enough to disprove decades of some great work?
        No need to respond because we both know the answer.

      • Your comment states nothing except your lack of understanding of this topic and the presenters. Would a paper from Curry explaining that CO2 is driving the temps help?
        What is she smoking?
        And I think it’s fair to say that 99% of all papers that touch on climate science understand that CO2 is the primary forcing. Very few science papers (from qualified scientists and peer reviewed of course, not Heller or Watts) that state otherwise.

      • Scott, if you actually believe that 99% of the papers support your position, that that alone is evidence that you haven’t been reading the papers.

      • The papers you call “science papers” provide no science, Scott. Not one of them – not one — presents valid physical error bars. They’re all about statistical correlations and variations about model means.
        They purport a certainty they plain do not have. You have been gulled by the incompetent purveyors of pretty graphs.
        And the physics establishment has betrayed their critical integrity letting that nonsense slide by; indeed by supporting it. Their offense is unforgivable. The heads of the APS, AIP, ACS, and all the rest including the NAS, should resign in shame.

    • So what? Unless you are one of those fools who actually believes that any change, no matter how tiny, is evil.

    • You have to remember how Scott and the other trolls think.
      They believe that to be a climate scientist, you have to believe that CO2 is the primary driver.
      Anyone who doesn’t believe that is not a climate scientist.
      Therefore all climate scientists believe as they do. So hand over you wallet.

  27. Ok, how much will they have to pay Mann to show up? Will he pull a Gavin and refuse to sit on the same stage? Hummmm, somehow I keep seeing a monitor with his talking head Skyped into the equation.

  28. So… We’ve all decided that Dr. C. is the nice gal who finishes last. Why does she do it then? Sometimes i get the feeling that she finds opening her own comment page as loathsome as opening a fridge two weeks after katrina. (never know what you’ll find crawlin’ around there at Slime-it, Etc.) She’s gotta know that this isn’t going to go well. So why even bother? Especially with a forum that includes that creepy mann who’s called her the d-word in the past…

    • Well now afonzarelli… who else would you choose? I would certainly choose Lindzen instead of Moore, but he has the same demeanor as Judith Curry. They’re academics not politicos. It shows in their stage presence, it shows also in their assertions and it shows in how they argue. The reason she is there is because she is deeply competent in the field and the arguments presented by Mann and the IPCC do not convince her. Why?
      Now if she says it, it means something .. if I say it.. it means nothing.
      If Patrick Moore says it.. its still just politics.

  29. Been suggesting sound bites to all here and at Climate Etc for a coule of years now. Hopefully Judith will be better prepared than at the Cruz Senate hearing with Steyn and Titley. She was better in the Smith House Christy/Mann congressional hearing 29March 2017(where she owned Mann in the giveand take (my favorite 17 second Youtube snippet), and better yet in her two recent Tucker Carlson guest TV appearances. She should have sensitivity new paper)and sea level rise (new CFAN work and missed congressional hearing earlier this month) nailed. She should be able to own attribution and symbology like polar bears. She should be able to cross up Titley with Chisty’s Smith hearing first graphic based on watching Totley at the Cruz hearing and the Karlization kerfuffle.
    Dunno howmup to speed Moore is. He would be ideal for polar bears based on Crockford, coral reefs based on Steele and newly the Ridd fiasco which echoes his own Greenpeace experience, and maybe greening.

  30. She should just relentless beat Mann over the head with everything he continues to hide from the public. Come clean Mikey, then we can talk about taking you seriously.

  31. I think it’s safe to say that active volcanism is increasing globally as I speak, and that the volume of gases released into the atmosphere (including CO2, CO, N, H20, SOs, etc.) is higher than human-created volume This indicates that we humans have little to no control over what the Earth does as it moves through space, and are at its mercy.
    So what is Mann’s plan to reduce the volume of volcanic gases and ash particles from particularly intense eruptions? And since Kilauea in particular is discharging very gassy materials along with its lava flows, what is he plan for putting a cork in that bottle?

    • Sara
      The weather should have warmed up nicely in your part of the world by now.
      As a northern tracking jet has kept the polar air well to the north. After the long cold spring you have to suffer. lts looking like the summer may go a fair way to making up for that.

      • Taxed – Yes, but it won’t last long. Three days of 85F++ and then tomorrow, we’re back to 70s/50s and then 60s/50s and probably rain. The Windyty wind map shows cold air coming right off Lakes Michigan and Gichigoomee into my AO, so I will.transplants my petunias tomorrow. Cold air collides with warm air and BOOOOMMM! Thunderstorms!!! Or thundersnow, if it’s winter. We’re supposed to get rain from that silly storm Alberto, anyway.
        Not to worry. I will fix a pot of comfort food (red beans and rice w/smoked sausage) and enjoy my days, and keep an eye on volcanoes in general.
        And one more thing: I’ve been keeping an eye on the snow pack to the west. A large part of it is still more than 5 feet deep at high elevations north to south. This is good news, you know.

  32. I wish Tony Heller to debate Mann or any one of them alarmists , he is the one who would shred them to pieces

    • Disagree somewhat. His stuff is mostly good,given a few statistical,problems. But narrow. Temp fiddles, regional US weather, and arctic ice are repeated themes. There is much more to this debate.

    • Since stating the temperatures for May 23 at one location is Heller science, then all you would need is a real scientist to have 1000s of locations and dates where the temp trend is positive handy to spit back at Heller to stop on his “science.” No way an electrical engineer could go against a climate scientist.

      • So-called “climate scientists” aren’t scientists. They’re GIGO computer gamers.

      • John, that was an embarrassing reply. Don’t you understand any of the science? Maybe ask Watts, the guy who said he’d place all bets on BEST results.

      • Felix, scientists are scientists. Maybe look tat one up. Are there any people with science backgrounds on this site? This is pretty much what I was told I would find on a Watts site.

      • Scott – on WUWT, expect to find lots of use of the words rent-seeking, virtue-signaling, global elites, when commenters refer to climate scientists. Strangely, when I’ve asked how can this “bad science in return for grant dollars” only afflict climate scientists and not, say, cancer researchers or physicists working on the origins of the universe, I only get silence. Somehow, out of ALL the fields of scientific endeavor, only atmospheric sciences has experienced a complete corruption of the scientific method across the research community.

        • Something like 50% of medical papers can’t be reproduced. So the corruption also affects those other areas.
          Just because you refuse to see something is not proof it is not there.

        • Of course there could be corruption in other forms of grant funded research, but climate change science is unique in its politicization and the roughly left/right alignment (at least from a policy perspective) of proponents versus skeptics. This makes the issue have a political-economic immediacy that other research fields do not. And the policy implications have immediate, real world impacts on citizens concerning e.g., the availability of low cost energy sources; higher energy bills for consumers (which has literally lead to deaths of fixed income individuals in Europe, particularly the UK); tax credit schemes that artificially make energy options viable that otherwise wouldn’t be; etc. We live in a world of finite resources and time. When policy decisions transfer billions of dollars of wealth (and enriching tremendously at taxpayer expense those on the politically correct side of the issue) to projects purporting to solve a problem which has not even been demonstrably shown to be man-made, then people are right to question the propriety of such policy initiatives. If the science behind such initiatives is deficient in conclusively showing that such expensive “solutions” can even solve the alleged “problem”, then the onus should be on the proponents to carry the burden of proof. There are numerous academics who have commented on how climate change related research gets favored status over studies that do not. I know of these only anecdotally and will leave to someone else to address that issue.

  33. Climate change is undeniable.

    What change in Climate are you referring to? I have not seen any change in Climate in my life time. For sure, some years have been warmer than others, some years have been colder than others, some years drier than others, some years wetter than others, some years there has been more snow, some years it has been stormier, but hey that is precisely what Climate is. That is not Climate change,
    Climate is made up of many parameters. Temperature is but just one of these many variable parameters. materially, these parameters are never in stasis and are constantly changing, and change to one or more is not in itself Climate change, or even evidence of such.
    Whilst it is undoubtedly warmer than it was in the depths of the LIA, I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is warmer today than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s. indeed, we can be reasonable sure that as regards the contiguous US it is not today warmer than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s. Same too with Greenland and with Iceland. The US probably has the best and most sampled data and there is no reason why it should not be regarded as representative of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. There is no reason to consider that it has some unique geographical or topographical features that would render it not representative of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, so if the US has not warmed then it would suggest that the Northern Hemisphere probably has not warmed and such record as suggest warming is simply an artefact of poor data collection homogenisation/adjustment.
    if Hadcrut data is to be accepted then temperatures today in the Arctic are no warmer than the 1920s/1940s, and as we all know the Antarctic has been gaining ice these past 40 or so years.
    I see no compelling evidence of any real Climate change since the 1940s during which period man has emitted approximately 96% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

  34. Saben ya, que provoca el Calentamiento Global……NO SABÍAN, por eso se cometieron muchos errores…..

  35. Answer to Mann : There has been no significant change in any climatic parameter (rainfall, temperatures, storms, hurricanes, arctic/antarctic ice, drought in any area of the world ect ect for the last 100 years,If so prove it.The whole AGW “theory is just a tax grab”?

  36. That left eye looks pretty evil all right . Hard to hide good looking .
    Patrick Moore will bring a practical side to this .

  37. I think the poster advertising this event should look more like a professional wrestling poster, and the event would be more entertaining if conducted like a professional wrestling match.
    It would be a climate-debate smack down.

  38. Well ….. a tip to Dr Curry if she reads this.
    The theory of CO2 driven climate change is a physical process that according to physics, would be expected to be consistent across the globe. BUT … the data clearly show that there is NO consistent effect across the globe. We do not have any Global Warming, all we have is a warming Arctic, to a questionable degree, as we don’t have good land/ocean based measuring systems in the Arctic.
    Contrast that to Global Greening ….. another physical process …. has occurred globally with explanations for differences.
    Bottom line, this is a case of virtual world vs real world, and creative presentation (I.e. Global Average), vs reality, …. a regional effect that can’t be due primarily to CO2.

  39. Meanwhile back in the lab the science goes on. The sideshow of public debates entertain the masses, but they do not change the science. Year and year out, old skeptics die. And none leave behind any body of work that can be built upon. None offers an alternative theory, by design in fact. By design they do not offer testable alternative accounts of the climate. Like 911 Truthers who point to gaps in evidence, the skeptics have one goal. Create doubt about the best explanation. Their goal is not understanding. This in part explains why skeptics never question their own doubt. Doubt, not the reasoned understanding of uncertainty, is their product. Folks will have a debate. Science won’t watch. Science doesn’t care. Science only pays attention to the better explanation, and doubt explains nothing. Year and year out, old skeptics die. They leave behind no science for others to build on or improve; they mentor no graduate students; they teach no classes; they publish no papers, no data, no code. Oh ya, they post on blogs. Nature bats last, and the only defense you have against her as a scientist is to leave behind a better understanding of the world. Doubt aint a legacy, it’s a temporary tactic employed in the service of better understanding.
    Rather than posting over unders on Mann being a dunce ( he will be) we should do over/unders on prominent skeptics not croaking in the next 10 years and leaving behind nothing.

    • What explanation does climate science have? A trace gas 410ppm by volume and ~600ppm by mass causes the temperature of the lower troposphere to rise so high that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will cower in fear and melt away? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
      The inconvenient questions that the IPCC nor Michael Mann can’t answer.
      1) Why did sea level rise faster in early 2Oth century than now and even now is not accelerating?
      2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
      3) Why did climate scientists in the climategate emails worry about no warming trends? They are supposed to be unbiased either way.
      4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.
      5) Why do 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years? The 3 that do are near undersea volcanic ridges.
      6) Why does the lower troposphere satellite data of UAH show very little warming and in fact showed cooling from 1978 to 1997?
      7) Why is there only a 21% increase in net atmosphere CO2 ppm since 1980 but yet mankind increased fossil fuel emissions CO2 by 75%?
      8) Why did National Academy of Sciences in 1975 show warming in the 30’s and 40’s and NASA in 1998 and 2008 not show nearly as much warming for those time periods?
      9) Why has no one been able to disprove Lord Monckton’s finding of the basic flaw in the climate sensitivity equations after doubling CO2?
      10) Why has there never been even 1 accurate prediction by a climate model. Even if one climate model is less wrong than another one it is still wrong.
      11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?
      12) Why have many scientists resigned from the IPCC in protest?
      13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were
      14) Why do clmate scientists call skeptics deniers as if we were denying the holocaust?
      !5) Why did Michael Mann refuse to hand over his data when he sued Tim Ball for defamation and why did Mann subsequently drop the suit?
      16) Why have every climate scientist that has ever debated the science of global warming lost every debate that has ever occurred?
      17) Why does every climate scientist now absolutely refuse to debate anymore?
      18) Why do careers get ruined when scientists dare to doubt global warming in public?
      19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
      20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
      21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?
      22) Why has the earth greened by 18% in the last 30 years?
      23) Why do clmate scientists want to starve plants by limiting their access to CO2? Optimum levels are 1200 ppm not 410ppm.
      24) Why do most climate scientists refuse to release their data to skeptics?
      25) Why should the rest of the world ruin their economies when China and India have refused to stop increasing their emmissions of CO2 till 2030?
      26) Why have the alarmist scientists like Michael Mann called Dr. Judith Curry an anti scientist?
      27) Why does the IPCC not admit that under their own calculations a business as usual policy would have the CO2 levels hit 590ppm in 2100 which is exactly twice the CO2 level since 1850.?
      28) Why do the climate modellers not admit that the error factor for clouds makes their models worthless?
      29) Why did NASA show no increase in atmospheric water vapour for 20 years before James Hansen shut the project down in 2009?
      30) Why did Ben Santer change the text to result in an opposite conclusion in the IPCC report of 1996 and did this without consulting the scientists that had made the original report?
      31) Why does the IPCC say with 90% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming when they have no evidence to back this up except computer model predictions which are coded to produce results that CO2 causes warming?
      32) How can we believe climate forecasts when 4 day weather forecasts are very iffy?.
      33) Why do all climate models show the tropical troposhere hotspot when no hotspot has actually been found in nature?
      34) Why does the extreme range of the climate models increase as the number of runs increases on the same simulation?
      35) Why is the normal greenhouse effect not observed for SST?
      36) Why is SST net warming increase close to 0?
      37) Why is the ocean ph level steady over the lifetime of the measurements?
      38) what results has anyone ever seen from global warming if it exists? I have been waiting for it for 40 years and havent seen it yet?
      39) If there were times in the past when CO2 was 20 times higher than today why wasnt there runaway global warming then?
      40) Why was there a pause in the satellite data warming in the early 2000’s?
      41) Why did CO2 rise after WW2 and temperatures fall?
      42) For the last 10000 years over half of those years showed more warmung than today Why?
      43) Why does the IPCC refuse to put an exact % on the AGW and the natural GW?
      44) Why do the alarmists still say that there is a 97% consensus when everyone knows that figure was madeup?
      45) The latest polls show that 33% do not believe in global warming and that figure is increasing poll by poll ? why?
      46) If CO2 is supposed to cause more evaporation how can there ever be more droughts with CO2 forcing?
      47) Why are there 4 times the number of polar bears as in 1960?
      48) Why did the oceans never become acidic even with CO2 levels 15-20 times higher than today?
      49) Why does Antarctica sea ice extent show no decrease in 25 years?
      50) Why do alarmists still insist that skeptics are getting funding from fossil fuel companies ( when alarmists get billions from the government and leftest think tanks) and skeptics get next to nothing from either fossil fuel companies nor governments for climate research?
      51) If the Bloomberg carbon clock based on the Mauna Loa data, in the fall and winter increases at a rate of only 2ppm per year; then why do we have to worry about carbon increases?
      52) Why arent the alarmists concerned with actual human lives. In England every winter there are old people who succumb to the cold because they cant afford the increased heating bills caused by green subsidies.
      53) Why did Phil Jones a climategate conspirator, admit in 2010 that there was no statistically meaningful difference in 4 different period temperature data that used both atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperature?
      54) Why does the IPCC still say that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a 100 years when over 80 studies have concluded it is more like 5 years?
      55) Why do all global climate alarmists say that corals are dying due to bleaching when Dr. Peter Ridd (who has published over 100 papers) has proven that coral bleaching is a defensive mechanism by corals in relation to temperature change in the water.
      56) Why does the IPCC still release temperature and sea level data from NOAA and NASA when Tony Heller has proved that those agencies have faked data and made improper adjustments to the actual raw numbers ?
      57) How does the IPCC explain that Professor Miskolczi showed that despite a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the period 1948 to 2008, the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere was found to be unchanged from its theoretical value of 1.87
      58) Why has the Global Historical Climate Network temperature data set for ~ 1000 temperature stations in the United States shown no warming over the entire 124 year period when you just take the daily maximum and average it out for the 365 days of the year?
      59) Why has the global average downward infrared radiation to the surface shown no increase ever since the CERES satellite started collecting data in the year 2000?
      60) Why has the global average outgoing radiation to space shown an increase since 1974 according to the NOAA satellite info?
      61) How would Antarctica ever melt if almost all of the land mass never even comes close to 0 C even in summer? Same for Greenland.

      • “13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were”
        I haven’t seen any official pronouncements on this but it looks to me like we are having record low numbers of tornadoes this year. We have had very few tornadoes in Oklahoma, and the ones we have had were low-energy tornadoes. And this seems to be the case all across the nation.
        The tornado season is ususally just about over in Oklahoma by June. It all depends on storm fronts coming through which tend to be few and far between beginning in June and going through August. Some years we have a wetter early summer which can spawn tornadoes into June, but that is not the norm, so these record low numbers should continue this year.
        The Alarmists claimed that CAGW would cause an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes, but here we are in supposedly the hottest decade ever, yet the weather is doing the opposite of what the Alarmists claimed. “The Science” seems to have missed the mark. No legacy here for those hard working climate scientists. They have nothing to leave to their posterity but bad guesses.

      • 2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
        Most of your points can be easily refuted (or in some cases simply not taken seriously) but this one struck me as odd because Curry proved that rural temperature sets show a more pronounced warming trend than urban ones. Maybe she should bring that up and get people to stop pretending otherwise.
        You would not be able to see the difference between all sites and rural sites unless you looked closely, and if you could spot any difference you would see that rural sites show very slightly more of a warming trend, not less.

      • A couple of supplementary questions:
        Why does the Vostok ice-core record show temperatures changing BEFORE carbon dioxide concentration?
        Why do temperatures in the Vostok record DECREASE at the moment CO2 concentration is highest?
        Why has there never been a thermal runaway in Earth’s history, even when CO2 concentrations were far higher than today?

      • One thing I’ve noticed about Scott, he’s always proclaiming that skeptical points can be easily refuted, yet he never actually does refute anything.
        He just screams louder and louder that all the scientists agree with him so shut up.

    • Very true, Steven! The Creationists love a ‘debate’ too, because it also gives them a chance to air their beliefs and wild conjecture. Hell, the Flat-Earthers had a conference in the UK recently and there were all kinds of ‘discussions’ about wacky conspiracy theories of all sorts, probably including global warming. Sound familiar?

    • Mosher: “Science only pays attention to the better explanation, and doubt explains nothing. Year and year out, old skeptics die. They leave behind no science for others to build on or improve; … Doubt aint a legacy, it’s a temporary tactic employed in the service of better understanding.”
      Science also pays attention to the null hypothesis; and doubt, in the form of exposing the weaknesses and even falsity of many warmists’ claims, shows that the null hypothesis (i.e., nothing threatening is in train) is “the better explanation,” and therefore that CO2 mitigation is most likely unwise.
      Mencken said, “Pedagogues believe in immutable truths and spend their lives trying to determine them and propagate them; the intellectual progress of man consists largely of a concerted effort to block and destroy their enterprise. Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. In whole departments of human inquiry it seems to me quite unlikely that the truth ever will be discovered.”
      Voltaire said, “doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is absurd.” He also said, écrasez l’infâme! . Voltaire left quite a legacy.

    • The best explanation is that the current warm period is either 100% or nearly 100% natural.
      Funny how hundreds and hundreds of papers that show how little impact CO2 has is dismissed as being non-existent.
      I guess that’s the only strategy left once you realize you can’t refute them. Just declare they don’t exist.

    • So says Steve Mosher, who goes on about science without ever having displayed any understanding of it. And who works for a guy who evidently does not understand instrumental resolution, and who serially neglects systematic measurement error. Great credentials all.
      Your side has captured the journals, Steve. Kudos to you all for that great accomplishment. Skeptical scientists are disallowed publication. The case of Richard Lindzen is the prominent example. Then the witlessly arrogant go on about how skeptics don’t publish. Among the more intelligent that assertion would prove their dishonesty. Among the rest, just a display of their triumphalist stupidity.

      • He works for and frequently defends the guy who replaced a good temperature series with one known to have many problems based mostly on the fact that the bad record was longer.

    • Steven Mosher May 28, 2018 at 7:46 pm

      Year and year out, old skeptics die. And none leave behind any body of work that can be built upon. None offers an alternative theory, by design in fact. By design they do not offer testable alternative accounts of the climate.

      … They leave behind no science for others to build on or improve; they mentor no graduate students; they teach no classes; they publish no papers, no data, no code.

      That’s rather disingenuous of you, Steven. If one’s position is the null hypothesis, how does one “offer an alternative theory,” or publish papers, data, or code? The null hypothesis here is that there’s no significant relationship between increasing global CO2 and the Earth’s temperature, so how does one prove the negative? CO2 has increased in a linear fashion over the last 60 years, while the Earth’s temperature has not. It’s been up a bit, down a bit, up a bit more, down a bit, in a pronounced stair-step fashion.

      It rose long before there was enough human-produced CO2 to possibly make a difference, and it fell during the 1940s through the 1970s when humans were really cranking it out. From 1957 to 1980, CO2 rose 20ppm while the Earth cooled. If you can’t explain why the Earth cooled while CO2 rose by 6.4% of its 1957 value, you don’t have a theory at all. It can’t explain that cooling, it can’t explain the warming from 1900 to 1940, and it can’t explain the most recent pause.

      In point of fact, it’s more like the “God of the Gaps” argument, in which a supernatural force is used to explain the giant holes in a theory. CO2 is the magic molecule, which can cause warming, cooling, flood, draught, or any other event its believers can’t explain otherwise.

  40. Mann’s portrayal of himself as victim, in the congressional hearings, was Oscar worthy.

  41. Waste of time.
    Mann and Titely would refuse to accept or recognize white as white or black as black colors, light and dark, wet versus dry, cold versus hot, day versus night, etc.
    Mann and Titely have demonstrated they are incapable of accepting correction, refutation, rebuttal, honest observational proof. Plus neither of them, minds twisting reality to fit their nonsense.
    Which is a major reason climate science is regressing steadily. Without honestly and transparently questioning, evaluating, analyzing and testing reality, science can not progress.

  42. Dr Curry, if she reads some of the posts and comments here on WUWT, will be much better prepared for an actual debate than she was in that hearing in congress. I did watch that whole thing, and she should have read from Mann’s actual words that he called her a denyer…I hope she surprises us.
    I hope someone like Moore asks him if he believes that CO2 is pollution. And also has “scientist” Mann described CO2 as Carbon?

    • Who cares if people who deny some of the basic science are called deniers? May as well dwell on whether Curry said she’d believe her own work with Muller, because she’s never going to answer and it gets us nowhere.
      And by definition most anything is a pollutant at specified levels. Excess CO2 is a pollutant because of the result, but why spend time on a definition that makes a small percentage of the population uncomfortable?
      Mann never called CO2 carbon, but CO2 is part of carbon emissions as discussed by scientists. Or are you implying that people would be confused and think that carbon emissions means solid chunks of carbon are the problem? Makes no sense to give educated people a summary of what they would have learned in high school or sooner.
      I think they should skip over the quibbles of the non-scientist (like your points above) and get to the point. Curry is known to dance around the subject, but when pressed admits the obvious to her audience. Expect her to pretend that knowing exactly what percentage CO2 plays on warming the planet to be one of her sticking points.

  43. It won’t be a complete waste of time, but it’ll be painful. I’m glad they’re talking in public forum. Should be done often now. But it’ll be ugly and will take a long time to sharpen the blades if we’re even given the chance. If the alarmist left tyrants get in WH, talks are over.

  44. Mann can at least be commended for agreeing to debate. It’s also good to see he seems to have lost a bit of weight thus doing his part to reduce his own environmental footprint.

  45. Mann should start with the obvious facts, and see if Curry flinches when she hears the basics that no scientist should ever counter. Mann should return to the basics every time Curry wanders off into one of her Gish Gallops and tries to muddy the waters.
    We know the earth is warming, and we know the primary forcings. If Curry wants to say that we’re not sure about the exact percentages of those forcings, then OK, but their rating is pretty solid. But Mann should insist she state what the top few forcings are so they can get out of the muddied waters. Ask her to quote herself about CO2 and temperature.
    Get Curry to summarize her work on adjustments so we can put an end to the constant craziness that comes from people who think scientists are “fudging” or “tampering” the numbers. None of that panel should have to spend more than 5 seconds on something that should have been explained in a middle school science class.

    • We do not know the primary forcings. We have no science which claims to know what the primary forcings are.
      Models that are tuned to show that CO2 is a primary forcing are not science.

  46. I am one of the organizers of this event and thought I would reach out to this forum to answer several of the questions asked in the comments section. We have asked each panelist to answer two questions: 1) to what extent does science show man-made CO2 emissions are accelerating climate change; and 2) based upon the first answer, what mitigation needs to be done to offset the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on the climate.
    The proceeds from the event will be used to cover the cost of the event. We purposefully refused to have organizational sponsors for the event in order to avoid the appearance of bias in either direction.
    Each panelist has 15 minutes to make their own presentation and then there will be a 30-45 minute question and answer session. We have a group compiling and vetting questions for panelists and welcome any suggested questions you may have for a specific panelist. We have advised each panelist to expect hard, but fair questions, so if you have any questions that meet those two requirements that you would like for us to consider, please forward them to me at npreservati@spilmanlaw.com
    Finally, we are prohibited from broadcasting the event live or redistributing the recording.

    • “1) to what extent does science show man-made CO2 emissions are accelerating climate change;”
      The climate changes continually because it is a chaotic system. Climate change is the natural order of things. We have no evidence that climate change is “accelerating” and we have no evidence that human activity is affecting the natural course of the climate.
      The question you should ask the alamists is where is their evidence that humans are affecting the climate and causing it to do things it otherwise wouldn’t do naturally.
      I would like to hear the answer to that one.

    • “Finally, we are prohibited from broadcasting the event live or redistributing the recording.”
      So we won’t actually get to see this debate if we are not there in person?

    • Can you explain your comment that you are “prohibited” from broadcasting live or redistributing the recording?
      First, are you recording the event? And second, who or what is “prohibiting” you from broadcasting or redistributing a recording of the event?

  47. In any multi-gazillion variant tele-connected system, confounding factors are around every corner, There is no way we are at an understanding level regarding just the natural drivers, to have any confidence in human-drivers. The models and reconstructions Mann clearly has put all his bets on, was a step made waaaayy too early in what should have been the better slow walk to better understandings of natural variation.

    • That makes little sense. The body is complicated, but we know a temperature spike when we see it, and you don’t have to measure every square inch of the body. Factors around every corner, but when you find the cause you won’t find a doctor saying “we have no idea if the infection caused this” or “this is not a fever because people have survived 106°F before.”
      Earth is warming and CO2 is the primary forcing as per climate scientists including Curry. No need to know every single forcing to know that.

      • As always, Scott contradicts himself.
        He admits that the system is complicated, then he proclaims that because CO2 is going up and temperature is also going up, this proves that CO2 caused the temperature to go up.

        And that’s without pointing out that temperatures have gone up, down and sideways while CO2 has been going up during the last century.
        In centuries past, CO2 has shown no correlation with temperature.

        • Just look at the atmosphere’s profile. CO2 is 400 ppm all the way up to 70 km. The atmsophere cools with atlitude in the troposphere, warms with altitude in the stratosphere, cools with altitude in the mesosphere, and warms with altitude in the thermosphere. CO2 at 400 ppm seems to be able to warm and cool, depending on altitude. Does that even seem remotely possible? Clearly, something else affects atmospheric temperature.

  48. I hope to attend, but if I can’t I hope people in the audience can ask a few of the following questions:
    1) If you control for H2O and isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, you find that CO2 has zero impact. Antarctica, the ideal control for H2O, shows no warming over the past 50 years and 33% increase in CO2.
    2) The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the GHG effect and thermalization of 13 to 18 micron LWIR. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Given ocean cycles control the atmospheric temperatures, how can you blame CO2 for atmospheric warming when it can’t warm the oceans.
    3) The Hockeystick and recent NASA Sea Level chart show multiple dog-legs which don’t line up. What about the underlying physics of a CO2 molecule, which shows a log DECAY, could ever explain a dog-leg is temperatures and sea level, especially when they don’t match on each chart.
    4) The N Pole and Greenland show sub-zero temperatures most of if not all of the year and evidence shows the ice and glaciers are melting FROM BELOW!!! How does CO2 cause warm oceans and geothermal activity to melt the glaciers?
    5) Long-term instrumental temperature data controlled for H2O don’t show the warming claimed in the hockeystick, why don’t thermometers argee with the hockeystick?
    6) Climate models based upon CO2 being the main driver of climate have failed miserably, why is that?
    7) MODTRAN shows that CO2 has zero impact on the layer of the atmosphere where all ground measurements are taken. The CO2 signature isn’t identified until an altitude of 3km when H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere. Why are you right and MODTRAN wrong in modeling CO2?
    8) The physics of the CO2 molecule is that it thermalizes LWIR between 13 and 18 micron. Those wavelengths have a blackbody temp of -80 degree C. How do these low energy wavelengths warm anything?
    9) Washing my black car the other day I burned by hand from steam from my wash cloth. A black car in the shade and exposed to the identical LWIR CO2 back radiation was cool. How can CO2 cause these huge temperature differentials? Or is the claim that CO2 causes record daytime temperatures simply false?

  49. Is there a video or transcript of Hal Doiron debating Mann anywhere? It has been referenced a couple times on this thread – would love to see it.

Comments are closed.