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
Charleston, WV 25304
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s the over under of Mann dropping out?
Or Mann walking out in a huff if asked hard questions?
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.
+42
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.
Curry proved Mann a liar during that “hearing”. .
https://youtu.be/DPUMztYMuis
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.
Yes, I’ve attended meetings with Moore, he’s excellent. And has the weight of being a Greenpeace founder so can’t be accused of being an extremist denier.
“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’ll take $2.50 on about 30 seconds.
Once he is given voice to speak, I’ll take $5 for an insult in the first sentence.
@Greg;
To quote Nathan Detroit in Guys and Dolls, “No bet.”
My first thought exactly….
Extremely likely. And 97% of skeptics agree.
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!
100%
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.
In 5th grade they teach the difference in the use of the word to versus too.
Trump Derangement Syndrome gets stronger the more successes Trump has.
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.
Good graph
The same sophomoric mapping of body temp in Kelvin is enough proof for some that a fever is nothing to worry about.
66F? You’re being awfully generous. I’d drop it down to 45F, just for the occasion.
What is the temperature reading of 20 degrees supposed to signify? Please explain.
@ur momisugly jaymam May 28, 2018 at 1:56 pm
I want to know the significance too.
Yeah, I’m wondering abut the 20C reading, too.
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.
@roger Knight
I miss Dr. Brown’s contributions as well.
“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/
I’d be stunned if Joe Bastardi didn’t agree with her too.
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 !!
Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
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.
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.
Sort of like the Lincoln-Douglas debates?
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!!!
Any link available on the above?
link to the denate please
thanks
Is this being ‘live streamed’? I’d love to watch it live.
I would think that it will be shown on Youtube afterwards.
“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?
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.
(yeah, Forrest, they might as well have stuck mosh in there instead… ☺)
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.
What are the odds that Curry denies her own work with BEST or adjustments?
What are the odds of you saying something meaningful?
If past is prologue – nonexistant
Is there an exclusive popcorn selling franchise? If so, I want it.
This is a long, long overdue exercise.
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.
Wouldn’t be happening but for Trump.
IMO.
+42 ×16^6
Is the 42 in hexadecimal also?
D’oh!
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.
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.
Christy would be better than Curry, except for whatever advantage her sex might confer.
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.
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.
That was a ridiculous debate. In case people missed it-
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?
“Climate change is undeniable.”
Idiotic premise.
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.
Water is wet is also undeniable.
The max level of stupid is 11.
I wonder if they will live-stream this? Or at least have it available online after the fact.
“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!
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” >
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.
Would be good to watch this if it’s streamed.
James Bull
Need to start the debate with an education that “Climate” is changing, has changed and will always “change”.
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.
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’.
IQ² = Pretentiousness⁴
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.
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.
That was a good moment, and also the proper way to counter falsity in the debate. Call them on it right to their face.
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.
“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.