Mann’s ‘climate showdown of the decade’, turns into a pay-per-view event

Last week, I announced this:

And as you can see, there’s a $15.00 per person ticket charge…not unreasonable.

At first we noted that there would be no live webcast, we were told that it wouldn’t be allowed. Then our guest author Eric Worrall reached out to the venue, with my blessings, offering to do a webcast, at no charge. A week went by, and we heard nothing, then we heard back, and the organizers said they have a live webcast setup and provided a link for registration

That was great news…until, I found out it’s a pay-per-view deal.

Suddenly, my interest level waned. It’s not a lot of money, but the thought of spending money for watching this event just doesn’t sit well with me, especially since Mann is always denigrating everyone who doesn’t agree with him as being “on the take” from dirty oil and coal moneyed interests.

Yet here is a university, which gets millions in grants, nickel and diming this event. It just seems odd. Maybe they were counting on the old maxim of “I went to see a fight and a hockey game broke out” to lure viewers like WWF does. Maybe they’re expecting Mann to throw some chairs and bodyslam his opponents outside the ring.

The whole event just feels cheap to me now.

I’m sure a few will sign up. Word has it that some WUWT readers will be attending the live event in the audience, and will gives some reports afterwards.

We’ll see how it goes.

UPDATE: In comments below, “Canman” Notes this:

Judith Curry had this comment:

Unfortunately there will be no official recording. Apparently prohibited by Mann’s contract with the event. Maybe there will be unofficial recordings

https://judithcurry.com/2018/05/28/the-debate/#comment-872872

So it makes one wonder, if Mann was prohibiting the recording/webcast, did he change his tune when all of the sudden when money became involved?

Advertisements

206 thoughts on “Mann’s ‘climate showdown of the decade’, turns into a pay-per-view event

  1. Smells like they (the warmists) will just claim victory regardless, since few would pay $10 to watch a podcast. Those that are there who may witness Mann getting his hockey stick firmly inserted up his derriere will just be called “deniers” or “big oil shills” , flat-earthers etc to disguise Mann being full of s… and the spectacle of the hockey stick insertion where the sun don’t shine.

    • I am a member of Spilman Thomas and Battle, which is fronting all the costs, which are not insubstantial, with hall rental, appearance fees, salaries, travel and accommodations. We aren’t accepting other sponsors, so that we can avoid claims that the deck is stacked one way or the other. As a result, we are asking for a small contribution from those who attend in person and by webinar. The goal isn’t to make money; we fully expect to lose money on this venture. This is something that Spilman, and particularly several attorneys in the firm, have a great interest in, and we decided to put this together. We hope you’ll join us.

      • Meh…pay no attention to the haters… 🙂

        A few bucks seems reasonable to me, especially considering that you’re fronting the costs personally. I’m looking forward to it, and registered to attend since it’s not too terribly far from where I live.

        rip

      • Big mistake. If the cost is “not insubstantial” (requiring a fee to web watch) why not share what that cost is?
        Contrary to the excuse that accepting sponsors would somehow taint the event you should open it up to any and all sponsors and forget the fee.
        It is only stifling.
        I have to assume you must be talking about any sponsors that would be maligned by the left as skeptical money? But that is an invalid excuse and the stifling is what the left prefers.
        The only way for there to be a stacking of the deck would be with a bias moderator or questions.
        But I don’t believe there is anything to indicate the panel need any kind of sponsor restriction coddling.
        Grow up, open it up and broadcast it for any to see, for free.

      • I don’t often think of attorneys as people who have interest in climate science debates, much less losing money on hosting them just out of interest.

      • Mr. Yaussy,

        Thanks for clarifying. I realize you probably won’t (or can’t) provide a schedule of appearance fees, but during the initial event coordination there must have been discussion of overall costs and a typical range of appearance fees; can you tell us what the typical range estimate was?

        (And will your firm be in control of the thermostat in the auditoium :).

      • Thank you for organizing and sponsoring this presentation/debate.

        It seems to me that many if not most visitors to this website would welcome debates and contrasting presentations between proponents of human-produced CO2 as the main climate “control knob” and those proposing natural variability as the main explanation for the estimated ~1C increase in average global temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age ending about 150 years ago.

        Hopefully many of the visitors to this website and others will support your efforts by helping defray your firm’s expenses and thus encourage additional publicly accessible debates/contrasting presentations.

      • Climate ambulance chasers? Not really sure why Judith would want to be seen with any of these participating gentlemen (term used very loosely) let alone attorneys…..and I would like to request a copy of Mr. Mann’s “contract” to see what other surprises are in there.

        • I think Judith suffered some true ego death when she realized that global warming wasn’t assured.

      • Dave, thanks for putting on the debate. Science is not done by debate so debate losers can be science winners. It is a valuable teaching moment. Your candidates are excellent except for Moore, who is neither academically nor experienced in the topic and field which is exacerbated by his career as a paid fossil shill and propagandist.

      • Paying to listen to Mann lie ( as he did at the last senate hearing , to note but one occurrence ) and slander everyone around who does not agree with him NO WAY. Sorry, that is just not going to wash.

        Ok , charge a fee for those who wish see it in the flesh, maybe even those who wish to follow it live , but there should be a freely available, unedited copy available after the event.

        This sort of discussion should be a matter of public record.

        • If they tossed Mann altogether the event might be worth paying for. But he devalues the whole exercise. Good luck with keeping that man under control.

      • @David Yaussy … thank you for your response and clarification. I am well aware of the costs and effort required to set up a live stream broadcast, especially with short notice, and have no problem with a small fee to watch the livestream of this high profile event.

        I would note I’m unaware of anyone who has convinced Mann to openly engage in an event of this type, and appreciate the efforts necessary to make this happen.

        While I understand you cannot disclose specific details … based on information from other participants, and past history, I suspect its highly likely the fee is a result of demands by a specific participant.

        Again, thanks for your and your firms efforts.

    • “Mann getting his hockey stick firmly inserted up his derriere “. Boy that’s a revolting image. I might never touch another hockey stick.

  2. I am English and time zone differences mean that I don’t want to watch live. Any chance of a recording becoming available?

    • Since the announcement was made that there would be “no official recording” according to Dr Curry, I emailed the University of Charleston WV directly ( http://www.ucwv.edu/Contact-Us/ ) to point out the larger transparency problem this creates, and asked them if they would consider rescinding the ‘no recording’ requirement.

      I urge as many others as possible to suggest the same, straight to UCWV.

    • I’m almost certain that it will wind up on YouTube afterwards (I would be amazed if it didn’t) and probably with hundreds of clones.

  3. Nobody with credibility should appear in the same event as Mann. Michael Mann has no ethics or credibility.

    • Mr. Mann,

      As your legal advisers, we feel that the only way that you can come out of this whole, is to continue to keep your name in the public eye. Your acceptance by the general public, and the quasi-scientific community, are central to having any type of a chance of not being screwed into paying all of the court costs (we all know you can’t win … so let’s not even talk about that).

      As you know, no one in the scientific community that has any sense of ethical responsibility is standing behind or beside you now, so you have to keep it up with the public forums (the mob) and hope for the best. If nobody wants you at their public forums we will need to choreograph something every now and then. But this is definitely something you will have to learn to do.

      Now, as everyone knows (and you should have accepted it by now), you are a fat bombastic conceded unlikable slob. These characteristics have helped you to get where you are today, and not for the lawsuit they could have continued to be considered as attributes in the academic community that is your home, but you will definitely need to tone it down it bit in the future public forums.

      You do need to stand firmly by your AGW stance, but you cannot be as big of ass as you have been in the past. We can’t hold your hand (and you are not paying us enough to want be around you), so take this advice and think about it … hard.

      We’ll drag the lawsuit out as long as we can, and you have to continue to interact with the real scientific community to try to hold onto your limited credibility. That way we can pretend that you do have a reputation that is worth protecting. And maybe we can earn you (us) a few dollars in the interim.

  4. It may just be their way to control how many see it. Far fewer will pay $10 to view the discussion than if it were free. And afterwards, if it goes well for Mann’s side they can upload to YouTube so all can see how mighty and powerful is the alarmist argument. If it goes the other way they can not bother with an upload anywhere so no one can see how pathetic is the alarmist argument.

    • I suspect that is exactly their thinking. They get a lot more control of the resulting messages this way. It’s like all of AGW. Can’t have the people knowing too much, can they?

    • I knew a man a few decades ago that a magazine wanted to interview in his office. The magazine was hostile to his views.
      He agreed.
      When they should up, he had his own video camera set up.
      They declined to do the interview.
      (He’d have proof of what was said if he was misquoted or quoted out of context.)

      Sounds like Mann wants to spin what was said anyway he wants without another “But it’s in your written testimony!” moment. 😎

    • Maybe it’s their way to get around Mann’s contract, after all a live pay per view webcast is not technically a recording.

  5. I think this forum should follow the lead of Best Schools and have only one skeptic; that way the side we know is right will be fairly represented.

    Because the Best Schools wants a rational debate and that’s how they set it up, with two alarmists for every skeptic in “fairness” to something, although I’m not sure what.

  6. “Curry’s ‘climate showdown of the decade’, turns into a pay-per-view event”

    SO why do you think Curry is doing this? Sounds like she wants to control the message.

      • Oh sorry. Apparently Mann is in charge. Let’s assume that!

        Mann’s ‘climate showdown of the decade’, turns into a pay-per-view event

        That’s much better. Why not choose Titley or Moore? I guess this has to be Mann’s climate showdown because… we’re not sure why Watts thinks this is Mann’s event.

        • Well, the University of Virginia is Mann’s Alma Mater, and Mann is well known for self-promotion.

          • “Well, the University of Virginia is Mann’s Alma Mater”

            What does UVA have to do with any of this? Does his previous position at an unaffiliated university mean this is his event? Besides, More and Curry are equally self-promoting.

          • Does UVa still have his emails he refuses to make public?
            (They were subpoenaed, I as I recall, but he did his usual full-court-press to prevent it.)

          • Gish Gallop. This thread is about how Watts thought Virginia and West Virginia universities were the same thing.

          • Mann’s alma mater is Berkeley followed by graduate studies at Yale. As far as I know Mann has no association with University of Charleston where the event is being held, the hosts are a local law firm. West Virginia is of course ‘coal country’.

        • Until you have evidence, don’t assume anyone is in charge, other than the people who are putting on the event.

          • Agreed. Why Watts is billing this as Mann’s event is weird. This is not “Mann’s climate showdown of the decade.” and Mann has no affiliation with the university.

          • Alley,
            You are being willfully obtuse as you full well know that Mann is by far the most prominent and controversial name among the four invitees.

          • Well,
            Who got top billing?
            Not alphabetical or Curry would be first
            Not by years in the field or Moore would have been first
            Nope. In all likelihood Mr. Ego needed to be first on the list or likely would not show up at all.
            Odds are, If Christopher Monkton were invited, Dr. Mann would be a no show.

  7. Strange how the university wants to make money on “the Biggest Problem the humankind faces”. As too many people are skeptical and downplaying the seriousness of Climate Change, the university is risking the future of our children by restricting access!

    It’s vital to the future of the entire human race that everybody gets to see and hear the great Michael Mann speak and tear down all the unintelligent opposition with his supreme knowledge.

  8. Sorry, but watching Mann wallow in his self-importance is not worth $10, in my view.

    It would make more sense to spend that on oranges, lemons, apples, grapes and strawberries. Anyone would at least benefit from such a purchase.

  9. Think the reasoning behind the pay per view is to prevent widespread viewing of any Michael Mann walkouts by claiming copyright. It’s like “Hide the tantrum”

      • I’ll go with the usual climate change prognoses, starting with “by the end of this year” and, if/when that fails, updating it to “by the end of this century”.

    • The Appeals Court signalled a contrary message to your prejudiced feelings and wishes!

        • Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court, Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court.

          “[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.”

          “Michael Mann’s lawsuit claims eight different investigations by legitimate bodies of authority found he had behaved properly. That claim, plus the idea his work is widely accepted and replicated, provides the foundation for his case.”

          • Well that’s not Steyn’s suit. Including Penn State as one of the “legitimate bodies of authority” makes the Sandusky analogy even more appropriate. And we all know that Mann has frequently lied and deceived thanks to climategate and other emails…not to mention that he’s a scumbag who has made reprehensible public remarks about people (including sexists ones about Curry) that end careers of others. Mikey’s fraudpants have turned brown with soiling.

          • I am afraid you are incorrect. That is indeed part of Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court – Steyn is the etc. Steyn, chose not to partake in the Appeal to to DC Appeals Court. You seem to be well versed in libelous hearsay from the science-denier bubble or perhaps you are a climate fiction devotee?

          • I am afraid your Latin is faulty, to say the least.

            If you mean to say “science rules”, with “rules” being a verb, then you have it all wrong.

            If you mean, “the rules of science”, you also are incorrect.

          • Nope my HS Latin is not faulty. I achieved a pass in the mandatory subject to enter medical school many decades back. It is my choice that has exactly zero to do with you and your old lady quilting circle.

          • Not an old lady with a quilting circle, but your Latin is, sorry, I must say pathetically faulty.

            As an historian of science, I had to pass not just Latin, but ancient Greek, French and German at Stanford and Oxford, plus Russian and Vietnamese for the US Army intelligence service.

            Would you like me to correct your amateurish attempt for you?

          • Old man stick with your quilting circle!

            Товарищ, я полностью доволен своей латынью. Мне все равно, какая помпезная задница, как вы думаете. Придерживайтесь своей историей, и я буду заниматься наукой о климате. Спасибо!

          • I can’t speak to the correctness of your Latin, but you obviously are sorely lacking in manners.

          • I am servile to no one! My manners are obviously superior to yours (and other know-it-all cretins on this thread) especially when you have the temerity to be impertinent!

          • “My manners are obviously superior to yours ”

            well good on you for being able to brag about how your bad manners are above and beyond the bad manners of others, nice to see someone take pride in the things they excel at.

          • “I am afraid you are incorrect. That is indeed part of Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court – Steyn is the etc”

            That’s Mann’s suit against NRO & Steyn. Steyn has counter-sued which is what the poster you were replying to was referencing when he said “Mann is going to be in a big hole when he loses Mark Steyn’s counter-suit.” I know reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, so I’ve bolded the bit that should have clued you in to what they were talking about.

          • You are really bad at this. It’s frightening what has happened to your mind from snorting too much BS.

          • Mr. Mann,

            As your legal advisers, we feel that the only way that you can come out of this whole, is to continue to keep your name in the public eye. Your acceptance by the general public, and the quasi-scientific community, are central to having any type of a chance of not being screwed into paying all of the court costs (we all know you can’t win … so let’s not even talk about that).

            As you know, no one in the scientific community that has any sense of ethical responsibility is standing behind or beside you now, so you have to keep it up with the public forums (the mob) and hope for the best. If nobody wants you at their public forums we will need to choreograph something every now and then. But this is definitely something you will have to learn to do.

            Now, as everyone knows (and you should have accepted it by now), you are a fat bombastic conceded unlikable slob. These characteristics have helped you to get where you are today, and not for the lawsuit they could have continued to be considered as attributes in the academic community that is your home, but you will definitely need to tone it down it bit in the future public forums.

            You do need to stand firmly by your AGW stance, but you cannot be as big of ass as you have been in the past. We can’t hold your hand (and you are not paying us enough to want be around you), so take this advice and think about it … hard.

            We’ll drag the lawsuit out as long as we can, and you have to continue to interact with the real scientific community to try to hold onto your limited credibility. That way we can pretend that you do have a reputation that is worth protecting. And maybe we can earn you (us) a few dollars in the interim.

          • …his work is widely accepted and replicated…

            “Widely accepted” is just not good enough. The existence of God is widely accepted in the RC church, but where is the hard evidence?

          • Non, even sticking to the realm of science, at one time Geocentricism was “widely accepted” didn’t make it right. The history of science is the history of “widely accepted” things that later turned out to be wrong. Being “widely accepted” (just like the term “consensus”) does not make something right or wrong, it just means a large number of people believe it to be right regardless of whether it is or not.

          • “Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court”…”that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false”

            Um, isn’t that the same suit that Mann fraudulently claimed to be a Nobel prize recipient in one of his filings?

          • One problem though, the “idea” his work is widely replicated, falls flat in regards to the original hockey stick graph. His work has never been replicated, in fact the program was shown to always produce a hockey stick even when random data was entered. It only takes one example to prove fraud or misconduct. 10,000 examples of propriety to not negate one example of fraud or misconduct. The investigations never sought to replicate a single study.

  10. If they’re charging in person admission, a pay-per-view charge is reasonably fair. The whole thing ought to be no charge, but maybe they are subsidizing the room prep, maintenance, and security charges. Grant funding covers different costs, even the overhead portion, and should not be fungible according to the government accounting rules unless a portion is specifically earmarked for public lectures/education.

    • We’ll see if they make a copy available afterwards … if so then you’re right … if not then they’re just protecting their right to control later usage …

    • It’s more than reasonably fair to charge….Universities are businesses and leadership is financially oriented. Don’t assume conspiracy…It’s about the University pocketbook.

  11. I’m surprised that they didn’t require a Non-Disclosure Agreement to be signed, and hold it under Chatham House rules.

    Like the BBC, they have form in holding secret meetings, which they can later claim came to any convenient conclusion they require….

  12. I doubt that Judith or Patrick will be significantly antagonistic towards Mann. That makes this a good opportunity to see if Mann will draw first blood just out of paranoia.

    • Yes, I watched Curry, et al during the Congressional testimony. She’s bright and non-Alarmist, but like too many skeptics she prefers to be too understated for my taste. What I’d like is a Mann – Monckton debate. I expect that His Lordship would not be afraid to go for the jugular.

      • Not only would “his Lordship not be afraid to go for the jugular” but he’d do it with style and panache!

        • “His Lordship” then has to be as quick as lightning, because Mann will be running like never before. To Mann “Lord Monckton” is a synonym to “Lord Harry”.

    • Judy Curry was correct when she wrote that. We have since negotiated an alternative arrangement that allows webcasting.

    • I am wary of copyright infringement. On the other hand reporting on this debate is obviously in the public interest.

      Because of the DMCA, I do not recommend circumventing anti-copying technology. On the other hand, there is nothing to keep someone from pointing their cell phone at the computer or taking notes shorthand or whatever. From that a transcript of some of the juicy bits could be compiled. News reporting is fair use.

      Once you have transcribed what you need, and the story is posted, you should probably destroy any recording you have made. In the jurisdiction where I live, students are allowed to record a professor’s lectures for note taking purposes as long as they don’t post the recording and they destroy the recordings when they have transcribed their notes.

  13. “…especially since Mann is always denigrating everyone who doesn’t agree with him as being “on the take” from dirty oil and coal moneyed interests.”

    Left unmentioned is Mann’s percent of the gate – I don’t think he’s doing this gratis.

  14. What is the difference between charging $15 (now $20) to attend the event and charging $10 to view it live from the comfort of your home or office? And on-line that $10 covers you and as many people as you can jam into your room.

  15. Somebody neutral needs to pay to view it and then record it, so that when warmists post clips from it out of context we can prove that they did so.

  16. They’ll pay me $10 to listen on podcast, but only $15 to attend in person?

    Sorry, my time is worth more than that.

  17. If I may, a bit different take, 1) This is capitalism at work 2) There is at least at the surface an attempt at a free and open exchange of ideas. 3) Perhaps more like this, other matchups would spark interests ( sort of an intellectual MMA) 4) I am partial to this, not because I want to be in it, but because I have opined several times I would pay to watch something like this. The only downside is the likelihood of a lack of adult beverages being sold on site ( that would be a hoot) , but if I want a nice glass of wine while watching I can do so at home, I doubt my wife and daughter would watch, and Garrett would probably be golfing So As in any situation, 2 ways to look at it, And if it works, perhaps attitudes on redistribution of wealth and living off grants may change. Afterall if you can make money off something like this, perhaps instead of looking for the handout, some of these folks will realize the value of reaching up on their own. Peace out

    • Unless every misrepresentation or falsehood by Mann is strongly pointed out and rebutted, his comments will be portrayed as accurate. There is disagreement on the foundational aspects of man-caused climate change: how much we warmed since the end of the LIA, how much warming a doubling of atmospheric CO2 may have, and how much of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 is directly related to human emissions. The most important thing to possibly come out of this discussion will be the admission by the panel that these foundational aspects are not fully known. This would essentially be a “win” for the skeptical, proper science position. I suspect reporting of the event will often include the phrase “settled science” when the truth is the science is quite unsettled.

  18. Yes, this is a bummer.
    I, for one, am not going to pay for it. I have my limits.
    On a second thought, I might spend these 10$, but on a donation to WUWT…
    BTW – how can one donate? the Tip Jar button is gone…

  19. Not intending this to be directed at any specific individual on the discussion panel, but I have found that malformed individuals have significant psychological shortcomings as well. Short, fat and bald results in inferiority issues leading to over compensation regarding intellectual pursuits. Also, regarding persons who were educated in the 1980’s one needs to keep in mind that at that time, and now for that matter, means that anyone could obtain a degree in any subject area with little or no intelligence and rise to the level of “distinguished professor”. Just saying.

    • Are you discounting a PhD in Geophysical Sciences if it was obtained in the 80s? From a reputable university?

      • Yes. Actually, since even earlier than that, anyone can obtain a degree in any area of study, particularly a PHD, if they have the time and money. I have interviewed folks for positions that had advanced degrees of various types that proved this point.

        • So Curry, the one with a PhD in Geophysical Sciences in the 80s, had the time and money and needed little or no intelligence but still rose to the level of professor.

          • If you read what I wrote you will note that I did not point out any particular individual though I don’t think that she is fat and bald. So there is a clue in what I wrote as to whom you might look on the panel as to whom there might be reference.

          • Curry received her PhD in 1982, so she obviously completed the bulk of her course work well before that,

          • “Yes. Actually, since even earlier than that, anyone can obtain a degree in any area of study, particularly a PHD, if they have the time and money.”

            The point is that everyone with a PhD that these “scientists” who follow Watts have wasted money. Jim has made it clear that Curry has a worthless degree.

            Of course I’m kidding. You and Jim believe that select people who know too much about a topic should be subject to ridicule. Good thing Watts never got that degree.

          • No, but the mere fact that one has a phd does not mean one knows more than someone else about a subject or presents accurate analysis, particularly if one is actually caught lying and obfuscating the truth in their work.

          • A PhD does not mean someone knows “too much” about a subject, it just marks the fact that they spent a large amount of time in school presumably learning about a subject it doesn’t guarantee that they have the intelligence or ability to accurately or productively use what they supposedly learned. In my time, I’ve met some really, really stupid people with degrees and I’ve met some really brilliant people who never went beyond a High School diploma. That you hang on every word someone with a PhD might utter, is your hang up. The rest of prefer facts and evidence over pieces of paper.

  20. I still can’t help but hear growly-voiced, pro-wrestler announcers screaming out enticements to come see the show:

    … featuring Dr. Mann, Titley the Terrible, Maniac Moore, and The Currynator !

  21. As per the WSJ article you also posted, and the supporting data, “climate change” now resides somewhere south of toe-gap lint in public concern. Nobody’s paying $10 to watch a podcast reiterating alarmist BS from the same mad “scientist” whose stuff was discredited 9 years ago.

  22. You would have to pay me to watch the rent-seeking, peer review process corrupter Mann waste my time.

  23. It’s funny that the advertising piece looks just like the Senior Expo piece in my area with the same odd assorted promotional characters in the line up. I guess this replaces the Buffalo Bill Show from another era and Hollywood Squares in more recent decades.

  24. The only problem I see with this ‘debate’ is that the skeptics chosen are too nice and will not be anywhere near aggressive enough to go after these idiots and their pseudo science in the way necessary to break them.

    I would bombard Mann with the many ways to falsify a high ECS and push, push, push until he either concedes or storms out in a temper tantrum. I would push Moore to justify the conflict of interest at the IPCC that has driven climate science into a dark corner for the last 3 decades. Beyond these two points, there would be no need to discuss anything else.

      • My bad. I saw greenpeace and jumped to a conclusion, but now I remember who he is. I’m concerned though, that he might not have the charisma and science chops to beat down Mann. Titley, on the other hand, seems like a no op.

        Moore should explain the conflict, where the IPCC needs a large effect to justify the agenda of the UNFCCC and yet has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports.

        I sure hope the debate doesn’t become a case of stating positions with one side making nice while the other throws insults under the cover of self righteous indignation, as Mann tends to do. He needs to be aggressively challenged on his broken science, invalid assumptions and outright lies.

    • CO2isNOTEVIL

      If you are reading this can you please put up info on your site about how I can contact you. I want to discuss the measuring of back radiation by NASA.

      • You think you’re so clever and have all the answers?

        Why don’t you try applying your principled scientific learning to explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 of input flux to the surface, in excess of the 1 W/m^2 of forcing claimed to increase the surface temperature by 0.8C and its emissions by 4.3 W/m^2.

        Then you can try and explain how the next W/m^2 of forcing increases surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2, while the last one and all previous ones are contributing only 1.6 W/m^2 each to the surface emissions.

        While your at it, why don’t you take a crack at trying to explain how latent heat, thermals plus their return to the surface has any effect on the surface temperature, its emissions and the radiative balance, other then the effect these are already having on the average surface temperature, its subsequent emissions and the radiative balance.

        How about justifying the IPCC’s ambiguous definition of forcing, where an instantaneous W/m^2 more from the Sun is considered equivalent to an instantaneous W/m^2 decrease in flux passing through the atmosphere owing to increased absorption by GHG’s or clouds.

        Of course, I expect crickets from you, as those of you who accept the bogus science from the IPCC can’t justify your positions, can’t answer the hard questions, put political ideology above science and generally resort to the kinds of ill advised insults that permeate your posts.

        • Your climate science knowledge and website are pure garbage. I am not your teacher or librarian. I do not engage know-it-all closed minds that regurgitate junk science. Acquiesce and move on!

          • So far I have not seen any indication that you “engage” … period.

            (in any meaningful way, regardless of who you are responding to)

          • Do you have reading and comprehension issues? What part of “Your climate science knowledge and website are pure garbage.” did you fail to understand?

            Or perhaps you believe scientists act like this “ I would bombard Mann with the many ways to falsify a high ECS and push, push, push until he either concedes or storms out in a temper tantrum.” I do not know of one and I doubt whether the author has been to college with its imprecise and ambiguous non-scientific writing style. It’s more akin to an amateur alchemist!

          • In my previous comment, I presented 4 of the many ways I’ve found to falsify the absurdly high ECS claimed by the IPCC, and you were incapable of disputing any of them. I was hoping you would try, as I can diffuse any possible objection you might have by invoking nothing more than first principles physics. But perhaps, you already knew that and didn’t want to be embarrassed.

            Accusing me of reading comprehension issues is another classic technique used by alarmists called ‘psychological projection’ as it was obviously you who does not pay attention to words.

          • The crickets from you have turned into a farting noise.

            You could never be my teacher and are in need of one yourself. Librarians have been largely made obsolete by search engines, although you do need to be careful about accepting everything you read as truth, especially in this age of fake news and science by conformance to a political agenda.

            I suggest you forget what you’ve been told and educate yourself starting with some basic high school AP physics. This should give you enough background to be able to understand what I’m talking about and become a contributer, rather than a parasite.

          • Could you detail an example of an error you’ve identified on his website?
            I’m genuinely interested particularly in relation to his physics.
            WUWT is an open forum for commenting, criticising and exchanging ideas.
            Your claim that his work is garbage may be correct; however, it’s not doing your cause too much good simply leaving it at that.
            I know one of the World’s greatest living physicists and even he would not be critical of anyone in any position without offering some reasonable explanation. I believe all good scientists are happy to back their criticisms . . .

          • WUWT is not an open forum for a host of reasons. Feel free to visit co2isnotevil and grab an article that you understand is scientifically sound. Ask me to review it and I’ll give you my best scientific appraisal and audit. BTW: I am a scientist with six decades of experience under my belt and first studied climatology per se 54 years ago when science concluded the debate on and accepted as theory Svante Arhennius’s “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.” Concurrently, we were in the midst of plate tectonics versus continental drift. Our Geography department supported Svante while our Geological Department disdained plate tectonics despite having done a lot of the pioneering work identifying Gondwanaland.

          • Interesting. May I ask which university that was?

            There were holdouts until as late as 1968, but for those geologists not ideologically committed to the previous paradigm, it was all over but the shouting in the 1950s.

            My undergrad school, Stanford, a geology bastion from its foundation (Herbert Hoover, class of 1895), embraced plate tectonics as soon as seafloor spreading was discovered, I’m happy to say.

            Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists today are like the immobile continent advocates of the 1950s, clinging to a repeatedly falsified doctrine out of essentially religious faith rather than on the basis of evidence.

          • You are entitled to opinions, they are meaningless. I will not share my schools as my working career involved decades of top secret projects around the world on every habitable continent.

          • Really. Interesting.

            My clearance is code word above top secret, but I’m honored to be able to say that I worked for the US Army on every continent except Australia and Antarctica.

            My undergrad degree in biology is from Stanford. My graduate degree is in the history of science is from Oxford. I served as an enlisted intelligence specialist in the Vietnam War, as a staff officer in intel and operations during the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq.

            I teach and lecture as an adjunct professor at WSU, UI and Stanford in the history of science, while maintaining reserve status in the Army and running my family farm in the Palouse Country. How exactly would it compromise your exalted status to provide a similar redacted CV for the benefit of readers here?

            Strange that you won’t even tell us what schools you went to.

          • But, please, if your security clearance be higher than mine, and your classmates didn’t liberate Kuwait in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001 nor Iraq in 2003, as did mine, nor did you help plan any of those operations, as did I, then do readers here the honor of sharing with us your exalted status.

            Thanks!

          • Last time I checked, Afghanistan goat herders were still running rings around the world’s most bloated and losing military in modern history but then you are so full of yourself you probably have a different definition of what liberation means. Amazing how folk, like you, who suffer from delusions of grandeur can consider invading a sovereign nation for no cause as a military victory when the country is worse off today than when it was run by a dictator! Going forward, I am purposely ignoring your puerile, pompous and pedantic rantings!

          • Afghanistan was not a sovereign nation in 2001, and no goat herders there ran circles around any of the allies of the legitimate government, recognized by the UN, among whom I was proud to have served.

            Or in your alternative universe are the Islamofascist Taliban the legitimate government of Afghanistan?

            Which is only to divert from your pusillanimous refusal to reveal even the most minimal details of your alleged academic credentials.

            But at least thanks for letting every reader here know that you lack any credibility whatsoever.

          • I did not write Afghanistan was a sovereign nation. The dullest among us know the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation happened in Iraq. 15 years on we are still getting our butts handed to us while great American conservative strategy cemented centuries long enemies into allies. I have personal close family that have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and proud of their service. All are highly decorated from multiple tours. Only one served under US flag the others were with allies. One received a MC from UK. All returned home wounded.

          • You then must be dull indeed not to know that the regime of Saddam Hussein was not sovereign or legitimate.

            I thank your family and friends for their decorated service at my side and that of our comrades, from whatever allied country.

            The vast majority of Iraqis, ie all Shias (over 60%) and Kurds (over 20%) and even most Sunni Arabs (less than 20%) thank my comrades and me for liberating them from the illegitimate, to say the least, tyranny of Saddam and his tribal Sunni Arab cohorts.

          • PS: You surely are the expert on meaninglessness.

            I forgot to mention the most obvious, which is Spanish, the Basque, Germanic and Arabic-influenced descendant of Iberian Vulgar Latin which I use every day to communicate with my South American wife.

          • It’s not an opinion, but a fact.

            If what you mean to say, as I suppose is the case, “The Rules of Science”, rather than “Science Rules”, then it’s obvious to even a first year Latin student that the correct formulation is “praecepta scientiam”.

            Attaching the noun “praecepta” to the noun “scientia”, without declension, is a blatantly obvious grammatical error.

            Your medical school must not have cared very much about the quality of your Latin.

          • In brief, you stuck together two words in the nominative case, one of which must in Latin be genitive.

            Which anyone with even a grade school knowledge of Latin would know.

          • You are a liar. A reputable scientist would not use the term garbage. He/she would politely point out some mistakes and why they were mistakes. Also a reputable scientist would not brag about secret projects around the word He would keep that info to himself. You are a troll

          • Pumpkin, us reputable scientists use much stronger language than garbage. If you don’t like the word – may I suggest you get a Thesaurus and find one that appeals to your sensitive snowflake soul, insert it where ever and when ever I use the term.

          • Please provide the basis upon which you characterize yourself ad a “reputable scientist”.

            Also, I see that your knowledge of English grammar is if anything even worse than of Latin.

            What you meant to say was “we” reputable scientists, although you have repeatedly shown yourself irreputable.

          • Pavlov’s dog was trained to salivate. Apparently, so were you!

            As usual you strike out out as “us scientists” is the object of the missing preposition. This is a blog, once you have extracted your head from your a$$, life will make more sense. I’m straight, can you quit this creepy absurd cyber stalking of yours?

          • Pumpkin, so far all you’ve proven yourself to be is an non-reputable annonymous troll. You are no “reputable scientist”.

          • ” I will not share my schools as my working career involved decades of top secret projects around the world on every habitable continent.”

            Self-importance is obviously something you’re good at.

          • Felix, I do remember spirited discussions about Plate Tectonics being held at Stanford with speakers invited by the Peninsula Geological Society during the 1970s.

          • I could well be wrong, but plate tectonics in its modern formulation might well have been subject to discussion long after the fact of continental drift via seafloor spreading was accepted.

            I could be wrong, although I took geology classes at Stanford in the early ’70s.

          • “Feel free to visit co2isnotevil and grab an article that you understand is scientifically sound.”

            Do you believe the MBH98 paper is sound?

          • There is no belief in science. Just an explanation for the evidence being examined. I must presume you are not a scientist or scientifically literate with such poor language skills?

            The MBH98 paper is an awesome example of pioneering seminal science at work. Like most ground breaking science it has come a long way in the short two decades of it’s existence. MBH’s pioneering hockey stick work is now accepted scientific theory that has been replicated and corroborated more than 45 times in peer reviewed science journals using different and similar proxies and methodologies.

            [??? .mod]

          • A hypotheses is a belief that doesn’t become a VALID explanation for evidence until proven correct. You claim scientific credentials, but it seems that you are unaware of the scientific method which makes your claim dubious.

            The fact that you think Mann’s hockey stick paper is awesome tells me that either you have absolutely no clue about what comprises sound science, or you are Michael Mann lurking here to feed narcissistic tendencies, in which case the former is true as well.

          • There is no proof in science, that is for distillers, mathematicians, and courts of law. Just the best explanation of evidence to describe physical phenomena. Thank you for sharing that you are neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather obnoxiously and grossly ignorant on the topic of the hockey stick. I will take the work and research of more than 45 professional peer reviewed scientific teams papers over a science-denier and climate fiction devotee, like yourself, every time.

            BTW: It is “a hypothesis” not “a hypotheses”. Your ambiguous, imprecise scientific writing is a glaring red flag!

          • You are wrong about proof not being a part of science, as the ability to prove the failure of a hypothesis is the most important part of the scientific method and is something that your side of the debate has completely deprecated in favor of ‘science’ that support a political narrative. It’s also you who is denying the laws of physics.

            Yes, proof positive is an asymptotic concept, but relative to the scientific method, confirmation of multiple non obvious predictions is often sufficient to elevate a hypothesis (guess or belief) into a law of physics, while a single failed test is sufficient to prove that a hypothesis is wrong. BTW, the magnitudes of insignificant anomalies in ambiguously adjusted data representing a system with periodic, quasi-periodic and chaotic variability is not a test of anything, except perhaps the intelligence of anyone who thinks it is.

            No prediction of the First LAW of Thermodynamics has failed to materialize. The same is true with the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW, Planck’s LAW and the many other first principles LAWS of physics. Moreover; any new LAW you want to prove must converge to these existing laws in some limit, for example, how Relativity converges to Newtonian physics as the velocity approaches zero.

            The absurd ECS claimed by the IPCC is a hypothesis that has failed with prejudice as all of the many tests I’ve applied to its predictions fails, four of which I’ve already mentioned, none of which you can dispute unless you can arrive at new physics that overrides the requirements of the known LAWS of physics. In fact, there’s not a single test of the ECS claimed by the IPCC that doesn’t fail.

          • I have practiced science for six decades and there is zero proof involved whilst you have never been educated in science let alone practiced. Hypotheses are tested – not proved. There are no two sides to science debate – there is just one – peer reviewed publications. The rest of your prolix and garrulous jeremiad is gallimaufry and prejudiced feelings on steroids.

          • Again you’re not paying attention, I was saying how proof positive proof is asymptotic, while falsification is absolute. You’re just illustrating my point that warmists ignore the most important proof related to the scientific method, which is proof that a hypothesis is wrong. Of course, you must, for if you accepted falsification as a legitimate part of the scientific method, you wouldn’t be able to accept the conclusions of the IPCC and the self serving consensus it crafted around the reports it generates.

            Your blind faith in peer review is telling. No wonder you’re so misled and misinformed. Legitimate peer review is supposed to draw from all sides, especially in a field as contentious and controversial as climate science. Otherwise, confirmation bias rules and as a rule, it’s always wrong. This has led to pal review as applied to climate science papers where all that matters is that they conform to the narrative prescribed by the IPCC.

            There are many, many peer reviewed papers that dispute the findings of the IPCC and your hallowed ‘consensus’. How can your ignorant statement about there being only one side be true when there are peer reviewed papers on both sides?

          • Now you are reinforcing that you are neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather obnoxiously and grossly nescient about science and climate science. Science tosses hundreds of hypotheses away daily as they fail testing. It is abundantly clear that you have never written or co-authored a science paper. Peer review has no dictates other than the persons doing the review are recognized experts in the field! There are no successful peer reviewed papers that challenge IPCC. IPCC climate science is the most thoroughly reviewed science being a review of peer reviewed climate science. Papers in opposition of IPCC findings have not succeeded but rather failed . Where do youh ide these papers?

          • The NIPCC has many papers that dispute nearly every assumption made and every result inferred by the IPCC. Scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Pielke and many more have written more peer reviewed papers opposing conclusions of the IPCC than you’ve likely ever read. It sounds like you’re among those who won’t even admit that there’s even a controversy. I’ve seen this dillusional pathology before and such denial is a condition, often irreversible, that logic, reason and truth can’t transcend and is often the consequence of extreme political bias run amuk. You’ve contributed nothing to this discussion but a demonstration of the insane lunacy behind climate alarmism. My job is done.

          • You are a gullible and easily duped, uneducated, brainwashed moron. Produce one successful paper from NIPCC or your favored scientists that was peer reviewed and “opposes conclusions of the IPCC”. Cite in full, and clearly show where the paper succeeds as you assert. Please proceed ….

            My prediction is that it will remain silent or return and pivot or deflect off-topic to obfuscate.

          • Any competent scientist would have already done the due diligence required to understand all sides of a complex issue, especially one as controversial as climate science. This lack of balance permeates IPCC reports, suckering in the public with outrageous and unsubstantiated claims of impending doom that you seem to have bought in to, hook, line and sinker. You are no scientist and discussing science with you is an exercise in futility.

            I’ve given you enough information that you can do your own due diligence, although I doubt you will as you don’t seem to want to understand the scientific truth. I do and I have done the due diligence and I understand all the arguments from all sides and the only side with arguments that makes any sense whatsoever is the side that rejects the IPCC’s claim of an insanely high climate sensitivity. Sorry, but the laws of physics overrides both the desires of the elite to control the world and the lazy greed of the developing world that wants what the developed world has, but doesn’t want to put in the work.

            This is my last comment on this thread and I will not respond to your next insult.

          • Some anonymous trolls claims to be a scientist with six decades of experience yet refuses to share relevant details and only deals in ad hom attacks. Sorry, not impressed.

          • Warren,
            I should point out that all the data in the plots on that page came from GISS, so I’d be interested in any errors myself.

            As far as the physics is concerned, I know of no faults with the first LAW of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW, but if there is physics that I’m unaware of and that overrides the requirements of these LAWS, especially the T^4 relationship between degrees K and W/m^2 , I would like to know what it is.

            I really doubt that our friend here, Scientia Fictus, can shed any light on this.

          • You are doing a good job of convincing the readers here that you are a ” know-it-all closed mind.”

          • Hello Felix, Good catch with the Latin. Still don’t feed the trolls, unless they are nice polite ones.

            michael

          • You’re right, of course, but I’m an eternal optimist, so naively hope that trolls such as the bad Latin guy might actually prove human in the end.

            Typically, I’m disappointed.

          • Clydes comment would more accurately be stated as a “thinks-they-know-it-all closed mind”

  25. All you need to do is record the event on you phones video. Point and shoot then put up somewhere public

  26. Yup…no recordings allows them to misrepresent the event and misquote the points the participants make to suit their needs.

    “unofficial” recordings can be claimed to have been edited or doctored in some way.

    Strange: If the climate alarmists positions are so firmly established by science and unassailable, why do you think it is that they seem so afraid of public and open discourse on the topic? It’s almost like they have something to hide.

  27. Michael Mann is a grifter, a flim flam man, and the name of this conference should be find the pea. Keep your eye on the peanut shell for $15.00/3 chances to win $3. Mann is evil. He knows he is running a world wide scam and he can’t allow it to be videotaped.

  28. Whatever tricks to keep the critical masses from seeing red-faced, hyper-tense Michael Mann-Child give defense of his positions through insult and intimidation, live and in-person (lest those critical masses see him for what he is – a scholastic mafia goon).

  29. Let’s put things in perspective. I went to a concert this past weekend. The tickets cost $100+ each. The world will little note nor long remember what the concert was like, but this debate may, potentially, become a turning point in human history. Fifteen dollars? Inconsequential.

  30. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth folks.
    This is at least an opportunity and while Judith Curry appeared a bit soft last time her and Mann got together, Patrick Moore won’t be.
    I doubt Mann will get away with much.
    At least this is happening and with a key protagonist, unlike the GIT from GISS who is afraid to even debate Roy Spencer, who is also mild mannered like Judith Curry.

  31. Maybe someone can ask Mann about his vexatious litigation against Mark Steyn and why Mann is an opponent of free speech and scientific enquiry…. It’d be a good Ice Breaker to start the show off…:)

  32. Here is my pick for the blue chip team of scientists who would ou tdebate any alarmist team.
    They are Willie Soon , Tony Heller, Chris Essex, Pat Frank, Richard Lindzen, Christopher Monckton (although not a scientist, his understanding of all sides of the debate), Willis Eschenbach (statistician who knows almost everything about climate science), Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, and John Christy. The top 10. Patrick Moore(40 years on both sides of the debate, or Anthony Watts as substitutes if one of them got sick. I listed these in order of effectiveness. Did I leave anybody out that should replace one of those?

    • Yeah Bob Carter would have eaten them up with relish, logic, and science. Sad about that

  33. Judith Curry had this comment:

    Unfortunately there will be no official recording. Apparently prohibited by Mann’s contract with the event. Maybe there will be unofficial recordings

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/05/28/the-debate/#comment-872872

    So…Mann doesn’t just try to hide his data, methods and emails, he tries to hide what he says in person.
    He’s “transparent” all right!

  34. I’m just in mourning that both climate crazies in this event represent my formerly beloved university. Our football team has recovered, but our meteorology program has not. Ironically, I first met Judy Curry at Penn St.

  35. so if the others dont have contracts of no recording?
    can they record them n just blank the whineymann out;-)
    and i DO hope the income produced is also an even divide between the participants unis or whatever?
    would be fair.

  36. I would be shocked if Mann would do an event like this without complete control over the data, if any, that is shown. The only way this would be worth watching is if we knew each person had complete freedom to make their case by showing data of their choosing to back up their statements, with each of the others being able to provide a rebuttal about what the data means.
    And there HAS to be data shown, or it is a useless conversation. I saw a short conversation on TV between Bill Nye and a climate skeptic. Bill Nye said the alarming thing about sea level is the rate of change of the increase in sea level. The skeptic said there has been no change in the rate of change of sea level. And Bill Nye said “We just don’t agree on the data at all”…. ? WTF, let the viewers SEE the data so they can decide on who they agree with. What a waste of time it was watching when there is no data, just people giving there own verbal version of what the data says.

  37. Hi I’m your next door guest post neighbor. I just wanted to pop my head in and suggest you read my post about the unhinged CMIP models that all of the debate teams on your post topic appear to continue to believe in. They also don’t have a will to say anything about the missing ocean pH data and it’s a concern to me that they disrespect the SHE. Then you can return to the fun here. Maybe over time it will come to bother you that so much data is getting blasted away by partisans on both sides.

Comments are closed.