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?
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 !
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.
You would have to pay me to watch the rent-seeking, peer review process corrupter Mann waste my time.
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.
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.
Exactly…it’s going to be so lame they couldn’t even pay people to watch it
Moore is on the skeptic side
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.
co2isnotevil @ur momisugly any of my domains will work.
Your climate science knowledge and website are pure garbage.
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.
Isn’t it Viet Nam, not Vietnam?
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”.
You are beginning to sound like someone who routinely wears a tin foil hat.
” 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.
Some interesting reading . . .
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#S1A
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
I believe you could contribute to this forum in a critical and constructive manner.
Svante Arhennius
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm#S1
And?
“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.
Do you see daylight when you yawn?
You are doing a good job of convincing the readers here that you are a ” know-it-all closed mind.”
How can a commenter who clearly knows nothing be a “know-it-all”?
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”
All you need to do is record the event on you phones video. Point and shoot then put up somewhere public
An audio recording alone would be interesting and that can be done quite stealthily.
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.
Hide their decline?
Hiding information doesn’t seem to be working as a tactic to avoid embarrassment of the deep state cronies at the DOJ and FBI. If they can’t get away with this, does Mann really think he can?
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.
A con artist cannot stop conning……
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).
They should have tossed Mann and continued the event free of charge.
Mann: The Climate Clown Barker: Admission 50 cents.
Yes, when incoming money was involved for pay-per-view, I’m sure Mann agreed…
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.
If you can’t make a buck while saving the world, what is the point ??
Hmm…I was one of the first posters. What happened to my post, which was initially posted on this site? JPP
Spilman, Thomas & Battle is a law firm in Charleston, WV.
Just saying…
Charleston is the capital of WV. Just saying…
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.
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…:)
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
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!
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.
From “Linebacker U” to “Lie-Backer U”.
It is worth 10 bucks to see Mann humiliated.
What’s the betting on Mann turning up ?
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.