I find him a far more effective communicator in person than in papers ‘ntttt’. This is the same man who throws away data that doesn’t agree with his conclusions ‘nttt’. If the data won’t cooperate with climate policy, it is both scientific and fair to simply delete it ‘nttt’.
😀
Mike only wants one thing. Why won’t you ignorant masses just stop driving and heating!!!
the Air Vent 
Someone once asked Houdini if he could make the sea level rise. He said “I’m a magician, Jim, not a climatologist”.
What is his topic here? This is terrible. He actually says nothing. I must admit, I expected a lot more. This was a string of assertions, i.e.,, CO2 is rising, mankind is involved in this (to some extent), the world is warming, therefore, CO2 is causing this, and mankind’s contribution is the real devil. No attempt whatsoever to work in some causality. And how about the way he tried to demonize anyone who disagreed with him. This was a cartoon! I cried a tear at the polar bear mention at the end, and his “this is an ethical issue.” Thanks for posting this. I’m pretty sure I would otherwise have missed it.
“Mike only wants one thing. Why won’t you ignorant masses just stop driving and heating!!!”
Are you sure he meant “driving and heating”? Maybe he really meant “reproducing and eating”…that would be one way to fix CAGW…
WHY won’t he share his data and models???????????? Science — forget his emails — is about replication of
the experient.
I always hark back to Phil Jones saying, “Why should I share my data? You only want to find something wrong.”
They hide cheat and lie about their data and their models. That’s the point! ….Lady in Red
As drama, it has all become quite absurd. Speak, statue, speak.
===========
I’ve posted this elsewhere, but this contradicts his own presentations when speaking to scientists.
Mann at MIT when I heard him in person:
Wouldn’t this suggest that models vastly overstate warming?
A: You don’t look like Dick. I would agree with that, honestly. There is a reputation out there that I am some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback.
His presentation talked about more droughts in the Southwest resulting from global warming, and only the questioning brought out this detail. The lack of a Medieval Warm Period he attributes to a negative feedback that kept temperatures down in the tropics, referencing a Pacific Thermostat hypothesis by Cain, and the question was if this is the case, then wouldn’t the same effect in response to global warming, which Mann had just suggested was what would cause droughts and hurricanes from the LaNina like effect, be a longterm negative feedback.
Michael Mann is unimportant.
Society is hurting today, and world leaders know they are “sitting on a powder keg.”
After Climategate and the refusal of scientists and world leaders to condemn fraudulent science – how can scientists and politicians once again become trusted servants of our society?
Is there a way to reduce arrogance [enhance humility; decrease pride] of politicians and scientists so they can once again serve society?
Could science and politics be merged with spirituality? I don’t have the answers, but I think the problem is far more serious than any of the pawns.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com/
#7
“Is there a way to reduce arrogance [enhance humility; decrease pride] of politicians and scientists so they can once again serve society?”
Only if the arrogant received some punishment for what they have done. For example, a severe penalty on UEA such as the revocation of any accreditation for some period of time, dissolving of Tyndall, having Hulme face a court, revocation of Mann’s, Jones’ and Briffa’s doctorates and a revocation of all of their published works, and the sacking of the board at the BBC would be a start. The elimination of the IPCC and the UNFCCC would be another good step forward. The UN could elect to replace those organizations but any replacements should be staffed solely with scientists and UN or national government officials. NGOs should be banned from participation or in any way interfering with or lobbying the organization’s efforts. Institutions involved in the science should be banned from participation in any policy implementation resulting from it. We can’t have a repeat of the system where UEA influences the science and then cashes in on the implementation of the policy deriving from the science. There is too much of a temptation to manipulate the science in order to generate contract for implementation. So for example, no institution participating in the IPCC process can accept contracts for implementation of regulations stemming from the UNFCCC process.
This is serious. These people have cost the citizens of this planet billions of dollars for a hypothesis and some computer models. They should be made examples of. As long as people are allowed to get away with it, it will continue.
Jeff,
“Why won’t you ignorant masses just stop driving and heating!!!”
Some years ago, George Will noted in a column that the principle desire of “liberals” was to boss everyone else about in most every aspect of their lives, private and public. This has not changed in the years since George Will’s column, nor do I think it will any time in the foreseeable future.
The liberal mindset is the result of specific views on the purpose and value of human existence, and on the proper roles of public and private choices. Those views are are diametrically opposite your views… and mine. And indeed, directly opposite the views of most people. The only way to stop the ‘Michael Manns’ of the world from dominating everyone’s life is at the voting booth. Otherwise, we will all ultimately be nothing more than slaves to the ‘majority will’… lead by “intellectual alphas” (AKA leftists) like MIchael Mann. I do not know if it will be possible to avoid the loss of most personal freedoms over the next several decades, but from what I have seen with the expansion of the role of government during my lifetime, I am not optimistic.
Steve,
The hubris is thick. I’ve often wondered if he’s incompetent or lying. It really is a tough call and only he knows. My guess though is that he is fully aware of the truly massive deficiencies in his work. The Mann will not go down in history as a contributor to understanding although he has made an indelible mark in other ways. Of course my cat has done the same to my carpet.
I cannot believe this man is still permitted a public forum, or that the public still pays any attention to him.
@ 2 min 32sec Mann says the models are “pretty much spot on” with the middle prediction…but finishes extending the real data in 2005. If he’d continued to 2011 then he would have had to say “a little over the low prediction” instead.
Yet another case of Mann dropping data that doesn’t support his conclusion.
All this knowledge and certainty about the effect of human activities on the planet – and all from measuring tree rings! Truly the man is a magician!
#12 TTTM – I noticed that too. Mann must not have been able to get the whole CRU record 😀
Hide the decline right during a speech declaring that nothing was hidden. And the idiots in the crowd applaud.
Or both.
Perhaps not on either possibility. The problem with incompetence is that, well, you simply aren’t qualified to assess your own level of incompetence because you are incompetent. Narcissists generally believe what they are saying, so he may not even be technically lying, just telling stories lacking in factual content.
Isn’t this just some Penn State thing, not truly “TED?” If so, then his crowd is likely hand picked, i.e., friends with the same problems.
Mark
OK, Jeff, I wasted approximately 16 minutes viewing the clip and therefore feel the need to punish your blog readers with my review of it.
Mann was reading most of what he said directly from the telepromoter at his left and was referring back to it most of the time. It would appear that the delivered message was not down pat like a politician might deliver. Yet when you track the time Mann took generalizing the science with that in providing straw men for the advocacy case for AGW mitigation you have to wonder what Mann’s true interest is.
Note that two of the three scenarios that Mann depicts from the Hansen climate modeling give nearly the same warming to this point in time and Mann claims that the observed warming follows the “most” likely case scenario and notes in passing that the models have some uncertainties in their results. Also note that his hockey stick depictions depend on the instrumental record tacked onto the end of the reconstructions and without explanation on the equivalency of the instrumental record and the past results of the reconstructions. He gives a quick view of a spaghetti graph of reconstructions and claims that they agree to the point forming a hockey team. Nothing on divergence or the what tacking the instrumental record on the end means methodologically.
Anyway, the informed viewer must wonder how Mann must feel as a scientist about this performance and how he thinks this informs the public debate on the matter. Does the goodness of the cause allow some of the viewers and the presenter to overlook the apparent weaknesses in the science presented here?
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2010/09/08/134-the-ted-conference/