[In case you missed it]: Michael Mann interview: Denialists are waging “asymmetric warfare” against climate science (posting from Climate Science Watch)
Mooney: [A questioner asks] Do you have any ideas about what could have been done differently in responding to the stolen e-mails controversy?Australian Science Communicators » [Journalist] Chris Mooney on ABC TV at the National Press Club
Mann: Yes, I think there is now a growing awareness on the part of the scientific community—the climate science community in particular—that we have to be far better at defending ourselves and defending our science against disingenuous and dishonest attacks. The side that is issuing these attacks, our detractors, are extremely well-funded, they are extremely well-organized. They have basically had an attack infrastructure of this sort for decades. They developed it during the tobacco wars. They honed it further in efforts to attack science that industry or other special interests find inconvenient. So they have a very well-honed, well-funded, organized machine they are bringing to bear now in their attack on climate science.
It’s literally like a battle between a Marine and a Cub Scout when it comes to the scientists defending themselves. We obviously don’t have the resources, we don’t have the experience, we haven’t been trained, we’re not public relations experts like they are, we’re not lawyers and lobbyists like they are – we’re scientists, we’re trained to do science. So it’s like a classic example of asymmetric warfare, and that’s really the way we should think about this.
I guess what we all underestimated was the degree, the depths of dishonesty, and dirtiness, and cynicism to which the climate change denial movement would be willing to stoop to advance their agenda. That’s the only thing I think that surprised many of us. …
“In Australia policy action by government has already stalled as a result of this negativity and the community is losingInternational Women's Day: Empowering Women to Confront Climate Change
confidence in the scientific research effort.
“Collectively, we must ensure we remain a nation driven by knowledge, not by doubt.
“Chris Mooney is widely respected and will bring to SmP a fresh perspective, challenging many established ideas. He is
abundantly qualified to discuss the importance of distinguishing legitimate research from ideology and unsubstantiated
opinion ,” she said.
Women are up to 14 times more likely than men to die from natural disasters.Paris - Climate-change [hoax] chic
Amid a monumental set of massive bergs -- made out of hunks of real ice -- Lagerfeld sent out models in fur-covered tweed skirt suits, splashing in shaggy cavewomen boots through puddles of Arctic melt at his fall-winter 2010-2011 ready-to-wear show.
Four models in head-to-toe coffee-coloured yeti suits huddling among icebergs, like refugees of the global warming-induced apocalypse, opened the display. After milling about in a daze, they dispersed, and Lagerfeld's parade of climate-change chic commenced.
Mann is not debating any facts. He's admitting defeat to "slick PR", which is exactly what the UN has been using for years via a naive major news media.
He talks about "dishonest" opponents!
This guy makes the Medieval Warming Period disappear, supposedly with an "analysis" incorporated into a computer program. Later it is proven that even data that has been generated randomly comes up with the same hockey stick graph. While the "true believers" out there may be too dumb to understand that -- you don't have to be a rocket scientist, or even a climatologist, which right now ranks just below politicians on the credibility scale !
Mann refers to the skeptics as "dishonest" !
Amazing! This guy doesn't believe in the Medieval Warming Period (for him it certainly is an inconvenient truth). No rational reason provided. He does his "analysis" via a computer program that generates the "hockey Stick" graph. Turns out that any set of random numbers is treated the same way -- output is ... a hockey stick graph!
Given the (literally) hundreds of scientists who had provided earlier proof of the MWP being warmer than current temperature he sneaks in a hockey graph to erase the MWP and doesn't feel any need to justify the act. NO JUSTIFICATION!
And when this act backfires, he not only refuses to admit he is wrong, but has the audacity to insult those who question his capability (and credibility).
The UN was certainly the right place for Mann; his defense sounds like something right out of "1984".
And even I have to admit that our temperature data was MANN-MADE.
I've seen this statement many times that random data input into the "hockey stick" program still generates the same hockey stick graph. Where can I find the code, random data, intermediate calculations and resulting graphs on the internet? I assume that they have been published.
"Where can I find the code, random data, intermediate calculations and resulting graphs on the internet?"
Here ya go. ;)
How to Make Your Own Hockey Stick
And here's yet another paper that shows that not only did the MWP exist, but that it was warmer than today AND that it wasn't confined to the Northern Hemisphere, which is what Mann tried to backtrack to in his paper in November. And check out the Roman Warm Period, which was warmer even than the MWP. It also clearly shows the Little Ice Age.
Game, set, match.
When thinking about Mann and some of the other scientists involved in this scam, I really only have two thoughts. Best case scenario is that their science was flawed and they were wrong. The worse case, which is many times more likely, is that they falsified their research (in my line of work, we call that dry labing, and people get fired, and/or fined for it), tried to hide it, and manipulated the peer review journals to exclude views other than theirs. Now they are crying about people "attacking" them? The fact that the investigative team apparently found nothing is also very troubling. Shame on Penn State as well for contributing to this mess.
I'm an anthropogenic global warming denier and a retired science teacher. I am interested in good science and the truth. Other than that I have no agenda. As a matter of fact a vast majority of the people that I read who express my point of view have no agenda either. The people that I see with an agenda are Michael Mann, Al Gore, Lisa Jackson, Philip Jones, Barbara Boxer, etc. The individuals who are advancing the AGW hoax are the ones with the agenda.
"It’s literally like a battle between a Marine and a Cub Scout when it comes to the scientists defending themselves."
You have insulted both Marines and Cub Scouts. Your blatent manipulation of data is unforgivable, disgusting, devastating to the economy and an insult to all of science.
Post a Comment