Leading climate scientists do not, as a rule, debate with climate deniers, for the same reason that Richard Dawkins does not debate with Creationists – the mere fact of appearing on the same platform elevates the creationists, and debases the science.
In this case, Dr. Michael Mann was invited on a BBC broadcast without the explicit understanding that climate denier Marc Morano would be on the same broadcast on a separate line.
You can listen to this 6 minute segment, and hear Morano’s well practiced Gish Galloping bluster, while Mann listens quietly until the host has to silence Morano.
Then listen for the Mike to quietly, methodically, open a can of calm, laser-focused whupass.
For another approach, see my own interview with Morano at the 2012 Heartland conference below.
Michael Mann has written an editorial piece in the Guardian in opposition to the anticipated approval of the northern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. From the 1/31/14 edition of the Guardian:
http://tinyurl.com/prx6v6d
Reading the comments on Mann’s editorial makes me sad. They discuss whether the oil will be shipped out elsewhere so the pipeline might be the best out of all the worst possibilities. There is absolutely no focus on the real message from Mann, that burning this oil in any way is the wrong way forward and building this pipeline will just hasten the speed at which it is extracted and burned. To be frank it would be best if they had to ship the bitumen one barrel at a time no donkey carts if we want to limit AGW. The US would be wise to spend every penny on renewable energies everywhere they can instead of speeding up the lemmings towards the cliff.
Hi John,
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or so the theory goes.
While I agree with Michael Mann that Canadian tar sands are best left in the ground, I have to admit to having mixed feelings about this non-fossil fuel solution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25966198
It strikes me that imposing industrial infrastructure on Ireland so that the British can boil their tea kettles in unison between telly shows is one more example of how foolish a species we are.
***
RIP: Philip Seymour Hoffman. A good man with a bad jones.
It may be a bit of hyperbole to talk about “imposing industrial infrastructure on Ireland so that the British can boil their tea kettles in unison between telly shows” (unless one is a card-carrying anglophobe who is perhaps understandably unwilling to forgive the British for their many sins against the Irish over the centuries). The “environment” is continuous, and last I looked, there was no wall around Ireland to keep out the emissions from other countries, just as we in the U.S. are now sucking up China’s dirt. Unless the Irish are not going to exercise ANY control over the number and siting of turbines, in which case their worst fears may prevail. They and the UK should be far more worried about fracking, IMO.
Well, in time, as energy prices soar, the Irish people will be happy for any windmill they have to either use for themselves or export. As I have said many times before, the renewable energy sources will in time be our only energy source if we hope to maintain anything resembling our civilization (but with a lot less globalism and jetsetting around). They will not replace our current high-energy addiction, but really is the only safe route forward if we want to keep the planet habitable for a majority of species (including us). So the tar sands is basically part of the 80% of fossil fuels that needs to stay in the ground (or being used at 1/1000th of the rate we had planned to burn it).
There is a simple test for this. Poll everyone in favor of removing all cell phone towers, roads, bridges, telephone lines, and all man made infrastructure. All in favor, can remove the wind turbines and all the other infrastructure. Now the matter of revenues is different. If these turbines are built on private land there should be revenues paid the landowners. Experience shows that anti wind sentiment changes rapidly and accordingly. One more thing. Its is irresponsible to suggest not having wind without suggesting what else to have. Would blackouts be preferred? How about burning coal or peat? Oil? Fracked natural gas? The energy comes from somewhere. I am not very sympathetic to those that only want energy sources that they can stay blithely ignorant of despite consequences on themselves and neighbors. The responsible thing to do is to suggest exactly what those energy sources and criteria ought to be. By most criteria, wind compares favorably. Out of mind out of sight becomes an excuse for irresponsibility at best and at worst a corruption of logical thought to avoid a cognitive dissonance.
You know how we will ruin the planet? All of the above.
Why won’t real climate scientists appear on the same stage and debate with denialists? Very simple: climate scientists tend to be very fastidious individuals, and sh-t splatters.
real climate scientists don’t debate climate skeptics because they lose every time.
Perhaps a less biased interpretation would be that Morano is in fact a metaphorical “hired assassin” as charged and that Mann is defending himself in terms that Morano understands?