with Peter Sinclair
Mike Mann has a very polished and skillful powerpoint presentation, and the video of his talk from AGU’s Chapman conference this past june in Colorado has gone somewhat viral, even, I’m told, among former detractors.
Another pointless effort …who’s he talking to? Anybody’s ever disagreed with has either been blocked or ignored, or considers Mann a sad joke demonstrating how low University standards have gone.
He’s convincing the believers, that’s like if I considered myself a great seller having marketed water in a desert.
Most Presidential candidates get standing ovations after their Primary speech, even if half of them go on to lose.
Maybe because his works have been confirmed by multiple other papers? Or he has been cleared every single time of any scientific misconduct?
If you then continue to repeat refuted claims about his research of course he won’t have patience for you. Neither would I.
And that’s the problem with the current public exchange. The constant repeating of refuted claims, the smearing of scientists, and the total lack of civility.
Collin – had people reasoned like Mann in the past, astrologers and ufologists would have kept the airwaves for themselves.
They too constantly repeated refuted claims, but wisely no scientist thought about retreating to speak only to the convinced. That’s just useless.
Considering you are comparing the work of Michael Mann with astrology and ufology I’m not surprised people don’t take you seriously. Especially considering you ignored my point about him being cleared of any scientific misconduct and his research being confirmed multiple times.
“…constantly repeated refuted claims…”
Is this more ‘satire’ maurizio? Argumentum ad Bozo, perhaps?
He’s speaking to the American Geophysical Union. The banner at the top left might have been a tipoff:
Instead of attacking Mann or implying that the AGU is biased, perhaps you can point to anything in his speech you disagree with?
Listen guys – I did not compare Mann to astrologers. I did not attack him, and I did not imply that the AGU is “biased”. I did not say he was repeating refuted claims.
I was actually making a completely opposite point. I said, as astronomers in the past did not retreat from debating astrologers and ufologists, likewise climate scientists of the present should not retreat from debating, not even from debating those they think are repeating refuted claims. Why? Because astrologers and ufologists did repeat refuted claims in their media heydays (late ’60s-early ’80s IIRC). And if the astronomers had not been there, who knows what sort of stuff would be aired and published right now (remember the success of Velikovsky).
OTOH for you to even think of associating Mann to astrology and refuted claims, well, that could tell me a lot about the twisted ways of your brains. If I were playing with internet based telepsychology, that is.
This time around, I’ll blame your Saturday drinking habits for such an awful inability to understand what was in plain view.
Pure beeswax. Your desire is to mislead. Virtually all your comments here have that characteristic trait. You rarely ever address the actual intent of the main post – you nitpick, lead off on a tangent, or vaguely attack. On this post, you most definitely were attacking Mann and implying the AGU is biased.
And now you are misleading with this astrology k-rap. No one cares about astrology here. Be a grown up and address Mann’s actual speech. What in it do you have a problem with?
That I actually care about, and I’ll listen to.
Jim – I understand this may fly too high for you, but yes, there is a very good reason why I “rarely ever address the actual intent of the main post” (although I strive to remain on-topic).
I won’t waste time in explaining it though, since you’re still stuck in the sad belief that I would have compared Mann to astrology. Having explained in detail why you’re completely mistaken, I shall renounce explaining you anything else for today.
Okay, for the third time – please address Mann’s statements in the above video. How or where do you disagree with them? That’s what this post is about. That’s what people who are reading this care about.
The rest of your comment is just another attempt to mislead – by baiting me into the question of my intelligence and by repeating the astrology sheet. Walk away, fine, guys like you never address the root of the matter. It’s always about the irrelevant tangent.
You’re misleading yourself.
My comment remains: Mann’s “polished and skillfull” presentation is pointless. Those he can reach (having excluded a large chunk of humanity) don’t need it. They believed in him already.
Those he can’t reach, don’t need it. They won’t believe him if he told them the time of the day.
This should be thought within the larger question of communicating climate change. Something Mann has painted himself out of, yet he is the one called to illustrate it.
Did you watch the video? He’s not really talking about climate science in it. He’s talking about his personal experiences with the witch hunt that is taking place in government towards scientists. It’s a very alarming trend, and it’s an important topic.
The AGU is a coalition of over 60,000 scientists from over 140 countries. He’s talking about intensely important stuff to them. How is that a waste of time?
Your other point is that Mann is fully discredited, so he wouldn’t be believed by those in the general public. There certainly has been a broad campaign to discredit him. (If you think he has discredited himself, instead, please say exactly how).
The video is on Youtube – anyone can watch it – so it is trying to reach a broader audience. People can watch it and make up their own minds. Saying that Mann is discredited without explaining why is just repeating character assassination.
Explaining how his statements are false or misleading might be helpful. I couldn’t find any – maybe you can.
Jim – I haven’t said a word about Mann having discredited himself. You will agree, I hope, that many think that way. But that’s not the issue.
The issue is that we have here a scientist who, for whatever reason, has decided not to communicate, apart than with people who think he’s the next big thing after Einstein or something.
Paradoxically, he might be talking icebergs on the deck of the Titanic and yet he will be just as effective as anyone who says not a single word. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the sad episode of that Shepherd guy (and the continuous Plait debacles), Mann is spreading the same attitude to others. Will we end up with a Coalition of the Embittered? What policies will come out of that?
Before I saw the video, I read your comment and asked myself “What does he say that pisses off the deniers / minimizers so much?”
Then I watched the video and wondered no more.
oops…”anybody who’s ever disagreed”
Should be presented in every school around the planet!
[…] Dr. Mann discussed the episode in his Chapman lecture here . […]
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 2,557 other followers