Defending Science with Michael Mann

May 23, 2016

A great example of the reporting you will see at this site and – no where else, are the half dozen or so videos I’ve made responding point-by-point to the climate denial jihad against scientist Michael Mann, author of the now-many-times-replicated Hockey Stick graph of global temperatures.

Mike’s one of the dozens of leading experts who have been my coaches and mentors in areas of climate communication, – I’ve interviewed Dr. Mann numerous times, and shared the podium with him at American Geophysical Union, and the University of Iceland.

supportdarksnowFor the anti-science community, Dr. Mann became a target for the simple reason that his graphical image of warming temperatures over the last millenium was precisely what the PR specialists at right wing think tanks fear most – a simple, clear, understandable and “sticky” meme showing the effects of fossil fuel burning over time.


For producing effective science, Dr. Mann had to be targeted and destroyed. Nothing personal – just business.
Fortunately for the rest of us, the science behind the Hockey stick has been affirmed by dozens of subsequent studies by different groups using different methodologies.
And Dr. Mann himself, instead of proving an easy target, has developed into one of the most widely recognized and effective communicators of climate science.




10 Responses to “Defending Science with Michael Mann”

  1. Says: ns-agw-agenda-tech-policy-and-national-security/#comment-28170

  2. indy222 Says:

    He also turned into a decent street fighter, taking on the climate denial attack dogs with effective legal action. Kudos to Mike!

  3. eolandeeliva Says:

    He frequently posts on his FB page, and is easily contactable there also which is impressive given how busy he is.

  4. Lionel Smith Says:

    Mann’s book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines should be required reading, especially for the likes of Russell Cook. Note Russell how Mann deals with John Christy.

    Such people should disregard anything written in mountbank Montford’s frippery of fiction and also the positive reviews of that latter, from those with learning difficulties, which have flooded the Amazon entry.

  5. Luv, luv, LUV it how I live rent-free in the minds of ClimateCrocks folks. Y’all will have to forgive another drive-by hit here — as those who take the time to read my GelbspanFiles blog already know (oops, that only seems to be commenter “dumboldguy” here, and apparently just barely at that) — I’m quite busy. My latest post on one of your heroes ought to give a good indicator of where my time goes.

    Meanwhile, if only my pal Lionel Smith would have taken the time to read my blog, then he wouldn’t have embarrassed himself with the belief (remember, it doesn’t matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove) that I haven’t already perused Dr Mann’s “Climate Wars” book. After all, I’ve linked more than once to screencaptures of his book’s enslavement to Ross Gelbspan about ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists. And then don’t forget this related inconvenient truth: “Why is Ross Gelbspan’s Name Found in ClimateGate Emails?”

    Friends, I’ve looked through your heroes stuff and continue to do so, I watch your heroes presentations, I look at both sides of the issue. YOU are the ones who only read / watch / hear one side of the issue, and that’s why you continually veer off your own self-made cliffs. Wait for it, when I get the next free chance, I can tell you why one of Oreskes’ slides had words missing from it which you can find for yourselves …. which could send you off into yet another self introspection about why your dear leaders aren’t telling your particular things about this whole issue.

    • otter17 Says:

      “The best shills are those that truly believe in their own shilling.”

    • skylanetc Says:

      Hah! No one reads your blog, Russell. It’s strictly for your own entertainment.

      • (another of my drive-by hits since I have a couple of minutes before going off to other tasks)

        “No one reads your blog” sez yet another anonymous commenter who doesn’t have the courage to reveal his/her name thus depriving all of a potentially useful reference to point to who has irrefutable climate science expertise. Or who does not, thus possibly explaining the anonymity.

        “Skylantec” is free to believe whatever he/she wants, but I have proof to the contrary, as seen in the screencapture I just got below. I forget what yesterday’s count was, 67 or 65, but those are daily visit counts. Back when anonymous commenter “d.o.g.” was first griping that nobody looked at, the count was bumping along at around a dozen or so per day, but when I prominently mentioned the link here one time, I ended up with a then-all time high jump of the count to 96 in one day flat. That meant Crocks people were reading it. From that time on, the count bumped along between 25 and 40. With Heartland’s recent prominent link to it, the count average moved up to 50-70.

        Compared to Crocks’ daily visit count, these are still probably paltry numbers, sure. But the thing is, it isn’t how many folks are reading it, it’s whether some in that number have influence. Is one of Eric Schneiderman’s AG 20 staffers reading Crocks with rapt attention in anticipation of seeing evidence proving skeptics are crooks. Not likely. Are any of the RAGA staffers reading my blog? Could be. Hilarious thing here is how I was alerted to this “Defending Mann Science” post by one of my truly influential pals, an individual I’d never have guessed as someone who would read it, someone ALL of you despise without being able to prove why you despise this individual – and I know this person reads my blog posts. So, friends, think quality, as opposed to quantity.

        • otter17 Says:

          What is the deal with you types and the folks at WUWT getting all fussy about real names on the internet? Who cares when the actual scientists are the ones doing the research and we aren’t trying to represent ourselves as something more credible than we are? On Watts site, it becomes downright creepy in an internet stalking sort of way.

          Wow, and you are somehow impressed by a few page hits that may or may not have come from the folks here that know there is very little (possibly negative) credibility to your work on the blog?

          And then after your complaints about internet anonymity, you leave us hanging without name dropping your big shot blog reader? *sarc* Color us impressed. I’m sure it is someone fabulously famous, for sure.*sarc*

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: