Interview with Michael Mann on the Penn State Final Report and the war on climate scientists

[Viracocha711]

Michael Mann should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having to put up with knuckle draggin anti-science DENIALIST! He is a wonderful scientist who does very important work for HUMANITY! One day these deniers will be looked at like racist, nazis, holocaust deniers & other pariahs from the past!

[sssssjjjj1]

this guy is lying.....he's in his job position, for one reason and one only..to get the carbon tax passed so we can pay money for air to ratchilds and gore the whore.

[frankobjectif]

@sssssjjjj1

this guy is an awesome scientist. He does not care about carbon tax, he would rather that we change our way of life = no more oil fuel

[acuaman42]

Michael Mann and Al Gore should be put in jail because we all know that the only think that they want is to make money with the big lie of climate change.

[OtagoMark]

1:55 So Michael Mann defends himself by inventing a conspiracy theory??

2:20 Cherry picking lies?? lol so if they'd mixed the lies in with the truth it would have been ok?...hmmmI think I understand that

3:00 crimnal? whats criminal, the fact Hitler gassed Jews or the fact the truth got out and people were tried for war crimes? hehehe

Mann Obviously doesnt know which of his emails were leaked lol

[topologyrob]

@david222444 yes, and that point was passed some years ago. 97% is a pretty huge consensus.

[david222444]

Mann made global warming then? Let the truth win, it always will win. If global warming is caused by our production of co2 then eventually the theory will be accepted if not then the theory will be rejected.

[thegoodlocust]

Hey Mann, looks like you LIED in that little whitewashed investigation. You said you never participated in the deletion of any of the emails relating to AR4, despite saying you'd contact Wahl "ASAP" about it.

Well, now Wahl is saying that you did tell him to delete emails and that he did.

Too bad your university buds haven't realized that you are a sociopath and bought into your BS about it being some right-wing hit job.

[kennyp23]

Great interview...if you do publicly funded research you have no right to privacy in your workplace...The entire genesis of this issue was Mr Mann and CRU's refusal to comply with FOIA requests and there impetulence and obfuscation. Fortunately, someone released these documents...NONE of the Climategate documents were CONFIDENTIAL...Its clear in this interview that Phil Jones was right in his assessment of Mann that he is a thin-skinned wanker

[GorterPoss]

"Science has gone to be with advocacy and both have had a good time" -Rex Murphy

[mysteriesfaith]

PLEASE READ THE HOLY BIBLE.

[Dayversion]

The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?

[Namaste1001]

@Dayversion Could'nt agree more.

[Dayversion]

"Exxonmobil corp., the world's largest crude oil refiner, supports taxing carbon dioxide as the most efficient way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, its chief executive said.

"As a businessman, it's hard to speak favourably about any new tax, but a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach," Rex Tillerson, CEO of the Irving, Texas based company, said Thursday at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars in Washington."

[deskset24]

These global-warming-denying capitalist-terrorists are responsible for the financial collapse of the world economy. They don't give a fuck about the poor. They don't even give a fuck about their own countries. Just for themselves.

[Dayversion]

Farmer's Almanac: Global cooling to continue

Most of the country will see a colder-than-usual winter while summer and spring will be relatively cool and dry, according to the time-honored, complex calculations of the "Old Farmer's Almanac."

The 2011 issue of the almanac, which claims to be the nation's oldest continuously published periodical, was released Tuesday. It predicts that in the coming months, the Earth will continue to see a "gradual cooling of the atmosphere"

[deskset24]

Climate scientists and environmentalists and global-warming-theory advocates have freedom of speech. Anyone who dares to attempt to take that away from us does so at their own risk of their lives, freedom, and health. If you want to die for your stupid assinine cause, then you should die and have your property take away.

[deskset24]

Anthropogenic global-warming deniers = 9/11 deniers

[BlueStateChronicle]

"Indeed I did have relations with that hockey stick chart that was inappropriate."

[RustyTBone69]

the way it works is simple

Industry spends the money to promote the BS

Fox/Rush Limbaugh/ Glenn beck spews the BS all over the airways

Dumb piece of white trash listens and believes it all.

then the idiot will go to a town hall meeting and act like an ass hole.

[freemj13373]

From a scientific perspective, please explain how the downward tree ring data line does not at the very least (if not immediately discredit its use) require a significant margin of error to be added to the charts shown with the proxy data. Until that is done, you're a purveyor of snake oil.

[meercatdotcom]

Where's this global conspiracy by scientists?  The only conspiracy is to bash scientists over some carefully chosen words from 13 years of private emails.

[Martintfre]

"When told that the first three allegations against Dr. Mann were dismissed at

the inquiry stage of the RA-lO process, Dr. Lindzen's response was: "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?"

The Investigatory Committee members did not respond to Dr. Lindzen's statement." (Duh)

Page 13 of Final_investigation_report.pdf Involving Dr Michael E Mann at Penn State June 4 2010

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

Hadn't seen this one either.

Natural variability is huge in weather and also from year to year but not on longer time scales. The many hockey stick graphs that have been produced over the past decade (to which you probably attach no credibility) all clearly demonstrate that the human influence has overwhelmed natural variablity and trends.

Even at 1ºC per century we're going faster than during any of the past warmings that are associated to mass extinctions.

[arneperschel]

CO2 is rising more than 10.000 times faster than the natural rate. Species are going extinct 10.000 times faster than the natural rate. Global averaged temperature is rising faster than any time we have data of that has a high enough definition to look at periods as short as centuries.

Models are used to TRY to know where, when and how much.

The general warming prediction doesn't need models. The physics of greenhouse gases or the ice core evidence are more than enough to know what lies ahead.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel

CO2 has been far higher than it is now and we can sustain, perhaps even flourish under, higher CO2.

Species extinctions come in waves of catastophies (you can wiki it ;-) ) - so there is no such thing as a natural rate.

Comparing rates of change over short periods of time within stocastic data sets is a fools task.

Models are completely flawed, junk in, junk out.

The GHG theory for a planet is far from a simple linear model. We do not even know all of the inputs.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd You don't know shit about anything real, because you've never done a hard day of work in your life. You don't know the meaning of sacrifice, unlike environmentalists & pro-animal rights soldiers & those who fight for the politically powerless. I'm the greatest thing in your life because I make you think.

You AGW-deniers make life hard for EVERYONE: rationalists, police, etc because, thanks to you shitheads, nothing can be proven because all thought is flawed, according to you.

[mtthwbrnd]

@deskset24 The only thing the environmentalists are sacrificing is the lives of the billion people who are starving due to the high food prices caused by the bio fuel fiasco. And for what? Exactly how much lower can you show that planetary temperatures are as a result of your brave sacrifice of 1 billion (other) souls? None! Zero! Zilch!

Want to make a real difference? Kill yourself and leave the rest of us alone.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd You completely discredit ANY possible argument made against global warming with your total lies and insane rants and shit like that - even the few remaining VALID arguments that might be left (of course, overwhelmed by the proof GW is real).

No: you want to stuff yourself and steal from others (including animals)

and take more from others than you put into the world,

then YOU should kill yourself. YOU sacrifice YOURSELF for YOUR stupid cause of greed. I'll help kill you.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd Let's see if shitheads like you can do math:

what percentage of US or UK Presidents, Ministers, Congressmen, Senators, judges, etc are members of the Green Party or the AnimalsCount party?

When you compute that percentage, then whatever high prices or other way the world is fucked-up, the Green and AnimalsCount is responsible for NO MORE than that percentage.

Until you do that YOU'VE GOT NOTHING OF VALUE TO SAY!

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!

[mtthwbrnd]

@deskset24 You are a spastic. Get help.

As I said before, if you want to save the planet from overpopulation kill yourself instead of driving up the food prices for poorer people. If your idol gore wants to save the planet, let's see him move out of his 8 mansions and stop using private jets ETC.

But you commie fuckwits are all the same, you want to control our lives. It is always someone else who has to make the sacrifices so go fuck yourself you dumb cunt and leave the rest of us alone.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd No environmentalist, no animal rights person has ever caused ANY food prices to rise. That is only a wackjob conspiracy theory coming from selfish breeders like yourself. Only selfish breeders, bankers, corporate CEOs, and everyone who votes for them - Demopubs & Republicrats - cause food prices to rise for the poor.

You shitheads can try to pit one powerless group - communists - against another powerless group - the poor, but it won't work.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd And your hero is Adolph Hitler and all the rightwing Muslims and Christians & nationalists who imprison atheists & gays & communists & hemp users in Iran, Peru, China, Saudi Arabia.

You love trading with ultra-nationalistic China so much, why don't YOU go live in their slave shops?

Only the Socialist & Communist parties fight for their freedoms.

You extreme capitalists have never done ANYTHING for society or civilization.

[mtthwbrnd]

@deskset24 Communist party fights for freedom?! Hmm, tell it to their victims you fucking arsehole scumsucker.

We *ARE* society you half breed nob jockey.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd Tough shit that extremist capitalism is failing.

I just had to knock off another bunch of rightwing conservative nationalist Europeans on another forum.

Too bad your parents were such a pathetic disappointment.

[mtthwbrnd]

@deskset24 haven't you killed yourself yet? No? But you still want others to sacrifice their lives for your stupid misinformed ideas of utopia. How much CO2 is being emitted for you to write all your shit? Why are you using a computer? Do you know how much pollution is created in their manufacture? You are hypocrite. You scum sucking nob jockey.

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd I eat and shit out excrement like you every day. You can't do math. You do not have the legal right or mental authority or expertise or ability to form an opinion or make a decision about anything. You do not have the mental ability to judge when one thing is better or bigger or worse than another thing. You do not have the ability to determine the consequences of actions. I enjoy shoving your shit back down your type's throats.

[BlueStateChronicle]

@arneperschel Nonesense. You guys spew without any data to back it up.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

I wasn't going to discuss anymore but I hadn't seen these comments yet and since they're direct questions, I'll still answer them.

1 Almost yes. Past changes have been to about 6 degrees higher and about 5 degrees lower (i don't know the figure for snowball earth, but I assume it exceeds 10ºC). These changes are not 'much more' than the most alarming predictions (+7ºC).

2 Yes

3 wiki: climate change attribution

4 not

[Martintfre]

Over the course of his career at Penn State - A blue and white wash.

What happened before - at Virginia - not in the pervue of the PSU review.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

Doesn't make it less true, though.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel Congratulations you! You are half correct. But just like the so called investigations which you no doubt support, you left half of the story out.

Fact is, people can read. Black is still black and white is still white - no matter how many "investigations" are conjured up to try to convince us of otherwise. Ever heard of the Asch Conformity experiments? Be careful when you find yourself nodding along, you may have been Asched!

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

No matter how many reports and peer-reviewed studies, you will keep believing what you did yesterday.

Black is still black... CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, its atmospheric concentration is still on the rise, the earth is still warming, no matter how many attacks are launched on the integrity of scientists.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel Well thanks for telling me with such certainty what I will do. Are you God?

We need higher CO2 to support more life.

Slightly higher temperatures would be good for life.

There is little evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing temperatures above what can be expected from natural variability. Pity, because it would be handy to kill two birds with one stone!

There is much evidence of gerrymandering and foul play on the part of AGW advocates/Warmists/Alarmists.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

I'm sorry for making that prediction. I didn't have enough information to make that judgement. However, I can tell from your response that I'm likely right.

Have you looked at the evidence of foul play on the part of denialists? Surely you'll agree that there's a bit of a mismatch there...

Actually, I'm not in for this non-debate.

You just stick to your beliefs while you help ruining my life...

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel

How am I ruining your life?

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

If not by emitting CO2 which will likely eventually lead to my death and before that several decades of suffering, then by copying and spreading the denialist memes that lead to inaction on climate change, causing it to be much worse than it would otherwise have been, had we acted two decades ago, when enough information was available as a basis for strong action. Probably you do both things. Unfortunately you don't believe it and I can't defend myself on any legal basis. So I suffer.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel Oh, my, God.

Boy, you need to get some serious help.

1 degree C, perhaps, maybe? Can you think of any other things in your life experience that might be higher up the list of things which are actually and provably harming you? Are you as emo about those issues too? Get some perspective.

I'm worried arguing with you in case you suicide or something. Please, get some help.

UK Samaritans:

08457 90 90 90

US Samaritans:

212.677.3009

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

Thanks for the compassion.

Look up: "MIT report 169"

"illustrated guide to latest climate science"

"2099 New Scientist" as an image search

and "CBC climate wars"

YouTube "climate change and national security"

There are some of the reasons why I am worried about the (very near) future.

If you want to set aside all the peer reviewed studies in there, that's your decision. But just assuming they were if only 10% likely to happen, would you be able to understand me just a little bit?

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel MIT 169 is a probabalistic preidiction way, way, into the future so far that it is daft to even contemplate it as a valid or useful study. "2099" is also a distant prediction. How and when will we tell whether it is correct or not?

The whole set of sources you quote are quite simply scare mongering propaganda. It is just a load of junk.

"Peer Review". Which study? Who are the peers? And where is the text of the review?

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

I'll leave you some more time to read through the 'illustrated guide to the latest climate science' and check each of the studies mentioned. You'll be able to figure out how 'junk' exactly all of them are.

For more near future scenarios you can listen to the 'climate wars' series.

If you search '4 degrees oxford betts' you'll find an explanation why +4ºC might happen as early as 2060. Then have a look at the New Scientist map. I should still be alive by then. But I doubt it.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel You live in fear of the imaginary monsters created by the political classes who rule over you. Don't you see a pattern here? All the things you are supposed to be scared of? If it's not communism, it's nuclear war, if not that then terrorism, if not that then AIDS, if not that then Global Cooling, if not that then Global Warming, bird flu, swine flu... you are being kept in a perpetual state of fear - and none of the things you fear are real. They are all created to instill fear.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

I've always lived as a fearless person. None of the things you mention have ever frightened me. Only one of them does and that's global warming. And still, knowing what I know, I'm surprised at how calm and happy I still am.

Again, global warming is not about politics. The scientific foundations were laid out in the 19th century and scientists have known for about 30 to 50 years that this is a problem. It's the transcendental nature of the issue that has caused political polarization.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

By the way, I think that's an important analysis. Many more people should be brought to understand this mechanism. But I'm not one of them.

And putting all these things on one line and attributing validity to each single element BECAUSE it forms part of a larger group is flawed logic.

I'm ready to believe that the terrorism-scare was a designed tactic. But AIDS is a real diseases you know. And global warming is also a real problem as proven by multiple independent lines of evidence.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel I am not attributting invalidity of AGW because it is part of that group. AGW Alarmism is invalid all by itself. There is very little evidence to support it. The reason that it is being utilised right now though, is because it is part of this larger group of bogeymen. CO2 taxation is BIG BIG business - not to mention a great lever of control for the political classes.

The science does not support the AGW alarmist viewpoint.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

Right now, however, the biggest business still remains fossil fuel industry. And it's beyond proven that they have generously funded many think tanks and PR firms to manipulate the public opinion.

If you want to avoid CO2 taxation to become a big corrupt business, then join James Hansen in advocating for a 100% dividend, where this tax is redistributed among the public to those who have emitted the least. That way, you can actually make money out of it as an individual.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel but it is beyond proven to an equal extent that the peer review process has be largely hijacked by a small group of individuals who benefit in huge government grants which are only present due to AGW Alarmism -and of course the very governments who award the grants have a vested interest in the CO2 tax, not to mention the business interests in the "mitigation" companies held by various names on the AGW propaganda side.

Hansen? Are you kidding! 100% idea is called Communism.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

A CO2 tax is totalitarian corporate dominance, a CO2 tax with 100% dividend is communism, cap and trade is ineffective,... Sigh. I guess there's no solution then.

Which is fine, since there isn't any problem anyway.

I want to thank you for being polite.

And I leave you with this reflection: "He did not know whether Zhou had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly had dreamed he was Zhou."

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel

That is my viewpoint. There is no problem to solve. No need to reduce CO2. In fact we should increase it. Higher crop yeilds to sustain our growing population and cheaper energy to make sure the poorest can raise their living standard. Let's pray for milder winters too.

There are some real environmental problems that we should try to solve. Such as various pollutions, fresh water, species management etc... but CO2 is a non starter.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel I don't know about Zhou.. but someone once wrote:

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act

now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries

within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the

first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I

will hide behind."

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel Also, still not taken from Zhou, but relevent to our discussion, someone seems to have once written:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of

adding in the real temps to each series for

the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)

and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the

decline.”"

[deskset24]

@mtthwbrnd There is absolutely no scientific proof whatsoever of any AGW alarmism.

It's deniers like you who give all causes a bad name, because now everyone must prove everything to ridiculous impractical extremist degrees of accuracy. So, thanks to you deniers, there is absolutely no proof that 9/11 happened because it was all a mirage, or that illegal immigration exists, because everyone is here legally.

[mtthwbrnd]

@deskset24 You are just throwing around insults and doing the usual name calling. You can't debate 911, or AGW or anything because you are a nob jockey shill scumbag mother fucker piece of shit.

[mtthwbrnd]

@arneperschel

Let's not even mention that your posterchild Al Gore emits a huge amount of CO2 while preeching that CO2 is bad. Let's also not mention his vested interests such as his investments in the CCX. Let's not mention his brand new, yet another, multi million dollar mansion... how much CO2 does it take to heat his swimming pools?

Oh, but he offsets! Oh, right, that's okay then.

Idiots.

[arneperschel]

@mtthwbrnd

"Let's not even mention..." Exactly. I have very little to do with Al Gore. I don't know what he does in his private life and I care little about it.

Listening to what scientists have to say is already interesting enough.

[MsHelloworld321]

Beyond Smug.

[ZejithThemis]

@ AnOnlinePersona --- page defacement fail.

RRyvola - report that chanTard he tried to break your video's page.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis

And arctic ice is disappearing at a phenomenal rate that far outstrips the conservative IPCC predictions: nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Even weatherman Watts has thrown Shemp Goddard under the bus with his pathetic statistical mangling which attempted to demonstrate ice recovery, although in his typical chickensh!t way he hides it under an addendum to the article.

wattsupwiththat com July 2 2010

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 "statistical mangling" said by a reality-denier. the irony is thick.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis

So much for debating a parrot..

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 *squawk* *so much for debating a parrot! parrot! prettycheck wanna cracker!* see, I can be silly too. but seriously; models built from presumptions and cherry-picked data that still need tweaks to the algorithms are the very definition of statistical mangling. shall we draw up a scorecard of who tortured the most data?

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis

ZT, you're neither conversant enough with the real facts or denialist memes to debate, and Youtube comments are not the place - links aren't accepted. If you want a debate, come over to deltoid on scienceblogs

As for this topic, Mann has been cleared of destroying or fudging the data, and previously found to be correct by the National Academy of Science. The bottom line is that the denialist narrative doesn't fit global events whereas the climate scientists' interpretation does.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 He was "cleared" by his own U, which has a vested interest in its own image. Admitting shenanigans took place is exceedingly rare in any internal investigation, whether it be the cops, politicos or academia, hence my initial facetious comment about the foxes and the hen house. So, no debate from you but insults yes? Classic warmer.

you don't need links to provide addresses. e.g. worldclimatereport . com / index . php /2010/06/30/ china%E2%80%99s-2000-year-temp­erature-history/

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Classic denial.

Nothing but unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, disconnected from the reality that PSU derives an income of $724M per annum, of which Mann brings in 0.06%. Why would they risk their first tier research status for what is financially a minor researcher? They wouldn't.

To discuss the science, like I said before, this isn't the place.

Visit deltoid on scienceblogs, but as you don't want to deal in real facts it's probably a waste of your time and mine

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 First, because it's not about the revenue from one researcher, rather the image hit of propping up shoddy research; but whilst we're talking cash shall we compare the sums that go towards warmist propaganda versus how much goes to their detractors? Unsubstantiated are the claims that big oil pays off all skeptics, another favorite warmist canard. This may "not be the place": but if you can't debate without a posse it sure is a waste of time, said the fly to the spider.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis You see, what you call "shoddy research" is an assertion which the NAS of the USA and every other country doesn't agree with.

And don't try and equate the spending of the 9 trillion dollar per annum fossil fuel industry with academic research grants. Google 'climate change denial funding'.

It's because you have no scentific case that you have to hand wave with your dumb distractions and accusations of fraud, which have been investigated and failed multiple times now.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 9 trillion on skeptics? Back that up, please, or retract it. Google CRU funding yourself.

You dissemble, misrepresent, and cite internal whitewashes as proof of perfect procedure.

I'll wait for an actual hearing in a court of law with full discovery to accept acquittal.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't say they spent that amount on their denial machine - I specified their annual turnover.

And you still have absolutely no evidence for the 'whitewash' smear.

I doubt you've even read the reports themselves, you're most likely parroting your denier blog talking points and as I said before, you can't debate parrots.

So to conclude, you have no evidence of fraud, and no scientific case

What's to debate?

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 And the annual turnover of all the companies combined is relevant because? You referenced it directly with research grants as evidence of... something. The evidence of the falsehood of the hockey stick is widespread, though I didn't use the word fraud nor did I claim evidence of it. You seem to enjoy tilting at straw men and declaring victory. It's not what's to debate or not, you're not even debating.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Turnover is relevant because that's the revenue stream that the FFI's are protecting. You don't think you dreamt up those conspiracies yourself, do you? Brought to you by professional PR companies. You didn't use the word fraud, but that's what a whitewash is.

And neither can you provide evidence the 'hockey stick' is broken, nor all the other 'hockey sticks' in the spaghetti graph. Check out greenman3610;s channel. It's aimed at those who parrot talking points and don't read.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 So many aspersions, so little time. The hockey stick fails, the link I provided earlier is one in a pile of evidence, it's you who reads only your preferred propaganda. You also are incredibly selective in answering. Funding comparison, I asked, before you launched the "but them maeks munnee!" diversion. And as for conspiracy theories, you do quite well in repeating warmist paranoia. Also as to your appeals to authority, real science isn't decided by cliques, nor consensus.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Real science is done by real scientists like Mann, not the pretend blog science you prefer. Then through multiple lines of converging evidence, real scientists reach a consensus - another word you don't understand. Actual evidence, not talking points like 'broken hockey sticks'. Anyway, back on topic, you have no evidence of a whitewash, just conspiracy. You have no scientific evidence - jusy more conspiracy which is the definition of how some explain the real world.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 You have no idea what I prefer, but innuendo and aspersion is rampant with you. Multiple lines of evidence must include the diverging evidence as well, otherwise it is known as cherry picking. The consensus of a figurative echo chamber is as empty as a real one. Again, the hockey stick is failed, that's not a blurb, it's a fact. The evidence of whitewash is in the omissions. I'm glad you at least admit and that some of us recognize the real world.

[eggs764]

@ZejithThemis

"Again, the hockey stick is failed, that's not a blurb, it's a fact"

and that was a big fat lie, seriously, this mantra you deniers use has been debunked so many times its just not funny anymore

"The evidence of whitewash is in the omissions"

what omissions? keep in mind this very video alludes to the fact that Mann has been cleared of all claims of scientific malfeasance

[ZejithThemis]

@eggs764 The omissions are the questions not asked. He was cleared of "research misconduct", defined in very strict terms. To wit: He didn't steal anyone's research, endanger people, lie about funding,or violate laws pertaining to research. Odd things to investigate, as there was never any allegation of such things. This in no wise vindicates the validity of his science, as the report itself says; in short, a straw man inquiry.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis The science was vindicated by the NAS inquiry. You know the NAS? The National Academy of Sciences that only the best available brains are invited to join? Together with the sister National Academies of all G8 countries and others. The PSU inquiry found that Mann's work, as supported by the Academies, was not based on falsehoods as alleged by the denial campaign.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 the inquiry found exactly what the report says, and not what you blather on about.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis The bottom line, despite your cheap rhetorical would-be point scoring is that the science is sound and Mann did not engage in fraud.

Live with it.

Thanks for playing.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 and winning.

[eggs764]

@ZejithThemis

"Odd things to investigate, as there was never any allegation of such things"

Oh no?

"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more." - James Delingpole - Telegraph

i could post more but u get the idea

[ZejithThemis]

@eggs764 None of which were "He didn't steal anyone's research, endanger people, lie about funding, or violate laws pertaining to research". Which were the odd things in question. Pertinence is everything in an answer.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Innuendo and aspersion is rampant - says the person using out of context climategate quotes consisting of nothing but innuendo and aspersion to condemn climate science, in contrast to multiple investigations that examined those claims in detail.

Like I said, you haven't even read the reports and you accuse others of ommission? That's spectacularly pathetic.

And how can the 'hockey stick' be 'failed' when the NAS found no fault with it, AND the spaghetti graph reasserts it?

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 Which climategate quotes? What orifice did you pull that from? I indeed read about 300 of the mails and the HARRY_READ_ME; haven't used a single bit of any of them. I don't condemn the study of climate, just the manipulated presentation thereof. NAS isn't god almighty, sorry to dump on your faith. Or maybe your faith is the Flying Spaghetti Graph, fnord. You're out of date on your propaganda if you're still touting the stick, that sinking ship was abandoned a while back.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis The Mann investigatuion revolves around quoted oy-of-context emails - duh, and the 'hockey stick' has NOT been abandoned, it has been ADDED to with further studies providing more data in the IPCC TAR. (the spaghetti graph).

Your propaganda is blatant, and like most, false.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 The Mann inquiry revolved around precisely what was stated in the report, not your talking points.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 One of my favorite gens from the report is Easterling saying that falsifiability is a concept that doesn't really apply in climate science. i.e. climate theories are de facto trivial theories. Also that Mann's earlier work (read: hockey stick) were a bit dramatic and more recent work has shown a less dire picture. No questions were asked about dataset choices. Replications were done with similar sets. Holding back code was seen to be "generally accepted". None of that makes it right.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Trivial theories? hardly. What Easterling was saying was that in complex systems you have to be expert in order to interpret the science, which leaves the amateur denial websites, which are backed by the think tanks, foundations and institutes in turn backed by their fossil fuel industry paymasters out in the cold. You stick to the scurrilous denial sites and their cheap innuendoes and I'll stick the opinions of the worlds best scientists providing empirical data based predictions.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 An unfalsifiable theory is a trivial theory., It's a technical definition, not a value judgment. the quote is precisely: "He responded by stating that much of what we know about climate change is the result of a combination of observation and numerical modeling, making the classic idea of falsification of a hypothesis, which may be applicable to a laboratory science, of limited applicability in the study of climate change." Learn the meanings of words before shooting off your mouth.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis Oh, and climate science is falsifiable. If the poles stop melting and the troposphere stops warming, the stratosphere stops cooling and infra-red physics break down, the theory of AGW would be in trouble. But that's not the case, so the theory stands.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 So the moral of the story is time will tell. Only the proponents of the theory will be long gone by the time their predictions fail. Infra-red physics breaking down was an irrelevant surrealistic addition, I wonder where you got that insane notion. Question: what is the most powerful greenhouse gas and should we rid ourselves of it?

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis The question is what do we do to stop the most powerful greenhouse gas once the current GHG with the longest residence time in the atmosphere creates conditions that release it in uncontrollable quantities?

The methane scenario would make the current battle against CO2 seem simple.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 I agree fully, this methane bubble under the gulf could make any and all debates on CO2 moot if it blows. A truly terrifying scenario.

The answers however were "water vapor" and "no".

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis I had sussed that's what you meant, which was why I was sure to include the important qualifier of atmospheric residence time, which is the property that makes the smaller proportion of CO2 outweigh the impact of H2O .

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 Yeah, but volume, man, volume. And residence time is about geological elimination... it goes thorough other avenues as well, and calculating that volume is somewhat beyond us. Of course we could throw down some raw assumptions, make a computer model and brazen our way through it; but that's the kind of BS that's been pissing me off from the start. I think you've probably sussed that by now as well.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 Also, a passing thought: residence time? H2O is constantly re released in the atmosphere, never fully sequestered, and cycles out of organisms far faster than the carbon. And back to volume; What will get you more drunk, a shot of vodka or sixty gallons of shitty American beer? Just sayin'.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 Also your explanation of what he said is false, and your "scurrilous" tirade in lieu of an actual response makes me think that you've not read the report. Talking points and insults. Thanks for a fun time, I'll get back to my translation now.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 More specifically, companies turnover vs. research grants is apples and oranges. Quantify funds dealt out to skeptic organizations vs. funds dealt out to climate change orgs. Burn straw men on your echo chamber blogs, not on my time.

[MrChek16]

ZT, don't be a complete moron.

If you report a robbery, the police don't say 'prove it'.

And the theft is being pursued by Norfolk Constabulary, who've questioned McIntyre.

What alternate universe are you living in?

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 no-one reported a "robbery", as nothing is missing. the investigation has zero leads, and as an unauthorized entry leaves traces the inference is that there are no traces. insisting on a "robbery" with no illegal entry and nothing missing is like insisting on ice free arctic in 3, 10, 30, 60 or 90 years, as the warmers so precisely estimate, while the ice remains to spite them.

[MrChek16]

@ZejithThemis

Data theft is robbery, and is subject to an ongoing police investigation.

Get over it. Attempting redefinition of terms is a standard denier ploy.



[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 calling it theft when it was in a FOIA marked ZIP, and there is no evidence of unauthorized access is a standard reality-denier canard.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 also, replying without the reply function is an underhanded way of attempting to "get the last word", like muttering a response once someone has left the room. classic true believer style: as willing to debate as the goreacle.

[realscience1]

This guy is the twin brother of Hugo Drax. He also looks like the master from Dr Who and talks like a bond villain so I wouldn't be surprised if he was being run by the illuminati. His claim that denialists get money from corporations when all corporations now agree with the CO2 mythology is as ridiculous as his 1997 hockey stick.

I love how the interviewer sucks up to him `bogus stolen emails'. um yeah right... nice tactic there.

[wedesoft]

"There is a ... well-funded campaign to attack climate scientists ...". One ad-hominem attack after another (and ignoring the amount of money and support global warming advocates are racking in).

[Trent1492]

@wedesoft

Yea! That is right: Peer reviewed report after peer reviewed report validates the basic findings, several politically politically initiated committees exonerate him and you jabber on about your misunderstanding of what a Ad hominem is.

Further, you rabbit on about the supposed oodles of money that college professors are making and yet think the trillion dollar fossil fuel corporations are pure as the driven snow. The blindness that your ideology inspires in you is awesome.

[ZejithThemis]

@Trent1492 you rabbit on about big oil funds to skeptics. make a real comparison of funds to global warming outlets and the cash gone into carbon trading scams vs. actual funding to skeptics instead of repeating propaganda. gigabucks for skeptics are like Saddam's WMD. also, a major part of the scandal of the released emails was not some random insults, as the propaganda machine insists, but rather the revelation of the pal-review process.

[thegoodlocust]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'

[robhoneycutt]

Dr Mann, you deserve a great deal of admiration for standing up to the baseless accusations that have been leveled at you. Congratulations on this ruling!

[MrChek16]

ZT - classy disappeared with the email theft. Supporting that and the associated campaign of specious innuendo is supporting criminal activity, and that's a world you really don't want to inhabit.

We're now into whirlwind reaping mode: all investiagtions now have come up with zero, silch and nada against the scientists, and a sneer from you doesn't alter those real world facts.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 theft has not been proven, and in fact is not even being pursued by the authorities: talk about coming up with zero. those are real world facts. to continue repeating "theft" is, in fact, the specious innuendo.

[MrChek16]

Good for Dr Mann.

The pygmies snapping at his (and others') heels haven't got a clue.

What's McIntyre done with the data he's had for 10 years now?

Two things - 1: nothing. and 2 : made a dog's breakfast of attempting to splice it inappropriately with another series.

Which is why we need real scientists like Mann.

[ZejithThemis]

@MrChek16 "pygmies" "stooges" gotta love the true believers. they keep it classy.

[xTHExENEMYx]

How do scientists like Michael Mann remain so calm and civil while under constant assault by corporate stooges and political hacks?

[freakyphysicsguy]

@xTHExENEMYx They remain calm in public because they know they are right, and because until recently they could make fun of the deniers all they wanted in private, but of course that's what caused this mess in the first place, once those comments became public knowledge.

[pinkman3610]

i'm still "denying" his immoral behaviour...

[Cornfed812]

Penn State, your football team sux also!

[ZejithThemis]

the foxes sent to investigate the situation at the hen-house found no cause for alarm.

[Trent1492]

@ZejithThemis

The stooges who mindlessly repeat fossil fuel talking points will never be satisfied with the evidence.

[ZejithThemis]

@Trent1492 evidence?! pshaw. produce the evidence.

[Trent1492]

@ZejithThemis

You are the one postulating a cover up.

[ZejithThemis]

@Trent1492 not a cover up, a whitewash. the whitewash happens when the cover-up fails. subtle distinction, but there it is.

[Trent1492]

@ZejithThemis

There what is? You have simply made and accusation with no EVIDENCE. You seem to think that you live in a no evidence free fire zone.

[ZejithThemis]

@Trent1492 there the difference is. you can read English, right? the evidence is in the proceedings and their quality, just like the reliability of research is determined by the procedures and their quality, not the stridency with which the "results" are touted.

[lumajs]

Was the interview recorded in a prison cell? Has he already been arrested?