Mike Mann on How to Fight the Deniers

By Chris Mooney | February 27, 2010 2:51 pm

There were many quotable moments in my Point of Inquiry interview with Michael Mann. I’ll be posting those, and further reflections on the interview, throughout the coming week. But I’ll start with a particularly memorable exchange that occurs around minute 34:

Mooney: Can the scientific community fight harder, or must it draw the line somewhere? You’ve got someone out there like Marc Morano, who is incredibly effective at doing what he does, his website is ClimateDepot, it is very high traffic….the scientific community does not have its equivalent. And the question is, should it, or is that crossing some sort of line?

Mann: Well, it’s the old line about getting into a fight with a pig: “you’ll get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.” There’s some truth to that.

Listen to more of the interview–and subscribe–here….also, the CFI forums are getting pretty active now in discussing the interview.

Comments (119)

  1. Wes

    Chris I am wondering how this quote might read if you were talking about Watts and McIntyre instead of Morano: Might I suggest: “never fight with a pig if the pig is smarter than you and able to demonstrate that your work is, well crap, and if your only remaining defence is to call people “pigs”?

  2. InMD

    I guess Mann should clarify who the pig is, since he is the one who has now been proven to be perpetrating the scientific fraud.

  3. Neuro-conservative

    It is good to see that you have given up all pretense of being interested in science, the scientific method, or even the climate. Your true mission is propaganda in the service of power, and your choice of words and blog topics now makes that abundantly clear.

  4. SLC

    Re Neuroconservative

    It’s good to see that Mr. Neuroconservative is still propagating his propaganda in the service of Exxon and the coal companies.

  5. InMD

    Re SLC,
    Can you please show me a single instance of any propaganda by Exxon or the coal companies as it relates to Climate?

    That stawman argument is so 80′s.

    Exxon and the coal industry got onboard with the Climate game 20 years ago. They realized that the brainwashed masses would happily pay the addional costs of any regulation or taxes. It would not even dent their bottom line.

  6. Roy Tucker

    Re SLC

    Well, there they go again. It’s all the fault of those eeeevil coal and oil companies. Oh, yeah, and I’m sure George Bush is somehow responsible, too.

  7. SLC

    Re Roy Tucker & InMD

    That’s why Exxon and the coal companies fund the Heartland Institute and the George Marshall Foundation, the leading institutes that support climate change denial propaganda.

  8. Captain Steve

    Mann, Jones and the CRU were engaged in fraud. Even the 30,000 member The Institute of Physics is admitting it now.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

  9. JAE

    SLC: Here are the facts on “Big Oil’s” spending on climate issues. It’s not what you hear or are telling people: http://sppiblog.org/news/senators-boxer-and-merkley-owe-apology-says-sppi-2

    Shame on Discover for producing such lop-sided propaganda.

  10. houstonian

    No surprises here. Just the latest in a series of name-calling hissy fits. The alarmists have called us deniers, Nazis, unpatriotic, war criminals, stupid, evil, irrational, unreasonable, conniving and irresponsible.
    Now we’re pigs, too?
    Oh my, what a devastating blow!
    Your Anger phase is interesting. I look forward to Bargaining.

  11. Neuro-conservative

    The Institute of Physics? We have to “fight” those “pigs”!

  12. movielib

    Read A W Montford’s (aka Bishop Hill) The Hockey Stick Illusion. This book exposes every dirty trick (not CRU’s meaning of “trick”) and Mannipulation. When you’re done with that you will see that comparing Michael Mann to a pig is an insult to the pig.

  13. Craig

    Let me guess, a lot of you were directed to this page from Climate Depot? In his typically self-aggrandizing style, I noticed Morano quickly posted a link to this interview. (He refers to himself in the third person when he pens articles on his website. What a schmuck!)

    But if Morano is the pig manufacturing this controversy, then I guess that means folks like you spread his excrement all around the pen. You’re doing top notch work so far.

  14. Beamer

    Such an insult to pigs, the contra-Mann anaology!

  15. Beamer

    No Craig, from a university computer, I am a post-doc. Typical un-scientific assumption.

  16. Philip Jr.

    Let me guess, a lot of you were directed to this page from Climate Depot? In his typically self-aggrandizing style, I noticed Morano quickly posted a link to this interview. (He refers to himself in the third person when he pens articles on his website. What a schmuck!)

    I always figured the denialists posting here were minions getting their links from a collective denialist hive. Their talking points are always identiical/sprinkled with the same lies and flaws.

  17. Deech56

    I see the spambots are out in force. I thought it was an excellent interview, and it’s hard to argue with Mann’s characterization of the swiftboater. The scientist really is at a disadvantage with an opponent who is willing to stretch the truth, or is free to represent any position that is convenient, no matter how incoherent the argument.

  18. B3

    SLC
    Come on. Stick to facts. Any dolt can tell you that Greenland is named Greenland because it used to be so warm you could grow stuff, like grapes. The polar bears are on the increase. The “hockey stick” graph has been shown to be completely made up. The IPCC itself admits that the disasters they warned us about are hype. Wake up and get on with the next big lie. Just like the ozone scare, the spotted owl, etc. etc.

    You probably believe that evolution is true and that Palestinians are really a race of people and the original inhabitants of Israel too. Hey, I admire your faith, but there comes a point when you gotta face reality.

    Lots of people have had to give up belief in stuff that isn’t true. I remember when I realized Santa wasn’t real. It wasn’t easy, but I survived. You can too. I’m rooting for you, you can do it!!

  19. matt

    …and why would we believe guys like Mann after “climategate”? The “alarmists” are in denial, how ironic is that?

  20. Wes

    Deech56, Phil Jr., and Craig your mastery of labeling, name calling and scatalogical insult is a testimony to your tribe and the first rate intellect of a warmist believer. You might do your cause even more good if try typing in ALL CAPS, LIKE THIS!!! Trust me. Mike Mann needs you. The UN needs you. And yes, the planet needs you.

  21. Dark Tent

    The denialists have nothing save a few email phrases taken out of context, which is why they are now going after the scientists with a vengeance.

    It’s an admission of defeat.

    McIntyre, Mosher and pals so hate Mann, Jones, Briffa and a few others that they have thrown all pretense of interest in science to the winds.

    Just look at CA these days.

    It’s all “climate conspiracy” all the time.

    It’s really rather pathetic: Steve McIntyre now acting just like Anthony “Air Conditioner hunter” Watts.

  22. JAE

    “But if Morano is the pig manufacturing this controversy, then I guess that means folks like you spread his excrement all around the pen. You’re doing top notch work so far.”

    As usual, we have a bunch of hollering insulting liberals who don’t have the intelligence to address the real issue, so they resort to the Olberman-type brain-dead mocking tactic. Pay attention to the facts, you “progressive” punk. Read (if you can do this) the books on the “hockey stick” crapola and then come back here and explain, like a logical person, just why Mann should not be in jail! Put some FACTS out there, punk!

  23. JAE

    Dark Tent chose a fitting moniker. LOL. Like I said a bit ago, WHY can’t you punks produce some FACTS for a change? Some real arguments? And I would really, really like to know what scientific credentials Dark Tent has. Whaddya want to bet he is a liberal arts major, if he made it through college?

    Sheesh, guys like this get laughed off thoughtful blogs, like ClimateAudit and Wattsupwiththat. They only survive on leftist blogs like this one!

  24. matt

    Liberals don’t use facts JAE, it’s a tenet of their political platform, along with wiping their rear with the Constitution.

  25. bad Jim

    It’s good to see the denialists openly admitting they’re right-wingers.

  26. JAE

    Well, the “progressive” language (i.e., insults, which is the highest form of language they seem to possess) will increase in shrillness and meanness, because they are losing this battle, BIG TIME. Don’t tell them, though. I hope many of them have their retirement funds invested in carbon trading schemes. The lawyers will soon sue the shit out of the fraudsters that have bilked thousands of investors out of money for “carbon credits.” Madoff was a mere piker, compared to what you will see in the next year or so! Why do you think the big carbon- financiers have shut their lying mouths?

  27. Wes

    bad jim it is not that “denialists” as you call them are right wingers. It is that it is only left wingers have a need to believe. Something about marxist theory being a philosophy of crisis and all that. If we don’t have a crisis we’re sunk. How else are we going to save the world. And this one costs us so little – I mean on a personal level!

  28. Craig

    JAE,

    Facts you want, facts you’ll get.

    1. In the wake of the so called “climate-gate” scandal, an academic inquiry determined that Michael Mann did not falsify any data.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2518632

    2. The National Academy of Sciences affirmed the ‘hockey stick’ graph

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

    Will these facts matter to you? I doubt it. Because one thing I have learned about anti-science ideologues is that facts and evidence are inconsequential. They are pesky flies to be swatted away when they invade your worldview.

  29. bilbo

    Just as an aside, aren’t posts 21-22 pretty blatant personal attacks and thus daring violations of the comments policy? I’m hardly one to cry foul, but those are a bit too vile to let go without mention.

    JJE, if you’d really like some facts without the name-calling, the previous climate change thread was full of facts several of us highlighted but denialists tried to ignore.

  30. JAE

    craig, bilbo: Can you spell “whitewash?” If I were accused of some corrupt thing, I would certainly want my friends to decide my fate. Wake up.

    The NAS DID NOT affirm the hokey stick (sic). Learn to read with some nuance. At best NAS said that Mann’s study was “fair enough” for the last 400 years. That ain’t the argument. We want to see if the Medieval Warming Period, centered on 1200 AD, was as warm as today. And we have HUNDREDS of “peer reviewed” studies that show it was: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    THEREFORE, unless you can explain why it was warmer in 1200 AD than it is now, you have absolutely no way to convince me that CO2 has a damn thing to do with global warming or the stupidest Orwellian verbiage yet invented: “climate change.”

  31. JAE

    bilbo: OK, I guess “punk” is an insult. My bad. Substitute “liberal.”

  32. JAE

    Anyway: Discover evidently has decided to go the way of the New York Times. Suicide, unless we end up with a socialist state. Bye bye, Discover.

  33. InMD

    JAE,
    The only traffic that sites like this get anymore come from WUWT and CA and CD. They are probably thankful for us trolls!! Its the only attention they get anymore. hehehe.

  34. Walt

    A couple of salient points:

    First,it is interesting that people cite the NAS report, but never the Wegman report . Probably because those paragons of scientific certitude, Gavin and Joe, never mention it either. Gotta get your science from real scientists, fellas. Not George Soros-funded lackeys.

    Second, one of the premier climate scientists is reduced to name calling as a defense. Not encouraging. This clique of “scientists” is a disgrace.

    Cheers,

    Walt

  35. Daniel J. Andrews

    Read (if you can do this) the books on the “hockey stick” crapola and then come back here and explain, like a logical person, just why Mann should not be in jail! Put some FACTS out there, punk!

    If the hockey stick is broken then why does ‘skeptic’ S. Fred Singer have a book out saying Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 years? Why does ‘skeptic’ Dr. Patrick Michaels say the globe is warming and we most likely have something to do with it (and said this to the Heartland Institute, no less). Dr. Christy says it is warming too.

    You ‘skeptic’ folks all need to get together in one big room and get your stories straight (globe cooling, was warming but now cooling, not warming at all, warming but natural and caused by the sun, by cosmic rays, by underwater volcanoes emitting co2, by El Nino, by orbital inclinations; temp data is unreliable when it shows warming, but gospel truth when it shows cooling; hmm, if temp data is unreliable then how can you say global warming stopped in 1998–aren’t you relying on the temp data?)

    If you want to read books about hockey sticks by non-experts, fine, but those of us interested in the actual science will read the reports by, say, The National Academy of Sciences (the “Supreme Court” of science) which confirmed the hockey stick of Mann. They pointed out some changes he could have made (he did and the result was almost identical, btw). Even better, multiple independent analyses using different methodologies all confirmed the hockey stick, and have done so for years. Mann was vindicated multiple times by multiple studies in multiple countries.

    If Mann had fudged the data or was incompetent and the graph showed an increase when there wasn’t one then the other analyses would have revealed those flaws. The idea that the hockey stick is broken is one of the most persistent falsehoods still being disseminated, and the only way you can believe the hockey sticks (yes, all of them) are broken is to believe that every scientist and group around the world that worked on the data is equally incompetent or equally corrupt as Mann. If you believe that, then go join that line over there (the one with the people carrying signs saying the moon landing was hoaxed).

    btw, did you know you can download the raw data yourself and do a similar temp analysis? Sort makes you wonder if the hockey stick was so wrong then why didn’t some Korean, Russian or Iraqi scientist publish their results and overturn this whole warming globe and win themselves and their country glory, and show that the American scientists are incompetent bunglers (oh right…that conspiracy thing again–a conspiracy so insidious that it has fooled ‘skeptics’ like Dr. Michaels et al.).

    Anyway, since the raw data is available for download, why don’t you give it a try? Since you seem to know so much about this I’m sure you don’t need any links to help you get started. If stuck ask Watts or Morano…I’m sure they know where the data is—funny, in all these years you’d have thought they would have been able to publish a definitive study that would overturn the hockey stick (or preferably had Dr. Michaels or Dr. Christy do the work since even high school calculus is a bit beyond Watts, and I suspect beyond Morano too). In fact, you’d think there would have been thousands of mathematicians around the world publishing results showing the hockey stick was wrong. Guess the conspiracy of silence (or plague of incompetence) got them too.

    p.s. I’m not American—(let the calls of COMMUNIST!! PINKO!! start….wait…that’s old-school now–what is your latest obsessionr–ahhh, that’s right–SOCIALIST!! And he’s coming to take away our guns, and enslave us all in a new world order!)—and I don’t give a damn about your idiotic left-right political squabbles. Get over it already and start working together to try and figure out a way to deal with warming and ocean acidification…you know, the science stuff, not the politic stuff.

  36. JAE

    What is going to be especially damning about the Great Global Warming/Climate Change Scam is that most of the LEADING SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SUPPORTED IT! How are the big-time associations, such as the American Chemical Society, going to “recover” from their stupidity? Well, they will be most embarassed to find that some of their counterparts are much smarter than they are: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/institute_of_physics_damns_the_climategaters_science#67690

  37. Dark Tent

    JAE,

    My field is physics.

    And if you actually believe WUWT is a “thoughtful” blog, there is no hope for you.

  38. JAE

    Oh, and I meant to include Discover along with the ACS in the list of those that don’t have a frigging clue about real science!

  39. JAE

    Dark Tent: And just what is your expertise in physics? And what is your degree? And what is your specialty? And if you are really a physicist, please tell me what are the primary wavelength bands that are absorbed/emitted by CO2. I will accept even the primary frequency/wavelength. In microns, please, you bluffing liberal.

  40. bilbo

    Clearly, if Dark Tent doesn’t know the finer points of CO2 absorbancy, all of AGW theory is false because…..Dark Tent writes all the scientific papers on AGW, or something??

  41. JAE

    bilbo, you are a dildo!

  42. Robert

    JAE: belligerence like yours seems almost a defining characteristic of the deniers. This isn’t really an ideological or personal issue. How about some real evidence from your side?

  43. InMD

    To those who insist that the science is settled and that man is responsible causing the climate to change, Please comment on this link.

    http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-scientists-tell-the-epa-to-think-again

    Bottom line, the fraudsters days are numbered and their trumped up theories and outright lies are fast becoming the “Tramp Stamp” of science.

    Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!!

  44. bilbo

    ….and I draw attention to Chris and Sheril regarding the comments policy on the post above mine (specifically the profanity and lewd comments portion)

  45. Philip Jr.

    I think JAE and InMD are holding a contest to see which one of them can get banned first. You guys are pushing the comments policy to its limits with sex toy references and pretty blatant personal attacks….

    Just keeeeeeeep pushing.

  46. JAE

    Too late for “moderation,” Discovery-boys. If you “moderate” your site in the disgusting, dishonest, phoney, transparent, way that RealClimate does, then you are also an ANTI-SCIENTIFIC site, and just a political piece of the losing landscape. IOW, you don’t count anymore.

  47. bilbo

    Nah, Philip. I think JAE is just drunk.

  48. JAE

    “You guys are pushing the comments policy to its limits with sex toy references and pretty blatant personal attacks….”

    ?? I think my comments are very tame, compared to MSNBC norms. Could you tell me where I have gone too far?

  49. InMD

    Philip and JAE,
    I must really apologize for intruding in your Discover/AGW echo chamber, and insulting your sensibilities.

    If I may be so bold to say though, that most AGW proponents that I come across absolutely lack any intellectual or scientific curiosity, otherwise they would not hold onto their AGW beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    I guess you two could also fall into this category.

    The Troll InMD

  50. Dark tent

    JAE

    I have a bachelors in physics and have spent a good part of my career programming scientific instruments — among them a hand held Raman Spectrometer, a hand held ion mobility spectrometer.

    So, genius, knowing the absorption spectrum of CO2 (narrow bands centered on 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron) somehow “proves” one is a physicist? — when one can find that in pretty much any good reference on the physics of climate? (or in about 5 seconds with a google search, for that matter)

    I wish someone had told my professors* that. Had I known I could have saved myself a lot of time and effort.

    *Kenneth Wilson (Nobel prize in physics) was one of them. Roald Hoffmann (Nobel prize in chemistry) was another.

    Finally, I’d MUCH rather be a liberal — even (God forbid!) a “liberal arts major” — than someone who actually believes WUWT is a “thoughtful” website.

    incidentally, (not that you could understand it, or anything), but for anyone else who is interested here’s a truly thoughtful website (by someone who actually has a clue) that proves just how woefully mistaken (deluded, actually) you are.

  51. Wes

    Craig I don’t think referencing a newspaper and a magazine article is the kind of “facts” JAE was refering to. I suspect he was refering to scientific facts. The newspaper article suggests that the Penn State “inquiry” which certianly wouldn’t have any political overtones, right, concluded Mann hadn’t falsified data. Which is wonderful because I am not sure anyone suggested he that he did. The problem as I understand it is with how he used his data. So I am not entirely sure of the relevancy of your “fact.” As to the “fact” of the National Academy of Sciences pronouncemnet (other than the fact that you are arguing by authority) the facts are not quite what you imply. NAS (which is a BIG, politically sensitive organization who is hardly going to buck the status quo) offered confidence in the graph from 1600 onward… if you don’t understand the relevance of that, well… The Wegman report did a more rigorous and detailed statistical analysis that actually addressed the criticisms and found it wanting. It appears that Mann’s math produces hockey stick shapes from random data sets. Beyond this there is the obvious issue of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, so called, that the Hockey Stick gives short shrift to. I wonder why. Perhaps for the same reasons that IPPC errors always seem to bais warm?

  52. InMD

    Tamino will be eating his words…….

  53. Dark tent

    Tamino has eaten Anthony Watts (and guest posters) for a snack time and again — here, here , here, and and here to list just a few of the many snacks he has enjoyed. Do a search on Watts (or “incompetent”) and you’ll find several more.

  54. JAE

    Bye, folks, I think I’m done here, due to the “awaiting moderation” threat. See you tomorrow! LOL.

  55. Wes

    I wish Tamino would actually reference when and where these claims were made and by who before he announces like an overexcited adolescent – “I have crushed the deniers! Crushed them, I tell you.” His explanation and conclusions look rather amateurish and overinterpreted to me. Anyway, no one is saying it hasn’t warmed. Hopefully the Met office’s proposed do over will clarify things a bit.

  56. InMD

    I read that Tamino site and the comments re “False Claims Proven False” and “Thanks”

    Amateurish and lacking detail are the first words that comes to mind and its obvious he has a few cult followers who are enabling him by donating money.

    He is not even in the same league as the “deniers”.

    I love this statement from the Tamino Blog…

    “Besides that, other than idle curiosity, I don’t see why folks would want to re-run my scripts; that’s not confirmation it’s just repetition. Besides, what I’ve done isn’t that complicated.”

    My BS detector went off when I read that, it sounds like he is hiding someting. I will bookmark his blog to see where he eventually publishes this masterpiece but my gut feeling is he is full of bluster.

  57. JAE

    InMD: Bravo. From a ?? Americano!

  58. InMD

    Dark Tent,
    I think that the Tamino work is substantially countered here, if you dare to read it.

    http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

  59. Dark tent

    inMD

    “Amateurish and lacking detail are the first words that comes to mind and its obvious he has a few cult followers who are enabling him by donating money.”

    Perhaps now that JAE (the resident genius) is gone (“oh, JAE, parting is such sweet sorrow…”), you will don the mantel of expert and illuminate us all as to how, precisely, tamino’s analysis is “amateurish”.

    And when Tamino publishes his results and makes his R-scripts available, we shall see just who is eating whose words…

    And InMD, your above comments are SOOOO hackneyed (so utterly predictable and unoriginal)

    I feel like i am reading…well, WUWT.

  60. Dark tent

    You (the new resident expert) think, therefore I dare say, it must be so…

  61. InMD

    How bout this,
    You once said the following..

    “Most of these people are completely clueless when it comes to the internet, which is making relegating them to obsolescence without their even realizing it.

    The most pathetic part is that they seem to actually beleive that they can simply ignore bloggers and others who call them on their BS as if these people did not exist.

    I suspect that people like Will and Aldacushion are going to wake up some morning without a job and wonder “How did it all happen?”

    How prophetic and in the light of ClimateGate, is seems you were actually talking about Mann, Jones, Gore, Hansen to name a few, I just hope that your lively hood does not rely on Global Warming grants.

    In your quietest moments, you are probably wondering “How did it all happen?”

  62. InMD

    And Lastly Dark Tent,

    Just today it was revealed in a Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics to the British parlement, several damning statements were made that directly relate to Mann and Jones.

    I like this point, but there are many more.

    5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

    These clowns are going down!! Despite what you wish to believe Dark Tent.

  63. JEF

    If I were in a younger generation I’d be outraged at the time wasted in the last 20 years on real science.

    Obviously some form of nuclear power is the answer. Because of the fear created by the media and the “progressives” (think Jane Fonda), we have shunned nuclear. We have members of the “chattering class” talk about obvious boondoogles like Wind Power, Painting Roofs White and endless variations on stupid themes.

    We don’t need people that can paint our roofs, we need engineers who can design the next generation of nuclear power. People like Mann and the people who waste space “reporting” on him are failing the future.

  64. bad Jim

    It’s characteristic of the authoritarian to search out and exploit perceived chinks in the other side, as though the slightest flaw would cause the entire edifice to collapse. It is to some degree a matter of projection, since an authoritarian relies upon an unassailable authority and finds the messy and tentative character of scientific endeavors unsatisfying or even threatening, demanding proof and hammering on its absence.

    The paranoid style is not only a consequence of cognitive dissonance – the consensus must be a conspiracy because I’m not wrong – it’s also a question of what is convincing. Many, perhaps most of us can make use of a heuristic because it seems to work sometimes, acknowledging its unreliability, but for some the very possibility of fallibility is intolerable.

  65. I’ve listened to the whole thing. Hard job.

    First, a formality. I am impressed by the fluency of both Gentlemen as speakers. They have clearly been focusing on the form for quite some time. You can’t get too better verbal propagandists over there. Of course, Mooney is still a higher league – it’s his specialization – but Mann wasn’t bad, either.

    The content was really pathetic, full of crazy conspiracy theories about Big Oil and deniers and all this stuff: do they really believe that those thousands of bloggers and skeptical scientists are being paid by Big Oil? How do they move the money so that no one could have ever noticed?

    Both guys are trying to avoid the science as much as they can. A clear sign that they realize that the more people know about the science, the more they will realize that the global warming movement is irrational and/or fraud. The contrast with the skeptical scientists who focus on technical issues and often go to amazing – and boring – levels of detail can’t be more clear.

    This whole interview is, as far as the content goes, uniformly and self-evidently so silly that I don’t feel any urge to comment on the content – it would be a waste of time.

  66. Moptop

    Well Chris,
    Here is a hint. How about not starting off a debate by calling your opponents “pigs”? Look at the result. Do you think this helps your cause? This is more of the same that has produced the death spiral in support that AGW is experiencing.

    I worry about this. I am a skeptic, but I am certain that CO2 bears serious watching and alarmists may have cried wolf to the point where, when the science does come in, hands are tied politically.

    Web 2.0 is over, and Web 3.0 is here. It is the mass renaissance of critical thinking, enabled by the web. This kind of hateful propaganda is seen for what it is, hateful propaganda. Who is our “Two Minute Hate” directed at today? Is it Goldman? No, it is another old standby, McIntyre.

  67. Moptop

    aren’t posts 21-22 pretty blatant personal attacks and thus daring violations of the comments policy? I’m hardly one to cry foul, but those are a bit too vile to let go without mention – bilbo

    I think JAE and InMD are holding a contest to see which one of them can get banned first… -PJ

    This is a reprise of an earlier thread, now deleted, in which these two figured out the identity of a poster and attempted to get him fired. That is what passes for high minded debate here.

    BTW. While comments do often get held up in moderation, in my experience, and I am what they term a denialist here, no comment has ever been censored.

  68. ChrisD

    @Luboš Motl

    The content was really pathetic, full of crazy conspiracy theories about Big Oil and deniers and all this stuff: do they really believe that those thousands of bloggers and skeptical scientists are being paid by Big Oil?

    No, they don’t, but if they did it would be a whole lot more rational than believing that tens of thousands of scientists, hundreds of scientific associations, and dozens of governments are all being paid off by green interests, Al Gore, and/or proponents of a one-world government.

  69. ChrisD

    @InMD:

    “Besides that, other than idle curiosity, I don’t see why folks would want to re-run my scripts; that’s not confirmation it’s just repetition. Besides, what I’ve done isn’t that complicated.”

    My BS detector went off when I read that, it sounds like he is hiding someting.

    And what happened to your BS detector when Tamino announced that he’s going to publish everything, including the scripts? Is it still going off?

    I suspect so, since your BS detector appears to be defective. Publishing the data (or the data source) and the techniques should quite sufficient for reproduction by anyone who knows what he’s doing, especially for something relatively simple like this. The script is the laboratory setup of a model. What you’re saying is, “I can’t reproduce your experiment because you won’t give me your lab equipment. You must be hiding something.” It’s ridiculous.

  70. Jack II

    Michael Mann, it’s time for you to throw in the white towel like Dr. Jones did, save yourself some dignity and integrity, please. Life is short. Give up and start enjoying your life again. Life would be a lot better for you if you would just let the truth out. People deserve it. You’ve been pushing the global warming propaganda long enough and wasted enough of taxpayers’ dollars and still you came with nothing to prove your AGW hypothesis. I promise you, you will breathe easier after sigh a relief after telling the truth. Truth, Michael Mann, truth is all we ask of you. People will forgive, I can promise you that much. We can even forgive our former Vice President Al Gore. People are really good at detect BS and polls after polls are stating so. For the sake of the people, throw in the towel now, save yourself some dignity and integrity, please.

  71. ChrisD

    @ InMD:

    I think that the Tamino work is substantially countered here, if you dare to read it.

    http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

    Gosh, this is confusin’. How does a “paper” that’s all about the CRU’s tree-ring emails “substantially counter” a statistical analysis of the GHCN station data?

    I’ve never looked inside one of the reporting stations, but I’ve been given to understand that they mostly use thermometers rather than tree rings.

  72. AWGscam

    Even after the his Hockey Stick had been discredited, Mann stills promotes the climate fraud. This man has no dignity or integrity. Now he’s calling the majority of the population that don’t believe in AGW “pigs”. People need to let Michael Mann know that we the people aren’t going to take it anymore! How long, Michael Mann, do you want to perpetuate the climate fraud?

  73. AWGscam

    10 REASONS WHY AGW IS A BIG, FAT SCAM:

    1) The record warming you listed is not in anyway “unprecedented”.

    2) There’s no empirical evidence showing CO2 drive climate change (it can’t) — a deathblow to AGW.

    3) There’s no statistically global warming since for the last 15 years, the recent warming is not “unprecedented” admitted ClimateGate scientist Dr. Phil Jones.

    4) The globe has been cooling since 2002.

    5) Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than recent global temperature.

    6) Here’s the biggest deathblow of them all to AGW — the rise in atmospheric lags behind temperature rise, it does not lead it. “float like a butterfly, stink like a bee”, baby.

    7) Besides the ’30s was the warmest decade and 1934 was the warmest year in the US.

    8) Professor Phil Jones agrees that 3 previous warming periods have identical rates of increases in temperature as does recent warming — climateGate scientist admits RECENT WARMING IS NORMAL!

    9) Dr. Briffa, a ClimateGate scientist, “For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”

    10) To this day, there is no study that links increased CO2 with temperature changes. All of the “evidence” is circumstancial and through inference. Please, please, please mention this also next you write about AGw.

    Nearly 400 years ago Blaise Pascal said, “The truth is so obscure these days and lies so well established, that unless you love the truth, you will never recognize it.”

    climatedepot.com

  74. SLC

    Re JAE @ #9

    1. Excuse me Mr. JAE, the only outfits I mentioned were the Heartland Institute and the George Marshall Foundation. Attached is a link to a sourcewatch article on the Heartland Institute which denies receiving any money from Exxon after 2006. However, they admit to receiving money from several right wing foundations which receive money from Exxon and other energy companies. Sounmds like money laundering to me. This, of course, is a typical trick that right wingers like Mr. JAE

  75. SLC

    Re # 60

    Inadvertently hit a send key prior to finishing my comment.

    Sounds like money laundering to me. This slight of hand is a typical trick that right wingers like Mr. JAE like to use, namely accusing their opponents of saying something they didn’t say. It’s much like the black ink strategy of the octopus; when an octopus is attacked, it throws up clouds of black ink to confuse its attacker, just as Mr. JAE has thrown up clouds of black ink by erroneously invoking another denier outfit, SPPI, to cloud the issues of energy company complicity in the spreading of denial propaganda, just as the tobacco companies spread propaganda denying the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#Funding

    2. Contrary to the claims of SPPI, they have received money from EXXON in the past.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute%29

    3. Since Marc Moranos’ name has been brought up, as cited by Sourcewatch, Mr. Morano is a right wing hack smear artist who was deeply involved in the Swirt Boat campaign against Senator Kerry in 2004 and also was deeply involved in a smear campaign against the late Representative Murtha relative to his Vietnam service. This is, in addition to his service as an aide to right wing nutcase Senator Imhofe. Quite interesting, considering the draft dodging status of former President Bush and former Vice-President Cheney, both of whom avoided service in Vietnam.

  76. SLC

    Re # 61

    Forgot to add link to info about Mr. Morano

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

  77. Dark Tent

    Lubos Motl

    “Both guys are trying to avoid the science as much as they can.”

    That made me laugh, in light of the climate “science” that you “do” (and got that award from Harvard for doing) on your blog

    …and as we all know, blogging is what you happen to do best.

  78. InMD

    ChrisD,
    You are partially right about my link, Here is a better link to substantialy demonstrate that Tamino is quite the amature. You can gripe about the fact that only one site per state was selected, there are many studies that cover all

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

    Prepare yourself for a Tsunami of new studies that will show over and over that there is a warm bias in all the original datasets.

    The warm bias adjustments in GISS homogenization are irrefutable. Two recent studies by Willis Eschenbach show significant tinkering with temperatures in Anchorage Alaska and Darwin Austrailia.

    As far as my BS detector, I can tell bluster when I read it. Tamino is all bluster.

    For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the study that Tamino supposedly countered with his basic program on his Apple II GS.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

  79. InMD

    Speaking of funding,

    Who funds the World Wildlife Fund, Green Peace and other green organizations? These political preasure groups are primary contributors to the IPCC reports, tv ads, and articles in magazines like Nature and Discover.

    Who pays for all the travel, conferences, boondoggles, field trips, and pseudoscience that these guys are peddling?

    Michael Mann himself admits that there are millions and millions of dollars floating around out there to promote global warming.

    Interviewer Randy Olson: ‘ There is so much money in the world of science, and there is so much money at the foundations, and there is so much money available for this issue of climate change and global warming…Al Gore said he raised $300 million for communicating about climate change’

    Michael Mann: ‘Let me put it this way — everything you said is true…’

    Compare that to these figures;

    Heartland Institute has been bankrolled to the tune of $676,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

    Woopdy friggin dooo!!!! Thats $56K per year. That does not evey pay one person’s salary.

  80. matt

    …and what does world government have to do with curbing CO2? I smell a rat…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html

  81. InMD

    SLC,

    Who is the bigger fool, Gore or Morano?

    Gore is proved wrong by the day. As a matter of fact, they are talking of banning his epoch documentary in schools because it it so full of inaccuracies and fudged facts and is so misleading, it is not considered science anymore. Gore is in hiding and does not even do climate change speeches anymore.

    Is Morano responsible for that? No, Gore is.

    Another specious argument on your part. Give it up, you contirubute ZERO to the discussion..

  82. Dark Tent

    InMD Says:

    ChrisD,
    You are partially right about my link, Here is a better link to substantialy demonstrate that Tamino is quite the amature.

    No, ChrisD is completely right.

    Chris tried to say it nicely, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

    The focus of that rambling McIntyre “letter” that ChrisD commented on is temperature reconstructions — based on temperature “proxies” (tree rings are just one o fmany )over the past millennium, primarily.

    The subject of the Tamino post that I linked to above (and the focus of the whole idiotic Wattsupwithyourphoto? project) is the GHCN instrumental record that starts in the late 1800′s .

    The fact that you have confused these two is sufficient reason to dismiss pretty much everything you claim about climate science here.

    If it is actually true, as you claim, that you “can tell bluster when I read it” you might want to actually read your own comments before you post them.

  83. Wes

    badjim – good to know that psychology today subscription is paying off. You do realize that the authoritarian personality that you try to paint onto skeptics is prescisely what is turning people off warmist believers? And your statement “It’s characteristic of the authoritarian to search out and exploit perceived chinks in the other side, as though the slightest flaw would cause the entire edifice to collapse…” Wow. Stunning grasp of the science of social psychology – or a least a sadly superficial understanding of a paragraph in an undergraduate text. Do you know who Theodor Adorno is? Or the usage of the word “reflexivity?”

  84. Interglacial John

    Alarmists get so very shrill when proven wrong. Forget the science, just shout insults, label and smear. If it were not for logic, we would all be doomed to their insanity. Please, warmists, stick to the science and leave ad hominem attacks to Olbermann.

  85. Dark Tent

    In his latest post, Tamino notes that

    Anthony Watts continues to post articles which question the validity of the surface temperature record. Of note is this one, which contains this remarkable sentence:

    [Anthony Watts:]
    Based on this station, alone, one can argue the USHCN data set is inappropriate for use as a starting point for other investigators, and fails to earn the self-applied moniker as a “high quality data set.”

    [Tamino:]
    One station.

    Why on earth am I spending all this time and effort to analyze data from the entire GHCN, when I could have dismissed the surface temperature record using only one station?

    But InMD (above) is apparently even better than Watts:

    InMD can not only assess the validity of the entire instrumental (surface station) network from the records of just one (or a couple) stations (in combination with tree ring analysis?)

    “Two recent studies by Willis Eschenbach show significant tinkering with temperatures in Anchorage Alaska and Darwin Austrailia.

    but… InMD is also able to dismiss Tamino’s analysis with a single sentence

    As far as my BS detector, I can tell bluster when I read it. Tamino is all bluster.

    Watts is good, but InMD is way bad (dude).

  86. Wes

    Um, Tamino’s link to Watts’ apparent quote seems to be a link to a post by someone other than Anthony Watts…

  87. Wes

    Um, having now read the post on WUWT, I am not sure what Tamino is up to. He seems to be suggesting that the article (by an actual professional scientist by the way) is implying that readings from one surface station invalidate the enire GHCN. Of course, the article is suggesting no such thing. The article is focusing on process not content. The issue is how data from this particular station has been handled and if typical what does this imply for the GHCN. Very different issues, if indeed I am getting the gist of Tamino is saying. If I am misreading him my bad. If I am not it is Tamino it says probably all anyone needs to know about Tamino.

  88. Jack II

    I get extremely annoyed every time Micheal Mann opens his mouth because nothing constructive ever comes out of it but lies and more lies and now he’s attacking those who don’t buy his bogus data. Throw in the towel and save your dignity and integrity while you still have little of it left. Before calling some a pig, Michael Mann should first look at himself in the mirror. People are rising up and revolting against the AGW scam.

  89. ThomasL

    Just an update in regards to the polar bear argument that when on here a month or so back. “Polar bear is a ‘new’ species Polar bears may have come into existence only 150,000 years ago, when trapped brown bears had to adapt to an ice age” : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article7043956.ece

    While not answering everything that came up in that discussion, most would appear to have been way off in their claims…

  90. ThomasL

    *when should be went…

  91. Mariss

    Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed Mann.

  92. Mariss

    Pig says: “Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed Mann.”

  93. ThomasL

    SLC,

    You have brought up the big bad Exxon Mobil in these threads numerous times. I haven’t bothered to respond because I know you get such talking points from Real Climate and Climate Progress (or other left wingprogressive climate sites).

    I’d say wake up and welcome to the real world where large corporations fund literally thousands of nonprofit organizations, often ones that have nothing to do with anything “relevant” to their business interests. It is known as “good will” in the business world.

    But here is the reality if you want to go down that path. The U.S. government has put over 79 billion dollars into climate specific science over the past 21 years. I doubt if Exxon-Mobil has provided even 1% of funding on anything involved in AGW by comparison. And lets take a look at where quite a large sum of such money has really been put, and who all we should ignore due to “guilt by association”:

    By your reasoning none of us should pay any attention to NOAA’s Chris Landsea or Kerry Emanuel from MIT because Dr. Emanuel accepted reimbursement for his expenses during congressional staff briefings which were organized by Dr. Landsea. This reimbursement was provided by the “Frontiers of Freedom Institute” – which is funded by Exxon-Mobil. Obviously this taints both of them.

    We should also hold suspect research at the following academic institutions as they all also receive funding from Exxon-Mobil – Northwestern, North Carolina, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Columbia, George Washington and the Harvard Smithsonian (who is actually a corporate partner – so you know they aren’t to be trusted…) to name but a few of the schools of higher learning who have not seen it as evil to accept funding from such a big bad company.

    Stanford University must be viewed as completely involved in “big oil company propaganda” as they took 100 million (to be provided at ten million a year over ten years beginning in 2002 – so they have a couple more years to go before we might want to consider them as being impartial again…) specifically for their work into “research into global warming and renewable energy alternatives”. So that means nothing from Stephen Schneider should be trusted – he’s funded by the oil industry…

    I guess the 500 million British Petroleum provided the University of California, Berkeley is O.K. though as apparently it is only Exxon-Mobil financing we can’t trust…

    If one spends the time to actually look up what has been contributed to it is really hard to see any rational explanation for the spite directed at this company. Every large multinational corporation provides large sums of funding for numerous academic pursuits. It wouldn’t be hard to find some that one disagrees with no matter what their ideological leanings.

    In the real world where dollars are required to do any work of meaningful depth to matter, funding is always an issue. If we should not view anything that uses such sources of funding as being “good” or solid simply based upon not liking their business there isn’t much out there left worth looking at.

    Exxon-Mobil may have provided funding for some research that is viewed as suspect, but they have also provided funding for quite a lot of “the other” side as well (as they have funded research “for” and “against”, no matter which side of this debate one is on they have provided funding to the “other” side as well, though from what I have been able to find most has actually gone for the “support of or pro” side). In the greater scheme of things even though the levels of funding provided are quite large overall, they nowhere near approach the billions provided by just our government… Still, I doubt if any of these institutions are anything but grateful for the additions to their funding.

  94. Busiturtle

    If we are going to play the guilt by association game does it not matter that Algore and his investors stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if climate change policies are not enacted? He sounds desperate to me, which is not surprising since it takes a lot of green benjamins to support his carbon intensive lifestyle.

    Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the founder of the Alliance for Climate Protection and the author of “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” As a businessman, he is an investor in alternative energy companies.

  95. gillt

    Thomas L. “The U.S. government has put over 79 billion dollars into climate specific science over the past 21 years. ”

    Even if the numbers check out, the absurdity of this comment is exposed when you consider the last Administration for two terms denied AGW existed.

  96. “The U.S. government has put over 79 billion dollars into climate specific science over the past 21 years. ”

    The entire NSF budget last year was on order $6 billion. In 2000, it was just under $4 billion. So according to ThomasL, we must have been putting just about every dime from NSF grants into climatology.

  97. TomBmagic

    If you really want to look at this objectively, we have been warmer in the past. There is no question about that. There have also been CO2 levels higher in the past. The warmer periods in our history were times of great abundance. (that was before industrialization.) If CO2 levels were to rise and we are a little warmer…. we should be able to grow more food for everyone. Our forest will flourish, and our farmers will be more productive and we will all live better. Right now the warming proponents are talking about possibly tenths of a degree changes. I have lived in tropical as well as mountain areas. I have lived in the South and the North. The temperature variance of those places are much much greater than even the worst case scenarios…so we should not be the least bit worried. CO2 is a lagging indicator. (by 800 years or so) The carbon trading scams are absolutely ridiculous and possibly criminal in nature. That is the same thing Enron was able to pull off….with some success. So, maybe we have gotten smarter in the last few years? Polar bears are flourishing, glaciers are not melting worldwide, sea levels are stable.
    Climate change happens as it always has and always will. Man might have some slight effect on this….but CO2 is an unlikely culprit. One volcano can dump more CO2 into the atmosphere in a week than mankind does in a year.
    To bring this post to a close…..this is not an emergency. This is a totally manufactured crisis. When it is financially viable we will have other types of energy. Having government choose the winners and losers is a poor course to travel. I do not doubt that most have good intentions…but warming is not a crisis. As I said before, climate change has always happened and always will. I worry much more about feeding the planet during the next cooling period. That will be a true crisis.

  98. InMD

    Gilt,
    Slowing Down the EPA on its CO2 regulation was probably one of the best things Bush did.

    We all now know that the Bush administration was right on the CO2 issue and his nemisis Algore is wrong on the issue.

    CO2 regulation is nothing more than a way for the feds to take money from you, and give it to others. If you don’t mind that, then why don’t you just start sending another $2500 a year to uncle sam.

    EPA regulation has nothing to do with preventing climate and if you believe otherwise, you are a fool.

  99. InMD

    Gilt,

    You are wrong on another point. The Bush admin, to my dismay, actually spent more on climate change than any of his predesessors.

    http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2003/November/20031121122307rellufj0.7448542.html

    Large Budget Increases for Global Climate Change: President Bush’s FY ’04 budget sought a 15 percent increase in funding for climate change-related programs, bringing total U.S. Government spending this year to $4.3 billion. the largest increase ever.

  100. ThomasL

    Gilt & Jinchi,

    Look at all the funding provided by the government over the past 21 years. It is a huge sum. It would be easy to say “oh that’s way too much…”, but a few billion over a couple decades adds up to quite a hefty sum.

    Yes, many things may sound absurd, but I’d strongly suggest you do what you claim and do some actual research into it instead of listening to someone else’s talking points from an acknowledged partisan blog. The results certainly were not what I was expecting. It is very easy to think the oil companies would only fund that which they hoped would “further their cause”, the realities are in contrast to such uncritical thinking however -> they fund a heck of a lot of science (including vast amounts for study and development into alternative energy) and numerous nonprofit organizations that have multiple interests, many which have nothing to do with energy.

    Part of my disappointment with this blog (which at first appeared to be a place of thought but has proven itself to be nothing more than another self congratulatory echo chamber) is most those commenting on here quote lots of material from other sites and rarely ever look into anything for themselves.

  101. Second opinion

    I tend to agree with Mann. I think a website like talkorigins.org for climate change would be useful. Since by that you would give the argument a structure that would render the usual rhetoric tricks useless. You would change the rules of the game. You would not be wrestling with the pig anymore but using guns.

  102. sinz54

    Chris Mooney:

    You have been correct that what is stopping the Theory of Evolution from being more widely accepted is Americans’ fear that it really represents a stealth attack on their most cherished religious beliefs. IOW, you have to understand the psychology behind resistance to the theory and deal with it; scientific evidence alone won’t be enough.

    The same holds true for global warming. The main reason why so many Americans resist it, is that it appears to be a stealth attack on the American economy and way of life, often by Europeans who never liked America much to begin with: “Turn down your thermostats in the winter! Stop using air conditioning in the summer and swelter instead! Stop driving cars and trucks so much! Go back to straphanging in buses and subways! Give up your comfortable life in your home in the suburbs with its nice lawn, and go back to living cheek by jowl in townhouses!”

    Global warming won’t be accepted as a theory, until the solutions for dealing with it can be proven to not damage the American economy or lifestyle in the process. Right now, that’ s not the case. Scientists are calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. In a country that is 3,000 miles across (not counting Alaska and Hawaii), in which 70% of our energy needs are for transportation, I just don’t see how that can be done without destroying the American GDP in the process. I cannot travel from Maine to Hawaii on solar or wind power.

    Deal with that–show that America can still have a bright future even if greenhouse gas emissions are tightly controlled–and the psychological fear of it will decrease dramatically.

  103. Look at all the funding provided by the government over the past 21 years.

    You’ve given us nothing to look at. You made a fairly specific assertion:

    “The U.S. government has put over 79 billion dollars into climate specific science over the past 21 years.”

    Now you’re saying:

    “a few billion over a couple decades adds up to quite a hefty sum”

    Why don’t you provide a link to back up your claims and then we can start debating whether the expense has been too much or too little.

  104. ThomasL

    Jinchi,

    Try the government budget. It’s really easy to find (got Google?). You might discover there is far more science funding than NSF while you look through it.

    For Exxon try looking at their yearly financial statments.

  105. Dark Tent

    Much to the chagrin of Wes and InMd (I am sure)

    Tamino’s work showing that GHCN “station dropout” of the 90′s had NO warming effect has already been replicated here and here

    Wes and InMD (see above) called Tamino’s analysis “amateurish” , “over-interpreted” and “lacking detail”.

    But obviously, Tamino’s description of his method was “professional” enough and included sufficient “detail” to be “replicated’ (in the scientific sense).

    of course, that requires a minimum level of understanding of the subject and a minimum level of technical expertise…

    As related above, Tamino has already said he will release his scripts, but notwithstanding the claims of some, scientific “replication’ does not depend on running the very same computer code of the original author of a study but instead on repeating the ‘method” as described by that author.

  106. ThomasL

    Here is a start Jinchi,

    http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32997.pdf

    “… Total funding for climate change scientific research and technologies amounted to $4.366 billion in FY2003, $4.845 billion in FY2004, and $4.903 billion in FY2005. For FY2006, $4.756 billion has been requested…”

    So, for just the four years in this report we have about 18.87 billion. My statement was concerning the past 21 years. Does 79 billion over 21 years sound so sound so far fetched now? And that is DIRECT Climate change funding. There is indirect funding and related science funding as well. If you want the full picture you have to lok at the released budget totals.

    Numbers for past years can be obtained through various reports, but the best way is to actually pull up the reported budget by year and do your own adding.

    Exxon-Mobil may be a bit harder, but you can start with a search of “Exxon Mobil grants” or something similar. They provide about 100 million a year to various programs in the U.S., many of which are direct funding grants to education. Again, it would be better to look through the financials (S.E.C. filings), but they can be a slog and may require more financial experience to sort through than you poses.

    My point in the first post about this was rather simple. Stop taking others talking points uncritically and start looking for yourself. How one wish’s to spin things doesn’t matter when one takes the time to look something up for themselves, any spin will be rather evident. And while it might sound nice and straight forward to label this company as “bad” and that company as “good”, the real world is never quite so black and white. That’s why its commonly known to be “complicated”.

  107. ChrisD

    @ThomasL:

    Look at all the funding provided by the government over the past 21 years. It is a huge sum. It would be easy to say “oh that’s way too much…”, but a few billion over a couple decades adds up to quite a hefty sum.

    The problem with this is that, for it to mean anything, you have to show that the funding is provided with a specific result in mind. It can’t be just, “Go do climate research”; it has to be “Go do climate research, and you’d better come back with evidence of global warming or else.” Otherwise, it’s just research funding, and there’s surely nothing wrong with that.

    So, it seems to me that you have to show more than just the existence of research funding to have much of a point. You have to demonstrate that the researchers are supposed to come back with specific, predetermined results. Can you?

  108. InMD

    Dark Tent,
    I have a great idea. Tamino should find an appropriate thread over on ClimateAudit.org and post his analysis and links to his scripts and get a friendly peer review.

    They are a nice bunch over there and are very professional. I am sure they would offer some constructive comments.

    Who knows, if his breakthrough methodology and results damage Watts sufficiently, maybe Gore will hire him as his resident statistician. He could become famous over at RealClimate.

  109. So, for just the four years in this report we have about 18.87 billion. My statement was concerning the past 21 years. Does 79 billion over 21 years sound so sound so far fetched now? And that is DIRECT Climate change funding.

    Your mistake is in that last sentence. This is not “DIRECT Climate change funding”. In fact, most of it isn’t even science funding.

    This was your original claim:

    The U.S. government has put over 79 billion dollars into climate specific science over the past 21 years.

    And this is the line from the report you quoted:

    Total funding for climate change scientific research and technologies

    You’ve taken every dime spent on anything remotely be related to climate and lumped it into “DIRECT Climate change funding”. Development of low-power sulfur lamps, advanced heat pumps, chillers and commercial refrigeration, fuel cells, insulation, energy conserving building materials, and advanced windows (to take examples from the your link) is now “climate specific science”. Likewise, all money spent on nuclear energy, hydropower and geothermal power.

    Most of these technologies are only peripherally related to the climate, their main purpose is economic and they all would have been funded regardless the scientific consensus on global warming.

  110. Dark Tent

    InMD,

    After the utter nonsense you have posted above — eg, confusing temperature reconstructions for the last millennium (based on proxies like tree rings) with the GHCN instrumental record since the late 1800′s (based on thermometer readings) — any “idea” you might have means absolutely nothing to me from here on in– and should not mean anything to anyone else, either.

    You say above that “my gut feeling is he [Tamino] is full of bluster” (does your “gut” read graphs?), but as far as I can see, your own comments are “full o f sound and fury and signify nothing” (and you may want to look up the first part of that Macbeth quote)

    PS Though I doubt you would grasp the significance, one of the replications of Tamino’s “station dropout” result appears on Rank Exploits, run by Lucia (hardly one of Tamino’s fans)

  111. ThomasL

    Jinchi,

    At least now you are talking about real numbers, which is the point of what I posted. I am sure there is much that can be debated about in regards to if it should be counted, but that is a quibble with the governments accounting.

    And, again, this is the Federal level expenditures. You also have state and local expenditures, private industry expenditures, and University expenditures that do not come directly from government or industrial sources (tuition, alumni comtributions…).

    Most the industries that are constantly getting a bad rap in these threads stopped all questionable funding almost 10 years ago, and have sense then put incredible sums into programs that most on the warming side would find hard to squabble over.

    Thus my second point was to get current on your information, and be realistic in how you define “good” and “bad” funding. While many might not like what they funded through the 1990’s, at that point in time the science was anything but “settled”, it was in fact barely understood.

    None the less, if you want to walk down the path of anyone who receives funding from such sources is “bad” you must carry such out to the end, including *all* the research they have paid for over the past decade. Such is the nature of “logical” argumentation. It is also an example of where logic as taught fails in the world we live. Logic does not allow for contradictions. The actual world is full of them.

  112. Second opinion

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

    is probably not a bad start. Though some of the answers are to long or not clear enough. Also there are more arguments that need to be addressed.

  113. InMD

    $7 per gallon of gas.

    To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/

    But its worth it.

  114. $7 per gallon of gas.

    I remember the days when we were warned that environmental policies would force us to pay $3 for a gallon of gas. I think it was about 3 years ago.

  115. InMD

    So
    “In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.”

    So the plan would be, to meet the CO2 reduction goals, the federal government will add $4 of tax to the price of a gallon of gas, sort of like Europe today.

    But where do the tax reciepts go?

  116. InMD

    Second Opinion, go here for a third opionion.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

  117. You can gripe about the fact that only one site per state was selected, there are many studies that cover all

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

    Such as? BTW, I’ve looked at all rural stations in the unadjusted GHCN v2 database (except those with less than 10 data points in any given month) and the data simply does not support Long’s conclusions. See:

    http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/us-rural-vs-urban-temperature-stations.html

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »