.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Lamar Smith and denier scientists were outwitted and outperformed by Michael Mann

Sou | 9:08 PM Go to the first of 25 comments. Add a comment
I'll keep this short - and it's sweet :)

Anthony Watts' pet uber-conspiracy theorists both thought Michael Mann performed best at the recent committee hearing that Lamar Smith and his cronies orchestrated.

Tim Ball, who promotes the nuttiest climate conspiracy theorieswrote (emphasis mine):
My challenge to skeptics is to view the hearing as an uninformed citizen. From that perspective, I would argue that Mann was the most effective and persuasive. He was assertive, apparently provided hard evidence, had the backing of most scientists and scientific societies. He turned the minority status role the organizers gave him into the base for his victimization role. It wasn’t a debate, but he turned it into one and clearly believed, as would most uninformed observers, that he won.

Leo Goldstein (aka Ari Halperin), who is also as nutty as they come, (see here in particular) wrote (emphasis Leo's):
If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

Good for you, Professor Mann.

25 comments:

  1. The climate alarmists won? Inconceivable!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mann clearly won the 'debate' and seemed to relish it. Not one to back down, is he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose it is sad that it even has to be framed as a "debate" to win or lose

      in some sense even that give these lunatics some succour

      "science" is too precious to debase in such terms

      Delete
  3. Mann just posted a link to the following article on his Facebook page...

    "Climate Change Denial: the Lysenkoism of the present-day Republican Party" by Dr. Kevork N. Abazajian, 314 Action, Apr 5, 2017

    http://www.314action.org/news/2017/4/5/climate-change-denial-the-lysenkoism-of-the-present-day-republican-party-1

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mann was great. Climate denial is dead (almost). See also the 'Lindzen 300': http://www.marcusgibsonbooks.com/?p=948

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mann gets caught out in two blatant lies and won't even concede they might be mistakes. Is this how he "outwits" and "outperforms"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Name the lies. Don't just tease and run.

      Delete
    2. To a denier, saying that global warming is real is telling a "blatant lie". Saying that climate change is happening as a result is telling a second "blatant lie". That's two - if you're a climate "hoax" conspiracy theorist.

      Saying that the prestigious journal Science isn't "objective", is not something a science denier would even notice. Saying the certain is "uncertain" would not be viewed as a lie, if you're a climate hoax fruitcake.

      Delete
  6. Are you people kidding me? It's all over the blogosphere. He said he didn't call Judith Curry a denier when it was in his written testimony and his claiming no association with the Climate Accountability Institute, when he's on their board of advisers. These two whoppers are being discussed in the context of whether they are pergury or some other form of official lying. Do you people have anything to say about these two instances?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While on the whole I did not think Mann's presentation--or that of the three usual deniers for the past 20 years either--was very effective outside the expert community, I think your faux outrage over "whoppers" is a bit misplaced.

      Re. "denier" his exact quote in written testimony is as follows: "Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry (I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century—something Judith Curry18 disputes19)."

      In the context of the question what was being denied--i.e., climate science findings or all of science and/or the scientific method--was entirely undefined. Mann tried to define it, but in the context of a hearing with seconds to make a point and being cut off to boot, delineating any definition with precision just doesn't work. His written statement in no way constitutes "pergury" (sic). It is completely factual: Curry does, in fact, deny the most basic accepted findings of the field. She even quit BEST when it became clear the "new" temp analyses she was working on would confirm the old. That's pretty deep denial of specific findings.

      Re. whether being on a board of advisers constitutes "association" Mann was clearly confused by the question. I have been on a number of boards of advisers and I would be confused as well. Being on such a board means essentially being available to give advice. In no way does such a relationship normally imply any association with the operating structure of the organization. In point of fact it normally means you are not. This context was left unstated by the hearing question. His vita correctly states what he is listed as and again this listing does not imply "pergury" (sic) but rather unclear context.

      BTW, if you are going to accuse someone of a serious felony, you really should take the time to learn how to spell it.

      I was highly sickened by the hearing as a whole and have posted my opinions elsewhere. I think there is no way we can label either "side" as the "winner" when speaking of the wider community. (That said, the fact that Congress has called the same three deniers for decades should indicate the miniscule breadth of denialism in the scientific community.) It was more like witnessing a couple's fight than anything else airing decades of grievances. But any claim of perjury is just silly. But then most denier reasoning is silly, so that's hardly surprising.

      Delete
    2. I think you mean the deniosphere, not the blogosphere, Canman. (You are to be congratulated for daring to venture beyond your safe domain. That is a very brave thing to do for a conspiracy theorist. I assume you've got your tinfoil hat on straight.)

      As for lies, no I'm not aware of any from Michael Mann. John Christy on the other hand - well he claimed that models are "too sensitive to greenhouse gases" - that's a nice big lie. I don't know how you could have missed it.

      And how could you have missed Roger Pielke Jr, claiming wrongly that "no evidence exists" for increases in hurricane intensity and floods? There is evidence in the literature.

      Nor did you mention the lie told by Lamar Smith, when he claimed that the prestigious journal Science "is not known as an objective magazine".

      That's just three lies, and I expect there are a lot more, I've come across in a quick scan through the video.

      So when Michael Mann wrote that Judith Curry was a climate science denier, he was correct. I didn't find in the long video where he addressed this issue, and obviously you couldn't either, Canman. However, as he explained in his testimony, that is not the same as being a simple denier. Judith Curry is a climate science denier as she made clear in her testimony at that hearing as well as throughout her recent history. It's great that it's in the congressional record :)

      When Michael Mann tried to answer Higgins' foolish if bullying McCarthyist attack about whether he was with the UCS or that other crowd, he was rudely and roughly interrupted by Higgins before he could draw on his memory. However Dr Mann did manage to point out that all his affiliations were on his CV, which showed him as having been on some advisory panel. I don't regard that as a "lie". (Anyone would have been gobsmacked by such a question. I don't blame his reaction one bit. Remember how Inhofe threatened to jail climate scientists? It was the same sort of implied threat from Higgins.)

      I must admit that I found the following a bit odd. It was too ridiculous to be merely called a lie, I suppose. But there was Rohrabacher at a publicly televised hearing of a committee of arguably the most powerful government in the world, of which he is an elected member, claiming that he and people like him are being "brutalised into silence". Would you call that a lie, or is there another word for it?

      What a bully - he was unafraid to attack a mainstream scientist for disagreeing with him, while complaining that it was his chair was being attacked for rejecting facts.

      That is so typical of dumb deniers the world over - no substance, all bluff and bluster. The classic persecuted victim/hero conspiracy nutter. (I do think it's past time he retired. He was spluttering like a non-native speaker who was trying out a new language without understanding what the words he was spouting meant. An embarrassment even to fake sceptics, I'm sure.)

      PS It's cute that the accurate term "denier" for someone who denies something is regarded as "Stalinist", while using words like "alarmist" which is not accurate, is perfectly okay, in the upside down world of climate deniers and disinformers.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for filling in some gaps, jgnfld. It's horrid that some despicable people in government want to keep everyone stuck in denial and so they don't have to move on to solving the problems. Immoral and corrupt.

      We're running out of time.

      Delete
    4. Canman.

      Pot-kettle-black is all I can say. There was plenty of name-calling all round. But please produce the relevant parts of the transcript if you feel you have a point - this will show they you watched the hearing, and are not just repeating what you read on a denialist blog somewhere.

      Delete
    5. Canman - Please feel free to watch the video and read the transcript of the alleged "hearing" over at:

      The House Science Climate Model Show Trial

      Then come back and give me your considered opinion on who is "kidding" whom. Here's a little snippet for you:

      Dr. Mann responded less pedantically:

      "You haven’t defined what “association” even means here, but it’s all in my CV which has already been provided to Committee."

      Delete
    6. Jim Hunt.

      Yes, Dr Mann is smart enough to recognize a loaded question when he see one. He dodged it by referring the Congressman to his CV, and I am sure the Congressman already knew the answer to his question anyway.

      Delete
  7. "We're running out of time."

    I don't often disagree with you Sou, but on this occasion I think I have to raise my hand and observe that we already likely have run out of time.

    Many species ecosystems certainly have, and are on a one-way trajectory to extinction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, of course, Bernard. However I'm not going to give up trying to save what we can.

      Delete
    2. Oh, we should never give up! If anything we should try all the harder to salvage what we can.

      What our society probably needs is a visual depiction of "You are here", alongside "It still feels like you are only here", "This is where you'll end up if you don't act now", and "This is what will happen if you carry on blithely for another few decades".

      Delete
  8. Dr Mann obviously knows his climate science better than Lamar Smith et al - in fact he's probablly forgotten more climate science that the whole of Congress anti-science cabal will ever know - but I suspect he knows his Sun Tzu better too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I watched the hearing with a certain amount of horror, there was just as much political point-scoring as there was science. Dr Mann was as guilty of that as were the other witnesses and the Chairman.

    But I don't blame Dr Mann for his aggressive advocacy in this instance, the stage was set by others and the witnesseses and Chairman were stacked against him. Dr Mann gave as good as he got. Congressman Lamar Smith poisoned the well with his opening remarks, Dr Curry brought up the Climategate Hoax as one of her justifications for her beliefs and so on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If anyone is still bringing up Climategate I must question their ability to understand not just science but also plain English.

      Delete
  10. "A certain amount of horror..."

    Yeah. Ever watched a couple or tight family unit have a knock down, drag out airing of individual grievances in public?

    Or seen a really well acted performance of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff" in a small venue from a front row seat? Ugly. "Bigly" ugly. And simply reinforces all the entrenchments and illusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stay up and watched the hearing live (the Democrats had a live link on their website).

      But I do not want to watch it again, it is too painful.

      Delete
    2. Try watching Dr. Hayhoe's recent presentation in Austin.

      Webcast "Climate and Faith, Money and Politics" https://youtu.be/GNhGxlFNlfU

      Q & A with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe https://youtu.be/1p3TsRtm1uo

      Climate Change Panel Discussion https://youtu.be/zkSqsf5EVS0

      She's at least trying to explore ways to be the adult in the room and actually work at finding ways to affect change. We all need to look at her example and consider the things she is saying here.

      I usually fail to be able to implement her ideas, personally, as like most here I too often find blog-publishing deniers ignorant and/or execrable people. But she's still correct, I think.

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.