This is the second in my new series on The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media, and premiered last week on that site. I’m very proud to have had the chance to interview Michael Mann, and tell a small part of the story that he relates so well in his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.
The book is an essential one that historians will be consulting to understand this singular moment in history, when humanity dithered on the edge of catastrophe. Unless you’ve been intimately involved at every stage of this drama for the last 15 years, you’re probably confused about the course of the game, and the players. Mann’s painstakingly footnoted and referenced text gives a narrative and timeline that help make sense of things. There’s enough here to spark a dozen Master’s theses, in journalism, History, Political science, as well as Paleo-climate.
In the video above, I focus on the events of 2005 – 2006, wherein Rep. “Smokey” Joe Barton (aka Joe “I apologize to BP” Barton ) identified Dr. Mann, and his paleo-climate research – the famous “hockey stick” graph, as a target for intimidation and harassment. Bypassing the normal process of scientific review, which would be to invite an investigation from the National Academy of Science, Barton hand-picked Edward Wegman, an obscure statistician with no climate credentials, to give him the talking points he was looking for. (my jaw hit the table when I read, and then heard, the NPR report in the video above – that makes Wegman’s astounding ignorance of climate science crystal clear..)
Fortunately, as the video relates, Barton’s colleague, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert did, in fact, consult the National Academy, as Lincoln intended when he founded that august body – and we have a legitimate scientific assessment of Mann’s work that affirms the original findings.
There’s still more of the interview that needs to be heard. In addition, I tracked down the C-span video of Barton’s hearing, where Mann makes clear and concise defense of his work. Parts of it are excerpted in the video above, but I find that it’s an important historical piece of the puzzle, and virtually unseen compared to the avalanche of bonehead denialist anti-Mann nonsense that has poisoned the internet dialogue. I’ll be making that more accessible soon.
If you’ve read the book, I hope you’ll go to the book’s Amazon page, and if you’re moved to give a good review, help even the odds against the onslaught of Anthony Watts and his horde of internet Orcs, who are displaying typical swarming behavior.
I wonder if you agree with … and his assessment that Mann’s book mostly says nothing new?
You mean the fact that Mann’s book basically says that the deniers who have been attacking the “hockey stick” are incompetent, lying sacks of ….
Yeah, I’ll agree — that’s nothing new. We’ve known that for *years*.
No, I mean the fact that the review unwittingly suggested there was pretty much nothing else in the book?
for those buried in the intellectual wastes of the Murdoch media – it will be brand new territory.
This Murdoch thing is funny, as his papers had no qualms in the UK to follow the alarmist line.
Anyway, it’s of little interest. Can you please tell me from your interview(s) with the Man and reading his book, of anything truly new?
Murdoch media is the mouthpiece of the large corporation that wishes to block all science (or change it) that would interfere with corporate profits. It is not just about Mann and ACC but science in general.
See Journals Warned to Keep a Tight Lid on Diesel Exposure Data
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/journals-warned-to-keep-a-tight.html
Then read Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/02/study-links-heavy-diesel-exhaust-to-lung-cancer/
“….A separate industry group not involved in that litigation said Friday that the study looked back at mines using decades-old equipment, and there’s far less pollution from diesel engines today…..”
Not only did they not report about the block they change it to old and invalid study
sounds like: We have much safer cigarettes now
“…his assessment that Mann’s book mostly says nothing new?”
You mean your assessment, don’t you mm?
Because, let’s be honest – this post is all about praise for the book and the interview, not an assessment that there is nothing new to discover. That appears to be yet another manifestation of your dysfunctional mind. Otherwise, greenman3610 would not have said things like:
“I’m very proud to have had the chance to interview Michael Mann, and tell a small part of the story that he relates so well in his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.”
or:
“…The book is an essential one that historians will be consulting…”
or:
“…There’s enough here to spark a dozen Master’s theses…”
Continuing in this vein of honesty, since your assertion that the post author’s “assessment” – that there is nothing truly new – is so obviously and perniciously wrong, why don’t you admit that your posts on this thread, as so often is the case, are just more tedious examples of a long string of failures to cast aspersions on the author, this blog, and the entire AGW movement?
A honest confession here will go a long long way to rehabilitating your aura of respectability. Wonderful opportunity. Seize it!
Roger – you’re badly misinformed.
“Much of the contents of the book is old news”. I didn’t say that, … did. It’s all there on Amazon, and still to this moment nobody has been able to tell me if … was an idiot when he wrote that, or what content of the book is _not_ old news.
Just in case anyone is wondering (or even cares) Maurizio is quote mining (for sooth) Peter Gleiks Amazon review, which one and all can read in its very short entirety by following the linky:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1TOPDWZU54PBO
In short, g2-b31f1590b0e74a6d1af4639162aa7f3f nailed it.
Thanks Jason. A consensus is solidifying …there’s nothing new in Mann’s book. I wonder if you’ve got any OTHER good reason to buy it? 🙂
No wonder Mann’s so crossed wrt his enemies. With friends like you guys, none needs enemies!
Bravo. A very well done video. It puts together quite a few pieces. I especially like the references to the National Academy of Sciences review of the hockey stick and the history behind the academy.
greenman
Is it just me, or is the audio a little low? I have my volume on my laptop, and on the video, turned up all the way, but some parts are a little hard to hear. You might want to record at a little higher volume, if possible.