Mike is getting pretty good at this, not only in his interviews, but his powerpoint is one of the very best out there.
We are developing a cadre of master explainers, and it is beginning to have an impact.
Skip to content
as usual, this would have been vastly more powerful had anybody got a hunch of it before anything happened
otherwise it will remain preaching for the converted
remember, if it convinces you and you were already convinced, it is aimed at the wrong target
“this would have been vastly more powerful had anybody got a hunch of it before anything happened”
Jeeze.
I would have thought that someone who can
someone who claims to
could have predicted the vortex.
WTF was Brittany Spears singing about, if not the vortex?
The ‘target audience’ is those who ask for a scientific explanation about how we can have such a cold snap when the planet is warming.
No, no, it’s commercial tv, the target is whoever’s convinced by the various talking heads
Specifics Omnologus… Feel free to explain how Mann was in error here?
You will now utterly fail to provide such an explanation.
you’re hallucinating again. I never said Mann was in error. I am talking about his communication style and reach. If you have the wrong communication style you have no reach and it doesn’t matter if you are in error or not.
Mann has made a career out of NOT having a broad reach, and his communication style is strictly for those who are already convinced of whatever he’s talking about. This means he will never be called on any error by his audiences, a comfortable situation with the unfortunate side effect that all his talking will be for nothing.
Ok, you vaguely imply that Mann is in error, but will not point the error out. Of course, we all understand why. In all but the most nitpicking circumstances you MUST stay away from specifics. You know that the science will show you for what you are.
how can he be in error? he is explaining something after it has happened.
In contrast to CBC interviewing Michael Mann over Climate, is this interview by Lawrence Kudlow at CNBC of Colorado University Professor Stephen Hayward about Global Warming. Hayward goes over the many ways in which Global Warming is a ‘hoax’ (1min video):
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000233293
Hayward is a Professor of Climatology at CU? No, he teaches ‘Conservative Thought and Policy’. In essence, he’s a Mirror image of Kudlow himself, with as much formal training in Climate as a Plumber.
This is Business Journalism? That image of Kudlow interviewing ‘himself’ on the Global Warming ‘hoax’ does much to explain the echo-chamber that fiddled while our economy burned:
“Hey, Kudlow, what do you think of Deregulated Finance Capitalism?”
“I’m glad you asked, Kudlow. Cuz I’m all for it!!”
Thanks for ruining our morning with that link. Will CNBC have Rush and or Glenn Beck on there next? And when will the idiots stop bringing up Al Gore?
Bringing up Gore reinforces the mind’s subconscious ‘Pavlov Dog’ that Global Warming ‘is political’. Since the fossil fuel corporations can’t win the Science, making it Political is extremely important. Hence the extraordinary focus the Deniers place on a certain former Vice President.
When you say ‘political’ to your fear center it goes straight to ‘the commies are coming for my babies!’
“All the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market are wrong.” – Kudlow (2005)
“It is time for the congress to stop exhorting, encouraging and forcing banks to make low income loans.” – Kudlow (Sept. 18, 2008)
He’s primordial Tea Party.
Yes, Michael IS getting better at this—-smoother, more flowing narrative than what we got from the “scientist” he was in his early days. Let’s hope he speaks out more and continues to get better at it.
Go back to the definition of troll. Rehashing already debunked talking points. Climatologists predicted climate extremes long ago. I think trolling is kind of like fishing trolls tend to try to hook, often with an emotional barb, an ad hominem. It is easy to grasp that the annual global temperature rise is small compared to the seasonal and shorter scale temperature changes. What do we observe? Earlier Spring and later summer at any location. An increase in weather extremes. Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, acid oceans, and so on. All predicted consequences of AGW. The one unpredicted consequence? Legions of denier trolls.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Db0NrS2L6KcE