Might be good for your “skeptic” friends. Also, trolls out in force on the video comment thread, so have at it.
The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) is organized by The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). Over the last 15 TAMs, this event has become the leading conference in the world focused on scientific skepticism. Well over 1,000 people from around the world come to TAM each year to share learning, laughs, and the skeptical perspective with their friends and a host of distinguished guest speakers, panelists, workshop presenters, and entertainers.
“More of a brain show than a trade show.” — Los Angeles Times
“At this gathering of the nerdiest of the nerdy, it’s hard not to run into the likes of Michael Shermer, the charismatic publisher of Skeptic magazine, or such scientific celebrities as Michael E. Mann, the embattled climatologist famous for his hockey-stick graph of Earth’s rising temperature. ‘You read their books, and then there they are in person!’ one astonished attendee tells his partner.” — Pacific Standard
If the ghg were all we needed we wouldn’t need climate scientists 8)
Can’t the guy update his slides?
also I wish he’d stop the silly business of the Hockey League, even if safely esconced where none is paying attention.
But I appreciate his line. ..were the world not warming, current theories would be falsified. Some science at last.
All in all the weakest spot remains his inability to debate publicly with anyone. If his case is strong no fossil fueled opponents will be able to dent it. Think of Sagan. I won’t be holding my breath though, as Mann can’t even envisage the possibility climate change might be a problem but maybe not too much of a problem.
Omno’s need to get noticed by saying something/anything (no matter how illogical, inane, and downright stupid) once again leaves a bad smell at the beginning of the comment section of a truly terrific post on Crock.
Ignoring Omno, IMO this post was terrific for many reasons.
1) The first half was a good clear review of the science—-it’s always good to repeat the facts that lead to understanding the truths of AGW.
2) The second half made an excellent segue into the “scientization of politics”, with a masterful skewering of Inhofe, Barton, Palin, KookyNelly, and the other Repugnant cretins. Showing the dichotomy between the ignorant cretins and the better informed and more responsible Republicans is also a good tactic.
3) Most importantly (and contrary to the cluleessness of Omno’s comments), I was most impressed with how much better Mann came across here than he has in other clips. A full half hour of clearly stated information and smooth delivery, laced with humor (often subtle and wry like the “evolution” mention). Maybe he has been taking lessons or gotten some writing help, but he WAS impressive here.
Please DO hold your breath, Omno. If the part of your brain that would cause you to involuntarily resume breathing is as screwed up as the part where you do your “thinking”, your problems would be over.
Debates can be interesting to watch,but they are useless for establishing scientific answers to questions. Debating is a skill of rhetorical persuasion,and as such favors glibness,and those who can quickly spout out what may seem to, superficially, be reasonable points to those who are ignorant of the subject.
After laying out a Gish Gallop of these easy to list,but more tedious to debunk type of talking points,the audience will probably just end up siding with whomever they came to support in the end anyway.
And that’s just formal debates,with rules and moderation! An informal argument on cable news shows or talk shows usually end in shouting matches,with everyone talking over each other with emotional outbursts. Totally pointless.
Velikovsky got debated, the astrologers got debated, even Gish got debated. Bill Nye just had his finest hour debating creationism. So all these excuses appear just weak arguments in defence of a weak Mann. Pile them up with obsolete graphs by a solitary monologist constantly speaking to the believers.
If you guys and him are concerned about the future the last thing to do is waste time telling each other how bad the big world is.
Omno wanders off into the wilderness of confusion yet again with his use of “debate” to describe the discussions people may have had regarding Velikovsky and astrologers, to say nothing of the fact that both V and the A are WAY OT and irrelevant. I would love to know the mechanism by which Omno’s brain comes up with such way-out OT things and injects them into the discourse.
Skepticrmac makes good points about the failings of both the more formal form of debate and the TV style circuses.
Nye and the creationist didn’t really “debate” but pretty much just exchanged talking points, and Nye’s did outweigh the other side’s (to the rational, anyway), so he “won”.
There is not any “debate” (exchanfe of arguments) about what Mann says—-it is settled science and settled political truth, and any skeptic (or moron like Omno) that thinks spouting ignorant denialist lies and propaganda against such truths carries any weight is deluded.
(And I need a translation for that last sentence—-I have read it three times and all I come up with is WHAT? WHAT?? WHAT???
As you wish. Get Mann, or Schmidt, or Trenberth or anybody else, Nye and Tyson included, to “exchange talking points” in public with somebody who doesn’t believe climate change is ruining the world irreparably.
I am sure any of them will “outweigh the other side’s (to the rational, anyway), so” they will “win”. Easy peasy. All climate debates closed off by the one performance.
Instead Mann has been busy for who knows how many years to travel the world talking about his book using the same, now outdated slides. He has been the object of adulation of many of you in many occasions, every time repeating the same stories about the same Republican baddies.
Has this been of any consequence?
Here’s Omno playing the “one to one” false equivalency game that all the deniers love so much because it gives them the appearance of more credibility than they have. Remember the John Oliver piece where there was a true reflection of the “weight” on both sides—–he brought out 3 deniers to “debate” 97 climate scientists?
There should be NO “debates” period. The FCC should require that all broadcasters give the climate scientists 97% of any air time devoted to climate change under threat of revocation of their broadcast licenses—-that would be “fair and balanced”.
Speaking of “All climate debates closed off by the one performance” is dumb because there is no debate to start with, and even if there was, it would not be decided by one “performance”. Typical mindless Omno-babble.
And does Omno not realize that Mann’s slides will never be “outdated”? Or that Mann talks about the “same” because it’s STILL happening? Or that the Repugnant “baddies” are still doing the same things so that story hasn’t changed either? Poor confused and out-of-touch-with-reality Omno.
Yes, Mann’s efforts have been of consequence. Remember Burke? “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”? Mann is a good man, and if he and others keep up the fight, the forces of evil may be vanquished. YOU, on the other hand, just get in everyone’s way.
you’re veering into becoming incoherent. The public knows very well that “no debate” is the weakest possible position, especially because you are not just closing off any possibility of any exchange (not even under your fascistic 97% rule) with those who doubt the greenhouse effect, but even with those who think sensitivity is lower than whatever value Mann believes. Say, the IPCC has given a 5-95% range, what would be wrong in having scientists openly debate if the lower or the higher values are actually more likely?
And in the case of Nye, he’s got 100% of all biologists or maybe 99.999999% and still he went to that “exchange” with the creationists. Science won.
Admit it, you and Mann are just afraid any public “exchange” of views will see science win, but not your flawed science, so weak even Mann can’t fathom how to defend publicly.
That’s it—-time to start ignoring Omno again.
Say goodnight, Omno.
Excellent presentation. Thanks, Peter, from sharing it.
But why anyone would want to engage the trolls? 🙂
dumboldguy,
Please stop feeding the troll. Just comment without reference to omno. It will be hard, I know, but I’m sure you can do it.
Whilst it’s demonstrably silly to call me a “troll” (I remain in topic every single time for one thing, thereby defeating the very idea of trolling. Besides, our host would’ve kicked me out long ago), I would not mind being ignored. My underlying theme on this and other posts has been the utter absurdity of people who believe a crisis is impending unless we all do something but choose to just talk to each other.
So whoever refuses to engage is demonstrating my point.
I’m not asking for Mann to debate Inhofe -that’d make for great TV but climate isn’t evolution and Mann isn’t Nye. I’d rather see a bunch of published climate scientists who all agree co2 sensitivity is somewhere between the range defined by the IPCC, to talk publicly on what value they think most likely and why.
None of them would remotely look like Mann’s cartoonish enemies. None of them could be defined as a denier. The whole setup would be a scientific exchange of opinion among recognized scientists.
Schmidt is still not up for it. Neither is Mann.
and his slides are too old 8-D
A “Troll” deliberately likes sowing discord and upset on the internet, we have seen many extreme examples of this on this blog, I do not regard you as a troll. We humans are causing a great problem by continually emitting CO2 to our atmosphere but still have a window to act and stop catastrophic effects. I do not know how I can act to convince society that we must curtail our use of fossil fuels.
I have taken three on-line university courses on the subject and I have voted for a party that thinks like me, but they did not get elected into power. I have taken steps to reduce my domestic footprint. I dislike violence and confrontation, I do find some comfort and satisfaction by talking it over with like minded people – you apparently find this absurd. Mr Mann is a very ordinary person, who in normal times would not attract much attention at all, but attacks on his science and his scientific conclusions has made him stand out. If you have the patience I recommend you listen to a few lectures on sensitivity, David Archer is a no nonsense lecturer as are many others. You can even invite a climate scientist to a meeting, what else can we do to convince you or like minded souls ??
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/10/06/scientists-team-up-to-talk-about-climate-change/
Redskylite – thanks for the thoughtful reply. Let me specify the absurd is when people JUST talk to each other.
Interesting and well humoured talk from the Mann.
Establishments in authority are still trying to allege that scientific institutions are trying to “fudge” data, as exampled by Maurice Newman, the Australian prime minister’s business adviser, calling for a government-funded review of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Many people assume there is freedom and decency in the developed countries, but as shown in Canada with today’s muffling of scientists it is paper thin.
Sadly The Wall Street Journal is still at it, eliciting this recent response from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/wall-street-journal-offers-a-skewed-climate-perspective-from-judith-curry-681
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/01/tony-abbott-adviser-bureau-meteorology-warming-inquiry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/scientists-not-shielded-from-political-interference-from-feds-report/article20978927/
Does the person ask the same questions worded in different ways? Check
Does the person ignore suggestions or responses from other members of the community? Check
Has the person posted inflammatory remarks that have no real substance to them? Yes.
Does he or she make it a habit to post messages that include insults and vulgar language? Insults yes, vulgar not often.
Does he or she respond to other members in a purely negative, critical way?
Does the person post messages that are generally off-topic? Occasionally.
Does he or she seem to want only attention rather than discuss the topic at hand? Definitely
Does the person resurrect old conversations or discussions that were once controversial within the community? Yes
When confronted with a counter argument, does the person in question change tactics rather than answer the points made by another member? Yes
Does the person employ logical fallacies within their posts? Yes
Here is my definition of trolling. I prefer the verb. The act of spending a lot of time contradicting the ideas of a website dedicated to that idea is just the start. It’s upsetting the party. Trolling is usually not just a letter to the editor disagreeing with the editorial or a blog entry. The word is associated with antisocial behavior. Endless repetition filling the pages with looped logic is an example. When it blocks out all other conversation, like it recently did, with a single bearded poster, and with perhaps a hundred unanswered posts, it’s obvious. When the poster has glasses and baits the readers and does the same thing, it’s another example. The eyeglassed one is famous for fallacy and baiting. Trolling is not difficult to spot. Peter gets lots of them. Some he keeps as trophies, just to prove that there are jackasses.
The idea that “contradicting the party” be a sign of “trolling” is profoundly anti-social. A blog that doesn’t want dissent in any shape ought declare itself as such.
IMNSHO Peter knows that echo-chambers end up dead as there are only so many times people can repeat “I agree”. Considerate disagreement otoh keeps everyone clear on their respective reasons.
Some interesting posts (and comments) about trolling can be found on WUWT—-even the blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. wattsupwiththat.com/…/and-climate-internet-trols-ar..
Among the tidbits there:
Sir Christopher Monkton;s definition: ‘Anyone who disagrees with me’. And his response: ‘Lash out with verbal abuse, revile, misrepresent and belittle’.
Someone once said “The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion”. I would suggest that our bearded friend is an extreme example of just that—-the easy availability of “information” that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by him and endlessly repeated is why he exists. He could never do it on his own because he has neither the knowledge nor the intelligence to do so.
We sometimes see on Crock a “kinder and gentler form” of “uninformed opinion” trolling—-citations to “authority” by those who do not fully understand them and insistence that they are truth .
I worked on a PhD in 1980 to do with petroleum feedstocks, when those in denial of AGW had “the floor”. My supervisor would joke about how much unconventional oil there was in the ground to be used. “Enough to bake the planet from the green house effect” We did not really know how much CO2 could be put into the air with out shifting the climate. Now we are finding out by doing it!
Those figures of how much unconventional fossil fuels there is are just as large now as they were 30 years ago. Except now we are finally going commercial in there exploitation, we are over 400 ppm CO2 and our Northern hemisphere temperature anomalies have shifted so that heat extremes at the old 3 sigma level are now common place. The heat in the oceans has built up to a point in the north pacific that we had almost 9 months of a ridiculously resilient ridge over the US.
The ice loss doubling time from Greenland is now 5 years. The WAIS is now past is grounding line and there is nothing to stop it sliding into the sea at an increasing rate.
We are headed for a collapse in costal infra structure and there for global economic collapse once the sea level gets too close to say 1 m to pitch a figure out of the hat.
The big picture is clear. There is no big picture to the contrary. There is no case to make against this state of the planet.
There is just nit picking, confounding, befuddling, confusing, delaying.
What is still unclear is just how contrary those with a financial interest in fossil fuels or those who just love to be contrary will be in pitching a case against what we now know.
this is related & tot. bs: “Our efforts will continue until NSF agrees to only award grants that are in the national interest,” he wrote in a 2 October e-mail to ScienceInsider.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/10/lamar-smith-climate-science-investigation-nsf