Michael Mann and Bill Maher

Given that some are promoting a despicable book about Michael Mann (you can read Greg Laden or Sou’s posts if you want some context) I thought I might post this recent Bill Maher interview with Michael Mann. It’s short and doesn’t cover very much, but it is interesting, a little amusing, and Michael Mann makes some very good points.

The only thing I will comment on is a very good point made by Bill Maher. You regularly hear people suggesting that some clever person will come up with solutions to the various problems that we face. Well, this is nice and optimistic, but this optimism is largely worthless if people aren’t actually trying to address these issues. The way we will solve these problems is by actually trying to do so, not by being confident that someone else will do so.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Global warming, Michael Mann, Science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Michael Mann and Bill Maher

  1. T-rev says:

    >ATTP:The way we will solve these problems is by actually trying to do so, not by being confident that someone else will do so.

    I apply the same philosophy to emissions reductions, In order to reduce CO2e emissions, we need to reduce CO2e emissions, not wait for others to reduce their emissions.

  2. In order to reduce CO2e emissions, we need to reduce CO2e emissions, not wait for others to reduce their emissions.

    Indeed, and arguing that we shouldn’t bother because others aren’t doing so is particularly bad. Why not lead the way?

  3. izen says:

    @-ATTP
    “Why not lead the way?”

    Because it is cheaper, and therefore more profitable to continue to use fossil fuels in old technology than invest in new and developing low carbon renewables.
    And as Tony Abbott, the Australian PM has pointed out it would obviously be ridiculous to sacrifice an economic gain just for the sake of preserving the environment for future generations.
    (sarc/off)

  4. Richard says:

    Is this a false dichotomy? We need bottom up actions (you and me), top down policy prescriptions, technical innovations, and every damn slice in the ‘decarbonisation wedge’! While there is no ‘silver bullet, there are many elements that we know are needed to create a transformed energy infrastructure, such as grid-scale storage as just one piece … http://www.heindl-energy.com
    We need the Heindls of this world AND you / me. Either alone won’t cut it.

  5. izen,
    Sarcastic or not, that is probably a fair assessment of the reason.

    Richard,

    Is this a false dichotomy?

    I may be being a bit unfair, but I do think there is a difference between being enthusiastic about technology development and opportunities for exploring new ideas and saying “don’t worry, someone will fix this”.

  6. bill shockley says:

    We need a price on carbon and a revolution to get a price on carbon.

  7. bill,

    We need a price on carbon and a revolution to get a price on carbon.

    I certainly agree with the first bit. I’d like to think that the second bit won’t be necessary.

  8. bill shockley says:

    I’d like to think that the second bit won’t be necessary.

    That’s honest. But entropy favors the path of least resistance. Chris Hedges aligns himself with the best of resisters. Hansen, Klein, McKibbens, Cornell West, Richard Wolff, etc.

    He’s a fascinating read (or watch on Youtube).

    Basically, he doesn’t want to take power — he wants to scare power into doing the right thing (which does involve overthrow of the corporatocracy).

    “Bernie has also not confronted the military industrial complex at all,” Hedges said. “On a personal level, having spent seven years in the Middle East, I’m just not willing to forgive him for abandoning the Palestinians and giving carte blanche to Israel. He was one of 100 Senators who stood up like AIPAC wind up dolls and approved Israel’s 51-day slaughter last summer of Palestinians in Gaza — the Palestinians who have no army, no navy, artillery, mechanized units, command and control.”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/

  9. Marco says:

    It is unfortunate he went on Bill Maher’s show. Most importantly because Maher is rather erratic about his views on vaccines, spouting nonsense about the flu shot, inviting and positively engaging Robert Kennedy Jr to talk about vaccines. He also falsely claimed Pasteur recanted his “germ theory”

    Full transcribed quote: “I don’t believe in vaccination either. That’s a… well, that’s a… what? That’s another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamp(s) was right: it’s not the invading germs, it’s the terrain. It’s not the mosquitoes, it’s the swamp that they are breeding in.”

    When someone called him out he claimed he was not a germ theory denier and did accept some diseases were caused by germs, but still complained about the supposed role of the environment (thereby implicitly promoting Béchamp’s ideas (sigh)).

    He also apparently thinks little of Western medicine:
    “I’m not into western medicine. That to me is a complete scare tactic.”

  10. Marco,
    I’m not all that familiar with Bill Maher, but now that you mention it, I think I have come across him saying some odd things about vaccines. I wasn’t aware of his views about germs and western medicine, though.

  11. bill shockley says:

    I think something like 70% of Republican voters favor strong action on climate change. Republican, mind, you. (Don’t quote me). It’s not a matter of science, settled science, or dissemination. It’s a matter of representation. Bought government.

  12. Joseph says:

    I think it is safe to say that there is scientific evidence that there are a number of wide ranging risks associated with continued climate change and that the more we increase emissions the more these risks increase. In order for “skeptics” to claims that there are no risks they would have to say that the the science is “settled” that sensitivity is low and or that the impacts won’t be bad. Given that most of the research suggest the impacts could be bad and the sensitivity could be high, I think the view that the impacts can’t be bad is by definition far from “settled.”

    If we simply wait and hope for some solution to come along without incentives to reduce emissions, the solution may come too late to avoid the negative impacts. I have said it before but private markets move to opportunities with the greatest profits, and right now that is with using fossil fuels. I don’t think we will see widespread adoption and more private investment until that dynamic is changed.

  13. bill shockley says:

    IMO, “settled or not” is splitting hairs. Hansen says that he is not the only one who thinks a 2C target is a prescription for disaster. He says the science overwhelmingly shows this. His new paper with 16 researchers is emphatic about sea level, but only reinforces what he has suspected for quite a while. His December, 2013 “Assessing Dangerous Climate Change” (what I call his contra-IPCC piece) is a master work of science summary. Yes, I’m partial to Hansen because he is the best and the most outspoken. He knows the climate system the best and he knows the pace of emissions reduction required and the paths available. Nobody else combines his quantitative expertise in all these areas. His experience of frustration in engendering action has turned him radical and aligned him with the likes of Hedges and Chomsky.

  14. Joshua says:

    Joseph –

    ==> “In order for “skeptics” to claims that there are no risks they would have to say that the the science is “settled” that sensitivity is low and or that the impacts won’t be bad”

    Indeed.

    This is why I use quotations around the word skeptic. Unlike what I see from many of of the “skeptics” I encounter in the “skept-o-sphere,” due skeptical diligence requires appreciation for uncertainty and ….well….skepticism.

  15. Howard says:

    Bill S. I don’t think there can be a carbon tax revolution in a world that fails to revolt against bail-outs for trillionaire banks after wrecking the economy and squeezing down the western middle class. Especially since a carbon tax is regressive and few will believe the “revenue neutral” claim. Radicals these days are sold to the fat and entertained masses as self indulgent sideliners. If you really want to do something about climate, you need a Karl Rove.

  16. bill shockley says:

    If you really want to do something about climate, you need a Karl Rove.

    Howard, I agree. As in dog training, you have to match the intensity of the infraction. At least at the level of perception: Sharp, correctly-timed, non-damaging kicks and pokes as used by Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer. Activism works if enough people participate.

  17. bill shockley says:

    Howard, more precisely to your point. It’s not a carbon-tax revolution. It’s a corporatocracy take-down. I’m encouraged by the results in Ferguson. Although, that was not exactly non-violent.
    Fleece Force: How Police And Courts Around Ferguson Bully Residents And Collect Millions

    The Ferguson Protests Worked
    Were the riots costly and destructive? Yes. But reform never would have happened without the unrest.

  18. blied7656 says:

    My favorite thing in this interview was Mahers embrace of the War On Coal moniker. Why not call it that? It is one. It should be one.

  19. Adam R says:

    @Marco

    Maher is indeed an idiot when it comes to science. He has also parroted some of the twaddle coming from GMO paranoiacs. On climate issues, though, he is at least more reliable than progressive media hero Jon Stewart, who fell hard for the Climategate scam and never retracted the shock and dismay he expressed on his show when the emails first became public. AFAIK, he didn’t cover any of the subsequent independent inquiries exonerating the scientists involved.

    Still, I suppose we should be grateful Mann appeared at all, even if it was on Maher’s show. It is a crime that Mann and other serious scientists get so little hearing in mass media. Their appearances are scarce even on programs hosted by climate-aware personalities like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

  20. russellseitz says:

    Dog whisperers are a dime a dozen; when it comes to authoritaian policy salients, it’s much harder to bring posterity to heel.

  21. bill shockley says:

    russellseitz, you’re probably right, it’s not going to be as easy as I make it sound, nor as sure of success. Hedges is frank about that.

    I question, however, that dog whisperers such as Cesar Millan are common. He deals with some extreme cases with remarkable results. Even in the milder cases, his psychological insight is frequently amazing.

  22. bill says:

    Bill Maher is a great, highly-entertaining progressive communicator and has a big following – why the heck would Mike Mann avoid him?

    Yes, he ‘sins’ – and that’s the tone here – as mentioned above and he frequently annoys me on Islam, too; therefore I should never listen to anything he says?

    Demanding that Mann not ‘taint’ himself is simply bad strategy. (And I’m sure the notion of [further]-guilt-by-such-association is a popular meme on denier blogs!) Ever heard of the concept of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good?

  23. Mal Adapted says:

    OP:

    The only thing I will comment on is a very good point made by Bill Maher. You regularly hear people suggesting that some clever person will come up with solutions to the various problems that we face. Well, this is nice and optimistic, but this optimism is largely worthless if people aren’t actually trying to address these issues. The way we will solve these problems is by actually trying to do so, not by being confident that someone else will do so.

    Yeah. Why hold out for a future techno-fix when the cheapest and easiest fix is to abolish subsidies for FFs, and then to internalize even a fraction of climate-change costs of FFs in their price, sooner rather than later. If existing alternatives are made more price-competitive, the vaunted free market can be expected to drive the transition to completion while there’s still time.

  24. Andrew Dodds says:

    @Mal

    If you’ve ever seen Monty Python’s Life of Brian..

    Reg: Right! Now, item four: Attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Ah, Francis, you’ve been doing some work on this?
    Rogers: Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman Empire within the next twelve months!
    Reg: Twelve months?
    Rogers: Yeah, twelve months. And let’s face it, as empires go, this is the big one. So we gotta get up of our arses and stop just talking about it!
    All in PFJ: Yeah! Yeah! Hear!
    Loretta: I agree! It’s action that counts, not words, and we need action now!
    All in PFJ: Yeah! Yeah!
    Reg: You’re right. We could sit around here all day, talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches, it’s not to ship one Roman soldier!
    Francis: So let’s just stop gabbing on about it! It’s completely pointless, and it’s getting us nowhere!
    All: Right!
    Loretta: I agree! This is a complete waste of time!
    Door: [Sound of Opening]
    Judith: They’ve arrested Brian!
    All: What? What?
    Judith: They dragged him off! They’re gonna crucify him!
    Reg: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!

  25. Marco says:

    “Ever heard of the concept of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good?”

    In this case it is preaching to the choir. Those who watch Bill Maher do not need Mike Mann on the show to tell them action on climate change is necessary. Maher himself tells them that often enough.

  26. Willard says:

    On a somewhat related note, our own Very Tall reports:

    For those who justify Judith’s perjorative name-calling by claiming it didn’t count because no individuals were named, as well as having a weak argument I fear you didn’t read the article carefully enough:

    Mann continues to fight the hockey wars not just by hucksterism but by attacking his opponents.

    As amazing as Judith’s inconsistency are the lines of defence mustered such as these.

    Remember, Judith condemned name-callers in the strongest possible terms – the “equivalent of racists and anti-semites” no less.

    And here you are, defending not just her explicit name-calling, but her advocating its use: “Hucksterism is a great word to describe what goes on”

    Remarkable indeed.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/12/the-adversarial-method-versus-feynman-integrity-2/#comment-724297

    See you later,

    W

  27. Willard,
    I haven’t looked at Judith’s blog for quite some time, but I did follow that thread. Quite remarkable. A group of some of the most adversarial people I’ve ever encountered, complaining about the adversarial nature of the debate. I need to read Paul Romer’s posts in a bit more detail, but Arthur Smith made a number of good points in the comments there.

  28. Willard says:

    > A group of some of the most adversarial people I’ve ever encountered, complaining about the adversarial nature of the debate.

    Only the namecalling, AT. The adversarial nature is usually sold as a boon, e.g.:

    Only massive funding of “red teams” to “kick the tires”, expose failures of models, and create new and better models and methods can seriously improve climate science in the near term. Otherwise we will have to wait untill all those on the “global warming gravy train” are retired or dead.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/27/ipcc-functional-stupidity/#comment-573397

    Not the title of Judy’s editorial, and the operative buzzword she was promoting at the time.

  29. JCH says:

    I am reading your mind you socialist dawg.

  30. Willard says:

    A Canadian interlude:

    OK. Now I’m gone.

  31. mwgrant says:

    Willard
    “I’m gone for two weeks.”
    Not far apparently.

  32. Joshua says:

    ==> “I am reading your mind you socialist dawg.”

    Anders got off easy. Most people whose minds he reads are Communists and Jihadis.

  33. Most people whose minds he reads are Communists and Jihadis.

    So, I need to calibrate it somewhat. Being called a Socialist by someone who – I think – lives in the US and normally calls people Communists, probably makes me a Tory in the UK?

  34. Steven Mosher says:

    . The way we will solve these problems is by actually trying to do so, not by being confident that the government will do so.

    Ya. Fixed it

  35. Steven,
    Sure, I’ll go with that one too. I don’t really think it’s one or the other.

  36. The background of Steyns’ book is simple. He collected all he could find about Mann and interviewed a great many people (including me), all in preparation for his defense in court. As the case is delayed, Steyn reworked the material into a book or two. Some call this “despicable”, others refer to Steyn’s legal right to defend himself.

  37. Richard,

    Some call this “despicable”, others refer to Steyn’s legal right to defend himself.

    I have no great interest in another one of our rather pointless discussions. I’ll post your comment, but I’m still interested to know if you’re taking the piss, or really think your comment was something actually worth posting. My description of the book also has absolutely nothing to do with his legal right to defend himself. You don’t defend yourself legally by writing a book, you do it in a court of law – as he has every right to do.

    As much as you have the right to associate with whomever you want, I do think there’s a vast difference between having an academic disagreement with someone and associating proudly with a attack on another academic by a polemicist like Steyn. I was going to say that I was surprised that some are proud about their association, but I’m not.

    Maybe everyone else can do their best to not let this thread degenerate just because Richard has chosen to comment.

  38. russellseitz says:

    If Bill Shockley expects posterity to retroactively applaud the Great Five Generation Austerity Plan, he should spend more time with his great great great grandchildren, lest they wimp out and ask him what became of Abraham Lincoln’s visionary bill to limit the Union Pacific to linking the nation with wind-powered locomotives and steam engines running on renwable whale oil ?

  39. bill shockley says:

    A revenue-neutral carbon tax is not regressive — it is wealth redistributive. If that’s not what you’re talking about then, yeah, I don’t get it.

  40. Andrew Dodds says:

    Steven Mosher – (August 13, 2015 at 2:28 pm)

    Interesting comment..

    If we had zero government involvement in energy and environmental issues then we’d almost certainly revert to burning coal with the minimum of filtering – just sufficient to avoid lawsuits. I can’t see any way for the un-prodded private sector to do anything else. Solar/battery solutions may work for remote locations and hobbyists, but that’s not going to fix the problem.

    Of course, I don’t see the government fixing the problem any time soon either. But at least the government could theoretically fix the problem even if it won’t.

  41. bill shockley says:

    Steven Mosher said,

    .The way we will solve these problems is by actually trying to do so, not by being confident that the government will do so.

    That’s fine, and I think it would possibly work, except that we are working against the clock. Have you done the math?

  42. Curry: “p.s. I’ve tried to keep the Mann references to a minimum, although it wasn’t easy given that I have just finished reading Mark Steyn’s new book A disgrace to his profession: The world’s scientists on Michael E. Mann, his hockey stick and their damage to science. Stay tuned for a post on this. In the long run, I don’t think adversarial science and hucksterism will ‘pay’.”

    Gee, I can’t hardly wait.

  43. Steven Mosher said”

    “The way we will solve these problems is by actually trying to do so, not by being confident that the government will do so.”

    Mosher: do you seriously think the ones who think we’ll innovate ourselves out of this mess are typically on the pro-government/liberal side of the spectrum?

  44. Steven S.,
    Yes, I saw some of that. Have even made a comment, which was probably not worth the effort.

  45. bill shockley says:

    I first noticed that Steyn had a different opinion of Climategate and Mann to the prevailing skeptic view from his talk at Heartland this year.

    Why is someone who presents at the Heartland Institute taken seriously?

  46. “ATTP

    ‘[Mann] could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

    The easiest way to understand what this writing says is to switch it up

    [Mann] could be said to be the jesus christ of climate science, except that instead of saving souls, he has saved the planet.

    Now imagine if a skeptic objected to this by saying that you had claimed that mann was a deity.”

    Except, for f*ck’s sake, no one’s career or scientific reputation would be negatively impacted by *fulsome praise*.

    Then again, I expect no less sophistry from from the author of ‘The CRUTape Letters’. Shame on you.

    Posting this here because I don’t feel like wading into Judy’s fetid cesspool tonight.

  47. Steven,
    I had thought of making the same point, but since I had stuffed up the attribution of the quote in the first place, I decided to simply withdraw 🙂

  48. bill shockley says:

    I think you can thank the Lord for blessing you with a sense of shame.

    Does Michael Mann have anything to be ashamed of in his climatic interpretation of tree rings? I notice in a current real climate article, tree rings can be an incredibly reliable dating technique.

  49. bill shockley says:

    I should add that before ATTP’s mention of the ongoing debate on the jc blog, I was completely unaware that Mann’s work was anything other than completely vindicated by further investigations and ensuing science.

    He also comes across as an affable, spontaneous and sympathetic fellow which adds to the likelihood of his professional competence.

    Scurilous criticism from colleagues, in my meager experience, is not uncommon. Look at Hansen’s new blockbuster sea level piece. Real Climate and NASA’s own Gavin Schmidt is promoting the meme of “no evidence” or “no new evidence”. Well, then, Gavin, what exactly was the impetus for the new paper? He was also close to the center of the attack, last year, on Peter Wadhams, on the eve of Wadhams’ 2015 prediction becoming impossible. What prescience!

    And NASA’s Hoerling attacking Hansen, and Jennifer Francis, at different times and declaring that the California drought is not caused by climate change.

    Prominent scientists in positions of authority making brazen, vacuous, false claims and attacks.

    And I don’t think it would be surprising that these people who share a common slant, find each other, and develop informal networks of mutual referral, and gang together when needed. Witness Schmidt & Co.’s twitter attack on Wadhams that was made to look like a consensus. While Wadhams & Co. sailed away into the Arctic to collect data.

    The ensuing wars are seductive and ultimately wasteful. I think the best thing is to rise above… take the high ground unless it’s absolutely unavoidable.

    From my experience of having done the wrong thing.

  50. You’re way off base re: Schmidt. And Wadhams — *he* is the one who makes ‘brazen’ claims without sufficient support, and who seem to have very thin skin about it to boot.

  51. bill shockley says:

    The floor is yours.

  52. Bill,
    I agree some of this comment. It’s quite normal for researchers/scientists to say privately what they wouldn’t say publicly, and not surprising that some will be privately quite ciritical of others. There could be many reasons; different views as to the assumptions in a piece of research, different views about the significance of the caveats, different views about the methods, different views about science communication, professional jealousy.

    However, I don’t really agree that Gavin & Co attacked Wadhams. He’s been presenting unjustified predictions about Arctic sea ice for a number of years. Maybe they shouldn’t have used Twitter, but maybe he should also think about some of the criticisms.

  53. Magma says:

    There could be many reasons

    Not to mention the most basic of all: they’re human beings.

  54. Magma,
    Indeed, I had intended to add something along those lines, but forgot.

  55. bill shockley says:

    You mentioned jealousy, I think that counts as human, although not exclusively (dog owners know).

  56. bill shockley says:

    ATTP, what criticisms has Wadhams been unreceptive to? The data bore him out for several years after he started making his claims, culminating in the 80% summer ice loss by volume in 2012 and the concurrent emergence of acute jet stream effects. And he also referred to one of the only regional Arctic climate models for backup of his prediction. And he always included in his claims the caveat, “unless there develops some countervailing force”. That’s like declaring conservation of momentum. He was only noting the common sense observation that data supported a much more aggressive view than the mainstream models, which in a risk situation is a conservative view — the precautionary principle.

  57. bill shockley says:

    This is an old post of mine from another blog’s comment section, tracking the evolution of Wadham’s stance. Very hard for me to find fault here, at least on the sea ice part of it:

    Wadhams is conservative and very careful.

    Looking through older articles I see it was not Wadhams, but Maslowski who originated the up tempo thesis for Arctic sea ice collapse.
    _____________________________________________

    From 2007:
    “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

    My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.

    I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
    __________________________________________

    From 2011:
    While the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s, Dr Maslowski’s study also takes into account the rate at which it is thinning and calculates that it will vanish much more quickly.
    Dr Maslowski’s model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.”
    Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.
    “It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that’s when it will happen.”
    ___________________________________________

    Wadhams has done a calculation for the warming effect of albedo loss when the remaining 50% of summer sea ice disappears. He says this effect is equivalent to the warming effect of the last 20 years of CO2 emissions (I believe the reference point for this statement was 2012). This is quoted all over the place if you google it, but the quantification is vague in most of these. I had a much clearer quote but now I can’t find it. It comes down to forcing in terms of Watts/Meter^2. RobertScribbler had a post on this but it’s a bit technical. Google:
    Amplifying Feedbacks: Climate Model to Test Projections of Zero Sea Ice By Summer 2016, Stark Predictions by Wadhams, Duarte

    Also, his calculations for a hypothetical 50Gt methane burp yields what seems to me a very modest .69C global temperature rise. This, likewise, is widely quoted.

    And yet his calls for action are optimistic, impassioned and urgent. Check the AMEG website. Google:
    Governments must get a grip on a situation which IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has ignored.
    .

  58. Bill,
    I’m not familiar will all the history. I have seen Wadhams present a figure that appeared to simply be a straight line from some current sea ice extent to around zero within a couple of years. I’ve also seen various estimates with Wadhams being the oulier by far. I also wasn’t particularly impressed with how he responded last year. He may have been upset with how he was portrayed on social media, but writing to the employers of those involved and the Royal Society seemed a bit much.

  59. bill shockley says:

    I took the attack very personal, perhaps even more-so than Wadhams. LOL It seemed so distorted, harping on “no physics, no physics, he ADMITS there’s no physics”. Duh, it’s an extrapolation.

    And the timing was exceptional. Exactly the tactics used by deniers, for example in their use of “the pause”. The first data point that doesn’t fit and they’re all over it. Where was the scientific outrage from Mr. Schmidt in the years leading up to the rebound?

    I was really upset over this, and then I was confirmed in my suspicion (actually it was “conviction”) by his response to the Hansen SLR paper, and also his comments objecting to Jason Box’s famous “we’re fucked” statement where Schmidt is quoted in a recent Esquire article. It’s showboating, it’s weak, and it appears that he is simply being a faithful and zealous employee.

  60. Bill,

    I took the attack very personal

    Is there some context I should know?

    Personally, I think Gavin Schmidt is extremely good in his science communication, but we don’t have to agree. It’s a continuous balancing act, as I’ve discovered myself. You’re aiming to be consistent with the scientific evidence while also trying to communicate a serious issue. It’s not easy.

  61. bill shockley says:

    No special context. Wadhams was my first climate hero. I was partial to him because he seemed so sound scientifically, and honest and passionate as a man and prominent scientist. I admired his outspoken criticism of the IPCC and its lumberous process.

    Schmidt is an excellent scientist and communicator. Smart as hell. Probably very hard working. Lucid in his analyses. He deserves his reputation.

    [Mod : sorry, I’m redacting this last part. I’m do applaud your passion, but let’s keep it pleasant.]

  62. bill shockley says:

    Thanks ATTP. I couldn’t ask for a more fair or humble host.

    Regards.

  63. Canman says:

    Given that some are promoting a despicable book about Michael Mann (you can read Greg Laden or Sou’s posts if you want some context)

    You’ll get a lot better context by reading Judith curry’s post (including the author in the comments):

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/

  64. Marco says:

    You actually get a lot less context and a lot more vileness when you read that thread.

  65. canman,
    I have read some of that. As far as I can tell the basic context is that a group of people who don’t like someone else, think it’s great that someone has publised a book with quotes from others (many of which were private communication and some of which were stolen) to make it seem that the person they don’t like is a disgrace to his profession. Additionally, some of those quoted were quite junior researchers who would probably rather their private views of a senior researcher were not publicised in this way. Despicable seems like an apt descriptor to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s