Ah, the (self) pity of it. AW has a long lame series of excuses for why he went all the way to Bristol to hear Michael Mann talk but did not ask, or even try to ask, any questions. Sou takes it to pieces, but you really don't need that. Obviously it wasn't necessary to ask a question in order to want to go - the lecture was fully pre-booked, and who wouldn't want to go and hear
In this special Cabot Institute lecture, in association with Bristol Festival of Ideas, Michael E Mann will discuss the science, politics, and ethical dimensions of global warming in the context of his own ongoing experiences as a figure in the centre of the debate over human-caused climate change.
Dr. Michael E Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. He is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published books include Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines in 2012. He is also a co-founder and avid contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.
But given the way AW obsesses over Dr Mann on his blog, you might have expected him to have some kind of question he wanted to ask.
ZOMG, I just thought "I know, I'll read some of the comments on AW's post". And its a delight: long after, on facebook, AW asked Mann "will you take my question now?" But, guess what? The question itself is sekrit! Really, I'm not joking. From WUWT:
Cold in Wisconsin September 28, 2014 at 9:39 am What was your question? Can’t seem to find it in the above. Anthony Watts September 28, 2014 at 9:41 am We’ll have to wait on Dr. Mann to acknowledge my polite, yet simple question. Otherwise I don’t plan to reveal it.
Come on! Does he have an actual question that he wants asked, and wants the answer to? If so, make it public. Is he just playing around playing f*ckw*t propaganda games fit only for children? Then keep it quiet. Fortunately, this is a self-answering question. This is even dumber than NoTricksZone, who want to make loadsamoney betting on sea ice - but only as long as they don't win too much, and only if they can bet with scientists.
Their own private reality
Hey! I've used that before. Anyway:
All of this rather reminds me of the censorship-on-blog-comments debate. Go to any of the septic blogs - WUWT, JoNova, whatevs, and any time anyone asks "why don't you comment on what-they-call-warmist blogs", the answer comes back "because we can't; we're censored". I've had people say that about here, more than once. And I point out one of (a) you've never submitted a comment here, or (b) your comment has been published. And then I say "but the real censorship is at WUWT and BishopHill and the like" and they go quiet, or expound on why censorship that way round is an excellent idea. But that doesn't matter to them, because they - and all the people whose comments they read - all agree on their version of reality. AW's post is part of creating an alternative reality. Very soon, the Watties will actually believe that AW was prevented from asking a question; there's already a comment there asserting that "Mann is too cowardly to engage in any exchange that would approach anything resembling a debate", another saying that "[Mann] effectively prevents them from asking any questions".
If you're over at Sou's post, scroll down far enough to the comments to read Richard Betts on talking-to-everyone. I'm not saying I agree, mind.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, and arguably more interestingly...
Apart from that, the other fun is from Moyhu, who reports on ClimateBall at Climate Audit and More ClimateBall at Climate Audit. Even the normally weticent wabbit piles on. And if I write it down here I might be able to find it again; I'm always looking for the hockey-sticks-n-red-noise meme thingy.
[Update: and What Steve McIntyre won't show you - now.
And just so this post wasn't a total waste of your time, here's a nice poster from the Mullerhutte:
Heidi doesn't actually look like that, though.
To be kind, Willard Tony is insecure.
On the one hand, the ten time winner of Science Blog of the Century, on the other, someone who really really wants to be taken seriously by meteorologists and climate scientists but who keeps on, well you remember the blockbuster and he was none to successful in college.
So yeah, he walks up to the precipice but it is a long way down and when he has tried to jump the gap it has not ever worked. A weird, but not unusual mix of DK and imposter syndrome.
Be at least a little bit kind.
[I will try to emulate you in this regard -W]
What question could he possibly ask that would undermine anything scientific he said in the talk?
watts doesn't mention any inaccuracies in either Mann's or Cook's talk.
And I really like how he complains about Mann's lack of civility, and responds to it with something different than his other cheek.
mit kein eischuhe (es war ein schoner sonniger tag),
Samstag, ich war am Quandry Peak (14,265' / 4348m)
Now that moyhu has his face in the mud. Any updates for the faithful on this?
Re: blog comment censorship, Mann admitted this in ClimateGate email 2743 [Sept '09]: "So far, we've simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate".
Do you deny RealClimate comment censorship?
[I'm in no position to comment on RC I'm afraid. Am I correct to think, in turn, that your defence of WUWT present-day censorship - you accept that it exists, and you do defend it, don't you? - is other people's behaviour from before 2009? -W]
I'm in no position to comment on alleged WUWT censorship.
[There's nothing alleged about censorship at WUWT. If you don't know it exists, its because you've carefully avoided knowing it. E.g. http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/wuwt-why-climate-change-doesnt… -W]
I do know that Michael "Robust Debate" Mann continues to very heavily censor skeptic comments at his FaceBook page right now. Do you endorse that?
[I'm entirely happy with people managing their facebook pages, actively if required; its not a blog. Watts is distinctly two-faced: he's utterly incivil and dishonest about Mann on WUWT, and then snarkily polite in public. Mann resents that, and he's correct to do so: I wouldn't want Watts on my facebook page either.
Are you excited but Watts "missing question"? Are you sad that Mann's powers are so great that they prevent Watts mentioned the question even on his own blog? -W]
And what was Watts' excuse again to not even attempt to ask questions at Cook's lecture?
Carl, yes, Nick has his face in the mud. That happens when you wrestle with pigs.
I’m in no position to comment on alleged WUWT censorship.
Heh. You're willing to comment on RC censorship but unwilling to comment on WUWT censorship. No surprise there, I guess.
I've had my comments censored at WUWT. There was another commenter at Tamino's who not only was banned at WUWT but had all his previous comments retroactively deleted.
What I find more amusing at WUWT is the blatant double standard. If you're one of Tony's cheerleaders, you can get away with pretty much anything, no matter how inflammatory, and you can post it under a pseudonym without being harassed. If you're a critic, you're kept on a very tight leash; and if you post under a pseudonym they'll give you a hard time for that, or if you post under your real name they'll cyberstalk and harass you.
I'm sure Tom Nelson has no clue about any of this, because he's on the right side of Tony's bullying, so he doesn't notice it.
Connelley - You and rabett and the other rabble should have filed an amicus curiae brief for poor old Mann in his trial with Steyn. No one else did, even though he is the Defender of Science. His only support now comes from snarky left-wing bloggers now, so better step up.
Eli is not rabble, he is a fine vertically standing Rabett who is one of the, let us say, not charitably treated, at Willard Tony's or Steverinos.
I know for a fact Mann deletes comments that don't feed his ego. He also exhorts his followers to rank positive comments on his Huff Post Blog so negative or unflattering comments are covered up. Why would anyone ask him a question?
[Speaking for myself, I'd ask him a question because he is deeply knowledgeable about his subject, and experience teaches me that he answers polite on-topic questions rapidly and helpfully.
I don't think I can speak for AW, who says he has a question he wants to ask Mann, but the question is sekrit. So you'd need to ask him why he wants to ask Mann a question, I think. I'm afraid that I really don't believe its because AW wants to learn, although he is desperately in need of learning -W]
A useful Tidbit, Team WUWT immortalized, Apri ll 1, 2012 (but not joke),
"‘Charles Rotter, Alec Rawls, Dr. Ryan Maue, Tom Fuller, Dave Stealey, myself, Steven Mosher, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, and Willis Eschenbach."
This is valuable data so that future moderators/speakers can recognize and call on them, should they raise their hands.
Well, assuming Barb V is really in CA, maybe she (asuming that also) will attend AGU in a few months in San Francisco and actually learn something about science, and there is a fair chance she could meet Mann, since he'll be there along with 20,000+ other scientists.
Of course, unlike the net, people do wear name badges. :-)
The most charitable take on AW is terminal FICS from reading the comments on his own blog.
@John and Barb:
Watts has actually *been* to AGU, and I understood from the people who were there, he apparently didn't ask any questions that time either.
And to repeat myself:
"And what was Watts’ excuse again to not even attempt to ask questions at Cook’s lecture?"
All the whining about Mann is just a smoke screen to hide the failure of Watts.
Totally OT, but if the picture is taken from Oglaf then it is real blow under the belt from you. If you know what I mean.
[Its clickable... -W]
#16 yes, I didn't run into him there, but I heard from folks who did that he had a case with a big W U W T on it ...
but nobody seemed to notice or care.
He was however, greatly praised at WUWT for having the courage to enter the AGU lion's den.
Thanks for the Monty Python, which led me to this:
But she's cuter than Watts and doesn't pretend with quite the same air of gravitas.
Marco: “And what was Watts’ excuse again to not even attempt to ask questions at Cook’s lecture?”
Because of an Australian conspiracy with grim transnational overtones, apparently.
Knowing in advance (as part of the international plot to promote a return to the Dark Ages by paradoxically exploiting cutting edge science, supercomputers and glamorous jet travel) that Mann would be speaking in Bristol, the Australian wing of the climate cabal planted the notorious Stephan "Moonwalker" Lewandowsky in-country, as a sleeper agent posing in the role of visiting professor at (of course) the Cabot Institute in Bristol. Local Comm-symps were recruited as stooges in the audience, identifiable only to Lewandowsky as he finally rose from cover in the role of moderator to assiduously ignore hostile questioners (those spectacles are Google Glass, natch; Eric Schmidt is one of the guys with a white Persian cat).
All of this was gone over quite carefully and in detail at WUWT; Anthony and crew are totally wise to the devious wheels-within-wheels they're dealing with, despite the rest of us being unaware of the implausible, invisible and dastardly plot.
Just out of curiosity, am I reading too muchinto your choice of title for this post...? If that was intentional, well :-)
[It wasn't intended to be post-grad level subtlety, just enough to keep the barbarians out -W]
Noble cause corruption. Lots of money involved. Muller's papers have not passed peer review. Oversold. A slow problem that requires a slow solution. Some of the scientists have become political tools. I would call myself a pragmatic sceptic. Oversold because they allow more regulation to take place.