Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Michael Mann is subjected to the kisses, cuddles and general brown-nosed adulation of somebody called Thomas Brookes, who seems to be something to do with the Carbon Brief.
View Printer Friendly Version
"Carbon Brief's Director, Tom Brookes, is director of the Energy Strategy Centre ( ESC) the communications unit funded by the European Climate Foundation"
My thoughts :-)
The ECF lobby for 95% reduction of CO2 in the EU, have million of euro behind it, including mcbain, hewlett and Oak foundation, and the whoe who of political elite in eu, as biard membors, etc.
The European Climate foundation fund the Carbon Brief, who has exgreenpeace, anti bp campigner Christian Hunt as its editor. Christian is a codirector of Adam Corner aT the PIRC, behind the ZeroCarbonBritain report project (by 2030)
The biggest fraud in the history of science. Piltdown Mann.
Why is Mike so dismissive of Aunty-Science?The BBC is one of his staunchest supporters!
eSmiff ... very good.
I shall add that to my Mann list:-
Mann-made warming (aka the Hockey stick)Mann GulchHorace Mann School - Sexual Abuse Scandal Widens At Prestigious new York School Piltdown Mann
From the introduction of Thomas Brookes:
Mike and his work have also become the focus of what may well be the most intense and sustained attack on science by corporate and political interests in the grim history of denialism, which obviously dates back beyond climate science but has probably intensified onto climate science
Well, denialism is a recent and ugly neologism. But it's always nice to invent history.
But there's one fundamental question for Brookes here. Does he include Steve McIntyre when he talks about Mann becoming the focus of an attack by corporate and political interests?
If not, hasn't Steve's critique been easily the most damaging?
If so, where is the evidence that Steve represents 'corporate and political interests'?
Richard Drake - did you watch the whole interview?
This is one reason Mann will never go to court on the cases he started , he simply cannot handle any interview that is not softball and were he can't load the bases in his favour. Which is a the shame becasue to see him deal with hostile questions from someone that knows there job would be worth paying for .
nby: No. Did Thomas Brookes make clear how he would answer my question?
Actually, the interview was too soft for Mann's own good. He relaxed into saying (or something close, I don't want to listen to it again to check word for word) that McIntyre's attacks were not easy to dismiss; in fact, that it took so much effort, that climate scientists couldn't do what they consider their day job. To any impartial listener, that should translate into a valuable contribution to science on Steve's part.
When 'fellatio' is just a friendly interview technique....
Richard - get it from the horse's mouth at 12:56 on.
Thanks. Will have to dissect at some point.
Christian Hunt=Greenpeace ****
[Yes, I shall now bann myself from commenting for a while.]
This appears to be a fairly recent interview (it was uploaded to The Tube circa Nov. 7). So, in light of Mann's recent revisionizing of his Nobel laurels, I find it somewhat surprising that Mann failed to correct Brookes' "he shared the Nobel Peace prize along with his fellow IPCC authors and indeed Al Gore" during his intro (approx.01:28).
Then, again, why should I be surprised ... Accuracy is not exactly an attribute that springs to mind when one thinks of Mann and his words, is it?!
At the start Thomas Brookes says
"If they can bring down Mike Mann they can bring down the whole Climate Consensus.Well they have not managed to bring him down yet"
So what Micheal Mann future skeletons does Thomas Brookes know about then.
Brookes is basically a PR man .He sees the vulnerability.Its all resting on the shoulders of one Mann.Prove him wrong or a fraud and the whole thing collapses.
Pass the sick bag, Alice (Sir John Junor, passim)
I agree with Neil McEvoy
Actually, the interview was too soft for Mann's own good
Listening to both Brookes and Mann deriding their opposition as deniers, paid shills and even criminals while making the argument that one self (Mann) is 'the scientist' and that the science says one thing and one thing only, while regurgitating other cheap AGW-talkning points (which have nothing to do with science), or quoting galciers and sea levels as corroborating proof for the A in AGW (alternatively being unaware of what Senator Inhofe refers to when calling global warming a hoax). And the notion that others just are using sciency sounding terms in order to confuse and mislead ..
All this to me shows how weak their actual arguemnts must be, and that they are mostly addressing the easily swayed, the gullible, and their not-so-bright (receding) fanbase.
In my opinion, the longer Michael Mann stays on the climate scare scene, the quicker its demise will come ..
(And apparently, quite a few in his own camp share that sentiment and or at least realize that he has become a liabilty .. )
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.