Friday
Feb242012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Curry and Mandia on Fakegate
Feb 24, 2012 Climate: other There's an interview with Judith Curry and Scott Mandia on the Fakegate affair here.
Feb 24, 2012 Climate: other 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Nov 11 - Kenna Morgan
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (16)
BH - your link doesn't work at present.
I'm looking forward to it - I'm surprised Dr Curry didn't put a link up on her blog (unless I missed it)
It works now!
Scott Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences, Suffolk County Community College; co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a group that connects climate scientists to lawmakers and the media:
I was very surprised at what he said, and how much he said.
Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology:
Very restrained, but brought out some very poignant points. Time will tell ... ... ... ....
Based on the confidence with which Mandia and Curry presented their points, Mandia won by a knockout.
Curry [I admit bias in revising my position of her downwards after the BEST and Muller fiasco] was hesitant, stopped talking completely on two occasions and did not seem on top of her brief. Mandia sounded reasonable and confident throughout and did not resort to ad homs.
No mention of fake documents at all.
The presenter did ask some good questions but generally a bad radio report for sceptics.
"Heartland leaker comes clean": up to a point, Lord Bishop.
JH - I thought the opposite. Juddith came across as very thoughtful. Mandia as an idiot: "putting on my dad hat Peter was saving my children, your children and the children of the audience...". Oh purlease!!!
Re John Hewitt:
I am afraid that I do not base my perceptions of who "wins" a discussion on the confidence displayed. I listened to the interview, and paid attention to the points being made. Dr. Mandia was utterly confident in his recitation of the same tired justifications; appeal to authority (concensus, NAS endorsement) and ignoring the evidence (the last decade of temperature readings). He also focused on little ol' Heartland's role in fostering discussion of the climate topic while failing to mention the millions of dollars spent indoctrinating our children (like when my children were forced to watch Algore's propoganda movie). 'Nuf said.
Mandia in first section calls Gleick a Scientist and Journalist.
Wait 10 mins and in second section Mandia has to apologise to Journalists admitting they do not gain info in the same way Gleick did and Gleick is not a Journalist.
LOL
BH - Yes, link fixed. I have it on in the background :)
A minor point.
The yanks are all saying Gleick as in Click. Whereas, I assumed that normal speakers of English would say Gleick as in Hike.
I learned from this that Heartland doesn't believe the earth has warmed at all. Or that humans have caused that warming. (But isn't that second part a bit redundant or even illogical, Mr Mandia?)
That is right, isn't it? Heartland doesn't believe in any global warming since the little ice age? OK, Mandia didn't get as precise as to mention the LIA or any start date, come to that, but that's obviously what he meant, right?
Another lie to blacken Heartland as best he can is what I actually assume. Pathetic.
I found this broadcast unsettling because there are early sign (from Mandia) which way the issue is going to develop.
1) Minimise the actions of Peter Glieck. Only one mistake in an otherwise exemplary career.
2) Focus on the Heartlands Institute and condem them primarily on the evidence in the fake document.
The real questions are:
1) Were his actions justifiable or not? yes or no.
2) Is he a hero or a villain? Yes or no.
I'm afraid I can't hear Mandia's name without conjuring up that image he sent to his buddy Mann - of "Supermandia" in his underpants and fishing waders, brandishing his calibrated "hockey stick of truth" against the evil denier hordes.
It's burnt indelibly on my retina.
http://tinyurl.com/7krct4v
It raises so many stomach churning questions:-
Did he creep off to the woods on his own and use his "self timing facility"?
Was it part of an erotic interlude with a "significant other"?
Were impressionable children involved?
......and not least - what sort of personality type feels their self-image is enhanced by such a picture?
Somehow - I find the thought that this is what we're up against strangely cheering.
Scott Mandia is a political beast, pity that the 'Strategy Memo' was not mentioned.
Judith and Mandia debate this week, will they be having a Lindzen and Singer or Christy and Pielke Sr. debate next week?
Scott Mandia deliberately (or through ignorance of the English language) misunderstood the questions and sounded like a politician spinning a story to avoid an embarrassing scandal. I listened to the broadcast to hear Judith Curry speak and was impressed by her restraint and focus on facts and reason.
Why is it that the CAGW proponents sound so flakey? They must be getting desperate.
Judith Curry sounded a bit wrong footed for some reason (to my mind anyway).
Scott Mandia is as slick as ever ,defender of the cause (i seem to recall when he first appeared on the scene many (3/4) years ago at Tamino i think (yes i used to read posts there to give balance).
he's come a long way since (must have friends who liked his presentation/message).