My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Slaves of the Caribbean | Main | Obama’s speech to troops in Afghanistan: The Freedom Count: 0 »

March 28, 2010



Fut the WHAT?! You got an interview with the creep who created the hockey stick delusion that started this latest ridiculous environmentalism scam? Did you slap him silly as you should have, or perform a citizen's arrest?

I haven't read it yet, but I'm going to be very disappointed if you didn't do one of those two things.


Bah. You didn't challenge him at all, Frank. why not ask him about climategate? Or any one of the dozen holes recently drilled into the IPCC papers? And as far as I can tell you didn't slap him silly... in fact it doesn't appear that you even slapped him once!


Too bad Mann did not stick to your question: settled, unsure or probably wrong. If you had pushed him, his ego would have exploded all over you. Mann's “science” reference is limited to the IPCC. He has drank the kool-aid. Reminds of the science of the big bang theory. Even after it was “settled,” opponents still didn’t admit they were wrong.

Q1-L That the 20th century was the warmest century of the last 400 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere?
Should of just said settled. Since the “Little Ice Age” things have been steadily warming. Of course if Mann would have said this then there would be no hockey stick would there? Mann said “The early part of the 20th century was quite cold. It is only the latter half of the 20th century, when greenhouse gas concentrations rose most dramatically, when temperatures reached anomalous levels of warmth,” Wrong. Just constant warming, no hockey stick.

Q1-M: That the last 50 years of the 20th century was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, say, around the 11th through the 13th century? Frank, you are mean. You basically asked is the “hockey-stick” valid. And of course he lost his mind. Here is the history of the Historical-temperature-record. IPCC, 1990 AR1, MWP higher than today. Then man-bear-pig, opps, I mean Mann in 1998, no MWP. Many things are now documented about his flawed approach. Just focus on two data sets:
1. Tiljander sediment series where Mann consistently inverts the data, and
2. Bristlecone pine tree ring series of S. Calf.
Eschenbach (2008) removed these questionable series and got the 1990 IPCC graph. Using different proxies Moberg (2005) and Loehle (2007) got the IPCC 1990 graphs as well. The fact is most proxies (10 to 1) show MWP was warmer ( ). Well at least according to data published by 813 individual scientists from 485 separate research institutions in 43 different countries.

The Achilles heel of AGW is that the models do not match reality and rely on unproven science. They sync up by design for the most recent period for correlation. But project back and they all go off (unless you manually tweak them). Looking forwarded they all depend on the unproven science of CO2 having a positive feedback effect on the climate. Not the “settled” science of the green-house-gas effect. An unprecedented bit of science that simply cannot be explained.


In case you get a chance to do a follow-up interview, Frank, here are some suggestions:

-First, slap him in the face a couple of times as payment for the damages he's already caused. Then say, "It's been said that all climate amageddonists like yourself have exceptionally small penises. Have you found that to be true of all of your co-conspirators, or is it only true of yourself?"

See, it's like a 'do you still beat your wife' question. Hopefully it will fluster him into answering the following questions more honestly. Then ask him:

- As we learned from the FOI emails, the armageddonists are attempting to control the information available to the bulk of us by letting fellow armageddonists block papers that don't agree with AGW. They're doing this via the flawed peer review process. Would you agree to only let pro-AGW papers be peer reviewed by skeptics and anti-AGW papers be reviewed by armageddonists?

Then slap him a few more times to make sure he got the original message.


Another question

-Most scientists recognize that the warming during the middle ages was more pronounced than what we are experiencing now, and most also understand that the heat was extremely beneficial for mankind. Even if man IS causing higher world temps, why are you against it?


Let’s see if Mann knows his settled science:
1. That carbon dioxide levels are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere. The key word is “rapidly.” It is a relative term. Currently there is an ~385ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. About 00.0385%. Al Gore and company say man is responsible for about 115ppm (00.015%) of that. The IPCC says that will increase to 650-800ppm by the end of the century. Let’s say it is ALL man’s fault. So in 100 years man will add 400ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, 00.004%. Is this rapid. If you say something doubles that sounds big. But doubling when you are 00.0385% is VERY different that if you are 10% or 30%. If you double your savings for $1 to $2 that is good but not impressive. $1M to $2M in the same time is rapid. BTW the Green-House-Gas theory according to the IPCC says that amount of “rapid” increase will raise global warming by about 1.0-1.3C.
2. That humans are responsible for this rise in greenhouse-gas levels. Debatable on many levels. The most interesting is that temperatures are causing the CO2 rise, not the other way around. Historical records support this.
3. That global warming is shrinking the polar ice sheets and Ice Age glaciers. Here we have to agree. Global warming since the Little-Ice-Age has been shrinking the polar ice sheets and Ice Age Glaciers. There are very reliable records on this. But no more now than for the last 150 years. Today’s decline is no steeper than the 1930’s. The 70’s almost saw a rise.
4. That the last half of the 20th century was warmer than any 50-year period in the last 1,000 years. Not according to most (10 to 1) proxy records.


In an interview given to The Morning Call, Dr. Mann was able to alienate both sides of the debate with a single sentence:

“I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”

Climatician, heal thyself. Start with a mirror.


Another good question:

"Everyone knows that your a scuzzball who's sole purpose of studying the climate is to keep your job and you cannot be trusted, so I ask you this - what time is it?"

See, you just got a master shot in and might also get to check to see if your watch is accurate (provided that you'd trust the time data from Mann, which I don't). It's a very good question for the likes of Mann.


One last question (for tonight at least)
-"Skeptics pretty much all agree that your an a-hole and have sucked the science out of what should be a scientific study."

Wait, that's not really a question, is it. Let me try again:

-"Skeptics pretty much all agree that your an a-hole and have sucked the science out of what should be a scientific study, so what do you think of this video?"

(as you can see, I consider Mann to be a horrible individual and would much rather give him sh*t than debate that lying *sshole. Skulldugerous. Is that a word? Because if it is, it describes him.)


Did I mention that you should slap him?

jj mollo

Kevin, why did you make me watch that video? I kept waiting for the punch line. The guy looks like one of the uncles in the Addams Family. ... oh, I'm sorry. That wasn't you was it? ... Very nice voice. Especially the falsetto part.

jj mollo

Frank, It was an excellent interview. I think you did a good job of getting his viewpoint out and I'm glad you didn't insult him in the process. There are at least two sides to every story and I think that Michael Mann has been unjustly abused and widely misinterpreted.

Frank Warner

I look at this as a teaching moment. I have to hope the interview helped clarify the debate. As a reporter on this topic, I have to stand back a little.

But there is one thing I got from this interview: We're all going to know just how serious (or not) this global warming is within 5 to 10 years. That's not long. Unless there's a big volcano to block out the sun, we'll know, and we won't have to check out the numbers anymore.

Meanwhile, I don't see the Chinese or the Indians cutting back on CO2 emissions within those 5 to 10 years. Either that CO2 doesn't matter, or we're going to start seeing much more obviously how much it matters.


The second interview was a good, clear summation of what Mann had to say in the original long-form interview. Whether you agree with Mann or not, the main points were simply and clearly presented.
Nice job, Frank!
That's tough to do.


Hehe, JJ. It's like a 'rickroll'. You can't help but laugh at the poor guy :).

Frank, again I say 'wtf'? "I look at this as a teaching moment." What were we taught? We already knew that this (pardon my french) douchebag believes that man is going to cause the overheating of the planet to the point where it will no longer sustain human life. So what was clarified or learned?


And Lynne, when have you ever been able to say that Mann or any other Armogeddonist's views haven't been made clear? Frank is my very favorite non-conservative/libertarian, but I think you guys are doing him a disservice by suggesting that this was a good interview.

It was nothing more than a venue for that creep to spew his talking points.


Man, I'm grumpy, and it's all Frank's fault. Teaching moment. Sheesh. Damnit, you've ruined my day Frank.


Just to clarify, I'm EXTREMELY pissed off at Frank Warner. How could he blow such a great opportunity to skewer an evil scumbag?

This isn't like our disagreements over what's hippie and what's progressive (or 'liberal' as you like to say). No, this time you've really f#$%ed up. It seems to be making me angrier by the hour.


It's hour later, and yes, I'm hours angrier. How could you let this guy ge... shoot, I'm not sure I can even form the words. How could you let this...

Crap. Too angry. Can't talk. This is an epic #$%^ up, Frank. I seriously doubt you know the damage you've done by letting this cretin off the hook with your softball questions. I've never been angrier at you than I am at this moment, and that's even counting when you supported Obama.


Watts notices.


"You know, The Daily Call only has one side of the story. They really should interview Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick next. Their contact page is helpful for such requests."

Frank, Watts has a brilliant idea! Perhaps you can still atone for the horrors you've supported this week. I'm not saying it's possible. You might still be doomed to eternal damnation. I'm not religious so I can't make that type of determination.

But at least there's a chance! Interview McIntyre. I'll bet he'll let you, and you might even get your soul back in the deal.


I had a voice once, Frank. For as long as I could remember, I had a voice - that called me to my God... that called me to church... and on the day that I needed that voice the most, it left me, and Frank Warner wrote a fluff piece about Satan himself (aka Michael Mann). It's better never having known that voice.


Oops, forgot the link. Best gothic horror movie ever. Remember when you watch it that Michael Mann is the guy who played Aragorn in that other movie.

jj mollo


Why are you so exercised about Mann? You really don't know yet whether he's right or wrong. Unless you "know" things without undisputed evidence. He comes across as pretty rational in the interview. I don't think you can deny his sincerity. So if he's sincere and he hasn't killed anybody, how can you judge him so harshly. You are accepting somebody else's opinion on the "climate-gate" hoorah? Comparing him to Satan is a bit extreme, even if he's a Democrat.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)