Mike Mann Exposes Himself As A Total Tool

image

What a guy! 

Alyssa Carducci had made a simple inquiry.  She was asking about how much Mann would charge to give a talk to a bunch of air conditioning specialists in the Florida area. 

After hearing reports that some scientists who are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims receive a modest honorarium of less than $1,000 to speak at global warming conferences, we hoped Mann would quote a similar figure to come speak to us. We could then invite other air conditioning specialists in the area to attend, ask questions, and learn about the issue. We did, after all, want to hear all sides of this important issue.

I was shocked when Mann’s agent quoted a $10,000 speaking fee. We can’t afford anything close to that exorbitant speaking fee. I was even more shocked when I later read articles in which Mann criticized skeptical scientists for allegedly making money off their global warming skepticism.

So, she wrote about this and Mann’s total hypocrisy about pointing to other people saying that they’re for hire. 

Mann then goes full stupid.  You can still read some of his stupidity on his Facebook page.  

The next morning, Thursday, Mann publicly accused Carducci of “falsely claiming that I was receiving 10K for a talk that I am giving at the Sports Turf Managers Association (STMA) Annual Meeting in Daytona.” The original Media Trackers article never mentioned the Sports Turf Managers Association or its annual meeting in Daytona.

It’s fascinating.  When one reads the original article, there really isn’t anything to be upset about.  Sure, it points to the $millions Mann has made from his alarmism and faux science, but, people already knew he was profiting from all of this.  So, I really don’t see what Mikey was upset about. 

Turns out, yes, he charges up to $10,000 for speaking fees.  And, no, Carducci never wrote anything about the Sports Turf Managers Association (STMA) Annual Meeting. 

Original piece here.  Follow-up here, and most recent here.

The thing is, if Mann wasn’t ashamed of what he’s charging, why react in such a manner?  Is he really just a horse’s  behind?  What’s wrong with people like Mann?  If Mann was confused about the speaking engagements and what he’s charging, why didn’t he just say, “No, I’m not charging that much for this speaking engagement, but, I regularly charge that much for other engagements.”  How hard would that be?  Why all the accusations?  Why all the protestations?  So what?  Mann’s a tool, he profits greatly from his alarmism, and there are people out there stupid enough to pay him to utter banalities. 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Mike Mann Exposes Himself As A Total Tool

  1. Me says:

    I think you already know the answer to that.

  2. DirkH says:

    If he continues like that he’ll have his own MSNBC show in a New York minute.

  3. omnologos says:

    Perhaps he did charge $1000 but was too stupid to realize his agent was taking a $9000 cut on top of that. Until now.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Mann is not altogether consistent. F’rinstance he helped write Knight et al 2005, which shows the AMO has been cycling for at least a thousand years. A couple weeks ago UK Met Office said the AMO (and PDO) were the reasons they were expecting no rise in temperature for the next 5 years.

    In other words Mikey Mann is saying saying we’re all doooooomed when his own work says ‘no we’re not’.

    He’ll charge you almost but not quite $10,000 though to very wordily not say this to whatever group of people you want him to not say it to.

  5. philjourdan says:

    Like Algore, the high priests of the AGW religion cannot be seen by the unwashed masses to be enriching themselves. It removes the veneer of “do-gooding” from their Quixotic quest. And that is why he lashed out – getting everything wrong. He had to. Once you lie, you have to continue to lie to prop up the original one.

  6. Latitude says:

    you know………………if you’re going to tell a lie….at least be smart about it

  7. Larry Geiger says:

    “Smart” is a word. It’s a good word. Does not apply in this case. :-)

  8. gator69 says:

    His Facebook page lists speeches he gave recently…

    “For folks going to the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco next week, here is a list of my talks:”

    Then this from the AGU website…

    “Contact Your Legislators Now! Fiscal cliff deal pending with potentially severe cuts to science funding”

    20 December 2012
    AGU Science Policy Alert 12–52

    I’m sure they have our best interests in mind.

  9. Tony Duncan says:

    http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/01/17/media-trackers-writer-ignorant-hypocritical/

    for a different take on this.
    interesting that you guys believe she actually called to honestly want to have Mann speak at her “families” event. Seems comparable to the Palestinain West Bank Realty Association asking Benjamin Netanyahoo to speak about land opportunies in Jerusalem. And WHY then did she call the school to find out how much they were paying him? Maybe. Now I am just throwing this out here guys. MAYBE she was planning to write an article about Mann that tried to portray him as a greedy unscrupulous climate scientist, and LIED about who she was (does that sound familiar) and really had no interest in procuring his services. Or is it just a co-incidence that she writes for mediatrackers? Maybe she just FORGOT she wrote for media trackers and after getting the quote from Mann’s agent suddenly REMEMBERED she wrote for media trackers and did a face palm realizing that NOW innocent as she had been of the possibility mere moments before she could do an article about it, and just misrepresent Mann in as many ways as possible so that the readers would get the right message? ( my great fear and delight a misture at the moment is the real possibility that Phil will chmapion just that scenario as being the most reasonable explanation)
    I read Mann’s FB page and he never denied that he makes money nor even $10,000 for speaking events. He said was the speaking event that he was about to make was pro bono. Carlucci repaeatedly implies in her post that Mann is going to charge that much at this “publicly-funded school.”
    She also calls his speaking fees “exorbitant”, without basing it on any info and predictably conflates his speaking fees with his Grant money mentioning hundreds fo thousands of dollars potentially in ADDITION to those millions. According to the above Link, this is not much different than Lindzen makes
    What is amazing is that YOU James, who surely know better cannot possibly believe Mann has made “millions” from his fuax science. You know that the momney totals in grant applications have little if anything to do with the amount the researcher makes. Why lie like that? Even Carlucci didn’t flat out say that. she does wrote it in such a way for people to beleive that if they wanted to. I have almost never seen you make a statement like that, which you know is blatantly untrue.

    the other thing I find so funny about all of this is that YOU guys are the REASON Mann can charge $5-$10,000 a speaking engagement. if it wasn’t for the denier community Mann would be just another of the hundreds of cliamte scientists who make NO money speaking because they have not been made famous by the constant villification of him.
    And if he wins his lawsuit, I assume he will get even more recognition and money, when if just ignored by you he would never have risen to these greats heights!

    There is no hypocrisy in Mann’s statements. he gets paid to tell people what he knows about climate change, and maybe about what it is like to be one of the most attacked scientists in modern history. His view is that people like Milloy get paid to lie about climate science. Mann is a climate scientist, Milloy isn’t. If you are a heart surgeon and get paid to give talks on heart surgery, it is not hypocritical to decry veterinarian’s being paid to talk about heart surgery.

    Mikey never said he was upset about being paid money for speaking. In fact he initially specificaly says he is quite pleased to be paid for events. If you read the FB post he is upset about a woman fraudulently claiming to be someone she is not. Not identifying herself as a writer for an anti climate change website. and then claiming that he was that amount from an event in which he was NOT making that amount. As Mann says the fact that he got one fact worng about which event, he 1. Acknowledges, and 2. he rightly says it is immaterial to the entire silly event.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      The hockey stick nonsense was all our fault? The IPCC made Mann famous by promoting his paper. Thanks to Steve McIntyre, we know it’s a complete fraud. Keep whistling past the graveyard. Maybe you might trip over a fact someday.

      Jim

      • suyts says:

        Exactly. I remember all of the awful nasty things Mann said and did only because of honest inquiries about this data and methodology. There was no need for any of it, other than the fact he was trying to hide his garbage.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        No, the hockey stick nonsense was not your fault. Your fault was raising him to the level of Lucifer, or at least Hansen’s right hand demon. So Mann’s work is completely fraudulent and every other scientist who has looked at his work and not demanded that it be retracted is a co-conspirator in the fraud.
        Jim, please enlighten me on what facts I am wrong about, since you seem to think I have none of them correct. Funny how you didn’t address anything I actually wrote.

        • philjourdan says:

          Facts you are wrong on? Try all. No one has raised Mann to anything except mann. You do not know the difference between hypocrisy and lampooning, and idol worship apparently. And regardless of whether you are the Kai Algore, or a lowly Vedic Hansen, lying only gets you caught in your lies. It does not further your cause.

          I am always astounded what it is about liberals who feel that they must lie, even with the truth will suffice. If Mann has just shut up, this would have been a non-starter that probably no one here would have read. But when he decided he had to LIE about it, then it became another example of the maxim – liberals lie as a matter of habit, not necessity.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          I LOVE your responses. You almost always manage to surprise me at some point in our meaningless interactions.
          you say I am wrong on ALL the facts, and then you proceed to enumerate NONE of them. You are hysterical! I tell you Groucho MArx would have learned much from studying your words. Of course I am not confused by tour obfuscation, as Marxes scriopted actors pretended to be
          Your whole focus on his “lie” which is in actuality just a mistake that he cleared up immediately, and as he states has no bearing on any of this. EXCEPT it allows you to fetishive it and turn it into the point of the whole silly sordid affair.
          let me point out the difference between a lie and a mistake. Mann, made a mistake. he eitehr misread or misunfderstood something that had jsut happened by a person who worte a blatantly hatchet job article about him that implied nonexistant nefarious intent.
          Romney LIED about Jeep moving all production out of the US that outraged possibly millions of people and required a dnial and denunciation form the companies he was lying about. MAnn acknowledged his mistake and it alters NOTHING.
          Romney never acknowledged the lie. THAT fact indicates it was a conscious decisions.
          Mann retraction of the mistaker indicates that he acknowledged the mistake and wanted to make the situation clear.
          One is a deliberate lie with a sinister purpose, one is a clarification that rescinds something that was wrong. If Mann had LIED, he would have tried to rationalize it sopmehow. He did not. he said he was wrong, that he had conflated two separate things. then focused on the real issue, which is a journalist using subterfuge to get information that they can twist otno an article attacking the person.
          As Omnologos so clearly points out (thank you for coming to my defense on this issue) the agent cannot lie about fee. So Alyssa could have just been honest and said she wanted to know what it would cost to hire Mann without the ridiculus charade.
          the fact that tshe THEN tried to pry the amount out of the presenter makes the point o fthis issue quite clear.
          This was a hatchet job about a meaningless issue that was designed purely to portray Mann as someone who charged “outrageous fees”. this by itself is absolutely untrue since James seems to think people happily pay this 10 or more times a year for the last ten years. And that his charging fees for his opinions about something he actually does have expertise on, makes him a hypocrite for atacking people who do not have expertise also getting paid.
          Sorry I do not have more time for this, but it is absolutely thrilling to see the way you can ignore reality as it is clearly presented to you and completely twist an thing no matter how ridiculous into it’s exact opposite.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, stop huffing. I said you had the wrong article. I then LISTED the facts. I really have no idea how you can miss them, even in your drug induced state. Now you accuse me of saying you are wrong (no, I said you had the WRONG ARTICLE) and failing to enumerate the facts. Both allegations are patently, absurdly, and demonstrably false. So I can add, unequivocally, that you are also a liar.

          Stop Huffing, get rehab, get a spell checker, and get a life. In that order.

        • Latitude says:

          Tony…are you really my sister in law?

        • philjourdan says:

          More like my ex-mother in law.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          Tony, are you being paid by the word? It would be nice if you juxtaposed words that actually mean something when strung together.

          Jim

        • philjourdan says:

          It would be nice if he actually made real words that he strings together.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,
          sorry I can’t continue these useless back and forths.
          I have addressed evey substative point put forth by you James and the others commenting here.
          I have pointed out how they are either in error or are irrelevant, or ar just fantasy thinking .
          Since you almost never engage my points directly, and often just make statements decrying my intelligence or competence, it is vrtually impossible to have any sort of actual dialogue with you. Since you are clearly intelligent enough to understand How to do it. I assume you are not actually interested in doing so. it is of course entertaining for me to see your creative zigs and zags when you cannot actually counter my points, but it is just that, entertainment. if you ever actually WANT to have a substantive discussion about an issue i would be happy to oblige.
          In this case, again you say that I am lying yet you reference absolutely nothing I have written that is a lie. I undrstand the point you are TRYING to make and I of course have gone over all your statements to make sure I am not missing something. And no, as I expected I have understood your commetns and repsonded to them rationally.

          I have noted the point of James post and explained why it is incorrect. James only takes the parts of the article that he can use to present his conclusion, and ignores other parts that support my conclusions. he aso ignores important parts of Mann’s FB posts.
          I have accurately portrayed the real situation. I have shown that Mann’s lie, was immediately corrected by Mann and that it has no bearing on the situation, except as a fetish for those intent on demonizing him. I have shown that the author of the Article was engaged in a hatchet job, that is immediately transparent. I have shown that Mann has not been “embarrassed about” the money he makes in any way hesitant about it.
          I have shown that Mann’s protestations are quite reasonable and based on the facts.
          I have shown that both James and Alyssa’s attempts to portray Mann as a millionaire are rather ludicrous , or at best wildly speculative, based on extrapolation form almost no information,.
          I have pointed aout all the aspects of the original authors misrepresentations and exactly WHY the article was a hatchet job.
          And you have presented no information that contradicts any of what I have written.
          One could come to the conclusion that you refuse to engage in actual dialogue becuase you know that to do so would make your protestations untenable, but I am not one to speculate. I just find it entertaining

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, you are a liar. There is no way to sugar coat that fact. Plain and simple you are a liar.

          What you have done is:
          1 – Create a strawman – likening the author of the piece to a felon (Gleick). No such comparison was made or insinuated. Indeed, no one even cared if she was Gleick.
          2 – Tried to change the subject to earnings. It never was about earnings. It was about Mann lying about the fee he charged, lying about the incident, and denying the facts he later admitted to.
          3 – Tried to make it a story about legality. It is not. Mann is free to charge whatever he wants. No one cares, and that is not the story. The story is his hypocrisy (and lying). He vilifies skeptics for earning money, while basically trading on a lie (his Nobel Prize) to enrich himself.

          You have not addressed any of these points. You have only pounded your lies and strawmen. You lied when you said I had not rebutted you nor listed my points. I had done both (and did again since you apparently are WUI).

          In short, you are preparing to do another disappearing act after being handed your head on a platter (as you did in the previous thread – never did you return to answer the fallacies of your position).

          The difference between you and I is one of integrity. When I am wrong, I admit it. As I did. When you are wrong, you skulk off like the coward you are. I am sure you will be back on another thread. But I do believe you when you say you will not be back on this one. You have no more excuses for your ignorance and lies.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          Well, you shock me again. You actually posted something that was meaningful and can be addressed. So even though I WAS planning to skulk off like a coward after having my head handed to me on a platter, I will respond to your points. Everyone of which is either incorrect or invalid. But then I am used to that. Still, I commend you on actually making an understandable case this time. Of course, you just ignore or distort the actual points that I have made and the fact that I made them clearly and that they are actually relevant to the issues being discussed. FURTHERMORE in the spirit of dialogue I will even check my spelling before hand (manually to show you I am not to stupid to know how to spell correctly).

          <>

          Wrong. I created no straw man. What I did was point out the actual reality of what occurred. In this case a woman misrepresenting herself by not identifying herself as a journalist- making up a ridiculous story that she wanted to hire Mann to give a talk to her “family” event. She is a writer for a right wing web site. She was one before this event happened. She was planning on writing an article about this incident if she was able to play it in the way she intended. It was a piece of hack journalism. I only made the connection to Gleick because this was a rather silly parody of that episode. It is not nearly as involved nor as deceitful as what Gleick did. It is not a crime and is itself meaningless. Rather it was a pathetic reflection of something you folks were horribly offended by. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy in calling Gleick a felon and being incapabale of denouncing her third rate deception at all.

          <>

          Wrong again. I did not make the subject about earning. The subject is about hypocrisy. Does Mann denigrate people who get paid to talk about climate change while doing the same thing himself. My answer is , No he does not, at least not in the case of the person SHE named in her article. Mann denigrates someone, Milloy, who is not qualified to talk about climate change getting paid for it, whereas Mann gets paid to talk about an issue that he is an acknowldeged expert on.
          YOU are making the issue about lying. And as I have clealry pointed out, he acknowledged his mistake the next day. He did not try to hide the mistake or spin it or rationalize it. He explained why it happened, that it WAS a mistake and that it had nothing to do with the fact of this woman deceitfully misrepresenting herself and writing an article that totally misrepresented reality. His explanation was reasonable and immediate.
          She and James made the argument that money had something to do with it. Both of them suggesting Mann makes “millions” of dollars. She said his fees are “outrageous”, when they are actually quite normal for a person in his position. These claims are flat out wrong by her. And if we accept James’ perspective, while it is possible that he has made over a million dollars in his career through speaking fees. I think it quite possible that most people wriitng on here have made over a million dollars in their careers. Very few ( present company excluded) would suggest that that is a strong motivation for pursuing fraudulent science. And yet that IS what is being suggested by the author.

          <>

          Funny this is ALSO wrong. I AM detecting a pattern. Not sure where your imaginative brain came up with this one, and no idea what i wrote that caused you to conisder this a devastating blow to my argument. yes Mann is free to charge whatever he wants. His AGENT advises him on what to charge based on his fame and the likely demand for his services. At least we agree on something. the POINT is that you folks had this bizarre beleif that Mann doesn’t want people to KNOW he makes $10,000 for appearances. And how do you determine this? because he waited ONE DAY to admit it. . And you base this on the fact that he said he was doing an event pro bono that he wrongly thought this hack journalist was talking about. Who do you think, among his acolytes and devoted followers if going to be gnashing their teeth in distress to discover that Saint Mann, doesn’t do science for FREE and that he accepts money to talk abouthis work (and most likely about the experience of being attacked as the anti christ by a vocal minority of our great nation- James exluded. I am sure he does not think Mann is the actual antichrist, Mann does not fit the profile. not handsome or charming enough). Yes, of course if Mann was a real scientist he would accept no money and beg with his rice bowl on the street.
          As for “his Nobel” the IPCC gave scientists certificates regarding the Nobel Prize. He actually did contribute concretely to the IPCC with his work. This is in distinction to Moncton who has claimed the SAME Nobel prize for writing a letter. As I said numerpous times. Mann is able to make as much money as he does NOT because of his research or a small piece of a Nobel, but because he has been attcked SO much that he has become a minor celebrity. This never would have happened if he had not been continually villified by the deniosphere. Of course if EVERY climate scientist who contributed to the IPCC is making $10K for speaking gigs, I will have to admit my error.

          <>

          Wrong again. I have addressed almost all of these points in my exhaustive explanation in my other comments. I just now adressed all them concretely and specifically in a jovial act of dialogue, while you have addressed almost none of mine. Which is fine I have no desire to convince you of reality.What can I say, I enjoy reading your remarks, and seeing how unrelated to dealing with the actual reality of a situation they are. You have nowhere shown I have lied or misrepresented anything. James mistakenly thinks I have but I will respond to him next. His misunderstadning is quite reasonable

          I will skip the skulking paragraph, though I am sure you will read all sorts of triumphant vindication in that.

          <>

          Well, I Do acknowledge you admitted it in the last post when you foolishly tried to say I was lying about Romney. Since I only post about things on here when I am pretty sure of the facts, it is not too surprising that I don’t admit being wrong on here very often. However if presented with factual evidence of a mistake I would rather know the truth and accept that, than believe what I want to believe just because I like it better than reality.

          So I have not skulked off and you have shown no ignorance or presented any lies. But I really do have more important things to do now.
          Again it was a pleasure.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, I do not care to read your reply – for the simple reason that what I wrote was not new – it was a repeat. That you lied before about me not writing it – even after you had responded to it, proves you are a liar.

          I am not wrong. For the simple reason, other than the descriptives of you being on dope, and too lazy to spell check, they are all facts.

          And the fact that you cannot NOW admit that my post was merely a repeat, shows how shallow and wrong you are.

          You are a caricature of a clown (although I do understand you play one in real life). You deny I write something and then magically find it and declare I wrote something novel. A repeat, by definition, is not novel.

          So try again. I stated facts. Facts you have yet to rebut or refute with anything approaching facts. Instead, you merely pen another wandering illiterate diatribe restating your already disproven points in the hope that by repeating your drug induced rantings, they will magically become reality. No. Just your drug induced stupor.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          I stopped reading Tony’s long, long, long strings of words a long, long, long time ago. I would like to use his comments as a test of network bandwidth though. I’m sure it would put network hardware through its paces.

          Jim

      • Jim Masterson says:

        >>
        Tony Duncan says:
        January 22, 2013 at 3:02 am

        Your fault was raising him to the level of Lucifer, or at least Hansen’s right hand demon.
        <<

        Yeh, I did that all by myself. Thanks for the recognition. Where’s my trophy?

        >>
        So Mann’s work is completely fraudulent and every other scientist who has looked at his work and not demanded that it be retracted is a co-conspirator in the fraud.
        <<

        So you do know what’s going on.

        >>
        Jim, please enlighten me on what facts I am wrong about, since you seem to think I have none of them correct. Funny how you didn’t address anything I actually wrote.
        <<

        Just when I thought you were getting it, you pretend to be thick-skulled again.

        Jim

        • omnologos says:

          Should not have to be this difficult. A public speaker or their agent has to answer truthfully about speaking fees no matter who’s calling and what the motives are for the call.

          Mann took some time to confirm the $10k figure. Not before making a huge mess out of what could have been nothing. That’s the scandal.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          omnologos says:
          January 22, 2013 at 3:50 am

          Should not have to be this difficult.
          <<

          It’s difficult talking to liberals, because it’s like talking to a two-year old:
          I want ice cream.
          What’s your favorite flavor?
          Favorite flavor of what?
          Your favorite flavor of ice cream.
          You have ice cream?
          No, but I was going to go to the store and get some.
          Why did you offer ice cream if you didn’t have any?

          Jim

        • philjourdan says:

          He is not pretending Jim.

    • suyts says:

      Did you read the links I provided? Did you read Mann’s comments in sequence? What part do you think I said was a lie?

      Now tell me, what makes a climate scientist a climate scientist? I’d really love that answer. There’s no hypocrisy? Of course it is, while the story only mentions Milloy, Mann’s venom isn’t confined to just Milloy….. in fact, it isn’t confined to anything. He’s a real piece of work.

      The lady, of course, states that she did not misrepresent who she was. Whom am I to believe? A person who regularly engages in acts of deception or a lady I’ve never heard about?

      And, of course his error is entirely material…… he doesn’t like to be considered for hire? But, is for hire at 5k-10k a pop.

      Lastly, “And if he wins his lawsuit, I assume he will get even more recognition and money, when if just ignored by you he would never have risen to these greats heights!”

      No, no, that’s completely backwards. He had already sunk to horrible lows before anyone asked him about his hockey stick, and he’s already received accolades and awards the like for his crap faux science.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        James,
        yes. of course i read over the links you provided. I also read the link I posted interesting how the “facts” are portrayed so differently on the different blogs. In this case the facts are very clear and straightforward, and the facts in question are rather unimportant.
        what appears to me to be a lie is you saying “Sure, it points to the $millions Mann has made from his alarmism and faux science”. Unless you know of another source of income, the only millions I can imagine you referring to are the ones she refers to which are the ones procured through grants, and I explain quite clearly and you know that grant money is not personal income.
        “What makes a climate scientist” is a rather silly comback. name me one paper Milloy has published related to climate science. The article names Milloy, so that is what I was referring to.
        REALLY? the LADY? Come on James. The lady did not say she was a reporter for media trackers writing a story about what a hypocrite Michael Mann was. The same way Gleick didn’t say he was climate alarmist trying to secure the funding sources for Heartland so he could attack them as being funded by evil fossil fuel companies and other right wing benefactors. But hey I could be wrong. Show me that her “family” has made offers to other climete scientists who are well know for supporting ACC but would be willing to charge $1,000 or less plus expenses. She could have told Soloman that her “company” did not have that much mony to spend, and see if there was someone who could help her. hell, I bet I know a climate scientist that is knowledgeable enough about the issue to do it for that price. Have her get in touch with me and i will set it up “pro Bono”
        And no the error is NOT material. He get paid for his expertise and fame. It is a reasonable error, and he explained it immediately. He never gives any indication that he doesn’t like to be considered for hire. In his initial posting on the subject and all the others he very forthrightly tells us the name of his AGENT who BOOKS him!! In my experience when someone tries to hide something, they don;t advertise the fact that they PAY someone to facilitate the thing they are trying to hide. He makes it clear he does not like people who are not experts in a field to be for hire about areas where there are experts to be hired. And it is totally irrelevant to the fact that this “journalist” did a hack job going “undercover” to find out he gets paid to speak to organizations. And she invents this ridiculous cover story knowing that the people who read her article will just believe it, even though it is the most transparent unbeleivable deception one could imagine.
        the only story here is that Alyssa, can con seemingly intelligent people into believing that this was not a set up from the beginning. You see James she SAYS that the reason for her call was to have Michael Mann speak at this “family” sponsored event. and she ONLY became horrified when she discovered how “outrageous” his fee was. She writes for a right wing anti climate change web site.
        In your experience do people who write for right wing anti climate change web sites go to speakers bureas to find climate scientists to give talks to enlighten their employees?

        James, aside from being banned from his site I left Steve’s site because you at least engage with real issues. As silly as our arguments get, this is to the same level as the ridiculous “Hansen manhattan flooding” that Goddard could never admit to being wrong about.
        If you cant acknowledge that she was solely doing this as a set up there is really no point in engaging with you.

        • philjourdan says:

          God Tony – Get an effing Spell checker or get an education. You have so many errors in spelling and grammar, that either you are A) Lazy, B) Stupid, or C) on drugs. You pick which one.

          It is painful to read your spin. And that is all it is. Quite simply, this is a non-story. The story is not about Mann making millions. The story is about him lying about it. Period, end of story. You can spin it any way you want, and comparing man to Gleick is a bit harsh, but if you want to make that jump, be my guest.

          We all know you are an acolyte in the church of Alarmism. What was not readily apparent before was the lengths and depths you would go to be a sock puppet for the high priests of the religion. You can believe in AGW all you want, but to do such a terrible job of trying to spin what is only a PR nightmare for Mann is pathetic! Your whole defense is “maybe”. At least you have the decency not to DENY the facts (making you not quite the denier yet), but you then attempt to divert attention from the story with your tin foil hat conspiracy theories. None of which make a damn bit of difference to the story.

          Go play with your bristle cone pines if you want, believe the end of the world is nigh. But also do 2 other things.

          1. Get a fracking spell checker or quit posting when you are high
          2. Try defending the defensible, and not your phony gods who neither deserve defense or are defensible.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,
          sorry it is not worth my spending the time to correct spelling mistakes. you are of course free to disregard anything I write because it ofends your sense of acceptable spelling or grammar etiquette.
          This is pretty silly.
          OF COURSE the story is about Mann making millions. becuase that is not true. She comes out and SAYS he is a hypocrite for making money speaking while attacking thoseagainst climate change for making money. Why wold she put it in her articel if it was not relevant?
          Ocn again there is nothing I wrote that is factually incorrect and my interpretation of the facts is not only rrasonable but even you guys apparantly can;t force yourself to support her fanciful claim. Glad YOU accept my response is factually correct
          Mann ONLY said the 10K figgure was wrong for that particular event. He corrected that and that aspect of this is meaningles.
          the POINt is a woman trying to write an article for a right wong blog, misrtepresented herself to the AGENT of Mann. She was NOT someone who was looking for Mann to be booked at her family event. Again, if I am wrong about this I will be glad to find her someone who is a climate change expert who will do this talk for her. We will never know what would have happened if she had just called and asked the agent how much does Mann make for speaking events because i am writing an article about him. Likely she would have been told none of your business, so she made up this transparent ruse. But one that was reasonable at the time, and achieved it’s purpose.
          Mann males that amount (when he is not doing them for free as he was doing the “upcomng” one that she insinuated he was doing for 10K’) BECAUSE he has gotten so famous by being attacked by climate change deniers. that is what makes this whole thing funny. People like you are responsible for his making more money than he would if he was just any climate scientist.
          Your saying my calling out her obvious and ridiculous sham a “tin hat conspiracy” is one of the funnier things you have tried to foist off on your friends here.
          Please put it in writing so that everyone can read that Alyssa REALLY wanted Mann to give a talk to her “family business” about climate change, and she just happened to be a writer for this right wing web site that only posts anti climate change stories.
          And then you call me an alarmist. What pray tell have I written that is alarmist about ACC?

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, your illiteracy is duly noted – as is your laziness. And you still do not get it. Please point out to me where everyone here is decrying Mann making a buck. If you cannot, retract your stupidity and RTFM. The article’s headline is “Mann exposes himself as a total tool”. Does anyone making money make them a tool? Only in your Marxist nirvana. What makes a person a tool?

          Suyts gives the response almost immediately. After setting the stage with the story, he points out 2 things. Mann’s lies, and Mann is a hypocrite. Period. End of story. If you want to debate someone else’s article, GO THERE. If you want to discuss this article, stop trying to divert the issue with your own ego and your sock puppet of Mann antics.

          And here’s a clue for you. A spell checker costs NOTHING. And it takes care of your errors for you. So don’t BS us with your BS. The truth is you are not smart enough to spell correctly.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, at $10K a pop, 10 speaking engagements a year, and voila! $1,000,000. He’s been at this for over 15 years. Of course that doesn’t cover his pay for his positions gained because of his faux science, nor does it cover the cash awards he’s won. Of course, he’s personally made $millions because of his advocacy, it’s silly to think otherwise.

          You’re right, I don’t explicitly state some things, because I do assume a level of knowledge at times. Just like when the article only mentions Milloy, I assume the reader knew of the other vicious attacks he’s made on several others. Others which would rise to your definition of a climate scientist.

          Then there’s your strange parallel to the Gleick affair. If this Alyssa person, using a false identity, gets Mann and Co. to fax over some docs. and then forges another and misrepresents Mann, then we can make parallels.

          And, then, of course, you missed the entire thrust of the post. Which was, his reaction was beyond how normal people should react. Mann, like yourself, is making this an issue. I’m just laughing at him. He’s angry that he got outed as charging large sums for his speaking engagements all the while crying about people for hire. Just to reiterate, so there won’t be any confusion, I’ll quote some of my final thoughts of the post.

          If Mann was confused about the speaking engagements and what he’s charging, why didn’t he just say, “No, I’m not charging that much for this speaking engagement, but, I regularly charge that much for other engagements.” How hard would that be? Why all the accusations? Why all the protestations? So what?

          Tony, sometimes I think you react more emotionally than reading what was actually stated. I was trying to make light of the “tempest in a teapot”. Even if this Alyssa lady had all the evil intent you ascribe to her, again, so what? Was Mann’s speaking fees some guarded secret? Did she lie about what was quoted to her?

          As far as this Alyssa lady and whether she was or wasn’t really trying to get Mann to speak, we only have her word to go on, unless you’ve got some other insights to share. But, yes, often, skeptics invite alarmists to come speak at a forum. In fact, Heartland does every year. As far as who would and wouldn’t invite Mann to speak, heck, I wouldn’t have thought the Sports Turf Managers Association would have. I don’t know why people do what they do. I went to a conference of electricity providers and had a guitarist as a keynote speaker. Before simply dismissing that as a ploy, I’d do some research to see how big that “family business” is. Wal Mart was a family business for quite some time.

          When I describe Alyssa as the “Lady” its because I don’t know her. I’m not familiar with her writings. I don’t know anything about her, so, Lady is apt.

        • philjourdan says:

          10×10=100. He would need to make 100 speeches (probably does since he has no time for research – like Tony).

        • Tony Duncan says:

          James,

          your whole premise is competely off the wall,
          your desire for mann to say things the way you want him to is uan unnecesary restraint on his free will. As a Christian i think you should be ashamed of yourself. He did not respond exactly the way you think he shoud. he responded in a wayt aht normal people who are not obsessed with portraying him as a malevolent immoral vicious human being.
          I personally dislike Hitler. I think he was a bad man who did bad things, but I understand he was VERY kind to animals, and that he could be very warm and engaging to his loyal supporters. there are records of him acting this way. i accept that as true and it does not mean that I approve of all his actions or beliefs.
          here are the facts.
          A woman who writes for a rigth wing blog that oNLY publishes anti climete change content, that she has written about before pretended to be asking to hire a specific speaker because she said she wanted to have her organization be given his perspective becuase her orgnaization is interested in cliamte change. She did NOT say she was a writer and she did NOT name the web site she writes for. This was a FRAUDULENT represention. No ifs ands or buts.
          You REALLY are going to give her the “out” the heartland invites climate scientists to its annual convention. You actually expect me to accept this correlation? I am not an idiot in spite of The hundred or so times Steve described me as such.
          James this was a PRIVATE event it was NOT a conference. WHY would someone that writes for a right wing anti climate change web site want to hire a person with a known reputation and spend the tiny amount of money available to pay him, when she knew she was going to write and article attacking him.
          Are you SERIOUSLy going to contend that if Mann’s agent had said. oh he charges as little as $700 plus expenses, she would ahve written an article saying how Ethical Mann was, and that he had no interst in money, but just wanted people to know the truth about climate change?
          But that was what she was contending. the implication is that she would NOT have written the articel except Mann’s fees were “Outrageous” Yet, anyone who knows anything about the speaking business knows that is a patently silly thing to say. Many many people makes MUCh more, and there are people who make hudnreds of thousands for speaking fees. Just do a quick search on highest paid speakers.
          Your apparent willingness to be open minded about her motivations might seem admirablem, if ti was not so ludicrous and beyond any undertanding of common sense. It is as if you are naive about how jopurnalists actually operate
          As for the Gleick Analogy I did not say it was exact. Clealry gleick’s was more serious ethically as he was asking for information that would not be revealed to the public, and this was information that might have easily been obtained by being honest. that is if Omnologoe is correct in his assertion.
          then her articles are pretty much pure rubbish and innuendo. That you beleive ANYTHING she says after such a tranparent deception does not bode well for your ability to assess political reality.
          Considering Mann waited an ENTIRE DAY to acknowledge he was wrong and also took that long to readily acknowledged his fees, Iwonder how quickly one has to do so inorder for you not to beleive he is “hesitating” in doing anything.

        • philjourdan says:

          As for the Gleick analogy, it is not exact, it is not even close. But then I doubt you can connect 2 dots to make a straight line. An impossible task for a spinner. You can only create your “straight lines” through 7 degrees of separation.

    • philjourdan says:

      And tony takes a nose dive with stupid ad hominems. Tony, the only deniers are those denying science. Disproven any null hypotheses yet?

      Regardless of WHY she called and asked, the facts remain unchanged even with all your “maybes” (which are totally non sequiturs). Mann lied. Now if you want to believe that $10k for a failed clown is reasonable – pay it. But do not lie about it. Here are the relevant facts:

      Mann Quoted $10k
      Mann denied it
      Mann lied
      Mann distorted (big shock there).

      Period. And Shazaam! A hell of a lot less words than your childish ad hominem diatribe.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,

        It is not up to me to decide if 10K is reasonable for MAnn, it is up to people who want to hire someoen to talk about climate change. Apparently his agent believes he can secure that fee.
        there is no ad hominem. I did not spew ridiculous insults. As far as I know you and others here all deny that ACC is an issue or any consequence.

        Journalist scmas climate scientist’s agent.
        writes artice sayinf climate scientist gets rich from “outrageous” fees while denouncing peole who deny ACC who get paid
        Climate scientist points out “scam”, acknowledges he gets paid to speak
        Journalist jumps on an irrelevant mistake and wirtes another article.
        then another
        cliamte scientist acknowledges mistake points to real issue
        cliamte deniers ignore reality and focus on irrelevant mistake and add it to their repertoire of attacks on said scientist

        • DirkH says:

          Did you know that Anthony Watts funds his Climate Denial Empire with calendar sales?

          Mike Mann knows. He tweets about it.

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF – I did not ask you to decide. I said if you want to pay it, do it. I do not care if he wants to charge $100k per talk! That is not the point. Again, for the slow learners.

          #1 – Do not claim nobility by saying you do it for knowledge, charity or altruism, and then charge $10k. That is both lying and being a hypocrite
          #2 – Do not deny you are doing if you are! That is simply a stupid lie.

          If you cannot understand those simple concepts (which would not be surprising if you are still struggling with the word IS), then I suggest some basic education courses for you – at an adult ed center near you.

          And if I missed anything you wanted to say, that would be for 2 good reasons.

          #1 – Your spelling and grammar are only getting worse (so you must be imbibing more)
          #2 – I do not respond to non sequiturs. You want to discuss the article, fine. But complaining about the mean old people who do not want to pay poor picked on Mann his $10k of flesh is not the article.

  10. suyts says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    January 22, 2013 at 6:05 pm (Edit)

    James,

    your whole premise is competely off the wall,
    your desire for mann to say things the way you want him to is uan unnecesary restraint on his free will. As a Christian i think you should be ashamed of yourself. He did not respond exactly the way you think he shoud. he responded in a wayt aht normal people who are not obsessed with portraying him as a malevolent immoral vicious human being…… (and then on and on and on.)….
    ===============================================================
    Tony! There’s is nothing I wrote that advocated not allowing Mann to respond in the way he did. Nothing. I would not deprive him of his free will.

    But, then, I have free will as well. Are you, then, trying to constrain mine? Mann threw a fit and I commented on it. It’s really that simple. Now, you’re commenting on my comments. (And attacking my Christianity because I exercised my free will.) Which it seems you believe is okay for you and Mann, but, not for me. Don’t worry, I’m used to it.

    As to your objection to my Heartland parallel, you should spend more time reading Mann’s Facebook page, I guess. Mann is the one who did so and painted her as a Heartland affiliate. (I’ve no idea whether she is or isn’t.) I did link that in my post. Do try to keep up.

    You also stated, “A woman who writes for a rigth wing blog that oNLY publishes anti climete change content.”

    Uhmm, Media trackers does not only publish anti climate change content. Go here. http://florida.mediatrackers.org/ Or if you were referring only to Alyssa, go here and scroll down. http://florida.mediatrackers.org/author/alyssa/

    Now, given that your assumptions about Media trackers and Alyssa were incorrect, don’t you believe that perhaps some of your other assumptions towards her motives and intent may also be incorrect?

    Are you SERIOUSLy going to contend that if Mann’s agent had said. oh he charges as little as $700 plus expenses, she would ahve written an article saying how Ethical Mann was, and that he had no interst in money, but just wanted people to know the truth about climate change?

    Uhmm, no, I’m not contending that, nor did I ever make that contention. But, if the offer was $700+, I would hire him today. And, I believe that’s the point. Where did you get that as a contention of either me or the author? No one has suggested that.

    As to what Omn stated….

    Should not have to be this difficult. A public speaker or their agent has to answer truthfully about speaking fees no matter who’s calling and what the motives are for the call.

    Mann took some time to confirm the $10k figure. Not before making a huge mess out of what could have been nothing. That’s the scandal.

    While I probably wouldn’t have used the word “scandal”,(it doesn’t rise to such level) this was the point of the post. It was light laughter at the overreaction by Mann. (Please note the picture at the top of the post.)

    Good Heavens Tony! The thought just occurred to me! Given the similarities of the reactions by both you and Mann, is it possible that you guys are related? How is it you take such levity with such burdensome magnitude?

    You didn’t like my swipe at your hero or something, I get that. But, this is a blog, and I write about climate stuff and the actors engaged in such, from time to time.

    • philjourdan says:

      Tony’s words are not worth quoting. If he ever gets off the bong and gets a spell checker, they may be.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      james

      Very little time. alreadty very late from my comprehensive response to Phil.

      No ihave no interst in impeding anyone’s free wii. I was just pointing out that your scenario for how he should have reacted is rather meaningless and that his actual reaction is perfectly reasonable and consistant with how I view what actually occurred.

      <>

      I realize that it is an honest misunderstanding , When i wrote “only publish anti climate change content” I meant that the content devoted to climate change was ONLY negative, not that they did not publish any other content. It would be kind of foolish to make a statment like that without checking don’t you think? but I understand why you thought I meant that.
      But being as my assumptions ( I actually checked first) about her were correct, i see little reaons to change my assessment of her motivations
      As for the heartland connection, James, maybe it is POSSIBLE that there are two different James Taylors who are principle spokesmen of organizations that are often focused against climate change. Who knows, maybe the singer has realized the wayward ways of his previous environmental committments and now is trying to make up for it in Florida debating climate change alarmists. You will have to do further research on your own if you want to get to the bottom of that.
      But until you can show me otherwise I contend that Alyssa was being purposefully deceptive and had no intetnion of hiring Mann> it was jsut a ruse to write a story. I am actualyl rather mouth-agape that you can even still ocnisder that a real possibility, especially having looked at the website and seen that she has written previous articles attacking ACC. her motive and her intent are obvious, for you to deny that is, in my view, being purposefully naive.

      <<<>>
      <>

      I did not say you DID make that contention or that shediod. No none of you suggested it. I ASKED if you were making that contention. Becuase the point of the article logically leads to the possibility that that WOULD be the contention. Why create the fiction of pretending you are interested in hiring someon, feigning shock at his “outrageous” fee and then writing an article about it, unless there was another possible outcome that would create a positive outcome. I was extrapolating what a rational for that possible outcome could be and noting that that particular one is not really tenable. If you can provide another scenario I am open to it.

      <>

      No, it is nowhere close to a scandal. it is a silly affair. I see no overeaction by Mann. A hack journalist called his agent misrepresenting herself. Called a presenter and tried to get info out of him, and then wrote a blatantly biased and misleading article about him. WHY would he not respond? it would seem very odd if he did NOT publicly point out what she was doing. And it was just a post on his FB page. That is all. Then he posted the article that lambasted the author and put her actions in context at Rogues and scholars. I see no one has bothered to reference anything on that post. She then took the meaningless “lie” and tried to make hay out of it with a coiuple more articles, and Mann responded appropriately, asknowledging his mistake publicly, and correctly noting that it had no bearing on the point that was about a blatantly misleading article. Something both he and I agree on.
      There was no overreaction by Mann or myself. I do not think this is a big deal at all.
      All the reaction you are seeing is to your take on this, which I also think is a complete misrepresentation. And of course all the comments against what I have written, which I also think are complete misrepresentations. I really don’t care about Mann. I Don’t know how good a scientist he is or what kind of person he is. I do not hold him up either as a scientist, or person. This idea that somehow I am an alarmist and uncritically supporting someome is just fantasy. All I am doing is pointing out falsehoods and misrepresentation and sticking to facts and realistic interpetations.
      We disagree about most of those things, which is fine, but it has nothing to do with him being a hero of moine. He is not. If the consensus on climate change shifts considerably and he maintains beliefs that are not supported by the facts as understood by the vast majority of scientists I respect, and I understand and agree with that thinking, I will have no problem disavowing whatever he says or writes.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Damn, I forgot about the brackets thing on wordpress. I hope you understand that each of those brackets indicates quotations from your above comment. They are pretty much in order, so I think you dshould be able to follow it.
        I am used to doing that in emails. Sorry.

      • suyts says:

        NP Tony, I can follow your writing, just not your reasoning.

        You make note that she authors alongside James Taylor, presumably the one from Heartland. You do understand that Mann made that connection. You also understand that Heartland routinely asks scientists from both sides to speak at their little get-togethers, but you absolutely reject the notion that the lady would be doing the same thing which would be consistent with being affiliated with Heartland. And that she stated that was her purpose. That makes absolutely no sense to me. She said that was her purpose, her colleagues routinely do it, but, you reject any possibility that that’s what she was doing.

        Is it naive? Maybe. But, I give everyone a couple a shots. Once shown to be dishonest, then I would regard them in a different light, as I do Mann. And, if I’m naive, you’re over-the-top cynical towards people who you can’t possibly know their intentions.

        Recall, the only evidence we have that indicates that she misrepresented herself is from Mann’s camp. Mann, who has been shown to be dishonest. You, apparently, are choosing to believe the person shown to be dishonest rather than the one accused of being dishonest by the person shown to be dishonest. Again, I can’t possibly follow that reasoning.

        You state, ” I ASKED if you were making that contention. Becuase the point of the article logically leads to the possibility that that WOULD be the contention.”

        No Tony, there are several different logical possibilities. Given that I’m not familiar with the reporter, I’ve no idea what alternate possibilities she would have contemplated if she was given a different response. Maybe she wouldn’t have written an article at all. Again, if she was shot a price something akin to the $700+ you mentioned, I would expect that she would have hired him to come speak. As that’s what I would do, but again, I’ve no way of reading her mind, and, neither do you. You simply assume her intentions were foul because she sometimes writes skeptical articles.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          OK,

          I will take one more shot at this as you are being reasonable in your responses.

          yes, I understand Heartland has CONFERENCES where they invite non skeptical scientists to speak. This is in no way the same thing. They are conferences about climate change and Heartland wants to be percieved as honestly exploring the issue. Occasionally some non skeptics agree, but mostly they do not- most feeling that the conferences are a sham.
          She was saying that she called the agent to hire Michael Mann for a company event. Is she an employee of the company? Does her job description include organizing these kinds of events? Does her company often bring in speakers for events? I sincerely doubt any of the things except possibly the last. if she wanted someone for under $1,000 then she has never had any dealings with this sort of thing. That is in the range that I get, and it is NOT the high range. I am not a well known act and nowhere near as well known as Mann and there are literally thousands of speakers and acts that are in that range, NONE of whom are at all well known. if they were they would be making A LOT more money.
          I’ll tell you what. you show me ANY time that Heartland has tried to hire a scientist that supports ACC to be the only one to give a talk at their annual company picnic and i will grant you the possibility I am wrong. You see I know something about this issue. And it is very clear that she does not. If she did she would not have considered $10,000 for a well known public figure to be “outrageous”. it is quite reasonable.
          I am telling you she is being dishonest. Everything I know about this smells of dishonesty, and if you CARE about whether she is dishonest, you could easily call the company and find out who organizes their events. your taking her at her word when i am 99% postiive she is lying is not reasonable. Just because Mann is, according to you, dishonest, does not mean he is wrong about everything.
          I am believing NOTHING about what Mann or his Agent said just because they said it. I am using common sense and my knowledge of this industry.
          You are absolutely ignoring the fact that she writes for a website that, when it posts articles about climate change, ONLY posts articles that are skeptical of climate change. the idea that she did not tell the agent that she was writing an article for a website is just misrepresentation. See the REASON that you are supposed to identify yourself as a journalist is to give the person supplying the information an opportunity to give ANY relevant information that would have an impact on the purpose of the story. if she had been honest the agent might have told her that Mann’s fees were right in line with people of similar expertise and celebrity. She likely would have told her that Mann does events for free for certain criteria. Etc.

          The evidence we have that she misrepreented herself is in her article where she SAYS she misrepresented herself by saying that she was from this company and was looking to hire Mann to speak at a company event. It is a bogus claim, and I am willing to be proven wrong if you can show me her position in the company as the person who would organize events. And even if she WAS in that position, I would not believe her purpose was simply to hire Mann. BECAUSE she is a journalist for a website that is skeptical of ACC.
          I do NOT beleive she is lying about her family having a business that deals in air conditioning, so it is conceivable I am wrong about the above. But the idea that you give no credence to the possibility that she is NOT employed in her company in that capacity strikes me as being absurd.
          Again if she wanted a scientist to talk to her company about Global warming I am sure there is a competent one at a university near her company that would be within the miniscule budgetary constraints of her company. Yet she does NOT say that she attempted to find some other qualified scientist. That SHOULD be a big part of the story if indeed she wasn’t bullshitting about the whole thing.
          Show me that they had or are having an event and that they hired another scientist or are still looking for one (which I will happily spend time to supply a good one) and that they will actually pay that person to explain to them that ACC is real and it has serious consequences and those consequences will get worse over time.
          Show me that, and I will eat my words, and retract that she was being dishonest about that part. I will say that she very well could have had two motivations at the same time.

          James, I find it very hard to beleive that you would spend $700 and fly Michael Mann to an event you were sponsoring, and cover all his expenses to give a talk to the attendees. I would not spend any money of an organization I belonged to to have Moncton speak. it would be horrendous waste of money and the attendees time, and I assume you feel the same about Mann.

          I repeat. I do not ASSUME her intentions are foul because she sometimes writes “skeptical” articles. I assume her intetnions are foul becuase they fly in the face of common sense, nothing in her articles supports the motivation she espoused. AND the head of her company is the spokesperson for Heartland institute which would LOVE to embarrass Mann even in a silly meaningless way like this. After all, all of you folks are convinced that this is another stain on Mann, whereas as I see nothing Mann did that was wrong, innappropriate or in any way negative. I see her actions and the article as obvious propaganda to be consumed by deniers in order to reinforce the image of climate scientists as being unscrupulous people. the fact that the unscrupulous actions are all on the part of the writer and not the subject just indicate how strong ideology laps up this sort of propaganda. And you have duly repeated it in your post.

        • philjourdan says:

          “yes, I understand Heartland has CONFERENCES where they invite non skeptical scientists to speak. This is in no way the same thing.”

          Right, for one very important reason. It has nothing to do with Suyts article or Mann’s lying. Here is another attempt at erecting a strawman. Totally non-sequitur.

          “most feeling that the conferences are a sham.”

          Yes, we realize that when Climate scientists have to discuss SCIENCE, they consider it a sham.

          “She was saying that she called the agent to hire Michael Mann for a company event. Is she an employee of the company? Does her job description include organizing these kinds of events? Does her company often bring in speakers for events?”

          I guess you do not have an agent for your clown car routing? If she was asked (and this is another strawman since the article was not about her, but about the lies) to organize it, she does ot have to be an employee. Indeed, there are whole companies dedicated to one simple function – organizing conferences for other companies. I know this simple fact completely escapes you, and also that it does not matter if she was is or was not since the story is about Mann lying and being a hypocrite, but that is the reality. And whether it “often” does anything is again irrelevant and a strawman. She was asking. I guess the newspeak these days is you cannot ask if you are not approved to ask by some mystical power that emanates from the religion.

          “nowhere near as well-known as Mann”

          Mann is not that well known either outside of the Climategate team. We know him because we have an interest in the subject. I will wager that asking the man on the street who he is, 8 out of 10 will not know. Which reduces his power to demand exorbitant fees to spread his religion.

          “you show me ANY time that Heartland has tried to hire a scientist that supports ACC to be the only one to give a talk at their annual company picnic and i will grant you the possibility I am wrong.”

          Strawman – Heartland did not try in this case. Indeed, the strawman is bringing heartland into it at all. Nice try Mikey Mann jr.

          “You see I know something about this issue. And it is very clear that she does not. If she did she would not have considered $10,000 for a well-known public figure to be “outrageous”. it is quite reasonable.”

          Non-sequitur and a lie. You have no earthly idea what she thinks. Indeed, you have not even delved into it, instead merely attacking her for pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of Mann.

          “I am telling you she is being dishonest.”

          Another lie. You are merely repeating an OPINION of a liar.

          “Everything I know about this smells of dishonesty, and if you CARE about whether she is dishonest, you could easily call the company and find out who organizes their events. your taking her at her word when i am 99% postiive she is lying is not reasonable. Just because Mann is, according to you, dishonest, does not mean he is wrong about everything.
          I am believing NOTHING about what Mann or his Agent said just because they said it. I am using common sense and my knowledge of this industry.”

          The first time we agreed on something. Yes, Mann is totally dishonest. She is not. It matters not if she was calling for the BOE, the VFW, or the GACC. Again, you are trying to create a strawman, and you are lying about it. You are not positive about any facts as you have yet to state a single one. But you are throwing your opinion around as a fact. 99% positive is also 99% stupid.

          “You are absolutely ignoring the fact that she writes for a website that, when it posts articles about climate change, ONLY posts articles that are skeptical of climate change.”

          Non-sequitur. Who she writes for does not change the facts. Which are Mann lied and is a hypocrite for decrying speaking fees of others for his noble cause.

          “It is a bogus claim, and I am willing to be proven wrong if you can show me her position in the company as the person who would organize events.”

          Another lie. You have DEMONSTRATED that you are completely unwilling to be proven wrong, that you refuse to admit you are wrong and that you are dishonest in stating such a claim.

          And also irrelevant. You are trying to make the story about her. You do a lot of “supposing” and “assuming”, but you have no facts. The facts remain: Mann Lied. Mann is a hypocrite. You are constructing strawmen. You are lying. Those are the only facts about this article.

          “And even if she WAS in that position, I would not believe her purpose was simply to hire Mann. BECAUSE she is a journalist for a website that is skeptical of ACC.”

          Who cares scare crow? Again, a strawman, irrelevant and a non-sequitur.

          “I repeat. I do not ASSUME her intentions are foul because she sometimes writes “skeptical” articles. I assume her intetnions are foul becuase they fly in the face of common sense, nothing in her articles supports the motivation she espoused.”

          No, you assume because it flies in the face of your idols and icons. It is also irrelevant, and a strawman. She did not make Mann lie. She did not make him a hypocrite.

          “AND the head of her company is the spokesperson for Heartland institute which would LOVE to embarrass Mann even in a silly meaningless way like this.”

          Another lie, and another strawman. What the head of her company wants is immaterial. Mann embarrassed himself, No one did it for him. And what he wans is irrelevent. The article is about Mann.

          “After all, all of you folks are convinced that this is another stain on Mann, whereas as I see nothing Mann did that was wrong, inappropriate or in any way negative.”

          I guess for someone who lies as a matter of habit, and is constantly hypocritical, yes, there is nothing wrong with Mann. But for those with any sense of ethics, and who do not lie as a matter of habit, yes there is plenty wrong with Mann. He lied, and he is a hypocrite. Period. End of story.

          Tony, I only read this response because you seem to have learned how to spell better (still a raft of misspellings) and proper grammar. But you still have not learned how to differentiate facts from opinions, or how to read very well since this diatribe of yours is a complete non-sequitur to the Suyts Article, and is replete with strawmen.

          Again, for the SLOW learners, the article was about Mann (or his agent) quoting a price, it being reported, he then lied about it (not his agent), and condemned those who enrich themselves on the issue. He can charge whatever the market will pay for him. Not a single damn person here cares about that. But when you accuse others of your own crimes, that is being a hypocrite.

          Those are the only facts in this article. The rest of your pathetic diatribe is mere spin. No facts, no data, not even a credible story – unless you are a mind slave to your Alarmist masters.

        • suyts says:

          Gosh Tony, you’re verbose!

          Let me clear some things up for you. Whether she knows anything about the speaking business isn’t relevant. You’re making apples to oranges comparisons.

          She had already stated she researched a few skeptical scientists who only charge a nominal fee (~ $1000) + expenses, she was hoping for something similar from Mann.

          You state, “I’ll tell you what. you show me ANY time that Heartland has tried to hire a scientist that supports ACC to be the only one to give a talk at their annual company picnic and i will grant you the possibility I am wrong.”……. That wasn’t what she was trying to do. She stated they wanted to hear both sides.

          You state, “I am telling you she is being dishonest. Everything I know about this smells of dishonesty, and if you CARE about whether she is dishonest, you could easily call the company and find out who organizes their events. …..”

          Uhmm, no it wouldn’t be easy, in that as far as I know the company was never identified. Further, she states it was her family’s business. In that case, it would be entirely possible to act outside an official capacity. Tony, have you ever had family members act the behalf of your business? I certainly have. No, they weren’t officially tied to my business, but, on occasion, I did have them act on my behalf. It could very well be that while brainstorming an idea that because she was familiar with the actors in the climate issue that she was asked to do this.

          You state, “You are absolutely ignoring the fact that she writes for a website that, when it posts articles about climate change, ONLY posts articles that are skeptical of climate change.”

          No, I’m not. But you are forgetting the nature of skeptics. Skeptics and skeptical organizations have a very long history of seeking out alarmists to give presentations, debate, and discuss the different positions. While you, OTOH, seem to use this fact as the only reason to doubt what she’s stated. Whereas, I believe it lends credence to what she stated.

          You say “Yet she does NOT say that she attempted to find some other qualified scientist. That SHOULD be a big part of the story if indeed she wasn’t bullshitting about the whole thing.”

          But this is your problem. She doesn’t say she did or didn’t. But, you base your assumptions on things you think but don’t know. Tell me this. Is her gig at Media Trackers her sole or even main vocation? Please dwell on that for a bit. When trying to organize an event, do you think name recognition is important?

          You state, “James, I find it very hard to beleive that you would spend $700 and fly Michael Mann to an event you were sponsoring, and cover all his expenses to give a talk to the attendees. I would not spend any money of an organization I belonged to to have Moncton speak. it would be horrendous waste of money and the attendees time, and I assume you feel the same about Mann.” ——– Are you kidding me? At charging a nominal fee….. say $10 a head, I’d make lots of money, or maybe have venders pay for the gig, but most importantly I’d also have an opportunity to rebut a world famous alarmist. Tony, I wouldn’t hesitate. But, I think that’s what you’re not understanding. Skeptics do just about anything to engage these people. Your comparison…. yes, I enjoy Monckton and would love to hear him speak, but I’d much rather have someone like Mann to engage.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          JAmes,

          that I am (vebose that is)

          Well, this comment of yours is why I have some hope for some sort of rapproachment between us eventually. Firstly I do appreciate your tone and approach to responding.

          and secondly I said that I would be open to other scenarios if you presented them and they were reasonable. And to a certain extent you have done so. So I can except it as being a possibility that is worth considering.

          yes it is possible that her families business wanted to hire someone related to climate change and since she writes about it asked her to do so. Do I BELIEVE that to be the case? No I do not, but I cannot rule out that possibility. the below are my thoughts that argue agaisnt this to some degree but they are not to be construed as contradicting my above acceptance of your possibility

          I do disagree that her knowledge of event planning is irrelevant. Even if she was doing the company a favor, her expectation that Mann’s fee was outrageous is in fact totally wrong. Unless she is just incompetent, she would have quickly discovered that to be the case. She does not say that she did research about fees for a lot less. She mentioned it. there is a big difference. if she had researched it she would have discovered that Mann’s rates are in no way unusual for someone who is very well known in his field. SHE is the one comparing apples and oranges.

          James it WOULD be easy to find the company. she says it is a family business I will bet you a bag of onions that the family name is based on her father and it would have the name Carducci in it. Finding a company with that name that has something to do with Air conditioning should be pretty easy for you. But that is somewhat of a moot point as you correclty point out that she need not be an employee. And if it is a family business it is quite possible that they would not be forthright and honest about her role if she is lying about it. No way to be sure, but you certainly can understand the concept of family loyalty.

          You say I am ignoring the nature of skeptics. you are right, in this case I AM ignoring the nature of skeptics. The skeptics that I know are skeptical of all sides of a question. that is why I call many of the people opposed to ACC deniers because most of them express almost no skepticism toward anything as long as it opposes ACC. I am quite familiar with skepticism and have followed the Amazing Randy for decades, as well as numerous skeptic organizations and now, podcasts. What I have learned from those associations and others is that people who write the hack journalism that she wrote are not skeptics. And I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who are experts in the field of skepticism who would consider her writing to qualify as skeptic positions. So my skeptical inclinations and experience lead me to believe very strongly that my conclusions are much more likely than yours on this issue. None of the facts of the situation are any difference , and all my explanation and analysis fits the facts much better.
          James, you should try looking at real skeptics, and not just these ideologues that call themselves skeptics. My favorite is Massimo Pigliucci and Rationally Speaking. Brilliant analysis of controversial postions looked at from a scientific yet not rigid perspective. Seeing the difference between how he approaches issues and how the anti ACC crowd does is quite enlightening.
          I am planning on going to the NY Skeptic conference this spring in fact. If you come, I will introduce you to some top flight skeptics.

          If Mann or anyone like him who quoted you such a low proce found out that you were charging tickets and making money on the deal, they would turn around and take the next flight back to where they had come from. That is one reason WHY he commands a much higher price. If it is his celebrity that is the attraction, then he should rightly be making a fair share of the money.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, first of all, in this context, when I use the word “skeptic” I am specifically referring to skepticism of the climate science. You’re right, many climate skeptics are not typical skeptics. They get to their climate skepticism through different paths. I don’t confuse the two. Nor do I believe it’s proper to compare the two distinct groups of people.

          As to the fees, we’ve already covered this. I’m not saying she’s the sharpest tool in the box, but only that there are indeed some scientists and speakers on the skeptical side who are much more generous with their time and she may have expected the same from Mann.

          As to the family business and the name, is she married? What sort of business? Installers? Assemblers? Industrial? Turns out, the family name probably isn’t in the business name. And, you’re right again, it isn’t that difficult for me, and it’s probably a waste of time. It seems the enterprise is somewhat large, multiple businesses (at least two and probably more) if I’ve honed in on the proper enterprise and people.

          As to making money on such events, Tony ……. now who’s being naive. Over the course of the last decade or so, I’ve attended events with paid speakers so many times I couldn’t even estimate how many….. nearing 100 maybe. In nearly all cases, the company sending me paid a fee for me to attend(sometimes the cost would just floor me). The last company I worked for wouldn’t think twice about paying $3-5000 for me to attend a useless function. (total of room/board/expenses/fees etc) Most of the time they would also invite vendors and either charge them a fee or asked them to kick in much of the cost of the event. It’s always about the money. And money is always made. Some have different angles than others, but it’s always about the money.

          It works like this. “Hey we’re having an environmental air conditioning conference!” We’re going to have world famous speakers. We’d like you to attend! Just pay a nominal fee to help cover expenses and we’ll reserve you a spot! We’ll have drinks afterwards. Then, you call the vendors, in this case it would be air conditioning manufacturers, suppliers, and special equipment and tool suppliers. And say, “Hey, we’ve got a bunch of air-conditioner installers meeting for a couple of days. If you want to sell your wares, just come on by and we’ll set up a time where you can push your stuff and make contacts, just pay a fee, and we’ll give you a spot! We’d like you guys to sell your stuff, so if you want to provide the booze, we’ll get these people nice and liquored up and you can work your sales magic!

          Tony, I think at this point, we’ve exhausted the conversation. We’ve got two different perspectives on this. I think it highly unlikely I’ll change yours or you change mine. If some other things become known, which neither of us know now, then things may change.

        • philjourdan says:

          I am sure Tony also believes, and will argue that Bill “did not have sex with that woman”. He seems to have a propensity to believe proven liars over anyone else.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          James,

          Wonder of wonders I agree with most of what you wrote.

          And my experience is quite similar to your description of how these conferences work. That is why I said that he would walk right out the door and fly back. If someone agrees to lower their fee precipitously and then they find out the presenter is making money hand over fist after pleading poverty BECAUSE of my presence. Well it IS all about money, unless the speaker is doing it specifically to help the presenter make money.

          And I am glad you acknowledge there is a difference between the skeptic movement and people who call themselves skeptics because they don’t want to believe in ACC :-)

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, it’s weird, climate skeptics are skeptical that science is reduced to belief. It’s an entirely different mechanism than being a person who is typically skeptical of everything. :)

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          January 24, 2013 at 7:00 am

          —Right, for one very important reason. It has nothing to do with Suyts article or Mann’s lying. Here is another attempt at erecting a straw-man. Totally non-sequitur.—
          —“yes, I understand Heartland has CONFERENCES where they invite non skeptical scientists to speak. This is in no way the same thing.”—
          Umm Phil,, James is the one who brought this up. But it is not a straw-man. It plays to her motivation. I believe it to be a complete sham that she was interested in hiring Mann. You can believe so, if you wish. I would expect nothing less

          —“most feeling that the conferences are a sham.”
          —Yes, we realize that when Climate scientists have to discuss SCIENCE, they consider it a sham.—      

           Funny they seem to do fine at every other conference, like AGU

          —“She was saying that she called the agent to hire Michael Mann for a company event. Is she an employee of the company? Does her job description include organizing these kinds of events? Does her company often bring in speakers for events?”
          —I guess you do not have an agent for your clown car routing? If she was asked (and this is another straw-man since the article was not about her, but about the lies) to organize it, she does not have to be an employee. Indeed, there are whole companies dedicated to one simple function – organizing conferences for other companies. I know this simple fact completely escapes you, and also that it does not matter if she was is or was not since the story is about Mann lying and being a hypocrite, but that is the reality. And whether it “often” does anything is again irrelevant and a strawman. She was asking. I guess the newspeak these days is you cannot ask if you are not approved to ask by some mystical power that emanates from the religion.—

          You believe her. I think it is a ridiculous assertion. As I said I am happy to find her a replacement for their pitiful budget. If She HAD hired someone else, it would make her assertions more credible.Your other ranting is of course meaningless and immaterial.

          —“nowhere near as well-known as Mann”
          —Mann is not that well known either outside of the Climategate team. We know him because we have an interest in the subject. I will wager that asking the man on the street who he is, 8 out of 10 will not know. Which reduces his power to demand exorbitant fees to spread his religion.—

          Have you heard of the Dan Holtzman? Scott Meltzer? no?  There are hundreds if not more acts and speakers that get $10,000 for an event. No one on the street would know any of them. $10,000 is standard for well known people IN THEIR FIELDS. People who are KNOWN to someone on the street are more likely to make in th 100K range.

          —“you show me ANY time that Heartland has tried to hire a scientist that supports ACC to be the only one to give a talk at their annual company picnic and i will grant you the possibility I am wrong.”
          —Strawman – Heartland did not try in this case. Indeed, the strawman is bringing heartland into it at all. Nice try Mikey Mann jr.—

          She writes for a company that has the same spokesperson as Heartland. Her website only writes articles that attack ACC and the scientists involved. I was making an ANALOGY to show the ridiculousness of the faux motivation.

          —“You see I know something about this issue. And it is very clear that she does not. If she did she would not have considered $10,000 for a well-known public figure to be “outrageous”. it is quite reasonable.”
          —Non-sequitur and a lie. You have no earthly idea what she thinks. Indeed, you have not even delved into it, instead merely attacking her for pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of Mann.—

          Not a non-sequitur, again it plays to her motivation.  If she was actually interested in hiring someone who supports ACC she would actually find something out about who is available what they cost and if it fits with the companies interests and budget. There is no indication that she was interested in anyone accept Mann. There are literally hundreds of scientists that could explain current science that supports ACC, and many of them are much closer and almost all of them much cheaper that Mann, BECAUSE they are not as well known

          —“I am telling you she is being dishonest.”
          —Another lie. You are merely repeating an OPINION of a liar.—

          No I am using my knowledge of this issue, hiring speakers and entertainment for events, and giving you my opinion. No lie. I am not relying on information from Mann, but on the information SHE provided.

          —“Everything I know about this smells of dishonesty, and if you CARE about whether she is dishonest, you could easily call the company and find out who organizes their events. your taking her at her word when i am 99% postiive she is lying is not reasonable. Just because Mann is, according to you, dishonest, does not mean he is wrong about everything.
I am believing NOTHING about what Mann or his Agent said just because they said it. I am using common sense and my knowledge of this industry.”

          —The first time we agreed on something. Yes, Mann is totally dishonest. She is not. It matters not if she was calling for the BOE, the VFW, or the GACC. Again, you are trying to create a strawman, and you are lying about it. You are not positive about any facts as you have yet to state a single one. But you are throwing your opinion around as a fact. 99% positive is also 99% stupid.—

          No strawman and no lie.  you can keep blustering all you want, and insulting and pontificating.  I will keep responding with rational assessment based on my experience and the facts. You keep saying “lie” all over the place, yet you never actually show anything I write to be in error. She “says” she wanted to hire Mann and then is outraged at his price. She does not mention looking for anyone else and she does no research to see if his price is “outrageous” You keep saying no one cares what he charges, yet SHE cares VERY much. She alos does not note that he does some evetns for free, which kind of undermines her argument. She does not mention this even after he has explaind it to her. This shows her to be completely partisan and uninterested in the whole truth, just whatever truth fits her ideology. Yes this is just specualtion but it is common sense and reasonable, and, In my view the more likley explanation of her actions. Of course she could just be stipid, but I didn’t get that impression from her writing

          —“You are absolutely ignoring the fact that she writes for a website that, when it posts articles about climate change, ONLY posts articles that are skeptical of climate change.”
          —Non-sequitur. Who she writes for does not change the facts. Which are Mann lied and is a hypocrite for decrying speaking fees of others for his noble cause.—

          Again, no non-sequitur. The fact that she writes for a website that is virulently anti ACC impacts on her credibility and objectivity. Are you telling me that you would not question an article about Donald trump written by Socialist Workers World? I know facts don’t matter too much too you, it is whether they conform to your ideology. Yes, you are confused and frustrated by people who actually allow facts to impact their views on issues. Sorry about that, it is nothing personal against you.

          —“It is a bogus claim, and I am willing to be proven wrong if you can show me her position in the company as the person who would organize events.”
          —Another lie. You have DEMONSTRATED that you are completely unwilling to be proven wrong, that you refuse to admit you are wrong and that you are dishonest in stating such a claim.—

          Again, you make an assertion that is based on nothing but your frustration. As I acknowledged to James, I do consider his scenario to be plausible, I just find it very unlikely.

          —”And also irrelevant. You are trying to make the story about her. You do a lot of “supposing” and “assuming”, but you have no facts. The facts remain: Mann Lied. Mann is a hypocrite. You are constructing strawmen. You are lying. Those are the only facts about this article.—

          Yes, I think the story IS about her. About her lying, (by not telling Jodi she was a journalist, and by totally misrepresenting the information in her article. Mann did “lie”, but he retracted it IMMEDIATELY and explained it, and pointed out it is irrelevant. 
          As I would have predicted, you and others latch onto that because your hatred of Mann is so intense that no matter how ridiculous, you will use anything you can to demonize him.  So once again, no strawman, no lies. 
          It is fun though going through your points one by one, and pointing out how silly, misleading or just wrong they are. THIS is dialogue, even though I am the only one really engaging in it. But I do appreciate your laying out your arguments so that I can actually debunk each one.

          —“And even if she WAS in that position, I would not believe her purpose was simply to hire Mann. BECAUSE she is a journalist for a website that is skeptical of ACC.”entirely 
          —Who cares scare crow? Again, a strawman, irrelevant and a non-sequitur.—

          Again no strawman, irrelevance or non sequitur. Of COURSE her position as writer of a “skeptic” website is a factor. It plays to her motive, which in my view, and any slightly reasonable person, was to find SOMETHING she could use to attack Mann, and write about it. She did so by misrepresenting herself to his agent and by trying to get the presenter to tell her his cost. By NOT telling them she was journalist she deprived them of their right to present information that is relevant to the issue. That is HACK journalism. Pretty much as hack as you can get.

          —“I repeat. I do not ASSUME her intentions are foul because she sometimes writes “skeptical” articles. I assume her intetnions are foul becuase they fly in the face of common sense, nothing in her articles supports the motivation she espoused.”
          —No, you assume because it flies in the face of your idols and icons. It is also irrelevant, and a strawman. She did not make Mann lie. She did not make him a hypocrite.—

          Wrong again.  I took NOTHING from what Mann said at face value (except about doing one event pro bono. If you can show me he lied about that I am happy to condemn it). I based my opinions on the facts and her actions. Mann’s “lie” was immediately corrected and in no way shows him to be a hypocrite. In fact as I pointed out it shows him, in this case at least, be be much more ethical than Romney, who lied and refused to correct the lie in the pursuit of the presidency. But i guess you approve of lies as long as they are from people that share your ideologies. if Mann had NOT corrected the lie I would have condemned it. 

          —“AND the head of her company is the spokesperson for Heartland institute which would LOVE to embarrass Mann even in a silly meaningless way like this.”
          —Another lie, and another strawman. What the head of her company wants is immaterial. Mann embarrassed himself, No one did it for him. And what he wans is irrelevent. The article is about Mann.—

          No Lie and no irrelevance.  You keep parroting the same arguments. Again it plays to motivation. I looked through the website and found not ONE article related to climate change that was not totally antagonistic. I have never seen anything by Heartland that was not antagonistic toward ACC (though I have not searched through all their published works). James Taylor is her BOSS. She has a motivation to write article that will make her boss happy. She did NO research n this issue, was blatant wrong about his speaking fee being “outrageous” and she lied to Mann’s agent by not saying she was a journalist writing an article. I realize your ideology allows you to only see innocent doe eyes here, but it has no impact on me.

          —“After all, all of you folks are convinced that this is another stain on Mann, whereas as I see nothing Mann did that was wrong, inappropriate or in any way negative.”
          —I guess for someone who lies as a matter of habit, and is constantly hypocritical, yes, there is nothing wrong with Mann. But for those with any sense of ethics, and who do not lie as a matter of habit, yes there is plenty wrong with Mann. He lied, and he is a hypocrite. Period. End of story.—
          —Tony, I only read this response because you seem to have learned how to spell better (still a raft of misspellings) and proper grammar. But you still have not learned how to differentiate facts from opinions, or how to read very well since this diatribe of yours is a complete non-sequitur to the Suyts Article, and is replete with strawmen.
          —Again, for the SLOW learners, the article was about Mann (or his agent) quoting a price, it being reported, he then lied about it (not his agent), and condemned those who enrich themselves on the issue. He can charge whatever the market will pay for him. Not a single damn person here cares about that. But when you accuse others of your own crimes, that is being a hypocrite.—

          Phil, I only responded to this because you posted your responses clearly and it is easy to rebut them. Fascinating that every single one of your responses is invalid for varying reasons.
          Your above explanation about the article is of course wrong. SUYTS was reporting on Mann’s FB response to a journalist writing a hack article on him. The POINT of the article was to show that Mann attacked someone who gets paid  to talk about climate change, who is NOT in any way a scientist, and to then call Mann a hypocrite for charging a fair market price, to talk about climate change, in which he IS a scientist and an acknowledged expert in the subject. Mann confused (or since you insist Lied) one event with another and made a point of the irony in that case. But then when it was pointed out, he corrected the mistake.  these are all IMPORTANT aspects of the event that SUYTS did not mention in his post. I was happy to supply the missing info so that his readers could be properly informed. 
          As I knew I would be, you and a few others, attacked all of my accurate statements and my eminently reasonable assertions, and we were off to the races. I challenged James to provide an alternate scenario that was plausible. he did, I accepted it and continue to believe my scenario MUCH more likely. if more facts emerge,( which is unlikely) we might get a better idea of whose view is more accurate

          —Those are the only facts in this article. The rest of your pathetic diatribe is mere spin. No facts, no data, not even a credible story – unless you are a mind slave to your Alarmist masters.—

          And of course this is more meaningless blather. My explanations are all based on the actual facts and are extremely reasonable suppositions. Your unwillingness to even consider the possibility that someone writing for a highly partisan website would have a motivation to scam someone the likely readers of which hate in order to unfairly attack him is quite amusing.

        • philjourdan says:

          No Tony, I reread the thread. YOU brought up the association and intended to impugn the author by association. Period. Suyts commented on it AFTER you had broached the subject (see comment on Jan 22, at 1:33am).

          That you would so nakedly lie when the truth is so readily apparent makes your whole response ( a litany of lies, half truths, innuendo and false allegations) not worth the read. That you are incapable of admitting culpability when clearly you are the culprit is evident. That you are doubling down on stupidity is also evident.

          While I will say I thought you had at least some credibility, you are proving with this thread and the previous couple that you lack any. Indeed, you are demonstrating you lack any ethics whatsoever by blatantly lying about something that is evident on the page. Last I checked, no one had modified your postings since you penned them.

          What a pathetic excuse for a clown you are.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil

          —No Tony, I reread the thread. YOU brought up the association and intended to impugn the author by association. Period. Suyts commented on it AFTER you had broached the subject (see comment on Jan 22, at 1:33am).—

          James brought up the idea that Heartland invites non skeptic to their conferences. That is what I was referring to. I pointed out that She was NOT inviting Mann to a conference, so the idea that this is the same situation is not really accurate. Yes I had brought up Heartland but in this instance I was referring to James bringing up this this particular issue, which is relevant to the discussion and plays to her motivation. If she was organizing a conference then it would make her case much more beleivable. The idea that she wants her family company to hear “both sides” of the issue, while conceivable, seems extremely unlikely. Why would she want her company to pay money to someone she apparently despises and her website apparently despises. She wasn’t inviting him to a debate and she does not state that her comapny had had talks or info from climate “skeptics” and therefore was looking to “balance” that from someone with an opposing view. Again I will grant it is a plausible scenario, I think it extremely unlikely. See my Netanyahoo/Palestinian real estate analogy.

          —–That you would so nakedly lie when the truth is so readily apparent makes your whole response ( a litany of lies, half truths, innuendo and false allegations) not worth the read. That you are incapable of admitting culpability when clearly you are the culprit is evident. That you are doubling down on stupidity is also evident.—–

          So, I easily showed that I did not lie, nakedly or otherwise. That you are so determined to find lies in what I write speaks volumes about the pontlessness of our back and forth. Of COURSE it is not worth the read, if you actually address what I wrote you will have to spend time trying to twist what I write so that you can make it seem somehow that I am lying or misreresenting or distorting or leaving out important info, when I am actually presenting the facts accurately and giving a reasonable intepretation of the situation. I can imagine that is is tiring work, trying to distort rational explanation into appearing as cravenly deceitful lies. But I give you credit, you often do a very good job of it. As long as one doesn’t examine the content of your responses and compare them to what I actually write.

          —While I will say I thought you had at least some credibility, you are proving with this thread and the previous couple that you lack any. Indeed, you are demonstrating you lack any ethics whatsoever by blatantly lying about something that is evident on the page. Last I checked, no one had modified your postings since you penned them.—

          Again I understand this. I am attacking your ideology with reason. That has to be totally unacceptable, so you have to paint me as unethical and a blatant liar, even when anyone can easily see for themselves that is not the case. I also understand that the important thing for you is to WIN the argument. I really don’t care because I am not trying to prove how smart I am or to uphold my honor to anyone. These are just interesting exercises to me.

          And again with this post you have reverted to just name calling and unsupported assertion (except for the initial one that I show to be inaccurate quite easily), so there is nothing left but to exchange insults. That holds no interest for me

          —What a pathetic excuse for a clown you are.—

          And you seem to be a quite fascinating example of an ideologue. Emotional and convinced of his cause. In a certain light that is kind of noble.

  11. Latitude says:

    Since this thread is obviously bringing back The Twilight Zone…..
    I have only one question…..
    ….does the Inaugural Ceremonies mean they are bringing back Soul Train?

    • suyts says:

      Only if they’re lip-synching!

      • Latitude says:

        I heard about that today! You know, I think I would do the same though…..can you imagine screwing that up live!

      • suyts says:

        LOL, yeh, I don’t really care, but why pretend? Just make a recording and send it in.

        • gator69 says:

          Exactly! At least that would have been honest. It is amusing to hear people say that they would not want to risk screwing it up live. A professional singer should not have that concern. I have an associates degree in music performance, vocal. If you prepare for your solo, it is a matter of flipping a switch, and presto the song comes out. Among professionals, only a lazy diva would worry about screwing up a song that you have sung all of your life.

      • Bruce says:

        I liked a headline earlier this week, harking back to audacity of hope. I like it even more now.

        The Authenticity Of Fake

        The lip synching happened after this post…so totally in character with this O guy its creepy.

  12. gator69 says:

    I was dealing with another one of Mann’s infatuated followers at another site, and had the same experience. The Mann lover was creating the same kind of strawman arguments, and lying through his teeth. He then made the mistake of challenging us to find any lie he had ever told. I only had to go back to his previous post. :lol:

    As stated above, lying becomes habitual for some, and blinds them to lies of like kind.

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