Watch Our Live Interview with Climate Scientist Michael Mann

If you missed it live, here’s the replay of our live interview this morning with climate researcher Michael Mann. We discussed his new book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,” his experiences — good and bad — of being one of the leading paleoclimatologists and dealing with deniers of climate change, as well as talking about the science being done by Mann and his colleagues.

Thanks again to Michael Mann for taking the time to join us for the latest in our series of live interviews via Google+ Hangouts On Air.

14 Replies to “Watch Our Live Interview with Climate Scientist Michael Mann”

  1. Great vid. I’ll spread it around. Still… listening to our host’s voice I absolutely cannot stop hearing the SNL “Schwetty Balls” skit.

    I apologize for my low brow.

  2. Wow, this guy is in the bag with Al Gore. He quotes centuries, when he should be quoting millenniums. I don’t deny climate change, I just don’t buy into their lies about why it’s changing. Condescending Btard.

  3. It may be 1 degree F. warmer in the last hundred years, but it is not anthropogenic. What caused it to be much warmer than now 1000 years ago? Not saying that we should not be working toward new fuel sources, but not ruin of our economy. Even if we wanted to lower global temperatures by not burning any carbon based fuels, we couldn’t.
    I read some of the e-mails released from UK and Hansen was right in the middle of fudging the numbers so he could continue to get grant monies.


  4. Even if all that Michael Mann says is true (the skeptic in me always holds back on accepting the full position of anyone who is passionate about his subject), I do have one question. “How are we going to get China, India and the Third World to agree, in action and not merely as signatories on a document?”

    One of the most serious drawback I see in his position is the push to get the West to accept changes being recommended. Such changes will place the West at a disadvantage in the global economy.

    Do we need to make changes? Probably, but not unilaterally, it has to be a global undertaking.

    1. Spot on. Australia is going to be passing a Carbon Tax which is to reduce the nations carbon emission by 5%, even though we only contribute to 1% of the worlds human released Carbon Dioxide. It’s absolutely nuts to put our economy and our mining industry at such a disadvantage.

    2. Is THIS is the logic of denial? There’s nothing we can do! What with China and India and Third Whirled… OH MY! China and India and Third Whirled… OH MY! China and India and Third Whirled… OH MY!

      The Lions and Tigers and Bears are mostly gone now… so it might as well be China and India and Third Whirled… OH MY!

      1. Are you saying, that if the West, Australia included, makes the changes recommended, AND the rest of the world does not, that the carbon levels will drop?

        Have you ever seen the numbers on China and India?

        Even better have you been in the Third World. Many places would make Love Canal look like a garden stream.

    3. So you’re saying we shouldn’t do anything until China and India do? They won’t do anything until we do. So what you’re really saying is that nobody should do anything.

  5. The climate deniers are ultimately faced with the facts, which will increasingly run contrary to their perspective. Even though they have lots of industry money behind them, no amounts of money can make 0 = 1 or some such thing. I suspect that in a decade or two we will get a big “oh shits report” on climate change that will be hard to deny. The denier’s time in the spotlight is not going to last forever, or at least it can’t if our media information structures are not utterly corrupted into some Orwellian form.

    Climate scientists should also grid up their armor for the fact this may only be the first phase of the counter-science. Scientific and health issues which run counter to industry meet opposition that has a tendency to go through a sequence:

    Denial, the problem does not exist.
    Refusal, the problem is not due to our activities.
    Ignore, the problem exists and we are the source, but it will not affect you or us.
    Limited, the impact of the problem will be limited and acceptable.
    Loss; Ok we finally admit we were wrong.

    Which outlines DRILL, and that is what we are getting. The current status of anti-science is seeing the closure of the denial phase and a transition into the refusal phase. We are getting lots of “The climate is changing, but this natural, this due to cosmic rays, the sun and so forth.” So as I see it the anti-science front may have a ways to go before they completely exhaust their options.

    I do not know if we are really going to be able to address this problem by reducing emissions. The prognostications I have heard put figures of a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by mid-21st century. I have a hard time imaging that will happen voluntarily, or without some resource depletion or collapse. The economic issues are very thorny and complicated. I suspect this issue will really be addressed with geo-engineering, if it is addressed at all. This could range from placing light scattering particles in the upper atmosphere, nano-fiber screens at the L1 point in space, carbon eating genetically engineered organisms and so forth


    1. Of course and inevitably, nature will intervene with a major house cleaning. There ARE soulless fools out there bent on accelerating that process, like there’s NO TOMORROW! And for them, I wish it true…. And so it is!

      EDEN now!

      1. No, that is not what I said. However, to do something unilaterally is extremely unwise and will not accomplish the stated goal. What needs to be done is get China, India and the Third World to actually make long term plans to reduce their emissions THAT can be coupled with a logically thought out strategy for the West to implement at the same time. The two will not be the same, but need to be coupled.

        This cannot be viewed as a short term effort but something that will take a minimum of 25yrs and more like 50yrs to fully implement. You could do it in the shorter term, but the human cost would be horrendous.

        Now for the hard part. Getting something set in place and managed for a 25 – 50 year period. The geo-political changes required may well be beyond our capability as Human beings.

  6. Thank you Nancy and Frazier! It’s GREAT to see you stand behind this science!

    And to all of you who have posted misinformation and/or copied those sources as ‘proof’ there is no global warming, or that the danger is not real… THIS is your wake up call! Get your heads and wallets OUT of Saudi sand and take a breath of fresh air, before it’s gone!

Comments are closed.