07 December 2009

Heads Up: NPR's On Point

Just FYI, today I'll be on NPR's On Point with Michael Mann (PSU), Juliet Eilperin (Wash Post) and Carroll Doherty (Pew Research Center for People and the Press) for a discussion fro 10-11AM EDT. I'll post up a link to the archive when available.

UPDATE: NPR called back to let me know they won't be able to have me on.

UPDATE 2: Near the end, in response to a caller who complained about hearing only one side of the story you can hear Michael Mann explain that all voices on this subject do get heard, and how his work is celebrated by skeptics. These comments go completely unchallenged in the interview which is one softball question after another. Mann says that it is the role of science to take on those opposed to action, and cites Real Climate as an example. Mann concludes with a passionate call for action in Copenhagen.

16 comments:

  1. -1-Brendan

    Yes, they said they actually wanted the Roger Pielke cited in yesterday's NYT, which is Sr.

    However their request to me was as follows:

    "would love to have you on as well to talk about your thoughts on the email scandal and whether it could damage US public support for global warming policy, change, etc."

    Public support and policy are not his areas, so they were obviously confused in at least one way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Roger:
    That is very disappointing. The segment just finished. Mann was asked no real questions. Nobody asked about the appearance/disappearance of the MWP. Nobody pointed out that the Pew Survey found that only 36% saw that there was solid evidence of warming because of human activity. Ashbrook seeemed to have read the emails but had little understanding of the real issues they surfaced, namely manipulation of the peer review process, stonewalling FOIA and a lack of forthrightness on the uncertainties and gaps in existing research.
    It was very disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The climategate emails were no surprise to people familiar with the debate.

    What was a surprise is how the MSM has refused to address the issues raised by the emails and instead choosen to become the propoganda arm for the IPCC.

    I had some hope that the system could be reformed. I have little now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is trully a scandal. It has no end.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mann said his work is celebrated by skeptics? Did he mean, "Some jump for joy every time they discover yet another proxy used upside down?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger, I must say when I read that you'd be involved in an hour-long discussion with Michael Mann my first thought was, "I wonder if Mann knows this?" I can't see Mann ever agreeing to take part in such a discussion.

    As far as the program itself, it sounded more like damage control rather than discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I remember from your Prometheus blog the posting of Dr. Lansea's resignation from the IPCC. See: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    The underlying "agenda" environment is well entrenched.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1) Everybody knows NPR tilts Left.

    But, on many topics, they show some measure of balance.

    Not so with Climate Change. NPR NEVER shows ANY balance on this topic. Consequently, their coverage of this topic is generally among the worst (and most propagandistic) found anywhere.

    Even though Roger is enough of a “believer” in CAGW to advocate for government intervention to reduce CO2 emissions, I knew that his excellent work debunking global warming hurricane hysteria (and other minor “sins”) would be enough to have him barred from the church of NPR.

    My guess is that Mann feed NPR enough of what they are predisposed to in order to get Roger uninvited.

    2) Raven,

    The LSM (LameStream Media) have been “the propoganda [sic] arm for the IPCC” for a very long time. Click here for one example where it was openly admitted to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My only surprise is that you were invited in the first place.

    When the Team is involved, no dissent is allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is just how they operate:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/flashback-to-bali-un-tactics-to-silence-dissent/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmm.

    I guess they were worried about the "big cutoff."

    I think maybe I'll call NPR and ask them about this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mann concludes with a passionate call for action in Copenhagen.

    I'm sure glad Mann doesn't take policy positions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. All right, I called them, but they wouldn't speak on the record.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi prof Pielke jr,

    I understand why you rejected my previous comment. I just hope you got a chuckle out of it.

    ReplyDelete