Michael Mann “There is a very well funded disinformation campaign”

Michael Mann says that unfunded skeptics with no ties to any industry are the best financed corporate disinformation campaign in history.

Listen to this clip I filmed at the opening of Merchants of Doubt next to the White House. These well funded conspiracy theorists believe there is a vast corporate conspiracy driving volunteer skepticism.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Michael Mann “There is a very well funded disinformation campaign”

  1. Disillusioned says:

    “These people believe there is a vast corporate conspiracy driving skepticism.”

    These well-funded climate change industry propagandists tell there followers that there is a vast corporate conspiracy funding scientific skepticism of CO2-phobia.

    There now.

  2. aaron says:

    Now it evolution denies too? Where the flippers still on our bodies during the time of the Alabama glaciers?

  3. jmrsudbury says:

    Mann again has it exactly backwards.

    • FTOP_T says:

      Pot meet kettle

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      Nothing Michael Mann publishes is supported by factual evidence.
      Nothing Michael Mann says is supported by factual evidence.

      Why does anyone listen to this Witch Doctor?

    • Smokey says:

      Mann again has it exactly backwards… Pot meet kettle

      Those are just ways of saying he’s engaging in ‘psychological projection‘: imputing his own faults onto others. When you read Mann’s tweets, his criticisms apply directly to him, not to his targets.

      Obama, Mann, and many others engage in projection constantly. Further, they simply do not believe what they’re telling the public. There’s even a law of human nature about it:

      Fen’s Law:

      The Left believes none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.

      That universal truth applies to everything they say.

  4. I believe comet Hale-Bopp was sent to take humans to another planet. If you don’t believe me, you are a well-funded denier. You are a science denier. You are a comet denier.

  5. gator69 says:

    “There is a very well funded disinformation campaign”

    Yes! Yes there is, and we are sick to death of it. It is funded by governments, eco-activists, and large corporations and public trusts.

    And here are two quotes little Katie should know well, and do well to heed…

    “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
    -Matthew 7:5

    “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
    -Exodus 20:16

  6. Dave N says:

    Someone should tell Lewanowsky that “climate experts” are having conspiracy ideations.

  7. Andy DC says:

    There are milllions of dollars in the hands of various Government agencies, to be distributed for the purpose of studying climate change/global warming. If you are a university researcher, honest enough to say there is no serious climate change or global warming, why would anyone pay you to study a non problem? No, the greater the global warming/climate change problem, the greater the justification is to receive a grant to study it, along with all the potential ramifications, real or imagined.

    This stupid game will only end when these Government agencies are defunded. I don’t think this concept is all that difficult to grasp.

    • gator69 says:

      I think this would be even better…

      Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.


  8. Crashex says:

    Typical liberal projection. They always accuse their opponent of doing whatever nefarious action that they are doing. Check out the Union of Concerned Scientists as an example of the well funded AGW propaganda machine focused on political policy and regulation.

    Is this one of Alinsky’s Rules?

  9. BallBounces says:

    I watched the video. Does Michael Mann have glowing evil eyes, or was he wearing glasses?

  10. Psalmon says:

    What Mann is really saying at the end is, we need to keep this going until there is a truly unprecedented disaster (or revolution) we can take advantage of.

    Sick group, hoping every day for dissolution of representative government, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and starvation.

    We should start calling Mann, Che.

  11. Bullright says:

    Amazing for a guy who won’t actually debate anyone. Well-funded disinformation? …From the guys with the government gun behind them. (or in front of them ,,,whichever the case)

  12. WiseGuy says:

    Typical “Projection”. They are extremely well funded, mostly by government, so they think that their opposition must be too, only they attribute this mythical funding to their usual enemies in the free market.

  13. docfjs says:

    Left wingers always think that those who oppose them are guilty of the same crimes/sins they commit on a daily basis. This is called projection by the psychologists and also helps any guilt (little as it may be) that they may feel. You hear crooks and guys in prison say it all the time. “Everyone does it so why come down on me?”.

  14. Crowbar says:

    There is a well-funded disinformation campaign, huh?

    OK, Mr Mann, exactly where is it’s output? Do we see full-page glossy adverts? Do we see TV adverts? Do we see fully-funded TV shows (or even TV stations as in the case of Al Gore)? Do we see billboards all over every major country in the world? Do we see UN officials being “bought off” to create disinformation/doubt in the UN? None of that.

    So Mr Mann, where exactly is this mass of disinformation appearing?

    Here’s a few possible answers:
    1. At most, thirty popular skeptical blogs, none of which have any degree of the “slickness” that would accompany a “well-funded” campaign. What exactly are these bloggers doing with all these huge funds?
    2. A few right-of-centre think-tanks, one of which the misguided Mr Peter Gleick, in his delusional conspiracy-addled mind, thought was receiving maybe hundreds of million from the likes of the Koch’s. Only a forged Heartland document suggested anything nefarious. The real documents from Heartland were quite benign, and contained $ figures that were embarrassingly small.
    3. Politicians arguing against CO2 mitigation. Campaign funding of right-of-centre politicians maybe? I think most skeptics would see right-of-centre politicians as almost entirely inept at selling the skeptical message.
    4. The occasional majorly-skeptical article in a right-leaning newspaper. Gee, I reckon one could “buy” (pay for via sponsorship or advertising) all those articles, for $2-3 million all up per year. Hardly “well-funded”.
    5. Word of mouth, over a beer at the pub.
    6. I’ve run out of possible answers.

    PS. Don’t the Left just love preaching to the converted (and only the converted), and don’t the converted just love being misled by their favourite, feel-good “leader” of The Cause? Too caught up in The Cause to think. Remind me of lemmings…

  15. darrylb says:

    FUND ME, FUND ME NOW!!!!. I saw an advertisement somewhere, only two letters of fund were changed, and I think that is what the AGW’ ers and the CAGW’ers are doing to us.:)

  16. John West says:

    Anybody else catch the “walk toward faith” quote @ 1:10, LOL, it’s a religion not science.

    Also, the Mann says we’re stuck in debating whether climate change exists … uh … that depends on how you define climate change. I don’t think many skeptics of CAGW deny the climate varies.

    Oh, and what’s the best way to deal with the problem? De-fund chicken littles! JMHO.

  17. darrylb says:

    I am sure everyone who writes here is sure climate change exists. History confirms that.
    Is there some change caused by humans. Well there certainly is some locally.

    We cannot have a lot of concrete in one area and not change the climate a bit in that area,
    Sometimes there is even enough heat emitted to be noticeable when flying a plane over it.

    I would suggest that there probably is a small amount of warming due to CO2 increase, but
    I would also suggest that, that amount is negligible and quite difficult to detect compared to natural variation.

    It probably is small enough to say who cares. Also, the warming would have a net beneficial effect.

    Finally, a point that is never mentioned is that any increase would not be linear, but would be an exponential increase.
    The amount given is for a doubling of CO2 concentration. It was suggested at one time the increase may be 3.0 deg celsius.for a concentration doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
    However the next doubling to get another 3.0 deg increase would not be from adding enough CO2 to make the concentration 280 ppm higher, but rather 560 ppm higher.
    A 280 increase for the first 3.0 deg; a 560 increase for the next 3.0 deg and 1,120 increase for the next.

    In summary, each additional 1.0 ppm increase actually increases the temp by less than the previous one, and no one on either side of the argument challenges. that.

    What is arguable is the previously stated 3.0 ppm increase with a doubling of CO2 (called the transient climate response) TCR. There is already evidence that it is much lower than 1.0 deg
    and I really believe it is not much above zero. Evidence is moving in that direction!!!
    And as I stated above, when the TCR is barely above zero, everyone SHOULD be saying WHO CARES!

  18. Moo says:

    Ask yourself…”who benefits”….whenever someone like Michael Mann says the other side is lying.

  19. johnbuna says:

    Reblogged this on John Hargrove’s Weblog.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s