Loading...
Climate ChangePolicies & PoliticsScience

Michael Mann: "A Whole New Level Of Climate Risk"


Climatologist and author Michael Mann during CBC interview posted April 24 (screen shot).

Senior business correspondent Amanda Lang of the respected Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Lang and O’Leary Exchange interviewed physicist and climate expert Michael Mann on Thursday about the accumulating magnitude and costs of climate change. (See the entire interview on video below.)

Like a resounding chorus of others, from the latest UN IPCC report authors to the passionate scientists and screen artists of The Years of Living Dangerously, Dr. Mann perceives opportunities for humankind in addressing the challenge—but doing nothing about heat-trapping emissions for another 15 years may make the problem unsolvable with known technologies and crippling to future generations, he thinks. The sooner we act, Mann says, the less it will cost.

In this interview Michael Mann stresses some major observations he’s made about the anthropogenic climate change we’re experiencing now and its projected near-term challenges. He also repeats the caution that we are approaching a whole new level of climate risk, one in which we may not be able to reverse some of the damaging consequences.

Lang asks Professor Mann point-blank what he thinks will be the tipping point in the climate change crisis. Watch the interview for his pointed reply. You’ll also gain insight into why Michael Mann says the costs to us of existing climate change (1% of global GDP) have begun to exceed the costs of taking action against greenhouse gases and other effects of cheap but ultimately dangerous fossil fuel consumption.

A few interesting comments on the interview:

This dude is going to put that settlement money to good use.—Arnold Ziffel

By the time the climate changes beyond what the average person can no longer deny by looking out the window it will be too late.—OccamsRzzr




24 comments
  1. Askgerbil Now

    The coal lobby responds to climate science by hiding its own report on
    technology to cut CO2 emissions and instead, promotes inefficient coal-fired
    plants that inflate demand for coal and increase power costs.

  2. Askgerbil Now

    The coal lobby responds to climate science by hiding its own report on
    technology to cut CO2 emissions and instead, promotes inefficient coal-fired
    plants that inflate demand for coal and increase power costs.

      1. Common Sense

        Skeptical science is a very biased site and your link is far from convincing. Just making blanket statements that something isn’t true is not a rebuttal. Do you have a more in depth source that makes your point. There are many detailed accounts that go into why the hockey stick is incorrect.

        1. Fox

          Skeptical science is careful to stick rigidly to the peer-reviewed data, unlike some I might mention. You give me a video on Youtube, then tell me what I provide is biased. Ah, the joys of denier double standards. In the case of the hockey stick, Mann’s original paper was carefully reviewed by the journal that published it. The same journal (Geophys. Res. Lett) published a critique a few years later (DOI: 10.1029/2004GL021750), but an independent assessment was conducted by Wahl and Amman (DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7) confirming Mann’s results and debunking McIntyre’s paper. The results have been confirmed using a range of proxy methods, including borehole reconstructions (doi:10.1038/35001556), stalagmites (DOI: 10.1002/joc.1329), glaciers (DOI: 10.1126/science.1107046), and a combined proxy analysis (doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105).

          Every one of them shows that same hockey-stick curve. One method, I might doubt. Several – no.

          1. Fox

            I give you references to the peer-reviewed literature, and you give me the National Review. That is not evidence. I see an attempt to undermine Mann. I see nothing to refute the general point of the hockey stick. You’ll need to do a lot better than that if you expect me to take you seriously.

        2. tonyduncan

          What IS convincing is that Muller headed an Independant group to check if temps had increased as Mann’s research ( and all others) had shown. Those results were just alike all the others.
          2 most recent reconstructions are actsually closer to Mann’s results that some others.
          Look up Marcott and Pages2k. They and most recent show MWP lower than current temps stretched out over 4-500 years with different regions having higher and lower temps during that time.

          1. Zachary Shahan

            Don’t worry, a messed up climate won’t affect those who deny science, can’t follow one train of thought or argument, complain about the reputability of peer-reviewed sources and prefer to stick with “info” from YouTube and the National Review, and hold everyone else to a completely different standard than themselves. No worries. A bright future awaits you.

    1. Killian

      Why lie? Muller led a review of global temps that confirmed the temp graphs. Hide the decline is an old lie from before the study I reference.

      ExoNuremberg for climate liars.

      1. Common Sense

        Skeptical science is a very biased site and your link is far from convincing. Just making blanket statements that something isn’t true is not a rebuttal. Do you have a more in depth source that makes your point. There are many detailed accounts that go into why the hockey stick is incorrect.

        1. Fox

          Skeptical science is careful to stick rigidly to the peer-reviewed data, unlike some I might mention. You give me a video on Youtube, then tell me what I provide is biased. Ah, the joys of denier double standards. In the case of the hockey stick, Mann’s original paper was carefully reviewed by the journal that published it. The same journal (Geophys. Res. Lett) published a critique a few years later (DOI: 10.1029/2004GL021750), but an independent assessment was conducted by Wahl and Amman (DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7) confirming Mann’s results and debunking McIntyre’s paper. The results have been confirmed using a range of proxy methods, including borehole reconstructions (doi:10.1038/35001556), stalagmites (DOI: 10.1002/joc.1329), glaciers (DOI: 10.1126/science.1107046), and a combined proxy analysis (doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105).

          Every one of them shows that same hockey-stick curve. One method, I might doubt. Several – no.

          1. Fox

            I give you references to the peer-reviewed literature, and you give me the National Review. That is not evidence. I see an attempt to undermine Mann. I see nothing to refute the general point of the hockey stick. You’ll need to do a lot better than that if you expect me to take you seriously.

        2. tonyduncan

          What IS convincing is that Muller headed an Independant group to check if temps had increased as Mann’s research ( and all others) had shown. Those results were just alike all the others.
          2 most recent reconstructions are actsually closer to Mann’s results that some others.
          Look up Marcott and Pages2k. They and most recent show MWP lower than current temps stretched out over 4-500 years with different regions having higher and lower temps during that time.

          1. Zachary Shahan

            Don’t worry, a messed up climate won’t affect those who deny science, can’t follow one train of thought or argument, complain about the reputability of peer-reviewed sources and prefer to stick with “info” from YouTube and the National Review, and hold everyone else to a completely different standard than themselves. No worries. A bright future awaits you.

    1. Killian

      Why lie? Muller led a review of global temps that confirmed the temp graphs. Hide the decline is an old lie from before the study I reference.

      ExoNuremberg for climate liars.

  3. Common Sense

    Tipping points? It’s all about tipping points? After 25 years of failed predictions of calamity….the public opinion is indeed at a tipping point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *