Climate Alarmist Michael Mann Charges $10,000 Speaker Fee
Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm.
Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.
Ironically, Mann publicly accuses scientists of making money off their skepticism of Mann’s alarmist global warming claims. For example, in a 2012 interview with Popular Science, Mann accuses scientist Steve Milloy of being a “valueless, all-purpose denier for notorious industries who need a hired gun.”
Mann presented no evidence of whether or how much money “notorious industries” allegedly give Milloy.
Mann’s speaking fees, however, call into question his motives for championing global warming alarmism. According to the American Spectator, Michael Mann research projects received nearly $6 million in grant money through the end of 2009. Public records show Mann research projects additionally received nearly $1 million since 2010.
Mann collects speaking fees in addition to his grant money. Mann is a very busy public speaker who may well be making hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual speaking fees. Mann did not return a call asking how much he is charging Valencia College for his talk or how much money he made from speaker fees in 2012.
James Adamski, who is organizing Mann’s talk at Valencia College, declined to disclose how much the college is spending on Mann’s speaker fees. Adamski confirmed in a telephone call that he worked out a financial agreement with Mann, but now claims he doesn’t know or doesn’t remember specifically what is contained in those financial agreements.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Are we sure he's not paying $10,000 for an HVAC degree? I mean it would be something for him to fall back on, when he gets out of prison.
would save money by
paying him
not to speak
Mann, himself, states that his talks are given Pro Bono (excluding travel and accommodation expenses).
Seeing as Mann has been giving talks for more than a decade now, it should be easy to find out if he has accepted payments in the past.
While we are at it, why don't we check into the price of a talk from the notoriously unqualified (unLord) Monckton.
Does anyone want to predict whether it is Mann or Monckton is drinking from the climate-talk trough?
Abstract Title: The Battle to Communicate Climate Change: Lessons from The Front Lines (Invited)
Presentation Date and Time: December 4, 2012;
Session Title: GC22B. Communicating Climate Science—Seeking the Best of Old and New Paradigms I
Abstract Title: Using Blogs and Social Media in the Battle to Communicate Climate Change: Lessons from The Front Lines (Invited)
Presentation Date and Time: December 4, 2012;
Presentation Length: 15 minutes
Session Title: PA23B. Facebook, Twitter, Blogs: Science Communication Gone Social—
Abstract Title: Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the last millennium (Invited)
Authors: Andrew Schurer, Gabriele Hegerl, Michael E. Mann, Simon F.B. Tett, Steven J. Phipps [M.E Mann presenting]
Presentation Date and Time: December 5, 2012
Session Title: GC31C. Interpretation and Uncertainty Quantification of Climate and Integrated Earth System Models
Abstract Title: The Past as Prologue: Learning from the Climate Changes in Past Centuries (Invited)
Presentation Date and Time: December 5, 2012; 10:30 AM to 10:50 AM
"For folks going to the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco next week, here is a list of my talks:"
Quoting Drewski:
That's right folks, Drewski's source is M&M's Facebook page.
Contact Your Legislators Now! Fiscal cliff deal pending with potentially severe cuts to science funding
20 December 2012
AGU Science Policy Alert 12–52
www.agu.org/sci_pol/asla/alerts/2012-52.shtml
BOO!!!
Amirlach then stated that no one would pay to here Mann talk because he was so "discredited"(sic) so I then I posted 4 talks that Mann gave last month within a 2 day period.
Mann appears to be quite popular (must be those multiple inquiry validations).
Quote:The Pope is popular with Catholics, but at least he does not charge for appearances, and isn't using the end of the world as a way to extort wealth from the masses.
How is that search for a peer reviewed paper refuting natural variability coming? Need more time?
Mann, personally, said he gives his outside talks pro bono and as this would be so easily verified, I tend to believe him.
Now his accuser was a covert agent for that paragon of virtue, the Heartland Institute, who gave false details to gain information (didn't Heartland go into meltdown over that sort of thing earlier in the year?).
Who to believe, who to believe?
Anyway, Mann does have an agent who. apparently, quoted a standard cost for a booking of the size requested (300 to 500 air conditioning people). I presume Mann's agent is in business to make money, however, Mann, himself, offered to speak pro bono.
Gator is wrong yet again (but I just love those smiley faces of yours).
From the rent seekers Facebook page...
"Given that I agreed to do the event pro bono..."
In other words, that would be an exception.
No open books, no saint. Til then, he charges $10,000 a pop!
Now, where is that doggone paper?
PS - Try not to stutter so much when addressing me.
Seeing as how you guys are so fascinated by how much money Mann makes, I propse a little project for you and your sCeptic friends -- why don't you find out how much money Mann and Monckton have each personally made from their invited talks over the past 3 to 5 years?
However, it will require research (ree surch), so I suggest you get some outside help.
Mann admits he charges for saving the planet. Not a saint.
Monckton is not demanding that you sacrifice anything, and he is not dependent on tax dollars. No comparison.
Quote:That's funny, coming from the alarmist who cannot find even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
Project much?
You know and I know and many witnesses here know that I have produced multiple papers on multiple occasions regarding the anthropocentric influence on climate. The first batch, a few years ago, had to do with Atmospheric physics and CO2. I told you a few months ago that my last batch (of 4) was going to be my last as you summarily rejected them all.
Because you don't accept them although the major oil companies do as well as EVERY reputable scientific organization on earth does, shows that you -- not they -- are incapable of cognitive reasoning.
Stop asking -- or, at least, wait until you have completed your treatment.
You sound nutty amirlach.
We all know that the only guy's who get grants tow the party line.
Oh and all of those countries you mentioned lean to the ""Left".
no ammt of silly repitition
ad nauseam
is going to make a lie
the truth
your statements have previously
been demonstrated
immaterial, w/o foundation and
flat out lies
you want to regurgitate
this stuff anew
as tho it's indisputable
as if when you repeat y'self
a couple months later
your crap suddenly ascends
to newly established fact
same old same old
you have nothing new to say
after soundly proven wrong
embarress y'self if you want
i'm calling you on it
I like your writing style. Are you a poet?
Please provide ONE citation of where I have provided immaterial statements.
I couldn't be about this this article being a lie as Mann offered his talk bro bono. It couldn't be the the other article (also a lie) which was based on a HALF sentence taken out of context stating Hansen admits to a climate standstill.
Maybe, it was the statements I made regarding Climatedisbadshit and how they are always giving voice to out and out liars (and writers of "forbidden love" with young school girls) like OMG'Sullivan.
You will have to be specific because as far as I can see it is Climatedisbadshit who is the one putting the "nausea" in ad nauseum.
it's in the archives of this site
you can say what you want
i stand by my statements and proof
every other visitor
can look it up
you can lie all you want
you can wallow in your
ignorance
Well then, I guess you have the same outrage as I do over this fabrication headline above or the one on a companion page which lies about Hanson admitting something he clearly did not. And you must also be pretty upset that somebody who fakes his own credentials, then lies about it (O'Sullivan), is given such free reign on this site.
Can you believe that there actually real people who believe a lot of what is put on this site? PT Barnham was right.
i invite everybody
who visits this site
to look into the archives
and find for themselves
the demonstrated facts and
proven lies
you will still wallow
drewski baby
Along the way, I am sure you will also stumble across the 12 or 15 papers I gave to Gator (the ones he said he never got).
This is exciting.
PS prestigio, will I get an apology from you when they come up empty handed?
Conversely, for me to find a lie on this site, it would be as simple as closing my eyes and throwing a dart.
Your second sentence is pure projection.
The Climate hasn't changed for over 16 years...
drewski baby
you can reveal your
intelligence level
all you want
prestigio
baby
however
its not my
intelligence
in question
here
but the
accuracy
of the
articles
PS How long do I have to wait before I get an apology from you?
you are a liar
So, I will ask again, how long is an appropriate time to wait before you issue an apology?
i'll just laugh
why not let
other prople
who do the rrseach
come to their conclusions
of your remaks
If you don't find a lie that I was said to have told (with evidence and citations, of course), then you owe me an apology.
as well, since I have already found 2 lies today from the authors of the Mann and Hansen articles, I expect the steward of this site to issue an apology to all the readers.
Quote:I have asked for...
Quote:You have never satisfied this request, and to claim somehow that you have is a lie.
Drewski is a liar.
Finis!
Sorry Gator, but your inability to understand science is not a Drewski lie.
A lie would be something more like your statement that the United states has more trees now than they did 200 years ago. That was both stupid and a lie -- you get extra points if you can find one like that.
Quit flapping your lying gums, and provide some science.
You inferred that you accomplished something which you never have.
That is a lie.
Apparently lying s like breathing for you, it happens automatically, and you never even notice.
I give you guys 5 weeks to find something that I said was a lie -- something verifiable.
I reject your view of what scientific proof is.
Your history of being unable to decifer peer-reviewed studies, your kookoo conspiracy theories involving hundreds of multi-national scientists, and your constant defense of blatantly-false articles, by authors who have not a single scientific credential, makes you a very poor judge of what is or is not scientific evidence.
I know, why don't you tell me again that their are no petroleum products in Cool Whip?
Quote:Then you reject science. And that comes and news to no one here.
You made a false claim, and now all you want to do is squeal about being caught. The louder the squealing, the more painful the truth.
Suck it up and move on.
You have no credibility, Gator. You wouldn't understand climate evidence if it was 100 degrees in the shade on a winter's day in Alaska.
I have news for you, Gator, siding with people who write a blog called "Real Science' but who are afraid to use their real name or with a person who writes books about forbidden love with underage girls and buys his lawyer's degree online or with a person with a degree in classical literature and a penchant for "fibbing" over his social status doesn't make you more of a scientist. It makes you look sad and pathetic.
I don't rejects science, Gator. I side with NASA NOAA, BEST, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Petroleum Institute and every other science-based organization on the planet.
You need a reality pill, Gator.
Science Drewksi! You said you have papers that disprove natural variability, so let's see them. Then after that we will alert the IPCC that we have done what "thousands" of climate experts have not.
Liar.
Did the Army experiment on you in the 80's or are your cognitive abilities naturally this way?
The end.
Cue the music to Psycho.
Many climate contrarians have also made climate predictions and they have all failed abysmally. By your logic, people like Richard Lindzen, Don Easterbook, Syun-Ichi Akasofu and John McLean have no credibility whatsoever. And these are people who have authored articles on this website and whose climate predictions have been wildly wrong.
Hansen's 1998 predictions have held up remarkably well in comparison to anyone elses.
So, amirlach, please point to one organization that has performed better in predicting the last 30 years of observed weather than the IPCC.
Why else would you waste so much time on this site.
BTW the man in the street doesn't beleive in Global Warming.
And I still want to know why Global Warming became Climate Change Drewski
Global warming and climate change are two sides of the same coin -- global warming is the CAUSE and climate change is the EFFECT.
In regards to my spending time on this site -- why not ask Gator or Anne or even yourself the same question?
Ha Ha Ha You are so predictable, your answer was just word perfect to what I thought it would be, I can read you like a book.
BTW I don't spend too much time on these sites these days because in case you aint noticed Drewski, we have won and you have lost.
I'm off down the pub and exhaling CO2 as I go.
Hs Ha Ha
"Read me like a book". Obviously not a science book though.
Enjoy you alcohol -- just try not to step on any CO2 absorbing flowers along your way.
Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said "climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth" and that "it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization."
And you keep saying we are conspiracy nuts for taking them at their word? Quote:
No shoeski Hansen's have failed miserably. See above. He's off by about 0.08C Deg. Which is if you don't count the 0.6 they "Adjusted" the temps upwards.
Want to see how a lone Astrophysisist WWTFPWNED the UK Met and its Tera(Floped)LOL.. Class, Super Computer Models? With a Laptop and a zany hair doo? See Piers Corbyn. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/the-mayor-of-london-gives-props-to-skeptic-piers-corbin/
And as for Preforming better than the IPCC at predicting the last 30 years?