FULL INTERVIEW: Michael E. Mann

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Throughout history, key scientific discoveries have transformed our understanding of the world. Newton's laws of motion, Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, major strides in our progress as a civilization. But in their time, people thought they were crazy. As crazy, some would say, as the idea of the Earth's temperature steadily rising. An idea that we've been talking about really since the early 80s. But since then, climate change has gone from a radical idea to proven scientific fact. It also started a war of words. And this man has been on the front lines for more than a decade. Michael E. Mann is a climate scientist and the lead author of the now infamous hockey stick graph. The graph shows how temperatures have risen over the past thousand years with the increase of industrialization and the use of fossil fuels. It was used by the United Nations to confirm the reality of global warming. And Michael shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. But he also became the target for climate change deniers. You may remember something called Climate Date. [00:00:56] Speaker 2: Many people aren't convinced climate change poses a threat or even exists. The recent release of scientists' emails, so-called Climate Gate, has only increased their doubt. [00:01:07] Speaker 1: Well, what happened was, Michael's personal emails were hacked. And selected contents were published on the internet to suggest that he and other climatologists were manipulating or hiding data. They read more like scientific fascism than scientific process. Well, they were all cleared, but the attacks didn't stop. So what keeps him going at the forefront of a battle where he says the implications for the planet are grim? Everybody, please welcome Michael E. Mann. Good to see you, man. Great, George. How are you? It's great to see you again. Welcome. So, Ivan, what do you say to somebody who's gone through this climate gate business and all? Do you say congratulations for being exonerated? How does that work? [00:01:49] Michael E. Mann: Well, I guess I've been exonerated about a dozen times now. Yeah. So, it's nice to have, you know, some of these episodes behind us. But the problem is we're wasting all this time having this, frankly, silly debate about whether climate change is even real when we could be having the worthy debate about what to do about it. [00:02:07] Speaker 1: You know, climate science as war, when did that happen? When did it become this kind of debate? [00:02:14] Michael E. Mann: Well, you know, I think there's a history here. There's a sort of a longer-term history. Any time that science and the findings of science have come into conflict with, you know, certain powerful vested interests, there's often been an effort by those who see themselves as potentially being a threat by the science to go after the scientists and the science and try to discredit the science. And that's what happened with tobacco and smoking. We've seen it with ozone depletion. Now we're seeing it with climate change. [00:02:50] Speaker 1: It's a second stage because there's a lot, I mean, there are those who believe climate change is real, those who don't believe it's real. But even in the ones who believe it's real, within that there's a small group who don't believe it's caused by humanity. So, what do we know about for sure? And what propositions do we not know about now? [00:03:05] Michael E. Mann: So, it's interesting because there's this huge gulf between what the public thinks. We're still debating when we go to meetings and when we publish papers in the peer-reviewed literature and what scientists are actually debating. Um, uh, we know that, uh, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rising. Um, levels now are higher than they've been, uh, probably in several million years. We're, we're now fairly confident about that. We know that the CO2 that's building up in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuel emissions. We can actually look at the, the chemical isotopes of the carbon and determine it's not natural. It's due to us. We know the planet is warming. Uh, we know that it has to warm because of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. And some people think that's controversial science. It goes back nearly two centuries. [00:03:51] Speaker 1: In the scientific community, is everybody on board? Is there a percentage? I mean, we hear about scientists who come out and who, who dispute it. What is the percentage of those who don't necessarily agree with this? [00:04:01] Michael E. Mann: Yeah. So, it, it's interesting because, you know, sometimes in the media, um, the problem is presented as if there's, um, you know, a debate between two equal sides, you know, scientists who believe in, uh, uh, you know, climate change and those who don't. It's not like that. First of all, it isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of following the facts where, where they leave, uh, lead you. And that's, you know, what we do in science. And the facts are very clear on this problem. And so it's extremely difficult to find a real climate scientist. And I'm talking about somebody who goes to meetings and presents papers, who publishes in the peer-reviewed literature who will contradict the basic things, uh, uh, the basic aspects of the problem. But it's easy to find some iconoclast, right, and, and put them up on a pedestal and, uh, pretend that there's a debate about this. When in fact there isn't a debate about the reality of the problem. We can have a worthy debate about what to do about it, but we can't have a good faith debate anymore about the reality of the problem. [00:04:56] Speaker 1: What did you think when the, when, when the hacked emails came out and you were attached to it and this was about, you know, it was really presented in the media, especially for people who generally consume news just by reading headlines, that here's the proof, these scientists are in it for other reasons. How did you feel? Because it was your story in a way. [00:05:13] Michael E. Mann: It's, um, you know, it, in, in what I describe is what it feels like, um, to be subject to this very well-organized, very well-funded campaign aimed at discrediting you, at discrediting you in the cynical belief that by bringing down this one scientist who produced, you know, what some would call it now an iconic, um, uh, curve, the hockey stick curve, that the entire science crumbles like a house of cards. And so it's a very cynical, uh, approach that's been taken by those who are trying to discredit us. In the case of these hacked emails, um, so, you know, there was this criminal theft of thousands of emails from a, uh, a server in the UK, um, between dozens of scientists, myself included, and what happened in the ensuing weeks, which I'm sure it was just a coincidence that it was in the lead-up to the Copenhagen summit, um, and it essentially sidetracked any, uh, possibility of meaningful progress in Copenhagen because the, the, because the controversy, uh, of these stolen emails suddenly had dominated the public discourse. Um, you know, it was taking words and phrases out of context and making it sound like scientists, including me, uh, were fudging the data, when if you actually look at what the emails were talking about, and there have now been, I think, eight investigations, including, um, uh, the, the inspector general of the National Science Foundation in the U.S. who have looked at this and said there was, there was no impropriety here. These people were using technical jargon to talk about very real problems. [00:06:45] Speaker 1: The conversation seems to be just combative. Are we having the wrong conversation about this? Like, jobs really is what it comes down to. [00:06:52] Michael E. Mann: Yeah, I mean, it's ironic, right, because while we're, um, having this debate within the U.S. and, uh, to a large extent here in Canada, the rest of the world, um, is seeing past it. They know that the future of our energy economy is, uh, renewable, uh, energy, is, uh, wind, solar, um, and, uh, new technology, new energy technology. And so while we're sort of stuck in this debate about whether we can grow the economy if we move away from fossil fuels, the rest of the world recognizes that that is the way to grow the economy, is to develop new energy infrastructure. Um, and I, uh, unfortunately, I guess there's some of that here in Canada too. [00:07:28] Speaker 1: We had a government who did not dance around the climate change issue. They were very clear about where they stood. They were very clear about where they stood when it comes to industry. They were very clear about how they, where the environment ranked on their list of priorities. Canadians knew it. Canadians elected. This is what Canadians want. [00:07:46] Michael E. Mann: Well, I think sometimes the people don't quite know what they're getting. Um, it isn't always, uh, clear what they're getting at the time that they vote. And, uh, my guess is that, uh, you know, the people of Canada didn't expect that they were, uh, voting for a government that would be censoring their scientists, that wouldn't be allowing, uh, the scientists who are actually studying the impacts of climate change to talk to the media, to talk to you. Yeah, scientists have to now get their questions, or they have to get their questions and answers [00:08:14] Speaker 1: vetted, don't they, by the government or by certain departments? [00:08:16] Michael E. Mann: Well, you know, this was the way it was in the previous administration in the U.S. Um, and I have colleagues who were not allowed, uh, to talk to the media without first going through a, uh, uh, public relations person. Um, and they were often denied the opportunity to talk to the media. And instead, uh, journalists were being redirected to scientists who shared the administration's outlook on the problem. And what's, uh, concerning to me is that it appears now that that culture, that ethos, has now sort of, uh, um, spread across the, the border. And, uh, uh, it's what you're now seeing here in Canada. Uh, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, uh, thanks for coming in, man. Thank you. It was great. Thank you so much. [00:08:59] Speaker 1: Michael E. Mann, everybody. That's the book. We'll be right back.