You have to wonder, has Dr. Mann decided to pull a CYA in the face of Climategate, or is he just not cognizant of how ridiculous his statement is in the context of his past behavior?
Since “Climategate” Dr. Michael Mann has been on a nonstop media blitz. It seems he’s given dozens if not hundreds of interviews since the story broke on November 19th. It seem obvious that he’ll talk to anyone in an effort to get his point across. Up until this one interview, the message has been consistent with much of what he’s said and done in the past. That is, until this zinger.
In an interview given to The Morning Call, Dr. Mann was able to alienate both sides of the debate with a single sentence:
“I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”
Climatician, heal thyself. Start with a mirror.
Yet, while saying things like:
“I wish in retrospect I had told him, ‘Hey, you shouldn’t even be thinking about this,’” [reference to deleting emails]
… when his own work is subject to “scrutiny”, he has to resort to FTP data folders labeled “censored“. Look at what happens when that Mann “censored” data is used.
Here’s the complete interview transcript.
You know, The Daily Call only has one side of the story. They really should interview Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick next. Their contact page is helpful for such requests.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
However he spells ‘skeptic’, I think I’ll spell it the other way.
===========
I’m sure Dr. Mann believes he has done nothing wrong … but I suspect the same was true of [snip – lets not use that comparison here] The human mind can fool itself easily.
“I’m a skeptic”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We’re still waiting on the evidence for THAT claim.
Mann is both troubled and confused.
The rapidfire scheduling of interviews is a cover for insecurity issues.
That is the total point of the warmist ideology. They crave acceptance and validation of fellow extremists. Now that their boat is sinking, Mann is appealing for sympathy and playing victum to get it.
Mann is exposed and trying to save face.
His desire to “subject it to scrutiny and Validation” Actually means peer review and personal validation.
He indicated in the e-mails that “peer review” was the insiders group that predictably brown nosed each other and shunned folks that raised questions.
Cheating hurts his club.
yesterdays mann
“I am not a crook.”
One Mann’s quote is another man’s “Quote of the Week!”
The Manniac school of fear mongering is falling apart, and the person responsible is Mann himself.
I’m happy to use anything to help the Hockey Stick fall apart. The fact that this comes from one of its co-creators is perhaps indicative of the personality-type that Establishment climate science in its present form attracts.
I’m always curious how these people correlate small changes in sea level with CO2 from fossil fuels. That is quite a stretch, given that sea level has increased over 100 metres in the last 20,000 years.
Mann has said nothing different in this interview than what he has always said: humans are dangerously warming the planet, hurricanes are becoming stronger, temperatures are higher than ever in the last 1,000 years, polar bears are threatened and the atoll islands are doomed.
Once a Mann, always a Mann.
Someone really needs to send Mann a 2010 calendar. April Fool’s Day is on Thursday.
Oh, the comments here are priceless. Stephen Parker wins.
They are interviewing only the criminals and NO ONE else. This is the largest scientific hoax of all time and the media remains asleep. On the bright side, all the interviews that Mann has given since the release of the emails have done nothing to change anyones mind. The true believers still believe and we still do not have voice. What is very funny is that they seem to be blaming the skeptics and blogs like this one for the failure of their predictions. It would have nothing to do with them being wrong, would it?
This article is on a par with the recent article written by Dr Pachuari.(In the Guardian)
Neither article is worthy of debate in my opinion and i regret taking the time to read them both.However, as a skeptic, i will continue to read all available material because i hope that i am open to persuasion. My current position, based on all the information that i have consumed is that of a raving skeptic who is outraged by what i deduce to be going on. The name, DENMARK and the word ROTTEN immediately spring to mind.
“I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.” M. Mann
Isn’t that what McKitrick and McIntyre have and are still trying to do? Why Mann doesn’t offer up data willingly means even he knows he’s been up to no good.
Meanwhile ther rest of us are deniers. Deniers of what may I ask? As for the validation all we get are failed predictions & forecasts.
Dr. Ball’s latest on groupthink. Posted here because Dr. Mann is involved. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21463
How dare you question a Living God!!!!
Exactly my impression when I read this. Mann, a perpetrator of the hoax now calls himself a skeptic who merely follows the data. Hmmmm.
The Omega Mann ?
Its good to see than Mann is all about transparency and replication:
“When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”
I’m glad he’s seen the light. No doubt now he’ll apologize for his past obstructionism and release all of his raw data and codes.
Hmm.. now I’M the one who’s skeptical…
This is my hometown newspaper, and, believe me, a letter to the editor is in the offing already.
Sitting in his No Mann’s Land.
================
Mann for all seasons ?
I think you have all mis-heard him, what he actually said was;
“I’m Spartacus”
which he can’t be because obviously ” I’m Spartacus”