Mann gets Medal

From Penn State,  the best news they’ve had all month:

Mann to receive Hans Oeschger Medal from European Geosciences Union

Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State, was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union.

The medal was established in 2001 in recognition of the scientific achievements of Hans Oeschger to honor outstanding scientists whose work is related to climate: past, present and future.

Mann’s research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system. He is best known for the “hockey stick,” a chart he and his co-authors published in 1999 using proxy climate data such as tree-rings and ice cores to estimate temperatures over the past thousand years. The hockey stick demonstrated that temperatures had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels and is the subject of Mann’s new book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,” due out in early 2012.

Mann received his undergraduate degrees in physics and applied math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in geology and geophysics from Yale University. He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report and has served as chair for the National Academy of Sciences “Frontiers of Science.” In 2007 he shared the Nobel Prize with other IPCC lead authors.

He will receive his award during the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, April 22-27, 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Mann will also present a Medal Lecture during the conference.

###

About these ads
This entry was posted in GLOC. Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to Mann gets Medal

  1. R. de Haan says:

    We still want his e-mails.

  2. Keith says:

    Have you noticed how many articles leave out the word ‘Peace’ when talking about the IPCC as Nobel laureate?

  3. R. Gates says:

    Good for him. Congratulations!

  4. pwl says:

    [snip - While I'm no fan of Dr. Mann, that's a bit over the top - Anthony]

  5. Richard B says:

    I hope his e-mails are released by the time he gets his medal. LOL!

  6. D Marshall says:

    Anthony, please remove the [don't give away the joke] link from your post. It’s demeaning to your site’s standards.

  7. perlcat says:

    Wouldn’t give it too much credence. I’ve heard they give away awards with similar weight in boxes of Cracker Jack.

  8. Camburn says:

    The presentation of this award shows how anti-science the Geoscience Union has become.

    Prof Mann has had a streak of such poor quality literature, that it is amazing that the can get 3 words published anymore.

    I feel sorry for these folks who have gotten taken in.

  9. John M says:

    Well, I guess he already had a diploma…

  10. Ric Werme says:

    “This entry was posted in GLOC.”

    What’s GLOC? Get Lameness Off Campus?

    See http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cat_gloc.html for 40 more examples from WUWT.

    http://www.abbreviations.com/GLOC suggests Guardian Life Of the Caribbean
    http://www.acronymfinder.com/GLOC.html suggests Gravity-Induced Loss of Consciousness

  11. johnboy11 says:

    [snip - not sure what that comment means, but I'm sure others will take it wrong]

  12. P.G. Sharrow says:

    BS wax? 8-) pg

  13. Pamela Gray says:

    Someone needs to hang that medal upside down on the ribbon. That way Mann can read it.

  14. Coldfinger says:

    That’s nothing, Al Gore got a Nobel Prize!!!

  15. mkurbo says:

    OMG, will it never stop ? [snip]

  16. Larry Fields says:

    I hope that my comment is not venturing too far into Godwin territory. [snip - yeah it is]

  17. R. Shearer says:

    [snip -over the top]

  18. jorgekafkazar says:

    Michael who?

  19. Jay Davis says:

    Is there some kind of competition among European organizations to see who can award what the organization considers a prestigious prize to the individual who least deserves it? Their selection of Mann certainly doesn’t say much for the European Geosciences Union. But then, the Nobel committee awarded Peace prizes to Gore and Obama.

  20. Bob says:

    Back in the old days, Mann was less of a believer and more of a scientist.

    For example, check out the inline response here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/#comment-13935

    Here Mann even toys with the possibility of a major oceanic negative feedback mechanism, and dismisses the idea that this fundamental question is settled science.

    Can we have the old Mike back please?

  21. Paul Westhaver says:

    you all understand… they HAD to give him a medal…. there was really no choice….

    So mikey… make you feel bettah? Doesn’t change the fact that you are a data fabricating liar.

  22. JohnWho says:

    One small step for Mann,

    one giant leap backward for mankind.

  23. James Sexton says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    Someone needs to hang that medal upside down on the ribbon. That way Mann can read it.
    =============================================
    lol, I just wanted to let you know your humor is acknowledged……. very nice! :)

  24. Theo Goodwin says:

    Why would the EGU choose to hang Michael Mann around its neck? Here in the USA the saying is that any publicity is good. But why would a scientific organization want publicity? Do they sell something?

  25. William McClenney says:

    This presents a rather stark and interesting contrast. I don’t know how many others frequent the EGU’s Climate of the Past Discussions website (http://www.clim-past.net/volumes_and_issues.html), but as I have alluded to before, this is the most open peer-review publication process being practiced in the world today. Discussion papers are initially posted then follows an open on-line comment period, then a final paper is issued. All of it on-line and always available since 2005.

    To give an award to someone who fights tooth and nail to shield data and methods from scrutiny?

    I just don’t know. I just don’t know……………..

  26. upcountrywater says:

    Benefits

    Except for the travel and support awardees, all medalists and awardees will receive a fine, glass-framed document with their name and a short résumé concerning their achievement, free registration for the meeting and free accommodation for one night, and an invitation to the Award Dinner.

    I’ve received bigger prizes picking up garbage, just sayin.

  27. wayne says:

    JohnWho says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    One small step for Mann,

    one giant leap backward for mankind.

    Sadly so true, and since I can’t beat that I’ll stay put. Any further is [snip] territory.

  28. Pat Frank says:

    What a bitter irony.

  29. Justa Joe says:

    Everyone is celebrity crazy now-a-days. In the realm of “climate justice” Mikey Mann is a rock-star.

  30. Bill Gannon says:

    History shows again and again how Nature points up the folly of Mann.

  31. JohnWho says:

    @ William McClenney

    Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows.

    You don’t really think this is a “science” medal, do you?

  32. But will he get his smiling face on the cover of the Rolling Stone*?

    *By which I mean the peer reviewed geophysics journal: Rolling Stone Seismic Data.

  33. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    D Marshall said on November 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm:

    Anthony, please remove the [don't give away the joke] link from your post. It’s demeaning to your site’s standards.

    Nah, what would be really demeaning would be renaming the site DeeperClimate, DaSmoggyBlog, ReallyRealClimate, or (gasp!) WideOpenMind. If he started calling himself Tony Wattsbunney, and started talking in third-person about how the Wattsbunney thinks the IPCC was dead on except for dramatically understating the severity and the suddenness of the onslaught of global warming catastrophes, I hope good friends and family promptly hold an intervention followed by dragging him off for the involuntary inpatient mental therapy he’d obviously desperately need.

  34. Doug in Seattle says:

    Wow, the snippers are awful busy tonight. What are they using? The kind we used in shop back in high school?

  35. davidmhoffer says:

    R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    Good for him. Congratulations!>>>

    I was just thinking to myself I hadn’t seen a comment from my old friend R. Gates for some time now. Perhaps my fault as I don’t follow every thread, and may well have missed some here and there. But then I saw this thread was about one of the leading members the “the Team” and I said to myself…R. Gates will be there, supporting the team, as per usual.

    I didn’t read the article, just skimmed through the comments to see if my R Gates theory was correct, and sure enough, there you are Mr. R. Gates. Since I missed the article, I surmise from your congratulatory comment that he has received some sort of positive recognition from someone. Not certain if I care what, or by whom.

    I’d be interested though, if you could summarize in your own words R. Gates, what it is specifically that Mann has done that makes him deserving of the presumed accolade? No generalizations now, I’m seeking specifics.

    Regards,

    dmh.

  36. Gail Combs says:

    When he goes over to the EU can we some how arrange for him to remain there??? Perhaps a nice side trip to Tibet could be arranged for this winter????

  37. JohnWho says:

    D Marshall says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm
    Anthony, please remove the [don't give away the joke] link from your post. It’s demeaning to your site’s standards.

    D. Marshall –

    Hey, it’s on the Internet, it must be true:

    http://www.guffsturdpolish.com/default.php

    So, for Dr. Mann, a “lifetime supply” will be quite a haul.

  38. Richard Sharpe says:

    Anyone with an ounce of intelligence know that it is political.

  39. davidmhoffer says:

    D Marshall says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm
    Anthony, please remove the [don't give away the joke] link from your post. It’s demeaning to your site’s standards.>>>

    I agree! Anthony, I am shocked! SHOCKED! That company went to a lot of work to come up with turd polish and they are no doubt proud of their product. That you would suggest demeaning their company, and their products, by suggesting it be used to polish Michael Mann, is probably very upsetting to them. I mean, they researched turds to come up with this product, they must be VERY dedicated, and proud of their results. You have probably hurt their feelings, they clearly created their product to serve a higher purpose than smearing it on such a foul recipient.

  40. Mike McMillan says:

    Oh yeah? Oh yeah?

    Well, I won the Charles Palmer Davis Medal for Current Events in 9th grade. I think he founded ‘My Weekly Reader,’ but it’s like, you know, a medal and everything. It’s not like Nobel Peace Prizes, where they give them out to just anybody.

  41. John_in_Oz says:

    Anthony, I’m saddened by your decision to include the joke above. Much as I appreciate the humour, I’ve had more appreciation of your taking the moral high ground, up until now.
    That said, the decision to honour Dr Mann reflects poorly on the EGU, in light of his adoption of invalid statistical methods, use of inappropriate proxies, use of the contaminated Tiljander proxies upside down, his ‘nature trick to hide the decline’, and failures in academic collegiality and scientific transparency.

  42. GeologyJim says:

    This award seems hugely ironic. Poor Dr. Oeschger must be spinning 10-E6 in his grave.

    I believe this Oeschger is the other half of Dansgaard-Oeschger, the two researchers who documented ice-core evidence of extremely rapid climate excursions, especially in the early Holocene.

    D-O events, as they are known, are quintessentially non-anthropogenic.

    To give this award to a statistical fraud who perverted the paleoclimate record with “tricks” and computational fallacies just flies in the face of the hard, deductive logic employed by Dr Oeschger to identify one of the interesting periodicities of natural climate variation.

    This compares with awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat. Emmy Award/Milli Vanilli etc.

  43. R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    Good for him. Congratulations!

    ==============================

    OK. In a similar vein, then: “Good for Al Gore, Pachuri, Arafat, and Obama….for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.” Congratulations!”

    Doesn’t mean much, does it??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  44. Joe Bastardi says:

    Yah, well I hold the record for most wins by a PSU wrestler who grew up south of the Expressway and east of the Parkway (1) lettered in wrestling and got a degree in meteorology, and no one associated with the AGW movement will ever outdo that. so There ( just having some fun, okay)

  45. Tucci78 says:

    Has anyone reading here any familiarity with the previous Hans Oeschger medallists and their work?

    I recognize precisely none of them, but I’m not at all professionally familiar with the fields of “ice research and/or short term climatic changes (past, present, future).

    Would anybody be in the least bit surprised to learn that they’re each and every one of ‘em an AGW “We’re All Gonna Die!” catastrophist?

  46. Mariss says:

    What’s the big deal? I’m sure Astrologist organizations give notable astrologers awards and medals as well.

    Quoting Hans Oeschger (1927 – 1998): “The worst for me would be, if there were serious changes in the next 5 to 10 years and we scientists are helpless and did not have the courage to point at these dangerous developments early.” Obviously this quote had to have been made over 14 years ago; what “dangerous developments” have occurred in this century other than global cooling and a drop in sea-levels?

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2012/trend

  47. dp says:

    Past, present, and future – in regard climate prediction that is the equivalent of saying a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sooner or later anything Mann says could come to pass. Safe grounds for an award. Beats being known as the nut that fell not far from the tree.

  48. Dr. Dave says:

    John_in_Oz says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    “That said, the decision to honour Dr Mann reflects poorly on the EGU, in light of his adoption of invalid statistical methods, use of inappropriate proxies, use of the contaminated Tiljander proxies upside down, his ‘nature trick to hide the decline’, and failures in academic collegiality and scientific transparency.”
    _____________________________________________________________
    Shucks, is that all? I’ve heard he kicks puppies and is a lousy tipper (no sense of humor, either).

    Actually, I feel a slight bit of pity for Mann. Here we have a young man with a newly minted Ph.D.who got sucked into the whirling vortex of politically agenda-driven “science”. They turned him into a rock star before he turned 40. I fear there is no hope for a return to legitimate science for Michael Mann. In the back of his mind he has to know that the money and celebrity won’t last forever.

  49. David Falkner says:

    [nothing but a content free personal attack on another commenter]

  50. David Ball says:

    GeologyJim says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Seconded

  51. theduke says:

    Right. And Obama and Gore got the Nobel Prize.

    It’s a Europe thing.

  52. philincalifornia says:

    savethesharks says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    Good for him. Congratulations!

    ==============================

    Congratulations to R. Gates too.

    It may be later in life, but he’s finally found a tree-house that he doesn’t get kicked out of.

  53. theduke says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    —————————————————————-

    Joe: does that mean you lost all but two of your matches? LOL.

    If you were a PSU wrestler, you were GOOD. Really good.

  54. Mike McMillan says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    Yah, well I hold the record for most wins by a PSU wrestler who grew up south of the Expressway and east of the Parkway (1) lettered in wrestling and got a degree in meteorology, and no one associated with the AGW movement will ever outdo that. so There ( just having some fun, okay)

    But do you have a medal?

  55. Tucci78,

    Surely you must have recognized Raymond Bradley, after all, he has the coauthor of Mann’s most hated paper, MBH 99.

    I also find it ironic that so many here love using the AMO to arguments against AGW. You do know who was co-author on the paper which found the (still disputed to some extent) AMO? That’s right, Michael E. Mann.

  56. Alvin says:

    The white-wash continues…

  57. HankH says:

    Under the circumstances, it becomes evident that this is one of those peer nominated awards.

  58. Konrad says:

    In 1991, Matthew Bailes and Andrew Lyne had a paper in Nature claiming to have found an exoplanet in orbit around a pulsar. But when Lyne stood up at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society to do a presentation on the find, he instead announced that they had made an error in their calculations and they could not claim the discovery of an exoplanet. He got a got a standing ovation for the announcement.

    There are some truly inspiring moments in science. The European Geosciences Union awarding a medal for short centring of data prior to principal component analysis is not one of them.

  59. Tucci78 says:

    In abjectly and utterly irrelevant response to my query about the previous recipients of the Hans Oeschger Medal, at 7:58 PM on 16 November, we have David Falkner posting (in toto):

    I remember you. Yes, it must be hard to see with your head in there.

    To which the only proper reply is a request of Mr. Watts as to whether he’s going to lance this pustule of a Falkner or I get to declare open season.

    All one to me, I assure you.

    REPLY: “…lance this pustule of a Falkner?” Please, use plain English to describe your request. And no, you don’t get to declare “open anything”, it isn’t your blog. If you want to go off on a tear, do it someplace else. – Anthony

  60. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Reminds me of Muttley from Wacky Races. He won lots of medals too…

  61. In the final paragraph of my post above, “to” should read “in”

  62. Tucci78 says:

    At 8:13 PM on 16 November, in response to my request for background on the previous Hans Oeschger medalists, Rattus Norvegicus writes:

    Surely you must have recognized Raymond Bradley, after all, he has the coauthor of Mann’s most hated paper, MBH 99.

    I also find it ironic that so many here love using the AMO to arguments against AGW. You do know who was co-author on the paper which found the (still disputed to some extent) AMO? That’s right, Michael E. Mann.

    I regret that among the many other three-letter acronyms (TLA) with which I’m not immediately familiar, “AMO” must be added.

    WTF is “AMO,” please? The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation? Aviation Medical Officer? Association Members Only? A Miracle Occurs?

    Hm. Considering Dr. Mann’s methodologies, that last “AMO” might be spot-on….

  63. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Rattus Norvegicus on November 16, 2011 at 8:13 pm:

    I also find it ironic that so many here love using the AMO to arguments against AGW. You do know who was co-author on the paper which found the (still disputed to some extent) AMO? That’s right, Michael E. Mann.

    You must be desperate. A quick check of Wikipedia says otherwise:

    Atlantic multidecadal oscillation
    “The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) was identified by Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994.[1]”
    Reference 1: Schlesinger, M. E. (1994). “An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years”. Nature 367 (6465): 723–726. Bibcode 1994Natur.367..723S. doi:10.1038/367723a0.

    I checked the reference at Nature, Mann is not a co-author. Mann is not a reference for it either.

    Mann shows up far later. From the “Further reading” section:

    Delworth, T. L.; Mann, M. E. (2000). “Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere”. Climate Dynamics 16: 661–676. Bibcode 2000ClDy…16..661D. doi:10.1007/s003820000075.

  64. G. Karst says:

    This medal should be presented on the top of a log book. GK

  65. Gail Combs says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Yah, well I hold the record for most wins by a PSU wrestler…..
    _____________________
    Hey Joe,
    At least you earned them in an honest fight.

  66. theduke says:

    Yeah, I won a medal once. I won the fifty yard dash in the fifth grade in 1959. I think my mother lost it.

  67. Mike says:

    Why am I reminded of third world rulers bedecked in military medals ?

  68. RockyRoad says:

    R. Gates says:

    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    Good for him. Congratulations!

    I completely agree. It is a fantastic example of the blind leading the blind. (Or you could also make the case that the pirates are following the pirates.)

  69. Tucci78 says:

    At 7:50 PM on 16 November, Joe Bastardi boasts:

    Yah, well I hold the record for most wins by a PSU wrestler who grew up south of the Expressway and east of the Parkway (1) lettered in wrestling and got a degree in meteorology, and no one associated with the AGW movement will ever outdo that. so There ( just having some fun, okay)

    Along the Cape May County coast, or that little patch of Atlantic County which includes Pleasantville, Ventnor, and Somers Point?

    I think I still have some family down in Ocean City.

  70. KevinK says:

    Well, isn’t that SPECIAL…. I received a “distinguished inventor” plaque (OK not as SPECIAL as a medal, but it sure looks just as fancy) from a US corporation that was in the top 20 of the Forbes’s top 100 companies way back in the 1990’s.

    This company is now barely in the top 250 companies in the list…..

    What goes UP can come back DOWN even faster……

    Time will tell if the “science” of the “climate” is worth a DAMN or NOT. I suspect that those that follow us on this planet will be having a great big laugh in 2050 about how foolish the “climate scientists” where way back in 2011….. “What Jacka__ really beleived they could predict the weather in one hundred years ????”

    Just an observation, but the “doctor” that “perfected” the lobotomy operation won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

    YUCK, I’d rather die without a Nobel Prize than join the ranks of the “lobotomy perfectors”…….

    Cheers, Kevin.

  71. Gail Combs says:

    I would say that this award is just another lead-in to the Durbin Climate Circus.

    Any bets that twenty to thirty years from now this award will be completely unknown especially if the grant money evaporates?

    Also I wonder when it was decided to give the medal to Mann, before or after the Penn State football scandal….

  72. R. Gates says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    “I’d be interested though, if you could summarize in your own words R. Gates, what it is specifically that Mann has done that makes him deserving of the presumed accolade? No generalizations now, I’m seeking specifics.”
    ————–
    Suggest you contact the nominating committee if you’re so keen to know. Or simply read his rather extensive Wikipedia listing. Since I didn’t nominate him nor did I say “well deserved” (though it well could be), but simply congratulated him, as it is the polite thing do…you’ll have to try to pick an argument with someone else.

  73. R. Gates says:

    savethesharks says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    Good for him. Congratulations!

    ==============================

    OK. In a similar vein, then: “Good for Al Gore, Pachuri, Arafat, and Obama….for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.” Congratulations!”

    Doesn’t mean much, does it??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ————-
    All these men will be remembered long after most of have turned to dust…but then again, so will Osama and Charles Manson.

  74. davidmhoffer says:

    Rattus Norvegicus;
    I also find it ironic that so many here love using the AMO to arguments against AGW. You do know who was co-author on the paper which found the (still disputed to some extent) AMO? That’s right, Michael E. Mann.>>>

    I find it ironic that one good deed excuses a thousand sins in your mind. OK, ironic might be the wrong word. How about sickening?

  75. HankH, it is absolutely true that this is a peer (peer here being the members of the EGU committee which decides who gets the award) nominated award. It speaks volumes about what Mann’s peers think about his work. He isn’t a bad or incompetent scientist. He’s pretty damn good.

  76. Dreadnought says:

    Jokers, clearly!

  77. Gary Mount says:

    The former B.C. premier was awarded with the Order of B.C., the province’s highest honour, for creating North America’s first carbon tax as well as the carbon offset purchase regime that every hospital and school board is compelled to participate in, even though he was not eligible for the award.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/05/bc-protest-gordon-campbell-order.html?cmp=rss

    Corruption is rife throughout the AGW community. And please people, don’t use the words “post normal” when the proper term is “corrupt”.

  78. Ray says:

    Buddy-awards too?

  79. davidmhoffer,

    So you are very selective about what you consider to be good research by a person you revile, if, and only if, it may support your point of view. However, research by the same person that you don’t agree with is invalid? Please explain.

  80. davidmhoffer says:

    R. Gates;
    Suggest you contact the nominating committee if you’re so keen to know. Or simply read his rather extensive Wikipedia listing. Since I didn’t nominate him nor did I say “well deserved” (though it well could be), but simply congratulated him, as it is the polite thing do…you’ll have to try to pick an argument with someone else.>>>

    1. As usual, asked a direct question, R. Gates gives excuses for not being able to answer, and a vague reference to other sources of data.

    2. Is it your habit to congratulate someone for an award you admit you have no idea what it is for, nor do you know if it is deserved? I’m certain that plenty of people congratulated Joseph Stalin when he rose to power. There were those to believed in him, and those who were sucking up. Since you admit to not knowing what the award is for, and not knowing if it is merited, might I assume that you are just sucking up?

    3. I’m not picking an argument with you, quite the opposite in fact. Do you sincerely suggest that you were merely congratulating Michael Mann and figured that this would be a good forum to get that message to him? Come on! You posted a congratulatory remark in a site which has had a strong hand in debunking many of his claims and the bulk of the audience has an intensly negative view of him. I can ascribe only a limited number of logical possibilities for doing so. Either you were attempting to provoke a reaction, or you just wanted to rub skeptic noses in what you think is a victory. You are the one picking a fight, and when challenged on it, point at the other party and shout “he started it”. Nice. Mature. Not.

  81. davidmhoffer says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    davidmhoffer,
    So you are very selective about what you consider to be good research by a person you revile, if, and only if, it may support your point of view. However, research by the same person that you don’t agree with is invalid? Please explain.>>>

    Your position was that you find it ironic that some people cite the AMO to support their anti-CAGW position and that Michael Mann had a hand in that research. I never said if I thought it was good research or not. I don’t know, and for the purpose of taking you to task on your original comment, I don’t care. He is being taken to task for having frabricated many of his results. That he produced other results at some point that perhaps supported a different perspective is immaterial.

    Well, unless he fabricated those too.

    There is well performed science underpinning the AMO. Doesn’t matter who did it if it done well. There is fradulant science underpinning CAGW. Who did it and why suddenly is important. If Michael Mann went into a bank and withdrew money from his own account, and the next day robbed the same bank at gun point, would you excuse the crime because yeserday he played by the rules, so its OK for him to break them today?

  82. James Sexton says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    HankH, it is absolutely true that this is a peer (peer here being the members of the EGU committee which decides who gets the award) nominated award. It speaks volumes about what Mann’s peers think about his work. He isn’t a bad or incompetent scientist. He’s pretty damn good.
    ===================================================
    I guess that’s subjective, but I wouldn’t say stubbornly refusing to admit mistakes, even after he’s shown, to be “pretty damn good”. Not once, not twice, but over and over again. He gave up any credibility he could have had with the Tijlander debacle. Typically, rent seeking advocates who refuse to show methods and data for replication aren’t considered “pretty damn good”. They are considered rent seeking advocates with highly questionable scientific methodologies.

  83. Cadae says:

    Second prize is two Hans Oeschger medals.

  84. Malcolm Robinson says:

    What’s the betting that Michael Mann has been putting pressure on the EGU for the Oeschger medal. After all, his partner in crime, Ray Bradley received it a few years ago. Oeschger was one half of the team that discovered Dansgaard-Oescher events, abrupt climatic changes which occur periodically, typically in Greenland where temperatures rises of several degrees over a decade are evidenced. Something that Michael Mann says can’t happen without CO2. Oeschger must be turning in his grave.,

  85. Orson Olson says:

    Leftists love awards. It keeps plebian minds from independent thought. That’s why the New SCOTUS Justice Elana Kagan has more honors and honorary doctorates than senior Justices on form the Right, serving a decade or two, or even three.

  86. Andrew Harding says:

    He’s got some catching up to do!

  87. Espen says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    Someone needs to hang that medal upside down on the ribbon. That way Mann can read it.

    Haha! Good one! But seriously, the fact that Mann hasn’t corrected his use of upside down Tiljander yet (but in fact defended it in a bizarre way), should disqualify him from any scientific honor. I take this as a statement from the EGU that they’ve decided to do politics rather than science.

  88. Mark says:

    Maybe Mann, along with others, should be nominated for some fiction awards.

  89. Bulldust says:

    I think McEnroe said it best:

    “You cannot be serious!!11!1!one!”

  90. Laurie says:

    Joe, put all that stuff on your CV. Don’t stop until you’ve got 40 pages or more.
    My third grade teacher gave me a gold star every day for a month. Yup! (Then, I got arrogant.)

  91. Rather says:

    It was an artistic hockey stick! Don’t be such a meany ; you’re causing global warming, or freezing, or what’s the next waterloo?

  92. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Dr. Mann paper about the AMO contributed to its attaining ‘mystic’ powers (I mean the AMO, not Dr. Mann). However he was correct in the ‘thermo-haline’ aspect of it, I’ve correlated it to the Arctic circle’s summer atmospheric pressure anomaly
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm which directly leads to

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm

    see pages 11 + of http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm

  93. Roger Knights says:

    Thick as thieves.

  94. Venter says:

    Spot on davidmhoffer, on your replies to the trolls Gates and Rattus. Some people have no decency or shame or a conscience.

  95. Peter Plail says:

    I think this says more about the EGU than it does about Mann. They claim “The hockey stick demonstrated that temperatures had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels”. I thought it demonstrated the truth of the phrase “There are lies, damn lies and statistics”.

  96. KnR says:

    This is something that may well come back to bite the organization very hard indeed .

  97. UK Sceptic says:

    I received a medal for winning a sack race when I was eight. What’s more I didn’t cheat…

  98. Coldish says:

    John Mitchell (EGU medal winner 2004) works for the UK government’s Met(eorological) Office, where his curent duties include “…handling concerns of those skeptical about climate change .”

  99. Joe Horner says:

    In the British forces there is (was??) a long-standing joke about our American friends getting medals with their cornflakes* but at least, in the words of the song, “They don’t give a Purple Heart for a fallen arch”.

    Having already lowered the established standards for science, it seems the climate science community would like to drop the bar on gongs too!

    * It’s only jealousy because they get more than us ;)

  100. Greg Holmes says:

    Hi, all, birds of a feather flock together. Lets keep hunting them, they are losing out now big time.

    PS.
    Antony, dump the link.

  101. chuck nolan says:

    I’m not surprised about this because of something I read in the climategate emails. Who was it that was trying to help get Phil Jones some sort of recognition or into some organization and was expecting to get nice letters of recommendation later? Kind of like ‘I’ll get everybody to support you and you can do the same for me.’ Makes one wonder how things work in their world.

  102. Shevva says:

    G. Karst says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    This medal should be presented on the top of a log book. GK

    More like a leaflet on the scientific method with the bit about releasing of data so your results can be reproduced would be a good start.

  103. CodeTech says:

    Judging by the number of “snip”s in the first few comments, a lot of people feel about the same as I do about the quality and accuracy of Mann’s work. And hairstyle.

    Fact is, as far as I can tell the majority of Mann’s contribution has been thoroughly and scientifically debunked. Being debunked is a particular kind of insult… usually it’s rumors and conspiracy theories that need debunking, not an individual’s work.

    The thing about the hockey stick: it IS iconic, yes. But just because something is iconic doesn’t in any way imply accuracy. I’m certain most people think that thing has stood the test of rigorous peer-reviewed scrutiny. And if not, hey, we should all “do our part” to “tackle” “climate change”… just in case. Because, you know, we can’t afford to be wrong.

    Anyway, this actually sounds like something that could be an episode of Big Bang Theory… except all of the guys on that show are actually… um… intelligent…

  104. DirkH says:

    When something starts with European and ends with Union you know it’s corrupt.

  105. bismuth says:

    As an engineer I find it very depressing that institutions that should promote science for the benefit of humanity (the first thing we are impressed with in engineering) do the exact opposite. On what seems a daily basis they drag themselves into political frauds for the only purpose of remaining on the correct side of politically correct money dispensers. Awards in science have become as nonsensical as those for journalim (see Kouric, Katie).

  106. Martin A says:

    Excellent news. We now know exactly where the European Geosciences Union stands.

    (My boss used to tell me that my ability to find gold nuggets in piles of [deleted] was valuable.

  107. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    OT.
    Road to education is harder for some.
    I found this fascinated, but if you don’t understand Chinese as I don’t, wind forward to 4min30sec and compare to your own experience travelling to school or college, fortunately this is only at the start and the end of each semester, it’s a boarding school.

  108. dcfl51 says:

    4 Dec 07 email 119687266 : Mike Mann to Phil Jones
    By the way, I am still looking into nominating you for an American Geophysical Union award; I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like me to investigate…..

    Jones to Mann
    As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine. …….

    Mann to Jones
    I will look into the American Geophysical Union Fellowship situation as soon as possible.

    16 May 09 email 124274957 : Mike Mann to Phil Jones
    On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem with some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor (of being awarded a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union) this year ? ……..
    Anyway, I don’t want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you’d be willing to help organize, I would naturally be much obliged.

    So, Dr Mann is now being awarded a medal by the EGU. Ho, hum !

  109. Marion says:

    Interesting that Ray Bradley was one member of the panel awarding the medal!!

    http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/award-medal-committees.html

    Oh, and that Phil Jones is also a previous recipient – what a small incestuous world climate science is!!

  110. Barry Day says:

    “Mann gets Medal”…Why am I thinking, yeah but it’s “FOOLS GOLD”?

  111. Marion says:

    DirkH says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:07 am
    “When something starts with European and ends with Union you know it’s corrupt.”

    Totally agree Dirk, after all it was the EU that made sure there were mountains of money available for climate scientists but only if they came up with the ‘right’ answers of course –

    http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291

  112. Steve C says:

    It seems you can get a medal, or a Nobel Peace Prize, or whatever, for just about anything these days. The rest of my comment is self-censored, to save the mods time – feel free to provide your own invective.

  113. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Climate scientists giving other climate scientists medals. Congratulations.
    And a life time supply of turd polish to boot.

  114. mat says:

    Nice for him! but a medal no more makes him a good man then the plastic star I got in a Christmas cracker makes me a copper !!

  115. derspatz says:

    It’s a sting to get him out of the country, right ?

    regarDS

  116. John of Kent says:

    Thanks for giving me a much needed laugh today!

  117. Roger Knights says:

    This award can convey an unintended message, namely:

    1. Mann is the best of the bunch.
    2. Therefore, the rest of the bunch are worse than Mann!

  118. Bill Illis says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:54 pm
    ——————–

    Regarding Mann and naming the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. He only claims he came up with the name for it in 2000 in an interview he gave to Richard Kerr (the editor of Nature at the time). Schlesinger and Ramankutty did not name it in their 1994 paper.

    Richard Kerr also wrote an editorial about the Oscillation in Nature in 2000 which coincided with Mann and Delworth’s paper which outlined the oscillation pattern over a few centuries. An interview Kerr had with Mann was published in a few newspapers and that is where the name AMO first came up.

    2000 was just the period when the community was starting to recognize that the North Atlantic’s oscillations were being connected with different climate patterns around the world in a number of different papers. An important one in 1999 connected rainfall patterns in Brazil and West Africa very closely with the oscillations. Before that, there was no AMO and the science didn’t start to address it until after that. Think about that, just 10 years ago.

  119. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    The Hans Oeschger Medal Committee (source):

    Dominique Raynaud (Chair) – 2008 Winner

    Thomas Stocker – 2009 Winner, “Co-Chair Working Group I, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (since 2008)” (info).

    Francoise Gasse – 2010 Winner

    Jean Jouzel – Vice President of IPCC Scientific Council

    Robert Delmas – 2011 Winner

    and
    Ray Bradley – 2007 Winner and Mann’s “Hockey Stick” co-author.

    Yup, truly a fitting Peer Reviewed award for Michael Mann. I’m sure all the past winners will be glad to have Mann in their illustrious group in the years to come.

  120. Luther Wu says:

    All previous recipients of this prize were also adherents to the meme…

  121. Tucci78 says:

    Appraised of the fact that David Falkner had uttered at 7:58 PM on 16 November an OT post consisting of nothing but personal insult addressed to me (“I remember you. Yes, it must be hard to see with your head in there.“), Mr. Watts had inserted:

    REPLY: “…lance this pustule of a Falkner?” Please, use plain English to describe your request. And no, you don’t get to declare “open anything”, it isn’t your blog. If you want to go off on a tear, do it someplace else. – Anthony

    Mr. Watts, you had objected in another thread to my engagement in the discussion of matters peripheral but pertinent to the patterns of conduct demonstrated by the administration of the institution where Dr. Michael E. Mann is presently employed, as well as to my incidental focus on the clinically pernicious effects of perpetuating a wildly popular, hysterical, hypocritical, and false concept. I believe I described it as “the psychiatric equivalent of a death sentence.”

    Think of that concept as a sort of medical equivalent of the CAGW fraud.

    Mr. Falkner was one of several vociferous…people…who had received my observations in that thread with insult addressed not to the substance of my comments but to me personally, and in his cited post, insult was the entirety of Mr. Falkner‘s contribution to discussion.

    Because this “isn’t [my] blog,” I took pains to provide you with notification of Mr. Falkner‘s conduct before addressing this pustule directly and incisively.

    After all, it isyour blog.”

  122. Coldish says:

    chuck nolan says:
    November 17, 2011 at 2:49 am
    “I’m not surprised about this because of something I read in the climategate emails. Who was it that was trying to help get Phil Jones some sort of recognition or into some organization and was expecting to get nice letters of recommendation later? Kind of like ‘I’ll get everybody to support you and you can do the same for me.”
    It was Michael Mann. The organisation was the AGU (American Geophysical Union). Mann pulled strings to get Jones elected to a fellowship (a highly regarded honorary position) , which duly occurred in 2009. The payback was that Jones was expected to return the favour by in turn proposing or supporting Mann for a fellowship, although at the start Mann didn’t spell this part of the deal out to Jones. I think this ambition of Mann’s was stymied by Climategate.

  123. Garacka says:

    This is a just another example where awardees are selected less on the basis of the truth veracity of their accomplishments and more on the basis of the alignment of the message of their exploits with the political motivations of the organization(s) behind the selection.

    It happens way too often and diminishes the selection of those whom are deserving. At some point you’d hope that the selecting organizations would feel the damage to their reputations, but that is certainly wishful thinking.

  124. Tucci78 says:

    At 9:57 PM on 16 November, Rattus Norvegicus writes in response to HankH:

    …it is absolutely true that this is a peer (peer here being the members of the EGU committee which decides who gets the award) nominated award. It speaks volumes about what Mann’s peers think about his work. He isn’t a bad or incompetent scientist. He’s pretty damn good.

    Which instantly evokes a remark made by John Randolph of Roanoake in the early years of our American republic:

    “Fellow-citizens, he is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. Like rotten mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks.”

  125. Erik says:

    Medals are overrated – We don’t need no stinking badges to spot a looney

  126. John Marshall says:

    My god all those qualifications and not one used properly.

  127. Tucci78 says:

    At 2:20 AM on 17 November, Joe Horner had written that:

    In the British forces there is (was??) a long-standing joke about our American friends getting medals with their cornflakes* but at least, in the words of the song, “They don’t give a Purple Heart for a fallen arch”.

    This World War Two observation about the U.S. Army (and the U.S. Army Air Forces in particular) was prevalent also in the United States’ Naval Service, especially in the U.S. Marine Corps, and it wasn’t unknown among the dogface soldiers – the guys on the sharp end – themselves.

    Look up cartoonist Bill Mauldin, and check out his Stars and Stripes cartoon” captioned:

    “Th’ yellow one is fer national defense, th’ red one wit’ white stripes is fer good conduct, and th’ real purty one wit’ all th’ colors is fer bein’ in this theater of operations.”

    Mauldin got a lot of flack from the brassbound West Point Protective Association lifers for that innocent little comment about medals handed out to the REMFs like Chiclets.

  128. Frank K. says:

    Marion says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Interesting that Ray Bradley was one member of the panel awarding the medal!!

    http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/award-medal-committees.html

    Oh, and that Phil Jones is also a previous recipient what a small incestuous world climate science is!!

    Well, that explains a lot! In any case, this award is PURELY POLITICAL. They’re basically trying to prop him up and provide some legitimacy to his work as climate science in general struggles for future funding* and attempts to get its message out to the public. I’m sure they could have selected among many other equally deserving members.

    *Unfortunately here in the U.S., billions of dollars in climate ca$h that the taxpayers can’t afford is flowing quite freely to the climate elites…

  129. henrythethird says:

    According to the source above (http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/awards-and-medals/award/hans-oeschger.html), they have this:

    “…It is reserved for scientists for their outstanding achievements in ice research and/or short term climatic changes (past, present, future)…”

    And Mann qualified for this in what way? If using ice core data (proxies) to ESTIMATE temperatures over the past thousand years makes him eligible, imagine what awards he’d get if he really applied himself.

    I’ve watched ice melt in a glass of scotch. Can I get the award, too?

  130. Chris B says:

    Science and politics make strange bedfellows.

  131. Dave Springer says:

    I earned a Rifle Expert medal in the United States Marine Corps which essentially means I can, among other things, reliably put neat little 5.56 millimeter holes in a Hans Oeschger medal from a distance of 100 yards in the offhand standing position with an open sight M-16 combat assault rifle.

    But speaking of Hans reminds me of Switzerland where Hans spent his entire life. Switzerland, the “other Germany” which didn’t take sides in World War II. The country where all the biggest criminals hide their money. Switzerland, where heinous crimes committed in other countries are just not their concern. Kind of makes you wonder why they’d be concernced about environmental carnage given they happily hold the booty from oil profiteers in their anonymous no-questions-asked banking industry. I would waste a bullet putting a hole in the Hans Oeschger medal unless some criminal happened to be wearing it at the time…

  132. Dave Springer says:

    R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    OK. In a similar vein, then: “Good for Al Gore, Pachuri, Arafat, and Obama….for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.” Congratulations!”

    All these men will be remembered long after most of have turned to dust…but then again, so will Osama and Charles Manson.

    _______________________________________________________

    I’m not sure that will be much consolation as they spend an eternity shining their medals in the depths of Hell.

  133. Pete H says:

    My! The trolls have been about! Now, after his efforts for Jones we really need to see the emails that brought about this farcical lump of bronze! I wonder how much carbon was consumed in nudging the award and actually forging ( ;-) ) it

  134. Dave Springer says:

    Was my comment about me receiving an “Rifle Expert” medal in the United States Marine Corps over the top or something? I mean just because I talked about being able to put 5.56 millimeter holes in Hans Oeschger medals from a great distance didn’t necessarily mean I wanted to do that while any recipients were wearing them.

    Or maybe it was talking about Switzerland being where the all the big oil profiteers keep their money? I have no respect for Switzerland. Not a single iota. Most of it stems from their total non-concern about atrocities committed outside their own country while happilly being the bankers for terrorists and anyone else needing a safe haven to hide money.

  135. I don’t get it. Why is the director of “Miami Vice” and “Heat” getting a climate medal? :D

  136. ShrNfr says:

    I presume that the award was for a paper entitled “How To Make Money Out Of Horse Offal”.

  137. Espen says:

    James Sexton says:
    November 16, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    He gave up any credibility he could have had with the Tijlander debacle

    Exactly. That EGU (or “Rattus Norvegicus”) just ignore this, tells me that they either don’t understand how bad the Tiljander data abuse was (which is a shame, since Mann was responsible for abusing it again just a few months ago, as one of the authors of Kemp 2011), or that they are willing to sacrifice the quality of science for their own political agenda.

  138. Nick Shaw says:

    I’m thinkin’ the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union is given out for attendance. Right? Or participation?

  139. Vince Causey says:

    I fully expected Mann to winn a medal – the Trofim Lysenko medal.

    The Trofim Lysenko medal is awarded to that scientist, who, in the opinion of the committee, has made the greatest effort to pervert and twist the cause of science for political ends.

    He is best known for the “hockey stick,” a chart he and his co-authors published in 1999 using cherry picked climate data such as tree-rings found in only one tiny corner of the planet. By dint of supreme effort, Mann extracted those rings which by chance happened to show minute, hockey-stick like tendencies, and weighted them 396 times. The hockey stick then purported to demonstrate that temperatures had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels and is the subject of Mann’s new book, “How I was mistaken for a climate scientist.”

    When asked for his reaction, Mann replied: “I can do science, me.”

  140. G. Karst says:

    Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary – GK

    English

    Shinola

    Etymology

    A colloquialism which dates back to the early 1940s in the United States. [1] Shinola is a once-popular, now-defunct shoe polish brand, which had a color and texture not unlike feces; the joke in the idiom being that only a stupid person could confuse the two upon more than a passing glance.

    Verb

    to know sh*t from Shinola

    1. (US) To have the most basic level of intelligence or common sense.

  141. Bruce Cobb says:

    That’s great for him, but unfortunately, I don’t think they allow the wearing or even posession of medals in the state pen.

  142. TomRude says:

    I think Maurice Strong ought to become Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of Canada while at it…

  143. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Dave Springer on November 17, 2011 at 7:14 am:

    Was my comment about me receiving an “Rifle Expert” medal in the United States Marine Corps over the top or something? I mean just because I talked about being able to put 5.56 millimeter holes in Hans Oeschger medals from a great distance didn’t necessarily mean I wanted to do that while any recipients were wearing them.

    Bah. A real “rifle expert” would be using at least 7.62x51mm NATO. I thought Marines trained to shoot people, not poodles!

  144. Mr Lynn says:

    D Marshall says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm
    Anthony, please remove the [don't give away the joke] link from your post. It’s demeaning to your site’s standards.

    Late in the day, but I agree. This blog’s civility is one of the reasons it’s so widely respected, and that diminishes it.

    /Mr Lynn

  145. Theodore says:

    That is the problem with whitewash, if the first coat is inadequate, you have to keep adding new coats.

  146. Interesting CNN video on Penn State’s unusual exemption from open records laws:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/us/2011/11/15/ac-griffin-penn-state-secrecy.cnn

  147. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Mr Lynn on November 17, 2011 at 8:28 am:

    Late in the day, but I agree. This blog’s civility is one of the reasons it’s so widely respected, and that diminishes it.

    Civility is a wonderful thing, among ladies and gentlemen who respect the rules of polite discourse. But given the frequently-encountered quality of the opposition and their noted ability to resort to base disparaging attacks, when the insistent continual usage of politeness would be seen as weakness, I take comfort that Anthony is fully capable, if needed, of informing a deserving individual that they are indeed a f***ing b****rd who’s full of sh*t.
    ;-)

    [REPLY: I don't recall Anthony ever using that terminology. -REP]

  148. Dave says:

    What do you expect – justice? What would Hans Oeschger have said? But don`t knock EGU anymore than AGU who have the same problem – they have been infiltrated by activists not much interested in scientifc debate. Shame on them. A proper response by Mann would be to submit a paper to EGU? A forlorn hope I suspect because the EGU open publication policy would not be much to his liking.

  149. Ed Scott says:

    Let us listen to a scientist deserving of such commendation for contributions to climatology.
    —————————————————-
    November 17, 2011
    Why BEST Will Not Settle the Climate Debate
    By S. Fred Singer

    Global warming has re-entered public consciousness in recent days, partly because of the buzz surrounding the release of warming results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The reaction of the “warmistas” has been jubilant, yet hilariously wrong. Will they ever learn?

    They’ve latched on to the BEST result as their last best hope for rescuing misbegotten schemes to control emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. Leading the pack has been the Washington Post (Oct. 25), whose columnist tried to write off Republican presidential candidates Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as “cynical diehards,” deniers, idiots, or whatever.

    I sent the WP a letter pointing out obvious errors, but I got a peculiar response. It turned out that they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.

    Unfortunately, it has become expedient (for those who condemn CO2 as the cause of warming) to deride their opponents with terms like “climate deniers.” A complacent and inattentive media has made the problem worse, by giving the impression that anyone who doesn’t buy the CO2 hypothesis doesn’t believe that climate changes, and hence is a total Luddite. Even the WSJ got carried away. Prof. Richard Muller, the originator and leader of the BEST study, complained to me that some eager editor changed the title of his op-ed (Oct. 21) to “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism” from his original “Cooling the Global Warming Debate. ”

    The (formerly respected) scientific journal Nature chimed in and announced in an (Oct. 26) editorial[i] that any results confirming “climate change” (meaning anthropogenic global warming — AGW) are welcome, even when released before peer review. Of course, we’ve known for many years that Nature does not welcome any contrary science results, but it’s nice to have this confirmation.

    Their hearts filled with bubbling joy and their brains befuddled, none of the warmistas have apparently listened to the somewhat skeptical pronouncements from Prof. Muller. He emphasizes that the analysis is based only on land data, covering less than 30% of the earth’s surface and housing recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the U.S. and Western Europe. In addition, he admits that 70% of U.S. stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is probably worse. He disclaims to know the cause of the warming found by BEST and favors naturally caused oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system that no climate model has yet simulated or explained.

    The fact that the BEST results agree with previously published analyses of warming trends from land stations may indicate only that there is something very wrong with all of these. There are two entirely different ways to interpret this agreement on surface warming. It might indicate important confirmation, but logic allows for an alternate possibility: since both results rely on surface thermometers, they are not really independent and could be subject to similar fundamental errors. For example, both datasets could be affected by urban heat islands or other non-global effects — like local heating of airports, where traffic has been growing steadily.

    But the main reason I have remained a skeptic is that the atmosphere, unlike the land surface, has shown no warming during the crucial period (1978-1997), either over land or over ocean, according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. And did you know that climate models run on high-speed computers all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface — and so does atmospheric theory?

    BEST has no data from the oceans, which cover 71% of the planet’s surface. True, oceans are not subject to urban heat islands, but they have problems with instrumentation. It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 is simply an artifact — the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming. Anyway, supporting data don’t show any ocean warming, either.

    And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called proxies: tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, stalagmites. Most of these haven’t shown any warming since 1940!

    Contrary to some commentary, BEST in no way confirms the scientifically discredited hockey stick graph, which was based on multi-proxy analysis and had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the hockey stick authors never published their post-1978 temperatures in their 1998 paper in Nature — or since. Their proxy record suddenly just stops in 1978 — and is then replaced by a thermometer record that shows rapid warming. The reason for hiding the post-1978 proxy data: it’s likely that they show no warming. Why don’t we try to find out?

    None of the warmistas can explain why the climate hasn’t warmed in the 21st century, while CO2 has been increasing rapidly. It’s no wonder that Herman Cain, a former math and computer science major in college, says that “man-made global warming is poppycock” (NYT, Nov. 12). He blames climate fears on “scientists who tried to concoct the science” and “were busted because they tried to manipulate the data.”

    Mr. Cain is not far from the truth — at least when one listens to Rich Muller. Muller’s careful to make no claim whatsoever that the warming he finds is due to human causes. He tells us that one third of the stations show cooling, not warming. Muller admits that “the uncertainty [involved in these stations] is large compared to the analyses of global warming.” He nevertheless insists that if he uses a large enough set of bad numbers, he could get a good average. I am not so sure.

    Muller thinks that he has eliminated the effects of local heating, like urban heat islands. But this is a difficult undertaking, and many doubt that the BEST study has been successful in this respect. Some of Muller’s severest critics are fellow physicists: Lubos Motl in the Czech Republic and Don Rapp in California. Somewhat harshly, perhaps, Rapp would change the study designation from BEST to “WORST” (World Overview of Representative Station Temperatures).

    I am one of those doubters. While many view the apparent agreement of BEST with previous analyses as confirmation, I wonder about the logic. It might be a good idea if BEST would carry out some prudent internal cheeks:

    ** Plot number of stations used between 1970 and 2000 and make sure that there have been no significant changes in what I call the “demographics”: station latitudes, altitudes, or anything that could induce an artificial warming trend.

    **I would pay particular attention to the fraction of temperature records from airport stations — generally considered among the best-maintained, but subject to large increases in local warming.

    ** I would also decompose the global record of BEST into regions to see if the results hold up.

    Of course, the most important checks must come from records that are independent of weather station thermometers: atmospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, and temperatures from non-thermometer proxy data. But even then, it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact causes of climate change.

    I conclude, therefore, that the balance of evidence favors little if any global warming during 1978-1997. It contradicts the main conclusion of the IPCC — i.e., that recent warming is “very likely” (90-99% certain) caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases like CO2.

    And finally, what to do if CO2 is the main cause, and if a modest warming has bad consequences — as so many blindly assume? I am afraid that the BEST project and Muller are of no help.

    On the one hand, Muller is dismissive of policies to control CO2 emissions in the U.S. — much less in his State of California. In an Oct. 31 interview with the Capital Report of New Mexico, he stated:

    … the public needs to know this, that anything we do in the United States will not affect global warming by a significant amount. Because, all projections show that most of the future carbon dioxide is going to be coming from China, India, and the developing world. … [A]nything we do that will not be followed by China and India is basically wasted.

    On the other hand, Muller told MSNBC’s Morning Joe (Nov.14):

    [W]e’re getting very steep warming … we are dumping enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we’re working in a dangerous realm, where I think, we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.

    So take your choice. But remember — there is no evidence at all for significant future warming. BEST is a valuable effort, but it does not settle the climate debate.

  150. Martin Brumby says:

    So Meltdown Mann won another gong.

    One to put next to the “Khlima Rouge Star” award, recognising his active work in promoting a simpler, more sustainable agrarian existence.

    Now, if they gave awards for arrogance, he’d get one the size of a dustbin lid.

  151. Hoser says:

    It might as well be the Al Gore award. Who cares?

  152. John-X says:

    Al Gore got the Nobel Prize AND an Oscar™

    now Mann gets the Oeschger medal…

    We need a spoken word album, “Travesty,” by Kevein Trenberth, so he can get the Grammy™

    an Emmy™ for Gavin

    an AVN™ award for Jim Hansen’s outstanding Climate Porn

    and how about a Hugo™ for all of them (science fiction writing) – for quantity if not quality.

  153. Someone should send them the video of Muller’s mauling of the Hockey Stick.

  154. wws says:

    [snip - funny, but it will be misconstrued]

  155. R.S.Brown says:

    I hope folks don’t think Mike Mann’s current sabbatical from his duties at
    Penn State was designed for him to take a break from his efforts to rehabilitate
    his once-brilliant “Hockey Stick creator” status in the eyes of academia,
    politics, and the judicial system.

    He, through dedicated members of the “Team”, has been giving lectures on
    how the Climategate e-mails should be interpreted, on how torturing data via
    specially designed statistical treatments (including the use of tainted upside
    down analysis) is an “acceptible” practice, and what a great but temperamental
    guy he is.

    He’s happy to see critics of his methods and conclusions tarred with epithets
    ranging from misguided to outright “liars”. However, he’s not saying anything
    like that under oath or from a witness stand.

    Who are you going to believe ? The facts or his CV ?

  156. Sunspot says:

    The taller they are the harder they fall.

  157. Bob said:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm
    Back in the old days, Mann was less of a believer and more of a scientist.
    ————————————————————-
    That’s why they gave him the medal – they’re trying to hide the decline ;)

  158. kwik says:

    I like it. Hopefully there will be more organisations like that giving the man(n) a medal.

    Later on, (ten years from now?) when we look back, those same organisations will have ditched the CAGW bandwaggon.

    And cringe, everytime it is mentioned; “But hey, didnt you guys give him a medal?”

  159. Nicanuk says:

    Anyone remeber the CRU “climategate” e-mails where Mann approaches Jones with a promise to ahem “influence” the selection commitee , he names them all too, for a medal/award (AGU???) on his side of the Atlantic. Mann, later, sweetly reminded Jones of his duty and lo, Mann was the recipient of some award – can’t remember which – in the uk. Can you hear the sound of backs being scratched?

  160. Robert Austin says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    If Mann is ranked “pretty damn good” as a scientist, then I weep buckets over the precipitous decline of science.

  161. Peter Miller says:

    The prefix geo has a specific meaning: earth.

    To award Mann a Geosciences medal is deeply offensive to all geo-scientists.

    Mann is as far from being a geoscientist as a toad is to being a wooden door.

    I would prefer to put this down as to one of the many idiocies enacted in the dying days of the Eurozone.

  162. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    It looks like conducting good science is not a requirement for winning this award.

  163. kim2ooo says:

    They gave him the medal – because of the likeness ON THE MEDAL :)

    I expect Gaven will get one as he too, looks like Hans Oeschger.

    Possibly, in the works Richard Black???

  164. R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:46 pm
    savethesharks says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    R. Gates says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    Good for him. Congratulations!

    ==============================

    OK. In a similar vein, then: “Good for Al Gore, Pachuri, Arafat, and Obama….for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.” Congratulations!”

    Doesn’t mean much, does it??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ————-
    All these men will be remembered long after most of have turned to dust…but then again, so will Osama and Charles Manson.

    ===========================

    HUH???

    You are degrading to the point where you are unintelligible.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  165. Bill Illis says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:00 am

    2000 was just the period when the community was starting to recognize that the North Atlantic’s oscillations were being connected with different climate patterns around the world in a number of different papers. An important one in 1999 connected rainfall patterns in Brazil and West Africa very closely with the oscillations. Before that, there was no AMO and the science didn’t start to address it until after that. Think about that, just 10 years ago.

    =================================================

    Exactly. As always, well said, Bill.

    Most people would not know of the AMO or the MJO were it not for a few prescient scientists like yourself (and others such as Joe Bastardi who clued me in on these teleconnections years ago).

    There is so much we’ve yet to learn….that it certainly does not give us the license to arrogantly proclaim “the science is settled” on either side of the issue, no doubt.

    Because in reality, with science, which is truth, there is no “side”.

    Long live the truth.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  166. John David Galt says:

    Yet another supposed science institution discredits itself. Yawn. It was news when the Nobel committee did it.

  167. old44 says:

    He will probably get an Order of Australia for services to the ATO.

  168. Dave Springer says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 17, 2011 at 8:05 am

    “Bah. A real “rifle expert” would be using at least 7.62x51mm NATO. I thought Marines trained to shoot people, not poodles!”

    Marines have to hit moving targets that are running away in fear for their lives. The much lighter weight of the 5.56mm ammo means you can carry a lot more rounds and lay down a wider field of fire to better intercept a moving target. Any Marine who wants a NATO rifle can simply pick one up off the ground that’s never been fired and been dropped only once.

  169. Power Grab says:

    Re the turd polish – didn’t Mythbusters polish turds until they shone? Is that the same thing?

  170. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Dave Springer says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Marines have to hit moving targets that are running away in fear for their lives. The much lighter weight of the 5.56mm ammo means you can carry a lot more rounds and lay down a wider field of fire to better intercept a moving target. (…)

    You specifically talked about hitting targets from “a great distance”. That’s sniping, for which the 7.62 is superior to the 5.56. Plus “one shot” is the rule. 5.56 is insufficient for deer, 7.62 is more than adequate for one shot, with similar performance on people.

    And Marines train to shoot people in the back that are running away? ‘Nuff said. ;-)

  171. Wat Dabney says:

    The medal was established in 2001 in recognition of the scientific achievements of Hans Oeschger to honor outstanding scientists whose work is related to climate: past, present and future.

    Oh, it’s one of those Hallmark Mother’s Day deals.

  172. Giving uncredible people medals for fabricating FrankenGraphs doesn’t improve their lot; adding a teaspoon of vintage wine into a vat of sewage still results in a vat of sewage.

  173. Leo Morgan says:

    I see you’ve acceeded to the request to ‘dump the link’ that so many of your supporters made.
    Respect.

  174. JPeden says:

    The medal was established in 2001 in recognition of the scientific achievements of Hans Oeschger to honor outstanding scientists whose work is related to climate: past, present and future.

    This continued shun of Jeremiah Wright and Kim Jong Il shall not go unnoticed!

  175. DMarshall says:

    Thanks for pointing that out – I didn’t notice. As the first (I believe) to ask that the link be removed, I suppose I should acknowledge this.
    Here goes:

    Anthony, thank you for deleting the link

  176. Tucci78 says:

    Tsk. Mr. Watts, shame on you for deleting the link.

    Los warmistas are peddling uncomposted bovine byproduct whether we observe the fact or not. They’ve been polishing those lumps of excrement for more than thirty years now, and striving fraudulently to pass them off as the legitimate fruits of alleged “research” that has cost taxpayers in these United States alone more than $79 billion over the past two decades, and far, far more when considerations of other government-enforced violations of individual human rights are appreciated.

    Why not make the observation?

  177. kim2ooo says:

    Seems this medal award had plans back in 2007

    Alleged CRU Email – 1168883146.txt

    http://www.au.agwscam.com/cru/emails.php?eid=771&filename=1168883146.txt

  178. kim2ooo says:

    This medal was planned to go to Mr Mann way back in 2007
    1168883146.txt

  179. john says:

    Sandusky sex-abuse scandal emerged from a secretive Penn State

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/20/130794/sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-emerged.html

    From Penn State University’s athletic department to the halls of its Old Main administrative building, the university long has sought to control the public’s access to information about its inner workings.

    It received $270 million from state taxpayers this year, but is able to choose whether to make details of its budget public.

    It’s exempt from most requirements of the state Open Records Law. It needs only to disclose the salaries of its 25 highest-paid employees, the salaries of officers and directors and the information filed in its federal non-profit form.

  180. eljay says:

    Ever since Al ManBearPig got a gong for his marvelous science fiction movie, i have given absolutely NO credence to any award or grant facility to do with the sciences, especially the climatological sciences. It saddens me to say, but I just don’t trust such methods of recognition any more – too sullied by weak character, ego & political ambition/motivation. That is what this entire global scam has done for my trust in the sciences – just sayin’.

  181. Marion says:

    Marion says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:30 am
    Interesting that Ray Bradley was one member of the panel awarding the medal!!

    http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/award-medal-committees.html

    Oh, and that Phil Jones is also a previous recipient – what a small incestuous world climate science is!!

    *******************************************************************************************************

    So… just as we suspected – see Climategate 2.0 email 1412

    “raymond s bradley wrote:

    I was totally surprised to learn I was selected for the EGU’s Oeschger medal this
    year–so if you had anything to do with that, many, many thanks. I knew Hans quite well
    and so this is especially meaningful for me. Phil got the first Oeschger Medal so I
    know I am following in his big shoes. But I can’t help feeling it’s all a clerical error
    somehow and a correction letter will appear any day now….

    Phil Jones wrote:

    Ray,
    I have been nominating you for several years, as has Andre
    and Jean – I think. Not sure how much the last two have been
    involved [in the EGU] recently. I haven’t been for a few years.
    So, congratulations ! If as in previous years, you get asked about
    future awards, then consider nominating Keith and/or Mike. In the
    past it has alternated between ice cores and others… “

Comments are closed.