Mann and coining the AMO and claims of credit

Junkscience.com writes:

Did Michael Mann falsely claim to coin a famous climate term actually coined by someone else?

In Mann’s new book “The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars”, Mann writes:

The multidecadal oscillation I’d helped discover would nonethless become a cause celebre among climate change contrarians. It would even get a name: the “Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation” (AMO) — a moniker I coined off the cuff in a phone interview with science writer Dick Kerr. [footnote omitted; it reiterates the same claim]

But in an e-mail exchange with Dick Kerr today, Kerr wrote to JunkScience.com:

Steve, yes, I must confess. They just had a paper out on this phenomenon, but I needed a convenient label to write the news story. So I followed meteorological naming conventions and suggested AMO. That was okay with Mike for a news story. Subsequent papers in the literature also found it handy but had no source but my story in Science, so they would cite me. Looks fine because such a citation appears to be a scientific paper in a prestigious journal. “Oscillation” has since begun to fall out of favor because it conveys too strong a sense of regularity. We’ll see how long AMO hangs in there.

Adding credibility to Kerr’s version is the below post on Mann’s RealClimate web site.

But there’s far more to this story, as I’ve discovered in the discussions that went on in my email group.

From the discussion:

I have been bugged by Mann’s revisionist story on this point for a while now (since he has made such claim several times in the past …)

The document from Juan this morning—his interview printed in Scientific American March 2012 issue, p. 74, “I coined the term “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO]” …”

just pushed me over the edge …

Only one possibility left for this to be TRUE—that Richard Kerr from Science come out to say that he heard it from Mann first during the interview for his June 16, 2000 article (see attached, where this AMO phrase appeared for the first time …)

Dave pointed me to this story in RC storyline on AMO:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo/

which also point to Kerr as the source …

we can see from Steve’s blog that a lot of Mann worshipers found this AMO coinage to be key … (especially john cook of skeptical science)

http://junkscience.com/2012/02/09/mann-or-myth-part-1/

(sorry Steve Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994 did not come up with that phrase … i know this is WIKI saying … I know Schlesinger aka Elvis—his hair and sideburns look like Mr. Elvis of Graceland!)

if you can be burdened to check this 2000 paper by Delworth and Mann, you can see that in however many thousand words they wrote —they never mentioned AMO—so what is the chance of Mann coining AMO during his brilliant interview by Richard Kerr as Mann would also claimed in his new book?

Note that I was into this multidecadal variability thing also by 1994 …Mann printed an interesting paper with Keff Park and Ray Bradley in 1995 in Nature … also no AMO being said … so I really do not think we can let him get away with this possible lie …

And…

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was identified by Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994.[1]

Enfield, D.B., A. M. Mestas-Nunez and P.J. Trimble, 2001: The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and it’s relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S.. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, 2077-2080.

So it appears that when the phenomenon was identified in 1994 by Schlesinger and Ramankutty, the abbreviation didn’t get used until Dick Kerr suggested it for an article he was writing.

Here is the full email exchange with Steve Milloy of junkscience.com:

From: Steve Milloy <milloy@xxx.xxx>
Date: March 8, 2012 10:42:18 AM EST
To: Richard Kerr <rkerr@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Question about Mann, AMO
Dick,

Will note the confusion/uncertainty.
But note that RealClimate credited you in a 2004 posting.
Thanks,
Steve
On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Richard Kerr wrote:
Steve,
A clarification is required concerning the coining of the term “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” or AMO. It turns out that my recollection, as I recounted it to you, differs from Michael Mann’s recollection (which I had not been aware of). I have always assumed that I suggested the obvious term to him and had him okay it, he recalls my asking for a term and his suggesting it.
That was a long time ago. My handwritten notes from the phone interview were discarded after some years in the course of routine cleaning and condensing of my files. My recollection could well be faulty, encouraged by all those ego-stroking citations of my news story in the refereed literature. There is no way to say whose recollection is fuzzier, and it matters not.
Dick
Richard A. Kerr
Senior Writer, Science
phone 202 xxx-xxxx
fax 202 xxx-xxxx
rkerr@xxxxx.xxx
1200 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
>>> Richard Kerr 3/7/2012 4:35 PM >>>
Steve, yes, I must confess. They just had a paper out on this phenomenon, but I needed a convenient label to write the news story. So I followed meteorological naming conventions and suggested AMO. That was okay with Mike for a news story. Subsequent papers in the literature also found it handy but had no source but my story in Science, so they would cite me. Looks fine because such a citation appears to be a scientific paper in a prestigious journal. “Oscillation” has since begun to fall out of favor because it conveys too strong a sense of regularity. We’ll see how long AMO hangs in there.
Dick
Richard A. Kerr
Senior Writer, Science
phone 202 xxx-xxxx
fax 202 xxx-xxxx
rkerr@xxxxxx.xxx
1200 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005

So who’s recollection is “fuzzier? Mann or Kerr’s. Since RealClimate gave Kerr credit in 2004, and not RealClimate co-founder Mann, I’d go with Kerr having a more accurate recollection.  It seems there isn’t any ego going on with Kerr in his exchanges. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

With all the other credibility issues cited in Mann’s book, we may have a case of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

I think Mann’s “credit report” just took a hit. It may be harder to get government loans grants now.

UPDATE: In my email group discussion this morning, Dr. Christopher Essex proposes a new naming convention for the AMO and other similar series. After Steve McIntyre gave his nod (and a wink) for the naming I wrote:

I’m with Steve on the new naming. That way, Mann doesn’t have to fight Kerr for credit [on the AMO].

Happy to put this up on WUWT in the article and give you full credit Chris, so that scholarly discussions in the future can trace back to the moment that Widely-averaged Times series Fluctuation made it into the lexicon. – Anthony

And he agreed, so here it is:

But Demetris, you know full well that the world is filled with Fourier determinist chauvinists who will recoil at the notion that things are not fundamentally deterministic and not usefully decomposable into Fourier modes. Although I have walked on both sides of the deterministic stochastic divide, I am not sure that I am even comfortable with simple “fluctuation”. It seems kind of nihilistic to me, but this is perhaps more a matter of taste that is not in the domain of falsifiability. But objections noted  perhaps we could call it the Atlantic Widely-averaged Times series Fluctuation: AWTF. And we could have the El Nino Southern WTF etc. ;)  -c

____________________
Dr. Christopher Essex,
Professor and Associate Chair,
Department of Applied Mathematics
the University of Western Ontario
London, Canada

Demetris Koutsoyiannis gets a mention too:

Forgive my disability in catching the playful remarks (in English)…I hope Steve and Antony can credit me for inspiring you to coin the WTF acronym for these phenomena…Cheers, Demetris

About these ads

64 thoughts on “Mann and coining the AMO and claims of credit

  1. There is something odd about global temperature data in 1960-1970 period which needs closer attention.
    There is a good correlation between the global temperature and the AMO up to 1960 (r2=0.54), and even better on one (incredible r2=0.955) from 1970-2011.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-AMO.htm

    I do not think that climate scientists should either ignore it (if real), or get away with it if not.
    Re-posted from JC’s Climate etc.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/08/lindzens-seminar-part-ii/#comment-183042

  2. Typical delusion of grandeur symptom, in keeping with the balance of Mann’s personality and the overall condition known as “warmist syndrome”.

    At some point, he will recall having invented the Internet, and the real fun will begin.

  3. Steven Milloy, and now you by reprinting this, seem to be going to incredible lengths to “get” Michael Mann. As Kerr himself says:

    It turns out that my recollection, as I recounted it to you, differs from Michael Mann’s recollection (which I had not been aware of). I have always assumed that I suggested the obvious term to him and had him okay it, he recalls my asking for a term and his suggesting it.
    That was a long time ago. My handwritten notes from the phone interview were discarded after some years in the course of routine cleaning and condensing of my files. My recollection could well be faulty, encouraged by all those ego-stroking citations of my news story in the refereed literature. There is no way to say whose recollection is fuzzier, and it matters not.

    So, neither of them can really remember if Kerr suggested the name and Mann okayed it or if Mann coined the term in response to Kerr asking Mann what to call it. Exactly what makes this important?!?!

  4. Self-obsessed and desperate for validation… how sad. Before any defend him by saying “it’s not important”, well, no, who coined the term isn’t important. What is important is that if he is falsely claiming authorship of anything at all, whatever credibility he had left takes a beating. Again. It just keeps happening to him, and he does it to himself…

  5. AMO, or North Atlantic SST imprints its shape to the whole “global” record. Funny that by Mann, AMO caused “part of 191040 warming” and “a bit of 1980-2000 warming”. Since these warming periods are undistinguishable in its duration or steepness, the above claims are nonsense, or unqualified guesses at best. Alleged anthropogenic warming is nothing more than combined period of positive AMO phase, positive NAO phase and lot of positive ENSO events, probably tied together.

  6. When you are a legend in your own mind, your own mind tends to create legends.

    That would be a mirror you are looking at Mikey.

  7. Mann’s self appointed ability to bask in the reflective glow of history appears more and more akin to the late but great North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il. Perhaps in future years we’ll learn that Mann invented golf! Or the greatest of puzzles the rubix cube!

  8. Juraj V. says: March 8, 2012 at 10:11 am
    Alleged anthropogenic warming is nothing more than combined period of positive AMO phase, positive NAO phase…
    Since the AMO appears to be strongly correlated to the preceding NAO (or one of its components) I think the above could be due to a general misunderstanding of the AMO-NAO relationship:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO-NAO.htm

  9. This is beyond stupid. Does anyone know who coined the word lightbulb? But would we confuse that coining with its invention? If Edison claimed he coined the term but it turned out his memory was faulty would we think less of him?

  10. Hmm a controversy eh ?
    Maybe we need to call in the professionals to deteremine who coined the famous AMO acronym, I would suggest buying a black mask, a striped jumper and a bag with ‘Swag’ written on it in bold letters.
    Then we could call GIGO Gleike out of retirement , for one last job

  11. Joel Shore says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Perfectly acceptable behaviour for a member of the Warmista eh? Mann took credit for coining AMO and its now known he likely did not not coin AMO. However add this “little” incident to all the other incidents and it becomes increasingly apparent that the Mann is a fraud.

  12. Next we will hear that he created the term “hockey puck” to go with his imaginary stick.

  13. Steven Hales says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:37 am
    This is beyond stupid. Does anyone know who coined the word lightbulb? But would we confuse that coining with its invention? If Edison claimed he coined the term but it turned out his memory was faulty would we think less of him?

    Ummm, I think if Edison said he could read ancient temperatures from tree rings, and then falsely claimed he coined the term “alternating current” because he heard it somewhere, it would be a problem.

    Analogies should not just go beyond stuipid, but beyond Uranus.

  14. Fabricationgate?

    It seems the climate orthodoxers (non-contrarians) have a nasty habit of fabrication and misrepresentation. Causuistry and guile have no place in science, or at least they didn’t used to, but I guess they do now in our post-post-modern world.

  15. Joel,

    The point it makes is simple. We have other examples of Mann making mistakes and refusing to acknowledge them. We have other examples of him making corrections and refusing to credit those who pointed out the error. We have other examples of him playing fast and loose with some facts: facts about the spreadsheet that was never asked for by McIntyre; facts about the deleting of mails; facts about computing or not computing certain statistics…

    In the grand scheme of things these are minor details. They don’t impact the truth of the science one whit. Comes the puzzle. Why won’t this man do the honorable scholarly thing when nothing scientific is at stake? until somebody proposes an explanation for his behavior i suppose people will speculate. Some will try to drag the science through the mud. I would think it’s in our interest to prevent that.

  16. Joel Shore says…

    So, neither of them can really remember if Kerr suggested the name and Mann okayed it or if Mann coined the term in response to Kerr asking Mann what to call it. Exactly what makes this important?!?!

    Joel…one of the more valid questions Believers (who are often decent, intelligent people) ask is:
    ‘But WHY would all these ‘s’cientists make this, up? Why would they lie and conspire to create this gigantic hoax?”

    It’s a good question. And part of the answer to it can be found in this quote –

    KERR:
    “My recollection could well be faulty, encouraged by all those ego-stroking citations of my news story in the refereed literature. There is no way to say whose recollection is fuzzier, and it matters not.”

    ENCOURAGED BY ALL THOSE EGO-STROKING CITATIONS OF MY NEWS STORY IN THE REFEREED LITERATURE…

    There you have it…a true second rate mind like Mann, destined for career obscurity stumbles across the key to ‘fame’. He ropes in other second rate minds and their egos feed on the stroking of a media hunger for millenial scare stories.
    The money for the research grants was nice too…but to use climate science phraseology…fame was the key DRIVER of the hoax, money and political power were just RUN-AWAY FEEDBACK LOOPS.

    I think that some of the Psycologists who are busy trying to find out why we skeptics are skeptical could be diverted to examining the motivations and personalities of the key players in the early days of the hoax.

    As an afterthought what more monstrous bruised ego has been more successfully ‘stroked’ than that of failed Presidential Candidate Al Gore…thanks to CAGW he ended up with global adulation, a Nobel Prize and a Messianic role?

    Human beings eh?

  17. It is definitely Mann’s AMO, he is Sicilian, further more his coat of arms is, would you believe it, a TREE.
    Do not mess with Siciliano !

    MANNAMO Nobility enjoyed in Messina, in the master nobleman of which city of year 1798-1807 we find annotated Abbot Benedict, a Salesio and a Luigi, doctor in laws, sons of was Francisco. Luigi was judge of the Great Criminal Court of the Reign in year 1810; Salesio was noble consul of sea and earth in Messina in 1812-13. Arm: of red, to the silver pine, nodrito on the campaign to the natural one.

    http://www.regione.sicilia.it/beniculturali/bibliotecacentrale/mango/mannamo.htm

  18. Since the term “Atlantic multidecadal oscillation” was used in the title of a 1994 paper, the only question between Mann and Kerr is which of them decided to turn this into an acronym. Here the quote from Mann’s book only seems to be claiming credit for “Atlantic multidecadal oscillation,” not for the acronym. When he describes what he coined, he puts “Atlantic multidecadal oscillation” in quotes. He follows this with AMO in parentheses, but if he was claiming that it was AMO that he had coined, then AMO would have appeared in quotes.

    So Kerr coined the acronym, and Mann (mistakenly) claims to have coined the full term, which was actually coined by Enfield et al. in ’94.

  19. steven mosher says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:36 am
    [...]
    In the grand scheme of things these are minor details. They don’t impact the truth of the science one whit. Comes the puzzle. Why won’t this man do the honorable scholarly thing when nothing scientific is at stake? until somebody proposes an explanation for his behavior i suppose people will speculate. Some will try to drag the science through the mud. I would think it’s in our interest to prevent that.

    Problem is, precisely because of his dysfunctional personality quirks, he’s making it difficult to impossible to independently verify his science. So the science gets drug through the mud because of his choices. His ‘issues’ aren’t irrelevant.

    If you needed brain surgery, and everyone tells you that Dr. Smith is the bestus brain surgeon in town, and you walk in to Dr. Smith’s office, and he tells you all about the conversation that he had with his widow, would you go under his knife?

  20. Mosher. Here’s the problem (Curry has a thread about this a few months ago):

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/do-we-really-need-more-scientists/254109/

    There’s another factor that doesn’t get as much attention as it should: It takes a certain personality type to really get into this stuff. “Yes, it does,” I can hear people saying, “and it’s the one that we call nerdy.”

    Mann (and the whole climate cabal) are the wrong personality type.

  21. Joel Shore,

    You ask why we mock the afflicted Mann? It’s because he’s such an attention seeking tart.
    What reason do we have not to partake of a well deserved guffaw or two, over the distasteful appearance of his besmirched and tarnished escutcheon? None that I can see. So we laugh!

  22. Che.

    I am reminded of the disagreement kim and I had over who first coined the term “Piltdown Mann”
    turns out he did. So, I manned up and gave him due credit. And he graciously accepted that I had not read him when I first used it. Same with Lukewarmer which people thought I coined. In my line of work getting the credit right is important, so I always correct the record when people mistakenly think that I coined the term. I just made it popular. This is not hard. You learn this in school. Sheesh

  23. Steven Hales says: “This is beyond stupid. Does anyone know who coined the word lightbulb? But would we confuse that coining with its invention? If Edison claimed he coined the term but it turned out his memory was faulty would we think less of him?”

    Edison was a rabid anti-semite, so no, I could not think less of him.

  24. Ric Werme says:
    March 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    And just why doesn’t PDO reflect that its period is closer to a century than a decade? :-)

    Just for the record – I assert I coined the term SDD – Snow Depth Days. But only a dozen people on the planet use it. :-) http://wermenh.com/sdd/index.html

    Rick, a dozen may be a bit of a stretch, but I think the concept has merit. After reading “Give up Canada, you’re toast” I thought about coining the term OHRD – Outdoor Hockey Rink Days. These would be the total number of contiguous days that you could have an outdoor hockey rink. As I explained to my girlfriend (in front of rolling eyes) a tough winter is usually one with day after day of cold weather (great for outdoor rinks). Usually, once the rink melted you wouldn’t go back and remake it (unless you hadn’t used it much or unless you were from Saskatchewan). A couple of warm days would not melt a hockey rink so you would need 4 contiguous warm days to break the OHRD increment. Likewise, one or two really cold days would not be enough cold weather to build a rink so you could not start the OHRD increment until you had 3 contiguous cold days (e.g. below -5 degrees C). I think my OHRD should hook up with your SDD and we could be committed together.

  25. steven mosher says:
    March 8, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    In my line of work getting the credit right is important, so I always correct the record when people mistakenly think that I coined the term. I just made it popular. This is not hard. You learn this in school. Sheesh

    I’m still not sure what this post is about. At first glance it has to do with whether Mann coined the term multidecadal oscillation, which he helped discover and published in 2000. But perhaps it was Kerr who may have coined the term during an interview with Mann, or perhaps coined the acronym AMO earlier in 2000, which he also published. But then we are treated to a paper published in 1994 that apparently references multidecadal oscillation, in which case Mann neither coined the phrase nor helped discover it. The latter does not seem to be on the accusation list. I’m sure Mann isn’t going to drop by and set the record straight but was a paper published in 1994 using the term multidecadal oscillation or not? And if so who cares who coined the term AMO?

    IMO I still think Essex captured the essence of the “did Mann coin the term multidecadal oscillation”? AWTF if he did?

  26. Having watched the video above, I now understand how Michael Mann defends the science.He locks all the data and codes up so they can’t be stolen by people who want to find mistakes.
    Personally, I think he has played a blinder; so far.

  27. Reminds me of a bit of a song I learned many, many years ago.

    I love me. I think I’m grand.
    I sit in the movies and hold my hand.
    I put my arms around my waist,
    and when I get fresh I slap my face.

    I wish I could give proper attribution, but I can’t. I can only find that it was part of a campground song and I learned it myself at camp 50 years ago.

  28. The difference between Mann and Kerr is very clear. Kerr writes an email in which he graciously cannot recall from where the acronym was coined and is happy to be neutral for the credit for the term. For him the credit is unimportant. Mann is desperate to claim credit becuase he thinks he will have AMO associated with his name. He wants to be famous and his name associated with an important discovery. I am reminded of Tony Blair (“the hand of history on my shoulder”) or Al Gore (“I invented the internet”).

    Mann isn’t gracious or neutral. He simply claims credit. And concerning his further character, Mann never acts nicely or non-partisan or concedes that he made an error in anything. Just re-read the tone of his emails. Mann is egocentric as well as a charlatan.

  29. steven mosher says:
    In my line of work getting the credit right is important
    Hi Steven
    In that case take a note of this one:
    ‘Meta AGW science’, and do use it.
    or maybe not ….

  30. Nor do the gods appear in warrior’s armour clad
    To strike them down with sword and spear
    Those whom they would destroy
    They first make mad.

    Bhartṛhari, 7th c. AD; as quoted in John Brough,Poems from the Sanskrit, (1968), p, 67

    Poor Mann!

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  31. Has Mann’s book been moved to the Fiction section yet?

    I hope the guy who invented the internet has solid evidence…

  32. Mann reminds me a great deal of the most dishonest, careless, sneaky, and manipulative person I’ve had to work with in my career (fortunately that was a long time ago and I’ve “moved on”).

    Both Mann and this person X would continually re-weave past conversations and events in “convenient” ways that always told the most self-serving, self-promoting but largely “fake” story.

    With both people (Mann and person X) it is exceedingly difficult to untangle what is carelessness, what is selective memory, what is fabrication, and what is sheer mendacity. You know that fictitious stories are continually being woven but it is such an exhausting exercise to have to repeatedly untangle it all….. and of course such a person will almost never (or never) admit error, so it is endless aggravation to try to get an honest, accurate record established.

    Come to think of it, Mann is a lot like some of the trolls that wend their way across the various climate oriented websites….. I wonder if he does much sock puppetry of his own, or just lets his acolytes do that for him?

  33. With a nod to Bob Mount who, above, sparked this creative effort

    There was a crooked Mann
    Who used a crooked trick
    And had a crooked plan
    To make a crooked stick

    And all his crooked friends
    Applaud what crooked seems
    For all that crooked ends
    Derives from crooked means

    Eugene WR Gallun

  34. Atlantic Mann Oscillation.
    El Manño.
    La Manña.

    Don’t you see he’s discovered them all?

    Asta Manñana.

  35. I really don’t care who coined the term AMO. It’s a natural adaptation of PDO, which in fact is Multi-Decadal (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a ~~60 year cycle), rather than Decadal, which is a misnomer.

    More importantly, is anyone claiming credit for naming the “Divergence Problem”? I recall first hearing of the “DVP” in testimony to the 2006 NAS Panel. It seemed to have been a well-kept secret before then.

    http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/

    How about giving credit to the person who coined the term “Hide the Decline”, I mean “HTD”?

    I think these are really important concepts that deserve proper accreditation.

    Maybe it would be even more interesting if we just named all the people who know about the “DVP” and HTD”, but decided to keep them a secret.

  36. John Kettlewell says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Is this a Mann bites dog story?

    Ha ha ha! Kerr = cur, eh?

  37. I think this a great recent round up of Manns’ science credentials.
    ————————–
    It is thus unlikely that Mr. Manns’ hockey-stick results are valid. Mr. Mann himself recently said his study is “not that important.” The only possible reason for such a comment would be to draw attention away from results that even Mr. Mann views as dubious. His study should be cast aside. It is highly improbable that 1,051 peer-reviewed studies are wrong.

    DENIS ABLES
    Vienna, Va.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/8/science-undermines-hockey-stick-graph/

  38. A brash climatologist called Mann
    Is his own premier number one fan
    When asked to retrieve data later
    He recalls nought of his own alma mater
    And his fame is a flush in the pan

  39. No, it will not get harder for Mann to receive grants. He always reaches the Establishment conclusion, so the Establishment will continue to reward him. Nothing else matters.

  40. AMO (Ancillary Mannian Oscillation)
    AMO (Another Mannian Oscillation)
    AMO (After Mann’s Oscillations)
    [....]

  41. I am sorry to repost this but i have changed a conjunctive word — now to a poet this is important! It is like a scienctist seeing a small flaw in a submitted paper. You have to rush in the correction. Now I am sure my small poem will go screaming down into the endless black of the poetry abyss — but at least let it make its best effort first before it disappears.

    There was a crooked Mann
    Who used a crooked trick
    And had a crooked plan
    To make a crooked stick

    And all his crooked friends
    Applaud what crooked seems
    But all that crooked ends
    Derives from crooked means

    Eugene WR Gallun

  42. WTF sounds about right for all the aspects of climate and trying to figure them out. LOL!

  43. Above Tallbloke wrote

    a brash climotolisgest called Mann
    Is his own premier number one fan
    When asked to retrieve data later
    He recalls nought of his own alma mater
    And his fame is a flush in the pan

    My contribution is

    A Mann who will serially try
    To boost his renown with a lie
    Will engender a fame
    That will odor his name
    He smells like a pig in a sty

    and then i just wrote this

    Put in simple parlance
    Upon the public stage
    When lies and truths engage
    Laughter tips the balance

    Eugene WR Gallun

  44. Eugene WR Gallun

    Worth the tweak. …don’t know if I dare suggest this,
    ‘but all that crooked ends
    derives from crooked memes..

  45. You may want to check the term Atlantic meridional mode (AMM) and Atlantic Dipole as these earlier concepts are similar to AMO.

  46. Wasn’t there a hit pop song way back (1971?) titled “Ha Ha said the Clown”
    by a goup called M Mann?
    Prescient or what?

  47. David Smith says:
    March 9, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    You may want to check the term Atlantic meridional mode (AMM) and Atlantic Dipole as these earlier concepts are similar to AMO.

    David, the AMM and Atlantic Dipole appear to describe biennial (every two years) and decadal periodicity, whereas the AMO described multi-decadal (over decades) changes. So it would appear to me there is no similarity between the three other than the “A”.

Comments are closed.