WSJ pans ‘climate warrior’ Michael Mann in book review.

All I can say is “ouch”! Mann of course will be sending his usual letter to the editor whining about unfair treatment. He’s really just misunderstood you see.

Excerpts from the review by Anne Jolis:

The book’s climax is a recounting of the 2009 leak or hack of emails and other documents written by Mr. Mann and his associates (and funneled through the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit). The correspondence, along with a second trove released in 2011, highlighted the patchwork behind IPCC science. The leading lights of publicly funded climatology appeared to be brainstorming to pressure journals and review boards to suppress work that challenged their theories, trading tips on how to avoid public-information requests and planning how to present their findings so as to best further “the cause.”

In his book, Mr. Mann dubs the unauthorized release of his emails a “crime” and claims that the ensuing “witch hunt” constituted “the most malicious” of “attack after vitriolic attack against us” by the “corporate-funded denial machine.”

Yet for all his caviling about “smear campaigns,” “conspiracy theorists” and “character assassination,” Mr. Mann is happy to employ similar tactics against his opponents. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a past program chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Applied Climatology, is introduced as “a prominent climate change contrarian at the University of Virginia primarily known for his advocacy for the fossil fuel industry.” (Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politically controlled institution.)

Just this February, Mr. Mann took to the Daily Kos to praise the theft of internal documents from the free-market Heartland Institute for offering “a peek behind the curtain of industry-funded climate change denial.” It was revelatory, but not in the way he thought. Hours after Mr. Mann posted his online musings, the much-decorated hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick (2003 MacArthur fellow, adviser to the EPA and, until recently, chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s task force on scientific ethics) confessed to the Heartland theft. Apologizing for his actions, he wrote that he had been “blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists.”

Mr. Mann closes “The Hockey Stick” with a passionate call for more scientists to join him “on the front lines of the climate wars.” “Scientific truth alone,” Mr. Mann writes, “is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion.” It would be “irresponsible,” he says, “for us to silently stand by while industry-funded climate change deniers succeed in confusing and distracting the public and dissuading our policy makers from taking appropriate actions.” These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.

=========

Full review here

Also related:

Shollenberger’s Technical Review of Mann’s recent book

A detailed review of Mann’s book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as it relates to the Wegman report to Congress

Josh on Mann’s Jurassic Moment

Gleick declares in Mann’s book review (after phishing Heartland) – “there IS a war on”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book Review, Michael E. Mann and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to WSJ pans ‘climate warrior’ Michael Mann in book review.

  1. What an arrogant guttersnipe “Mr.” Mann is. The naked use of the ‘denier’ meme coupled with his ‘noble cause morals’ really make for an incomprehensible mish mash of ideas, none of which seem to help his case. Oh well.

  2. And I still wonder…is there anything NEW in Mann’s book? His supporters don’t think so.

    From everything I’ve read so far, it’s just a rehash of things anybody can find on the ‘net.

  3. Scientific truth alone is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion…eh?
    Why would a real ‘scientist’ even care about ‘public opinion’ surely that’s what activists and PR consultants get paid for?

  4. zbcustom says:

    We await the comments from the NYT and The Sydney Morning Herald with some anticipation.

  5. Harriet Harridan says:

    Also see Video Interview with the Author here: http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-climate-kamikaze/7E12309E-7064-498A-BCD3-FEC6108C3D5C.html

    Rough quote: “Mr Mann does not seem to realize that reasonable laypeople can follow the arguments, but just come to a different conclusion than he does.”

  6. Goldie says:

    Oh my! She doesn’t like him very much does she.

  7. Doug UK says:

    “These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.”

    Ouch Ouch Ouch!!

  8. kMc2 says:

    “(Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politicaly controlled institution.)”

    Nor can he.

  9. Gilbert K. Arnold says:

    As “Tommy Boy” would say: “That’s gonna leave a mark”

  10. Alan Fields says:

    Ouch indeed!

  11. Peter Miller says:

    An excellent article.

    Clearly Mann is confused on more than a few matters, let’s put the matter straight about at least a couple of things:

    1. The CAGW cult is outfunded by the sceptics by at least 1,000 to 1 and probably by over 2,000 to 1.

    2. The general public is becoming increasingly sceptical about the claims of the CAGW cult leaders, like Mann, not because their message is not being well delivered, but because it is plain wrong and this can be easily demonstrated.

    3. The standards of disclosure, repeatability and analysis in “climate science” are so low – not to mention their habitual distortions of data etc. – that many, like myself, find it offensive that scaremongers, like Mann, choose to describe themselves as scientists.

  12. Samurai says:

    The Mann behind the myth…

  13. Stefan says:

    Glad to see the papers highlighting the hypocrisy and activism.
    Even the tag line gives away the ego trip, “DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT LINES”, as if like a woman dodging bombs and bullets in Syria to bring the news of atrocities to the world. The eco-ego inflation is quite astounding (they should try modelling it!) Utter boomeritis. “I’m saving the world!!” Yesterday I helped an old lady across the street — I saved humanity!

  14. Otter says:

    Not knowing (yet), I have to wonder two things:

    1. Did Lysenko write a book?

    2. Will mann’s book be standing next to it in a few years’ time?

  15. 3x2 says:

    “corporate-funded denial machine” – working 24/7 to expose shoddy statistics

  16. I’ve benn snipped twice at WUWT, Once for comments on Steven Schnider And once for comments on William Connolloy :[sp?]. I’m not too ashamed of myself in either case, ATTENTION MODERATORS!!!!!! Michael Mann is a [Insert nasty insult here]‘ a{Insert grossly demeaning ststement here] and who he is, the worst insult of all.

  17. onlyme says:

    I can hear it coming now, Mr. Mann whining that the review is not “peer reviewed”.

  18. Jeef says:

    Vanity publishing at its finest. Why do we even give this [snip] the oxygen of publicity?

  19. H.R. says:

    Ah… another journo from the MSM recognizes what a fine whine Mann has paired with his cheesey book.

    Good.

  20. mike about town says:

    ouch! That is intense! Somewhere he is blushing…..

    Is this indicative of the media beginning to shift?

  21. Peter Stroud says:

    I was engaged in various branches of physics for decades and can honestly say I never heard a single colleague claim that he was working for a ’cause.’ Such dramatic language would have either resulted in a humorous retort or sheer embarrassment.

  22. Stefan says:

    Author Howard Bloom wrote that capitalism relies on three pillars: the government, the corporations, and “the protest industry”.

    The “protest industry” is the people’s freedom to criticise any and all things which aren’t working.

    Some environmentalist movements seem to be more part of the government that’s not working, than they are about criticising what isn’t working in government.

    The protest industry is key to making capitalism work in a healthy way. Those who have valid critiques are the genuine protesters. Those who call themselves environmentalists but who are just defending their position in government or industry are exactly what protesters should be taking aim at, to highlight and make public in the media (and blogs) what is wrong.

    Without a protest industry, Bloom writes, capitalism would become very unhealthy. Public critiques are essential to health. It is hard to see how those who seek to close down debate could ever be considered genuine protesters or environmentalists.

  23. Stacey says:

    I didn’t realise that Anne Jolis reviewed works of fiction? 😄

  24. Bloke down the pub says:

    In the UK, and I suspect most of the English speaking world, the media have a long tradition of puffing up people to the status of hero, only to take great delight in bringing them crashing back down to zero. Look out Michael, just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

  25. Keith Levet says:

    The most striking thing for me is that fact that the review is a very direct and straight forward listing of simple facts.
    There are no emotive words or extreme adjectives, just a calm assessment.
    Yet it appears to be extremely harsh.
    I think that says a lot.

  26. Antonia says:

    I am so sick and tired of tax-payer funded climate alarmists like Michael Mann complaining about “industry-funded climate change deniers [who] succeed in confusing and distracting the public and dissuading our policy makers from taking appropriate actions.”

    Anthony Watts is not funded by industry. He and his many volunteers do research in their spare time. I’m not funded by industry to write the occasional letter to the editor protesting about climate alarmism.

    In the you beaut land of Oz, Tim Flannery is the face of climate alarmism preaching environmental doom and gloom. Yea, the once mighty Murray-Darling river was under threat from global warming said Tim in his tinnie (aluminium boat) as he navigated the river system. Somebody – taxpayers? – funded him to make that documentary on how the Murray-Darling was drying up.

    Guess what? That river system is in flood as I type. And where’s Timmy babe? Not in Australia. It’s reported he’s lurking in Germany.

    I’m not sure if the news has reached WUWT but in the tradition of ironic Australian humour some Australian farmers have renamed “inches” of rain as “flanneries”: “yeah, we had two flanneries yesterday, how much did you get?”

    Ouch. I’m delighted to report the new measurement is catching on.

  27. Peter Miller says:

    Oops, I obviously meant to say the sceptics are outfunded by the CAGW cult by at least 1,000 to 1.

  28. Harpo says:

    For those in Australia…. Dr Mann is ABC Late Line tonight… He was touted in the promo as the “Nobel Prize winning scientist who weathered the Climategate storm”. I for one can’t wait to see him subjected to a thorough examination of the Hockey Stick debacle and his advocacy for “The Cause” … Oh wait… It’s the ABC… What was I thinking…

  29. When little Mickey joined his first physics 101 class, the professor spoke about ’cause’ and ‘effect’. Mickey simply got confused on the meaning of ’cause’ and the rest, as they say, is history.

  30. Ken Hall says:

    ““Scientific truth alone,” Mr. Mann writes, “is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion.””

    So they have to revert to selective editing and manipulating of data, bullying, intimidation, political posturing, fraud, theft, fakery and other nefarious means to push their “cause” because what they call “scientific truth” is NOT working. I would argue therefore that what they are pushing, is not scientific truth.

    It appears that, contrary to Dr Mann’s claim, that actually scientific truth alone IS winning in this debate. The Alarmist side produce shoddy science and use tens of billions of dollars of “industry funded research” to produce that shoddy science. It has to be shoddy, because accurate, empirical science will not show them what the industry, and political advocacy groups and think tanks and lobbyists are paying BILLIONSof dollars for.

    The climate realist scientists, on a comparative pittance, (so shown by the stolen documents from Heartland), and with an adherence to the scientific method in establishing scientific truth is winning the hearts and minds of the public. For the public have a very good bovine excrement detectors. We can clearly recognise when people engage in good solid, honourable science, and when they engage in acts of dishonesty, fraud and other crimes (as in the fakegate case) to prop up their political advocacy cloaked as science.

    IF the alarmist’s “science” was good, then they would not need to fall back on theft, fraud, bullying and intimidation to back up their case. It must be very frustrating for the warmists alarmist, natural variablity denialist, warming advocates, to be outspending the realist side by a factor of 1,000 to 1 and yet still be losing the debate.

    That kind of slam dunk only occurs when the least funded side is pushing the truth and the other are pushing bull-excrement.

  31. dearieme says:

    “…a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.” No, no, no: it’s only his second greatest weakness. His greatest weakness is his own intellect. By the standards common in the physical sciences he’s a dud.

  32. polistra says:

    She hit the key with “low estimation of the public intellect”.

    That’s exactly why Americans have stopped believing in all the “scientific consensus” pseudotheories. Not just carbon, but evolution, Big Bang cosmology, quantum “physics”, and economics. Proponents of all those fraudulent pseudosciences have been officially censoring our speech,, condescending to us, and calling us all sorts of nasty names for 20 years.

    We’re damn tired of having our money stolen and our mouths sewed shut by obnoxious bullies.

  33. Dude says:

    Reading Mr Mann is like reading a child. He keeps referring to the ” fossil fuel” industry as if they were his official boogeyman.
    But every warmer uses his weak childlike arguments. They can’t prove their theory and when they try ….facts get in the way. So warmers end the statement with doomsday scenarios and if you disagree you are with the boogeymen.

    Now Mann and his ilk have to promote themselves. They will sponsor warmer gatherings where they will refer to themselves as ” critical thinkers” out to save the world. Anyone who dares confront their stupidity has started a “war” and then we get drivel like his most recent book.

  34. Jack says:

    Frankly anyone who uses the term denier is a bigot. It has nothing to do with science or scepticism nor with the scientific method. How does the scientific study of climate proceed unless people are allowed to examine data and test theories for flaws that lead to furhter investigation.
    There has been far too much gotcha reports trying to prove CAGW, so the actual conclusions are slewed away from serious scientific effort.
    The ridiculous claim of some mysterious funding for sceptics is the sort of hogwash that goes with bigotry. The facts are very different. Enron wanted the carbon trading markets. It wants to return to the big time as an energy broker. All the major oil companies have spent billions investigating renewable energy and trading schemes with miserable results.
    All Mannis doing is making himself irrelevant and ensuring he is left far behind in unravelling the climate puzzles.

  35. Stonyground says:

    This well funded campaign of disinformation, does it actually exist outside Micheal Mann’s head? As far as I can see it is only bloggers that are challenging the ‘consensus’. I have seen the occasional sceptical newspaper article but TV and radio give us a constant bombardment of warmist propaganda, even in the adverts. It never seems to occur to him that people don’t believe in alarmism because it simply isn’t true.

  36. Pete in Cumbria UK says:

    For me, the title says enough. Talk about pretentious huff-n-puff or what?
    I presume it was originated by the publisher in an attempt to brighten up something that would otherwise be mind-numbingly tedious.
    Worst case= if the author came up with the book’s title, in which case the observed global temperature rise is explained by a huge, expanding and overheated ego. If American universities need their own police forces, can’t they also invest in a fire-brigades for exactly this eventuality?

  37. Steve Keohane says:

    The idolatry seems to be wearing thin, interesting.

  38. Peter B says:

    The video is very good. Interesting to see how it’s not necessary to be a “climate scientist” to grasp what Mann is all about. Which leads to the question – how is it that so many people do not grasp that, or do not care? The most obvious explanation is, because they share Mann’s attitude.

  39. pat says:

    an earlier piece by Jolis:

    7 Sept 2011: WSJ: Anne Jolis: The Other Climate Theory
    Al Gore won’t hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends
    Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn’t get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth’s surface temperature since 1860.
    “I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea,” Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute.
    He wasn’t the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

  40. William McClenney says:

    An attorney client of the firm I work for emailed me in January and wanted to know if I would accompany him to see MM at the book-selling at UCLA 13Feb12. Although I figured I had better uses of my time, “know thy enemy” instructed me to accept. We went, accompanied by the attorney’s wife, and another associate. It was a lot like going to a fundamentalist revival. Rant after rant, accompanied by much sympathy from the audience filled most of the time.

    We were told by Cara Horowitz, Executive Director, UCLA Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment School of Law, that notepaper and pens had been provided for questions which runners would carry forward. We were not told that these would be heavily screened, presumably in the interest of time. My question, the first submitted was simply “When will the Holocene end?”

    It got filtered out. As did the questions submitted by my 3 associates. The attorney’s wife suggested that I get my pic taken with MM, and as we walked up, someone beat us to it, so it then seemed natural for a second one. MM does not know me from Adam anyway.

    I remember thinking on my way home that I had just been to perhaps my first direct experience with fascism.

  41. Mickey Reno says:

    Michael Mann is to science what Michael Moore is to documentary film making. Both know how to use a little bit of truth to tell a whopper.

  42. Mindert Eiting says:

    “for us to silently stand by while industry-funded climate change deniers succeed in confusing and distracting the public…”. As a non-native English speaker I could easily miss a deeper meaning of this sentence. Correct me if I am wrong: There are people who believe that in the past 4.5 billion of years the climate did not change on this planet. These people get money from at least one industry. They are successful in confusing other people (made them to believe the same). We should not remain silent about this (which is probably the reason Mann wrote a book).

  43. Peter B says:

    I have to ask this. Does anyone know of any technical field – physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, etc – where a professor who published this kind of book, and used arguments like Mann’s when discussing criticisms of his work, would still be taken seriously by his colleagues?

  44. KenB says:

    The smug Michael Mann got a real easy free plug in for his book, the hockey stick and how bad scientists were being treated, when interviewed on the ABC, tonight, no hard questions, lead in for his disinformation and no one with the nous to ask him anyway. Poor Australians, up to the neck in government propaganda from the CSIRO/BOM joint climate report with more than three reports so far and not a dissenting voice to oppose the government construct, and we have to put up with this because of crippled media!!

    Enough to make one puke!!

  45. Wade says:

    I was thinking how much of a blowhard these climate scientists are. They are losing the war and instead of admitting their idea is wrong, they think it must be some well-funded anonymous group. The problem Michael Mann and his cohorts have is they refuse to believe that could possibly be wrong in anything.

    Of course, the Wall Street Journal is a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper. The same Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News, the news organization that liberals act like is worse than Adolph Hitler. If Michael Mann acknowledges this review, it will only to be to claim it is part of the Fox News smear machine. (Note: I have Fox News blocked on my TV, along with MSNBC which is the liberal version of Fox News. I also rarely watch CNN or any cable news.)

  46. WarrenL says:

    Harpo says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:49 am

    For those in Australia…. Dr Mann is ABC Late Line tonight… He was touted in the promo as the “Nobel Prize winning scientist who weathered the Climategate storm”. I for one can’t wait to see him subjected to a thorough examination of the Hockey Stick debacle and his advocacy for “The Cause” … Oh wait… It’s the ABC… What was I thinking…

    For those interested, here’s a link http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3454652.htm to the Lateline transcript.

  47. Gaudenz Mischol says:

    Quote: Mr. Mann closes “The Hockey Stick” with a passionate call for more scientists to join him “on the front lines of the climate wars.”

    and M. Mann is the new Jesus calling for his followers (LOL)

  48. Brian H says:

    Heh. In the comments below the review, Mike Mangan proposes a subtitle:
    “Mann Kampf”

  49. garymount says:

    Michael Mann and climatology will fade like Louis Farrakhan and numerology. There are still too many sympathizers surrounding Michael Mann that don’t have the courage to tell him his beliefs have been discredited.

  50. TheBigYinJames says:

    polistra said:

    “Not just carbon, but evolution, Big Bang cosmology, quantum “physics”, and economics. Proponents of all those fraudulent pseudosciences have been …”

    Comments like these are what gives alarmists ammo.

    Can I, for one, say that I do not consider evolution, cosmology or quantum phsyics to be fraudulent pseudosciences, and that I am actively hostile to the sort of anti-science attitude displayed by polistra’s post. We need to regulate the nutters from our ranks if we are to be taken serioiusly as a realist argument.

    If polistra actually believes that, then I would say this forum is NOT where they should be, since this is a SCIENCE blog, and as such, evolution, cosmology and quantum physics are not disputed in any way. I suspect polistra is in fact sockpuppetinf in an attempt to make this blog look anti-science.

  51. playsinthewoods says:

    Man, oh Mann-o-matic what a whine! (with apologies to Manischewitz wine)

  52. DavidA says:

    Mann is on the ABC in Australia right now, Lateline. It’s a laugh, hope you guys can get to view it.

    He was asked who the big oil funded vested interest groups are who are trying to discredit him and send death threats and he just rambled on and never answered it.

    Oh dear, “hide the decline” just came up and the interviewer pushed the myth about temperature declining and being hidden.

  53. Rob Crawford says:

    “I’m not sure if the news has reached WUWT but in the tradition of ironic Australian humour some Australian farmers have renamed “inches” of rain as “flanneries”: “yeah, we had two flanneries yesterday, how much did you get?””

    Perhaps we can declare a new unit — the “Mann” — to be cubic yards of manure? “I spread fifty Mann on my fields yesterday.”

  54. Rob Crawford says:

    “We need to regulate the nutters from our ranks if we are to be taken serioiusly as a realist argument.”

    While I sympathize, that’s not the way to win the argument. It’s the precise behavior she’s complaining about, so it would simply reinforce her position.

  55. Scott Covert says:

    Is it possible to find out how many copies of his book were sold (pre-sold) to Green Peace, WWF, etc…?

    Why else write a book that has nothing new?

    Under the table pay off?

  56. Brian Macker says:

    Polistra, Let me guess. You flunked most of your science courses.

  57. John Whitman says:

    Consider the idea that Mann’s book and PR blitz are his attempt to save what few uncritical followers he still may have. It is unlikely he expects to get new followers; getting new followers would be doubtful given his malignant message, irrational (unscientific) bias and reality challenged intellect. I think it is not a coincidence he has become a compulsive PR seeker while on leave from PSU; it is apparent to me he has a mission while away from PSU to retain his cadre of believers.

    John

  58. RockyRoad says:

    Mr. Mann is a member of the CAGW Control Freaks–“Control Freak” because that’s what he has to resort to instead of the truth to sway both public opinion and his colleagues.

    This is a nasty, little man–comparable to the best liars ever invented.

    He lies for money.

    He lies for prestige.

    He lies to protect his “accomplishments”.

    I’ll say it again–Mann is a nasty, little man. And as a recent poll from Kos indicated, nobody but the truly brainwashed believe what he says and that is how it should be.

  59. Olen says:

    Mann correctly identifies his work when he writes of war and warriors.

    Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz: Clausewitz had many aphorisms, of which the most famous is that “War is the continuation of Politik by other means” (Politik being variously translated as ‘policy’ or ‘politics,’ terms with very different implications), a description that has won wide acceptance.

  60. RockyRoad says:

    Peter B says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:34 am

    I have to ask this. Does anyone know of any technical field – physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, etc – where a professor who published this kind of book, and used arguments like Mann’s when discussing criticisms of his work, would still be taken seriously by his colleagues?

    These aren’t “colleagues”–they’re “partners in crime”. And their criminal act is linked to genocide–sucking literally $Billions away from much more worthy and helpful causes that truly help humanity. And for what?

    I haven’t seen a single thing regarding the control of CO2 or the climate that has helped mankind. Not a single thing.

    Open to response: If anybody has a verifiable rebuttal to my position, I’d be glad to hear it.

  61. DavidA says:

    Here! Transcript and video of Michael Mann interviewed on Australian TV tonight.

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3454652.htm

  62. Anne Jolis has got my admiration and respect…her review (critique) was very effective…it is obvious she has little respect for this pretender but understands that adjectives that I might want to use to describe his despicable behavoir might not work for WSJ readers.

  63. David Ball says:

    I would love to hear Vaclav Klaus’ review of this book. After many conversations with the “enviro” crowd, I fear that history will repeat itself, ……

  64. Tom Barney says:

    It’s time to make it a level research effort. Lets mandate that all the money spent by the fossil fuel industry in support of the deniers be matched for the warmers if they give up all their other sources of funding.

  65. A Lovell says:

    It seems we are, slowly, approaching Critical Mass.

    Can’t come soon enough for me.

  66. Doug Eaton says:

    You gotta love this exchange in the comments to Jolis’s editorial:

    Kevin Fisher Replied:

    And if it’s a hoax, where are the models that show global cooling, or that show no change over the coming decades?

    Stephen Hughes Replied:

    I’ll have one ready for you this afternoon….

  67. dp says:

    Mann has plagiarized reality to create this alternate universe of self-pity devoid of scientific morality and to use it as a conduit to implore other real world loathers to rally ’round the cause. A book is known by the company it keeps.

    To offer my own minor plagiarization, let the word for forth from this place, from this time, that we will not accept this and call it science; we will not be moved by pleas for science by consensus, nobel cause, nor appeals to authority. Science with these prerequisites is not science at all. Let the deniers of honest science know it ends here, now.

    Defund the team, disband the IPCC.

  68. Tom Stone says:

    Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
    Attributed to Euripides

  69. ferd berple says:

    from WSJ

    Mike Mangan Replied:
    [snip - lets leave that reference to a dictator unsaid here - Anthony]

    There is nothing so dangerous as a belief wrapped up as fact.

  70. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Mann simply ignores data
    1) Mid tropospheric temps, where the IPCC’s vaunted trapping heat was supposed to occur, just reached record lows in the satellite era
    2) Co2 continues up, the earths temps have leveled 1997-2008 and since 2008 and the turn to the colder PDO have started down in the same jagged fashion they moved up, after the end of the cold pdo in the 70s. The dirty little secret. Objective sat measurements started at the end of the cold pdo, the deck , cyclically has been stacked for warming since the late 1970s.
    3) The fact that with the PDO warm and the amo turning warm, that the temps have not gone up, simple confirms a well known fact that the warmer it gets, the harder it is to get it warmer ( one must keep adding energy) Since the oceans warmed to a point then leveled off, game set match in the longer sense. and also it SHOWS CO2 IS NOT A CAUSE.
    4) Most damming to Mann are the lack of hockey sticks in the Chinese study on this matter. What China is not affected by a global occurrence that leaves us with the hockey stick. How can that be. Why are they wrong?
    5) It is what it is. If temps continue to fall, as I believe they will, we will know the answer. Mann distorts shamelessly the fact that public funding of the AGW agenda outdoes private contributions against it not 1k to 1 not 2 k, but over 20 k to one. His side is not the victim, they are by far the bully.
    6) Statements implying that not using the US winter as a sign of climate change as journalistic malpractice are deceit or ignorance. Deceit if he knows the global temps have responded to the La Nina and are below normal, ignorance if he doesnt which shows what alot of us suspect he does not look at the actual data and the glaring disconnect to fossil fuels, and the connection to the pdo flip. Being he is still at my alma mater, I will show him the link for global temps since the pdo flip

    http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png

    that being said, since an el nino is coming on, there will be a rise in the coming year before another turn down, but the peak temps should not reach the last el nino. Still you have to be blind not to see that since the pdo flip, its not just leveling off but the start of a trend down. Since this was forecasted by many of us, which is why we dont believe this, because we have to make forecasts not just research something, you can see why we scoff at such things.

    A final word of wisdom. Dr, Mann, unless you are making a product out of your idea, for instance a verifiable forecast, you are no warrior for the cause you are claiming you are. You are showing us things, we are challenging them. Then we make a forecast,. mine 3 years ago was we would start a downward trend in temps that will take us back to 1978 by 2030. For the first 3 years, that is verifying. But simply showing us an idea, asking us to act, without then having it stand the test of battle, does not make you a warrior in a war, or a victim. It makes you a bystander rooting on a result, in which case you are a fan, and of an agenda that is only interested in control of people, not on the right answer.

    Make a forecast for us. Where is the earths temps as measured by objective satellite in 10 years. If its not up to where it was supposed to be based on what you are saying, you are not in the game. If it is, then I my ilk are driven from the field, But dont play victim when for 17 years we have seen no change, and there are perfectly sound physical reasons involving the major drivers for that, when all we are doing is not making a you a victim, but questioning the reasons we should simply follow your ideas like sheep.

    I have read everything you have done, stayed out of situations that would criticize you because I see what you looked at and understood your conclusions. But stop with the victim stuff when there are people, myself included, who have been on the “front line” of forecasting and have a background that relies on past weather as a precursor to the future, that disagree with you and are willing to stand up and say so

  71. Dave says:

    “(Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politicaly controlled institution.)”

    It’s indicative of his mindset. To him it quite literally goes without saying that fossil fuel companies have nefarious purposes and are generally run by evil people bent on destroying the world.

  72. Taphonomic says:

    “Scientific truth alone is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion.”

    I guess that’s why he has to use a trick to hide the decline and refuses to release e-mails that were paid for by the public.

  73. RockyRoad says:

    Tom Barney says:
    March 15, 2012 at 7:30 am

    It’s time to make it a level research effort. Lets mandate that all the money spent by the fossil fuel industry in support of the deniers be matched for the warmers if they give up all their other sources of funding.

    Actually, if the fossil fuel industry would fund “deniers” (“realists” to most of us) even close to the same level they fund climate science usurpers (aka CAGW), we’d have a far better understanding of the climate. We’d also have a clear understanding of how $Billions have been wasted on fraudulent studies supporting bogus hypotheses, which revelation would be a complete embarrassment to “climate scientists” and those who threw money at this whole circus needlessly.

  74. John in L du B says:

    …a passionate call for more scientists to join him “on the front lines of the climate wars.”

    First of all, there are no more warmist scientists to join him on the front lines of his looking glass war. As he well knows, the scientists who are not there already are busy reading the best science blog multiple years running.

    However, he may be right about climategate being a crime. I’m beginning to think the e-mails were leaked by someone at UEA, probably (a) ostensible warmist(s), trying to influence the markets ahead of the the annual climate conferences for shortselling climate futures.

    Yeah, I really do think they are that cynical.

  75. Gail Combs says:

    Bloke down the pub says: @ March 15, 2012 at 3:20 am
    In the UK, and I suspect most of the English speaking world, the media have a long tradition of puffing up people to the status of hero, only to take great delight in bringing them crashing back down to zero. ….
    ____________________________________

    Dr David M.W. Evans in his article, Climate Coup — The Politics, identifies a “regulating class” Bill Clinton’s mentor Carroll Quigley identifies the “Rulers” of the “regulating class” in his books.

    Micheal Mann and the other greenies are cannon fodder just as the MSM is their propaganda arm. In Quigley’s one-volume history of the twentieth century entitled “Tragedy and Hope” (1966) he states:

    “….There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which ….has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records…..”

    Environmentalism and CAGW are just strategies of this ruling “network” and will be jettisoned along with the leaders of the “Cannon fodder” who are found to be “embarrassing” Those who are more circumspect will just move on to promote the newest scam. Mann however will probably be offered up as the sacrificial lamb if public outrage is deep enough. Otherwise CAGW will just fade away as the newest scare scam takes its place and Mann will sink into obscurity.

  76. Coach Springer says:

    The Unscientist.

  77. John W. says:

    Antonia says:

    “I’m not sure if the news has reached WUWT but in the tradition of ironic Australian humour some Australian farmers have renamed “inches” of rain as “flanneries”: “yeah, we had two flanneries yesterday, how much did you get?” ”

    Outstanding!

    And inspirational. Next year, I’m going to work on getting people I know in Michigan to talk about gores of snow. (Or maybe, gores of global warming.)

  78. Larry says:

    The last sentence in Ms. Jolis response accurately reflected my opinion of Mann, Hansen, Gleick, et. al. .

    “These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.”

    Well said!

  79. Robert Austin says:

    When we have a Christopher Monckton article, the CAGW trolls are out in droves to attack him. Why are these same minions not here defending Mann’s reputation and intellect?

    On a different note, Monckton is coming to my town (London, Ontario), perhaps because Chris Essex is a prof here at the University of Western Ontario. I wouldn’t miss this for anything. I hope some naive greenies turn out so I can witness Monckton “educating” them.

  80. Gail Combs says: March 15, 2012 at 8:55 am

    For anyone who may be interested, Quigley’s book can be purchased from Amazon here:

    or downloaded in pdf format for free from the Carrol Quigley site here:

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm

  81. John Whitman says:

    Yesterday I was enjoying a detective novel called ‘Victims’ by Jonathan Kelleman at Starbucks with my daily triple venti cappuccino and was struck by this quote;

    Chapter 23 “Even psychopaths need to self-justify and I don’t think his real motive is avenging insult. It’s got to be rooted in fantasies he’s had since childhood but he frames his victims as bad people so he can feel righteous. [...]”

    So I noted it on my phone’s notepad for purpose of somehow paraphrasing it in future comments about the team of IPCC centric scientists who are supporters of the CAGW cause.

    This WUWT post on Mann’s book review seems an appropriate place to use it. : )

    Here is my adaptation (paraphrase) of it wrt the CG1/CG2 team that had Mann as an active member:

    Even psychopaths CAGW fanatics need to self-justify their intellectual violence on independent thinkers (aka skeptics) and I don’t think his their real motive is avenging insult. It’s got to be rooted in fantasies he’s they have had since childhood but he they frame his their victims as bad people so he they can feel righteous.

    I thought it fit well wrt the CG1/CG2 team that Mann was part of. Enjoy.

    John

  82. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    When, in the due course of time, the history of the AGW Climate Hysteria is written, the award for inventing Climate Scientology will certainly go to Mikey.

    He can share it with the rest of his Team.

  83. oMan says:

    The Lateline interview with Mann is comedy gold. Many thanks. I do think he should be handled the way Napoleon said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Mann is digging himself an ever-deeper hole. I wonder if scientists, when they go off the deep end, are not the most dangerous zealots? They are drawn to science because of its “purity” and “certainty” and “objectivity.” Which allow a dependent, insecure personality to enjoy strong feelings of virtue. Of being really, really right. So long as that tendency is checked by humility and adherence to the scientific method, good things (even great things) may result. But if that personality slips into advocacy and moral crusades (us vs. them, etc), then they become very dangerous. Not only because they still sound like scientists; but because they have developed deep networks of enablers and co-conspirators. Who tolerate their nonsense; who are subject to their peer review and funding decisions; who can score political points from their pseudo-scientific ranting. So it goes on, and on.

    Eventually it fails; but at what cost?

  84. Ted G says:

    Peter Miller says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:20 am
    An excellent article.
    Clearly Mann is confused on more than a few matters, let’s put the matter straight about at least a couple of things:
    1. The CAGW cult is outfunded by the sceptics by at least 1,000 to 1 and probably by over 2,000 to 1.

    Peter.
    You were very low in your estimates it’s a lot worse than we thought, this is just the Federal Governmental spending not including State, County and Municipal government spending. Plus the 1000’s of left leaning charitable funds and Eco green groups, the real amount spent to promote/push and propagate Global warming will never be known but it could easily be $100 + billon /yr in the USA alone. World wide we could be looking at $500 + Billion. Here are just a few quick examples:

    US AGENCY SPENDING = $2481 MILLION
    HEARTLAND SPENDING = $6.5 MILLION

    2.481 BILLION for climate research in 2011 – USACTION NEWS
    How can climate scientists spend so much money. 2.481 BILLION for climate research in 2011. The amount of money being spent on climate change research this year is astounding.
    http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/2-481-billion-for-climate-research-in-2011/UK: £1.5bn foreign aid wasted on tackling climate change
    ***********************************************************************************************
    $3.9 Billion In Federal Funds Went To 21 Green Energy Companies Owned By Five Obama Officials 16 February 2012 11:49
    http://12160.info/group/exposebarackhusseinobama/forum/topics/3-9-billion-in-federal-funds-went-to-21-green-energy-companies-ow

    ‘Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama. Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.
    ***************************************************************************************
    UK: £1.5bn foreign aid wasted on tackling climate change
    Posted: 18 Feb 2012 01:59 PM PST
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/02/uk-1-5bn-foreign-aid-wasted-on-tackling-climate-change/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uk-1-5bn-foreign-aid-wasted-on-tackling-climate-change
    This is the brutal reality at the pointy end of dangerous climate policies concocted in ivory towers, insulated from reality. Precious resources, which should rightly be directed towards alleviating poverty and disease, are being frittered away on pointless attempts to tackle climate change. We have suspected for some time that such policies will benefit wealthy [...]

  85. Gail Combs says:

    Peter B says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:41 am

    The video is very good. Interesting to see how it’s not necessary to be a “climate scientist” to grasp what Mann is all about. Which leads to the question – how is it that so many people do not grasp that, or do not care? The most obvious explanation is, because they share Mann’s attitude.
    ____________________________
    Dr Evans nailed it with his definition of the “regulatory class” Do not forget that large Corporations and Banks are financial beneficiaries of big government too. Laws and regulations give big corporations an advantage over their smaller competitors and allow banks to engage in wholesale theft of wealth by the fractional reserve banking mechanism.

    …The supporters of the theory of manmade global warming are mainly financial beneficiaries,[vi] believers in big government, or Greens. They are usually university educated. They generally prefer the methods of government, namely politics and coercion, rather than the voluntary transactions of the marketplace—especially when it comes to setting their own remuneration.

    They are an intellectual upper class of wordsmiths, who regulate and pontificate rather than produce real stuff. There is little demand in the economy for their skills, so they would command only modest rewards for their labor in the marketplace. Arguably they are a class of parasites enriching themselves at the expense of producers, because they are rewarded out of proportion to the value they create—value as determined not by themselves, but by voluntary transactions in the marketplace.

    They don’t like the market place, basically because the marketplace doesn’t like them. [vii] The marketplace doesn’t reward them as much as they think it should. They prefer a system where people like them form the government and bureaucracy, where they take a large slice of everyone else’s income by threat of force, and then they pay themselves what they think they are worth out of those taxes. This stands in stark contrast to most people, who are generally paid only what the market will allow.…..

  86. John Gf says:

    Well Mr. Mann, the people will see you in court (again and again and again and again…..). Your book reads like the guilt-ridden paranoid rationalizations of a small child. More power to Tim Ball.

  87. TomRude says:

    Excellent review!

  88. Gail Combs says:

    Wade says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:55 am

    I was thinking how much of a blowhard these climate scientists are. They are losing the war and instead of admitting their idea is wrong, they think it must be some well-funded anonymous group. The problem Michael Mann and his cohorts have is they refuse to believe that could possibly be wrong in anything.
    ______________________________
    Mann and Company know full well they are spouting hogwash.
    There is a Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) by Ged Davis Here is who the Ged Davis in that e-mail is. A retired senior Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection and now a bank advisor Ged Davis

    Not only that but CRU was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies ,Shell and BP. – Wikipedia
    “Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] “
    Another Source for CRU funding: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    There is plenty of other evidence such as the e-mail where climate scientists are discuss getting grants from Shell Oil and a journalist who was an eye witness to a discussion in the Oval office between the CEO of BP and a US president pushing the carbon tax. (Don’t feel like digging the links out)

  89. Russell C says:

    Regarding what Ms Jolis calls Mann’s “similar tactics against his opponents”, he doesn’t simply get his material out of thin air. Mann says this about anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, while doing a brief review of the Hoggan/Littlemore “Climate Cover-Up” book at an October 2009 RealClimate blog: “Ross Gelbspan who has set the standard for investigative reporting when it comes to the climate change denial campaign…” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/

    Throw the name “Gelbspan” into a ClimateGate search window, and you’ll see how the results take you to Mann’s cc email address lists, and to a suggestion he made to Osborn, Briffa, Jones & Ray Bradley about sending material to sympathetic ‘outlets’.

    I could go on for pages on these troubles concerning what has every appearance of being a literally unsupportable accusation against skeptic scientists stemming from a highly questionable single source…….. oh, wait, I already have. Click on my name above.

  90. Allen says:

    Mann, that arrogant pseudo-scientist, is in the throes of a career death spiral. Let him spin until he disappears.

  91. Jimbo says:

    Stonyground says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:19 am

    This well funded campaign of disinformation, does it actually exist outside Micheal Mann’s head?

    This is what led the self-confessed criminal and liar Gleick to commit wire fraud. They have convinced themselves that there MUST be a well-funded fossil fuel backed ‘denialist’ machine, otherwise why are sceptics so effective? Propaganda is expensive, the truth is cheap. Gleick, via his criminal act, exposed this charge of “well funded” as a lie.

    Only SOME of Heartlland’s $6.4 million budget went on climate curriculum for schools. That’s not a well funded denialist machine compared to the FULL $75 million per year since around 2002? for Standford’s climate research program.

  92. Bernard Rochet says:

    Great review! But here in Canada, people listening to the CBC are getting a different picture of Mann. I just heard him being interviewed (and genuflected to, and commiserated with) on the CBC’s The Current. You can find the audio of that interview at
    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
    Look for the audio clip under the title “Climate Activist, Michael Mann” (Wednesday March 14, 2012).
    Keep a barf bag handy.

  93. Jimbo says:

    While we are seeing some progress with the media others still have some way to go. Remember the humans with cat’s eyes to save on lighting and drugged meat to induce vomiting authors? They have defended themselves in the Guardian.

    Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/mar/14/human-engineering-climate-change-philosophy

    “Typical liberal academics”!!!!!
    Let’s all hope that climate change does indeed stay their “lower end of concern.” ;-)

  94. Duster says:

    polistra says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:17 am

    She hit the key with “low estimation of the public intellect”.

    That’s exactly why Americans have stopped believing in all the “scientific consensus” pseudotheories. Not just carbon, but evolution, Big Bang cosmology, quantum “physics”, and economics. …

    I tend to agree about Big Bang cosmology, but where would you be without quantum physics? You would have no electronics to speak of and you certainly never would have posted here. Even a lot of physicists don’t really like QM, but they’ve learned to live with it. It works, unlike climate models.

    Concerning evolution, what most Americans understand about the “theory of evolution” comes from their pastor, who never learned what it was either. As a simple hint, Darwin never propounded a theory of evolution. Find a searchable copy of the text of “The Origin of Species” -earlier versions are better – and look for the term and the results will surprise you. What Darwin and Wallace discussed was the effect of selection on populations. When you walk your dog, pet your hairless cat, ride your horse, eat an egg, or plant your vegetable garden you are enjoying the successful results of selection on a breeding population. Herbert Spencer was the lump who propounded the “law of evolution” and then conflated it with the Victorian concept of “progress.” Darwin finally caved, but that was essentially because it was a European social meme he couldn’t deflect.

    The theory of “natural selection” simply argues that the response of a population to “selective” effects is sufficient to explain speciation. Looking at maize and blue roses, Great Danes and chihuahuas, it is hard to argue against that. Using the property, which is real, is how we come to have corn (maize), wheat, rice, cotton, tomatoes, poodles and pekinese, thoroughbreds, fell ponies and arabians (the horse – not the group who speak the language ).

  95. F. Ross says:


    Stacey says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:08 am
    I didn’t realise that Anne Jolis reviewed works of fiction?


    KenB says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:48 am
    “…
    Enough to make one puke!!


    RockyRoad says:
    March 15, 2012 at 6:57 am
    “…
    This is a nasty, little man–comparable to the best liars ever invented.
    He lies for money.
    He lies for prestige.
    He lies to protect his “accomplishments”.
    I’ll say it again–Mann is a nasty, little man. …”

    Not only all of the above but Mr. Mann, great author that he is, occasionally splits an infinitve:
    “” It would be “irresponsible,” he says, “for us to silently stand by …””
    [+emphasis]

  96. Keith Sketchley says:

    “(Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politically controlled institution.)”

    Excellent point.

    Applies whether a university or an advocacy operation like Greenpeace.

    You see in such remarks the underlying nature of climate alarmists – Marxism’s hatred of business, and specifically its exploitation theory.
    Business is bad, government (taxpayer funded universities) are good, Marxist revolution is democracy but people voting with their earnings is bad (even people electing current governments is to be over-ridden by Marxist revolution,

  97. F. Ross says:


    Duster says:
    March 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    “…
    The theory of “natural selection” simply argues that the response of a population to “selective” effects is sufficient to explain speciation. Looking at maize and blue roses, Great Danes and chihuahuas, it is hard to argue against that. Using the property, which is real, is how we come to have corn (maize), wheat, rice, cotton, tomatoes, poodles and pekinese, thoroughbreds, fell ponies and arabians (the horse – not the group who speak the language ).”

    Well said.

  98. Chuck Nolan says:

    Peter B says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:41 am
    The video is very good. Interesting to see how it’s not necessary to be a “climate scientist” to grasp what Mann is all about. Which leads to the question – how is it that so many people do not grasp that, or do not care? The most obvious explanation is, because they share Mann’s attitude.
    ———–
    Peter, I kind of doubt that.
    I think most ‘regular people’ are “rationally ignorant”. Collectively, they just have a very strong BS meter. It’s the “Stories for the Cause” people don’t buy because they change so much and so often and it’s always getting worse and it’s just so unbelievable, so people don’t.

    note: I don’t know the right answers either but, I try to stay attuned to some degree but like I said above….it’s just so unbelievable….so I don’t.
    Maybe if they just had a better story…………..maybe they should tell the whole story.

  99. Ally E. says:

    I’m not gonna buy his book – I have enough fire lighters.

  100. Gail Combs says:

    Chuck Nolan says: @ March 15, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    ….I think most ‘regular people’ are “rationally ignorant”. Collectively, they just have a very strong BS meter…..
    _____________________________
    Actually most ‘regular people’ have been INTENTIONALLY MADE ignorant the better to feed them BS and propaganda. It is only thanks to the internet that we have been able to defeat the intentional “Brainwashing” done by the Regulating Class

    The deliberate dumbing down of America
    Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld
    the education quality productivity index is declining year after year…

    Ritilan: The Drugging of Our Children by Schools

    Every time I read these, especially the last one, I keep thinking of Tar and Feathers…

  101. Grant says:

    Justifiable mannhandling.

  102. John Whitman says:

    Mann says in the opening paragraph of his book’s prologue:

    “On the morning of November 17, 2009, I awoke to learn that my private e-mail correspondence with fellow scientists had been hacked from a climate research center at University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and posted on the Internet for all to see. Words and phrases had been cherry-picked from the thousands of e-mail messages, removed from their original context, and strung together in ways designed to malign me, my colleagues, and climate research itself. Sound bites intended to imply impropriety on our part were quickly disseminated over the Internet. Through a coordinated public relations campaign, groups affiliated with the fossil fuel industry and other climate change critics helped catapult these sound bites onto the pages of leading newspapers and onto television screens around the world. A cartoon video ridiculing me and falsely accusing me of “hiding the decline” in global temperature was released on YouTube and advertised through a sponsored link that appeared with any Google search of my name. The video eventually even made its way onto the CBS Nightly News. Pundits dubbed the wider issue of the hacked e-mails “Climategate”, and numerous investigations were launched. Though our work was subsequently vindicated time and again, the whole episode was a humiliating one-unlike anything I’d ever imagined happening. I had known that climate change critics were willing to do just about anything to try and discredit climate scientists like myself. But I was horrified by what they now had stooped to.”

    Michael Mann said one thing in that opening paragraph that rings true, he has indeed been humiliated, but in my opinion he does not realize how bad it is yet; time will only increase his humiliation. The problem with his confession of the humiliation is that the rest of the paragraph shows he did not learn the lesson that his humiliation necessarily and directly followed from his lack integrity and openness on central aspects of his research that were critically and continuously brought up by the climate science public.

    The rest of the paragraph is an example of a person whose reasoning lacks balance and whose self-esteem’s survival is myopically focused on impugning the motives of anyone who would question his false ‘a priori’ premise; that ‘a priori’ premise has fundamentally biased his science. The ‘team’, as shown by CG1/CG2, all shared the false ‘a priori’ premise so Mann need not feel alone in his humiliation. The cause is based on a common falsity.

    John

  103. Ally E. says:

    Jimbo says:

    March 15, 2012 at 11:07 am

    …Propaganda is expensive, the truth is cheap…

    *

    I would love that on a T-shirt.

  104. Lokki says:

    Dear God!
    “Scientific truth alone is not enough to carry the day”

    How can anyone rational trust anything this man says after a statement like that?

  105. John Whitman says:

    Dear fellow WUWTians,

    It is absurd generalizing, with trite stereotyping categorizations done arbitrarily, on the inability/ability of the people in our society to understand the problems of IPCC centric CAGW climate “science”. Angels dancing on pins . . . .? It is a conceit of pseudo-intellectuals to presume the intelligence level of the people in the area of detecting climate science baloney.

    My personal experience talking with all the people I have become acquainted with is that the interested independent public does know the books have been cooked in the CAGW centered IPCC supported science . . . . it is only the believers in the ’cause’ who disagree with the cooking.

    The more we spread the independent assessment of the pseudo-science of IPCC centric CAGWism to the general independent public, then even more of the independent public will become knowledgeable of the CAGW climate science cooking.

    Talking publically about Mann’s book is a good vehicle to spread the problems of his ’cause’ focused science. : )

    John

  106. sophocles says:

    Oh dear. The poor, hard done by, insulted and assaulted climate warrior.
    Perhaps he should find a nice warm cosy lunatic asy… er… retirement ho…. er … safe haven, lock the door behind him and toss the key back over the walls. Llife appears far too egregious and punishing for such a delicate and innocent soul.

  107. Manfred says:

    This is the second time, I have read the word “dissuading”, the first time in faked Heartland memo in the most notorious sentence.

    This appears to be a “high entropy” word, and therefore, the faker’s use of that language may have been inspired by Mann’s book. Interesting question, if Gleick, who wrote a review, wouldn’t have done what he did, if he hadn’t read this book…

  108. CodeTech says:

    John Whitman wrote:

    Michael Mann said one thing in that opening paragraph that rings true, he has indeed been humiliated, but in my opinion he does not realize how bad it is yet; time will only increase his humiliation. The problem with his confession of the humiliation is that the rest of the paragraph shows he did not learn the lesson that his humiliation necessarily and directly followed from his lack integrity and openness on central aspects of his research that were critically and continuously brought up by the climate science public.

    This reminds me of the Paris Hilton sex tape. As I recall, her father made some sort of public statement that she was “forced” or “coerced” or maybe “fooled” into making that video. I have examined that video quite thoroughly, and can assure any who wonder that the video was made without coercion or force. Or clothes.

    In another world, or another age, the release of such a video would have driven a young woman completely out of public life, where she would change her name, her hair, her looks. In today’s world, it’s just made her more famous. And she’s not even really all that good at it. See the parallel? To the believers, Climategate is actually MORE evidence that their heroes are gods and deserving of fame!

    Does anyone remember in the early days of YouTube, there was a girl that pretty much everyone knew, “Emmalina”. She was on YouTube regularly, talking about life, giving her opinions, and was one of the reasons anyone even started paying attention to the site. Unfortunately for her, someone released a whole folder full of racy and explicit pictures that they had either “hacked” from her computer (her claim) or that she had been sending (more likely). She disappeared in humiliation and shame.

    Apparently my upbringing and background makes me incapable of being a Climate Scientist. If it had been MY emails demonstrating a complete lack of ethics and scientific integrity, I’d walk away.

  109. Laurie says:

    hope for him yet.

    Laurie says:
    March 15, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    Did Dr. Mann happen to mention in his book about how mean his “Team” was about his hockey stick?
    3373.txt: Raymond Bradley: “ Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not. Also–& I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. ” This refers to a 2003 paper “Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia” by Mann and Jones, that shows ‘hockey stick’ temperature graphs and was used by the IPCC in its 2007 report.

    0435.txt: Ed Cook, on the same Mann & Jones paper: “ I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley hates it as well), ”

    1527.txt: Dendrochronologist Rob Wilson writes: “ There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”

    4241.txt: Rob Wilson again: “ The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking…I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel … The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. ”

    4369.txt: Tim Osborn says “ This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ” and Ed Cook replies “I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

    4758.txt: Tim Osborn: “ Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! “

    2346.txt: Osborn: “ Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be
    not defensible! ”

    2009.txt: Keith Briffa: “ I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here! ”

    3994.txt: John Mitchell (Met Office) commenting on draft IPCC report: “ Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”

    1104.txt: Heinz Wanner: “ I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its
    precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report. In 1999 I made the following comments:
    1. The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain “summer information”) and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD.
    2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.
    My review was classified “unsignificant” ”

    0497.txt: Jones to Mann in 1999: “ Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. ”

    0562.txt: Simon Tett (Met Office), discussing revising a paper: “ No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!) ”.

    2383.txt: Tim Barnett in 2004: “ maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember… ”

    1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA): “ I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
    especially honest. ”

    4005.txt: Osborn: “ Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were ”

    4133.txt: David Rind (NASA GISS): “ what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. ”

    1738.txt: Tree expert Rod Savidge writes: “ What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense — really nothing but imaginative speculation — about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals. ”

    3219.txt: Savidge again: “ As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. ”
    http://junkscience.com/2011/12/06/team-knew-hockey-stick-reconstruction-was-wrong/

  110. _Jim says:

    polistra says on March 15, 2012 at 4:17 am

    She hit the key with “low estimation of the public intellect”.

    That’s exactly why Americans have stopped believing in all the “scientific consensus” pseudotheories. Not just carbon, but evolution, Big Bang cosmology, quantum “physics”, and economics. Proponents of all those fraudulent

    What did it for me was the 1% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees; there isn’t any possible way they could be ‘related’ by even distant heredity.

    No, wait … does that support my assertion?

    (/sarc)

  111. JRR Canada says:

    Let Mann keep talking, he will equal the Gore effect

  112. Chuck Nolan says:

    Gail Combs says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    ———————————
    Then Gail, why is it not 85% plus of the people believing in cagw?

  113. Eugene WR GAllun says:

    i increased the size of this poem by one stanza — the middle stanza.

    The Hockey Stick

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

    By using crooked math
    By writing crooked lines
    Lysenko’s crooked path
    Led thru the crooked pines

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

    I am comtemplating challenging Shakespeare next by writing a poem entitled —
    “What a piece of work is Mann”.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  114. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says March 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    ———————————

    Chuck Nolan says on March 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm:

    Then Gail, why is it not 85% plus of the people believing in cagw?

    Expecting a display of Gail’s ‘long suit’ in the rationality department via an answer?

    Do you have the facilities, materials for ‘packing a lunch’?

    .

  115. John Whitman says:

    I have read ~50% of Mann’s new book. I am reading it by jumping around to read various chapters; not in sequential order.

    Three things strike me so far:

    1) it is primarily autobiographical in nature

    2) Also, it is secondarily a brief on his science and related IPCC science. It has scientific treatment only at the level one would expect from a popular MSM magazine or newspaper article.

    3) MOST INTERESTING to me is that the author Mann is trying to construct a hero based mythological narrative; right out of Joseph Campbell’s mono-myth structure as explained in Campbell’s book ‘Hero with a Thousand Faces’. Mann is awkwardly trying to project in himself as a person with reluctant heroic righteousness against all those critical of the IPCC’s CAGWism. I kid you not.

    Finally, I am philosophically unsympathetic to Mann’s references to Climate War. I am unresponsive of either the IPCC CAGW ’cause’ supporters or any independent thinkers (aka skeptics) using a military conflict (war) context to discuss the ongoing dialog in climate science and the related in ideological environmental extremism/fanaticism. Using military context is misleading to dialog. I find the relevant fruitful context is (as it should be) an discourse in an open market place of ideas (finally); a totally unrestricted dialog with the final residue being better balance in and understanding of our scientific incompleteness wrt the Earth-atmosphere system. The free market place of ideas was very stifled for ~20 yrs by authoritarian elements in the scientific community, NGO’s, political groups and the political body of mostly pseudo-science NGO members that is the IPCC. The climate science dialog is opening up and we still have a long way to go to see it finally being totally open and unfettered from the authoritarian elements that are the nemesis of the scientific process.

    John

  116. kMc2 says:

    Laurie @7:17 pm above…Thanks for that compilation of quotes. Quite a different picture when team members feel free to speak the truth and behave like scientists off the leash.

  117. IAmDigitap says:

    Looks like the Mann of Magic Moonbat Money Melting Mechanisms

    has been D.E.N.I.E.D.

    (Channeling the tone of that now near-ancient America On Line ad, where the man says,
    “YoU’vE got MAIL!!”)

    “You got deNIED!!!!”

  118. IAmDigitap says:

    Thank you.

    [REPLY: Da Nada. -REP]

  119. DonS says:

    Mickey Reno says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:18 am

    “Michael Mann is to science what Michael Moore is to documentary film making. Both know how to use a little bit of truth to tell a whopper.”

    Gosh, I suppose I conflated them. Until this moment I thought they were the same man.

  120. Brian H says:

    F. Ross says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    The theory of “natural selection” simply argues that the response of a population to “selective” effects is sufficient to explain speciation. Looking at maize and blue roses, Great Danes and chihuahuas, it is hard to argue against that. Using the property, which is real, is how we come to have corn (maize), wheat, rice, cotton, tomatoes, poodles and pekinese, thoroughbreds, fell ponies and arabians (the horse – not the group who speak the language

    Well said.

    Except that poodles and pekes can interbreed, hence are not separate species. Same for thoroughbreds, fell ponies, and arabians. The whole concept of species turns out to be very shady, with indistinct lines. E.g.; it is suspected, though AFAIK not proven, that humans and chimps could interbreed …

    As for Mann’s humiliation, it hasn’t succeeded yet; more is needed!

    Power tends to stupefy, and absolute power stupefies absolutely. The referenced study found that humiliation of the error-prone powerful was the only cure.

  121. tango says:

    the only place for this book is in the toilet and you can guess what you can use it for

Comments are closed.