Mann overboard! Pot, kettle, conspiracy edition

Michael_Mann_hurricane_matrixWhile dodging the issue of his own ten thousand dollar speaking fees this past week, Mike Mann thinks its all a big hugely funded conspiracy (like those WUWT calendar sales). From a hilarious interview at The Independent:

A climate scientist who says he has been subjected to a vitriolic hate campaign has denounced the way that American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations that have attacked him.

Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, who has been targeted by climate-change sceptics for his work on global temperature records, said it was wrong for wealthy individuals such as the oil billionaire Charles Koch to surreptitiously finance the “counter-movement” that denounces the science of global warming.

It was only when he was researching a book that he became aware Koch was assisting some of the organisations that he says have been attacking him and his colleagues for so many years, Professor Mann said. He said the sceptic organisations had “single-handedly sought to poison the public discourse over human-caused climate change. In the process they have potentially mortgaged the futures of our children and grandchildren. You couldn’t invent villains like this if you tried.”

From: Top climate scientist denounces billionaires over funding for climate-sceptic organisations – Science – News – The Independent

On the subject of the Koch Brothers and funding of sceptic organizations, Dr. Mann might recall that his criminal acquaintance, Dr. Peter Gleick’s document theft was helpful it putting that issue to rest once and for all. From Junkscience.com

As this page shows, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation only gave $25,000 to Heartland in 2011 (about 0.5% of Heartland’s budget) for a health care project. Heartland only hoped to get $200,000 from the Foundation in 2012 — again for its health care project. But Dr. Mann would never talk about such adverse results.

Nor does Dr. Mann like to talk about the millions he has received in grants at Penn State.

From the American Spectator:

Inarguably the next-largest culprit is Michael Mann, Mr. Nature Trick, who is not to be confused with the Nature Boy or the other “Heat“-making Mann. He has had his grants available for public viewing for a while, so I’m surprised I’ve not seen those spread around the ‘Net. They are right there listed in his curriculum vitae. (now deleted -AW)

2009-2013          Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012          Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011          A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000

2008-2009          AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship (Anthony Sabbatelli), American Meteorological Society [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $23,000

2006-2009          Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009          Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

2006-2009          Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech Univ.), N. Graham (Hydro. Res. Center), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), Hoerling (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center), Alexander (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $68,065

2006-2007          Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), NSF-EAR [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: R. Alley, M. Arthur, J. Evans, D. Pollard (Penn State Univ.)] $100,000

2003-2006          Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U.Va), J. Cole (U. Arizona), V. Mehta (CRCES)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $102,000

2002-2005          Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $315,000

2002-2005          Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, NSF-Office of Polar Programs, Antarctic Oceans and Climate System [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U. Va), E. Steig (U. Wash.), D. Weinbrenner (U. Wash)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $133,000

2002-2003         Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, NOAA-Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) Program [Principal Investigators: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Ed Cook (Lamont/Columbia); Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $14,400

2002-2003         Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: Malcolm Hughes (Univ. of Arizona); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann; J. Park (Yale University)] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $20,775

2001-2003         Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the  Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST)  [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award:  $214,700

2001-2002         Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, Office of Naval Research [Principal Investigator: P. Wiberg (U.Va), Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] $20,775

1999-2002          Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, NOAA-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (U.Va), Co-Investigators: R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $381,647

1998-2000          Validation of Decadal-to-Multi-century climate predictions, DOE [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: H.F. Diaz, M.E. Mann]

1998-2000          The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, NSF-Hydrological Science [Principal Investigator U. Lall (U. Utah); Co-investigators: M.E. Mann, B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane] $266,235K

1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally

Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000

1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last

Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000

For those keeping score, that’s almost $6 million total for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years by Mann and his playmates.

As for the “villains”, I’m reminded of this famous quote from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:

If Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.

 

 

About these ads

155 thoughts on “Mann overboard! Pot, kettle, conspiracy edition

  1. And of course if he would like to reveal his earnings from speaking, book sales etc? All made on the back of CAGW.

  2. In the process they have potentially mortgaged the futures of our children and grandchildren. You couldn’t invent villains like this if you tried.”
    ==================
    “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

    – Barack Obama
    ================
    amen

  3. Man has some data right. Skeptics have to get funds from somewhere, and that can mean a lot of small pockets (WUWT ad revenue) and/or a few big ones (Ive seen other Heartland climate notes, not just the specific one highlighted here).
    Where he exposes himself as an a$$h0le is his gratuitous use of unnecessary adjectives like “single-handed” and “surreptitious”. It is not just Koch, nor is Koch secretive in any way about his opinion on climatology.
    His pattern in public life seems to be wild extrapolations from insufficient analysis of incomplete data.

  4. Latitude says: amen

    Appropriate.

    Mann: “American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations”

    See? It’s a secret, that’s why there’s no proof, you must believe on faith.

    Mann is one of the 97% whose reputation would be most damaged by the recognition that “climate science” jumped to the AGW conclusion and unsurprisingly believes (at least publically) the AGW conclusion was not arrived at from scant evidence and wild imaginations.

  5. Anthony Watts stated:

    From the American Spectator:

    Inarguably the next-largest culprit is Michael Mann, Mr. Nature Trick, who is not to be confused with the Nature Boy or the other “Heat“-making Mann. He has had his grants available for public viewing for a while, so I’m surprised I’ve not seen those spread around the ‘Net. They are right there listed in his curriculum vitae. (now deleted -AW)….

    This is not the latest (dated Sep. 3, 2011), but these items should be added to the list found by American Spectator:

    2011-2014 Advanced Regional And Decadal Predictions Of Coastal Inundation for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, NOAA-Improving NOAA�s Climate Services for the Coastal Zone (Special Competition) [Principal Investigators: B. Horton (Univ. of Pennsylvania), J. Donnelly (WHOI), Reide Corbett (East Carolina Univ.), A. Kemp (Yale University), K. Lindeman (Florida Inst. Tech.), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), D. Peltier (Univ. of Toronto, Canada), S. Rahmstorf (University of Potsdam, Germany)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $120,463

    2011-2014 Climate and Society – Innovative and Sustainable Collaboration with Senegal, Penn State University-AESEDA program [Principal Investigator: J.D. Fuentes; Co-Investigators: P. Tschakert, J. L. Evans, A. M. Thompson, and M.E. Mann] PSU internal award: $75,000

    2010-2012 Scientific Input on Climate Change Outreach by a Network of Zoos and Aquariums, NSF-Arctic Research & Education [Principal Investigators: A. Grajal (Chicago Zoological Society), S.R. Goldman (Univ. of Illinois-Chicago), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $32,733

    2010-2013 Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: Q. Hu, S. Feng, R.J. Oglesby (Univ. of Nebraska), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $249,800

    Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20110903110408/http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

  6. The Independent (not the Sunday edition) has a circulation of less than 85,000. Who else would listen to his ramblings and publish them but a dying newspaper.

  7. …also…
    In my school years, I once got in trouble for submitting the same long report to two different professors in two different classes. It was entirely my own work, and the first grade was an “A Outstanding!”. The second was an “F Come see me”. Seems that even if the work met the solution well, there was a principal involved.

    I wonder whether any of those donors felt at least a little miffed to so obviously NOT getting unique output for their funding. I count a whole lot of overlap in the project space. Wonder if they ever compare notes.

  8. Mann is nuts. I’ve learned that whenever left wing people say such things, it’s often the other way around. Nothing more than smoke and mirrors to distract us from what we should focus on the most – what is the ultimate goal by them when they have to go such extreme to try and discredit us based on lies? I’m afraid of what will happen the next 4 years with Obama seeking to gain more and more power and control over us. Billionaire Soros seems to have his dirty fingers in everything…

  9. “We will respond to the threat of “alien invasion”, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms created by these powerful beings.”
    Ancient Alien theorists say the aliens are coming back and they probably have a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. How can we argue with peer-reviewed journals? The aliens could be coming and Obama should be saving us.
    Not all arguments are valid, no matter how scientific sounding they may be. Climate change is just as probable as alien invasion or vice versa. Voting on accurate science is a really bad way to run a country.

  10. I wonder whatever led Michael Mann to consider himself a tree ring expert? Maybe he studied fossilized tree rings. From his CV:

    Education
    1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics (defended 1996)
    1993 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics
    1991 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Physics
    1991 M.S. Yale University, Department of Physics
    1989 A.B. (double), University of California-Berkeley, Applied Math, Physics (Honors)

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

  11. A bit interesting (and ironic) that for AWG proponents the “settled science” need constant funding for more research…seems to me if settled there is nothing to research.

  12. I see why Obama would rather talk about some nebulous climate problem that only bigger government can “solve” than out of control spending that raises our national debt by $1 trillion every 9 months.

  13. I posted this at ‘The Independent’ several hours ago and it seems to be lost in moderation ;)

    Though, judging from the usual junk wheeled out in defense of the indefensible, I would be drawn into a slanging match about ’97% of science Academies agree that the world warmed at the end of the 20th C and Muller was a sceptic’ so I should be thankful not to be dragged into that stinking morass:

    eeEEeevil fossil fuel(drug) companies(dealers) need to ‘secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations’ to continue to sell their inventories to the (addicted)masses because… no-one re-ee-ee-ally wants the stuff or they might not use every available drop or because wind-power and solar will wipe out their established industries … or such like fantastical constructs. Yet denialists are the ones who believe in conspiracies? How does that work?

  14. Mann oh Mann what a petty and deceitful fool he is. And there are so many others just like him.
    Never mind what topic it is. I just don’t get it.
    How can it be that so many lofty icons in academia have become so thoroughly absorbed by a pattern of purposeful mendacity?
    They’ve created an entire villainous arena that is producing a steady and widening stream of self interested, conflicted, truth evading, manipulative public policies that are devouring massive resources while producing far more detriment than benefit. They are burning through the resources needed for real progress.
    The concocted green and sustainability malaise permeates down through every state, county and municipal bureaucracy. When I watch our local bureaucrats give their power point presentations it’s almost like a sci-fi B movie with bad actors. Yet the politicians sit there nodding their heads as if it all makes sense.

    It’s all very bizarre. These people have lost every ability to recognize crap. They believe everything and take pride in being on board the “we need to do this” train. They’re so matter of fact about it that they are grateful for the presentation.

    Eeeek!

  15. We should put just as much stock in Mann’s “climate science” as in his funding accuasations–all fiction! (He’s trying to divert attention away from his own specious arguments, no doubt.)

    Mann ‘o Mann, what this wacky CAGW world is coming to.

  16. To paraphrase Delingpole, Mann is plagued by imaginary Koch persecution.
    Small man syndrome writ large.

  17. It’s the same old story. People who exist upon the largesse of the State find it inconceivable that anyone opposing them isn’t also funded. So rather than accept that they’re not they create evil billionaire masterminds directing things from their criminal lair.

  18. So let me see if I have this right: the love of money can tempt humans to act without principle. Where there is a lot of money available, the temptation is higher. So if we follow the money, we should find people with questionable motives and credibility.

    Remind me, please, where the big money is in this AGW / climate catastrophe debate?

  19. Pres. Obama has an agenda to clobber the Repubs in the mid terms. You cannot blame him, as it has been warfare from the Repubs ever since G Bush left Obama with two wars, massive bank failures, massive deficit, ballooning debt and high unemployment.

    The inaugural speech was a call to arms, that’s all. I seriously doubt any so called climate change initiatives will happen. After all, cheap natural gas has killed wind power, solar, biomass, etc.

  20. For $10,000, we could get him a speaking engagement with someone who could help him out with these … (fill in the blanks) It might take a team of … however.

  21. ” Dan Collins says:
    January 26, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I propose a unit of measure for quantifying non-existence, called the Mann.”

    There is a practical application. Following the trend to name physical units after scientists, like “Hertz” for example, astronomers could adopt the “Mann” : a unit of magnitude for the quantum of size and flux of a black hole at the center of a galaxy. A black hole could be described as having magnitude of so many Manns (or just “Mann”) The origin of the derivation of the name would amuse school children for decades, and assure his rightful place in history. The rationale for the name choice shouldn’t require elucidation….

  22. I am skeptical about Mann and his CAGW alarmist ilk, the Warmistas, yet I give money to oil companies(in exchange for Gasoline.) Not vice-versa.

  23. I am stuck bewteen two posts , on one hand the idea of Mann letting his mouth run off over Koch and finding himself in court up against those with no shortage of funds would be delightful. On the other hand if it was to happen ,no matter the facts or result of the case, Mann and his followers would regarded it as confirming his ‘martyr’ status and that they were trying to shut him up . Something that it would actual take the crops of engineers to do.

    Has I have said before what really marks Mann out is his attitude not to AGW sceptics, but to his own side should they ‘dare ‘ not offer their total and unquestioning support . And that is why , when he falls , we will surprised to find who lines up to kick him on the way down . A event that can not happen soon enough.

  24. Ed_B says:
    January 26, 2013 at 9:34 am

    Pres. Obama has an agenda to clobber the Repubs in the mid terms. You cannot blame him, as it has been warfare from the Repubs ever since G Bush left Obama with two wars, massive bank failures, massive deficit, ballooning debt and high unemployment.”

    Other than this bit of political flotsom has no real relevance to the topic, you need to go back to Slick Willie for the bank debacle, and arguably, the two wars were the only economic activity that kept the US economy in motion. For massive deficit, just read Mann’s CV again, for ballooning debt and high unemployment, look inward, not at government.

  25. Mann’s only recourse against the CG1 & CG2 revelation of the sordid depth of his personal and scientific dishonesty is this,

    The Independent reports,

    “A climate scientist who says he has been subjected to a vitriolic hate campaign has denounced the way that American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations that have attacked him.”

    Mann is – the pathetic spectacle of the fawning AGU leadership to the contrary not withstanding – now irrelevant to the growing open honesty in climate science.

    Are there any bet takers that, if he keeps on acting like he is, he will make the list of history’s top ten abettors of scientific malfeasance.

    John

  26. The somewhat famous photograph of Michael Mann (above) is titled: michael_mann_hurricane_matrix.jpg

    A reference to a work of fiction, within a work of fiction illustrating a work of fiction.

  27. Are we sure that Mann is not an invention of writers at ‘The Onion’?? Skeptics would not dare to invent a villain like Michael Mann, an alleged ‘climate scientist’ whose reckless ‘research’ and smears against critics are a shameful exhibition of how far standards have fallen.

  28. Is Mr. Mann also denouncing the research performed by CRU (with which he is/was closely related)? CRU, of course, has been heavily funded by the US DOE, Shell, and BP. Can’t get much bigger oil than that.

    Mann is as much an oil shill as anyone he accuses of same, probably more so.

  29. If Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.

    I hate the idea that those who are skeptical of the data, analysis, and hype need Michael Mann like Coke needs Pepsi.

  30. Mann’s epitaph.

    I commend my life to you; i lived it as a fraud and a lie.

    Millions believed my science and the world was a poorer place for it.

  31. $25,000 from the Koch Foundation to Heartland in 2011 versus the hundreds of thousands (presumably for 2011 alone) that Dr. Mann’s work received. But it’s the (almost laughable) funding of skeptics that we’re supposed to be alarmed about? Once again, an AGW proponent expects us to ignore the actual facts and data.

    Bigger picture, how many more zeros (and commas!) does the figure for AGW funding have than the funding to skeptic research? And you don’t think you’re going to get the “right” answer (i.e., the one you want to hear) if you’re willing to pay for it???

  32. In Mann’s opinion the Koch brothers are villains because they fund Heartland (and BEST).
    What does that make the Rockefeller foundation which funds 350.org, for instance?

  33. For YOUR Information Dr. Mann: http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/

    “Since 1999, the Hewlett foundation and the Packard foundation have granted $90 million to environmental organizations in Canada. The top recipient, by far, was Tides Canada which received a total of $28 million.

    As depicted in the diagram below, about 90 percent of the funds granted by the Hewlett and the Packard foundations were for projects to tackle the Canadian energy industry and to create a huge park right smack on the strategic, north coast of British Columbia – Canada’s gateway to Asia. The thing is, this park isn’t called the Hewlett-Packard park. Instead, its called the Great Bear Rainforest and its now used by the U.S.-funded Dogwood Initiative as a pretext for seeking a federal ban on oil tanker traffic. No oil tankers means no oil exports to Asia – and that the U.S. gets to keep its monopoly on Canadian oil exports.”

    I guess there are US billionaires and US billionaires… Are these ones funding Penn State too?

  34. …………said it was wrong for wealthy individuals such as the oil billionaire Charles Koch to surreptitiously finance the “counter-movement” that denounces the science of global warming.

    As opposed to:

    Sierra Club Admits Secretly Taking $26 Million From Chesapeake Natural Gas

    An investigation by the Corporate Crime Reporter blog forced the Sierra Club to admit that it secretly had taken millions of dollars from the Chesapeake Energy natural gas company to fund its Beyond Coal campaign from 2007 to 2010 under the leadership of Carl Pope.
    Think Progress

    A case of fossil fuel money for me but not for thee.

  35. Some of the $$$ in an academic researcher’s budget go to the institution to pay for things such as heat, lights, building upkeep, security, and everything else a university has to pay for. There are many different sorts of things a budget writer has to consider and lots of widely varying rates. You can get the sense of this from the pages provided by Harvard for their investigators (or those actually doing the number crunching). Go to the following link and (with some scroll down) read several pages.

    http://www.hks.harvard.edu/research/faq.htm#fringe

    Using easy numbers, say a person’s salary is $100,000 and the indirect rate is 70%. The proposed budget will then include $70,000 to cover the costs of things as mentioned above. There are also “fringe benefits” as described in the first table where the link takes you. These charges will be for things such as medical and dental, other insurance, retirement programs and all the taxes and fees that have to be paid by the university before the investigators get checks in the mail. As mentioned in the FAQ text, all these rates are “negotiated with the Department of Health and Human Services” and so the taxpayers are also paying for the folks at both entities doing the negotiating. This is one of the parasitic leakages that contribute to the negativity of government taking and “investing” your money.

  36. Wonder why he hasn’t had a go at the hurricane & matrix doctoring of of his unbelievably smug tree ring picture? Because he didn’t cut them perhaps? I understand that the people he got the data from were not too pleased with what he did with them.

  37. Reading Mann’s funding sources, it occurs to me that it might be time for an IRS audit to make sure all that money is being properly spent on science and not, for example, on frivolous lawsuits designed to intimidate anyone who might call attention to the veracity of his dubious scientific output.

    Not while Obama is President. Not a chance.

    theduke

  38. And the lawsuit is going, where?

    His public figure is easily enough shown through such diatribes as these. It is too bad that an Exxon or a Koch can’t/won’t sue him or Gore for defamation or libel. Mann (and Gore) says explicitly that coal, oil and gas industry pays skeptics to tell lies and misinform, organizes forums and MSM reporting to discredit the IPCC narrative and stop eco-green legislation. He (and Gore) claim that business entities (run by specific men and women) and specific rich people perpetrate both fraud and conspiracies to pervert the course of justice in America. If Mann said that identifiable religious groups were behind the skeptical movement, he would be inditable for hate crimes. But when you target businesses and rich, white folk, it is just his “opinion”.

    For shame.

  39. It’s the MikeE Mann argument effectiveness/credibility index. The credibility of each side of the argument can be assigned a financial worth in his imagination.

    He knows how many millions his side is worth because he knows how much has been invested through the grants he has had access to. He seems to know intuitively that the “denier” side argument is compelling enough to be worthy of having had “billions” invested in it.

    His real fear is that there hasn’t been any major financial investment in “the opposing” argument. “Knowing” that the deniers have been massively funded feeds his cognitive dissonance.

    There is plenty of grant-worthy useful science done under the climate research heading that would be better done by people other than the current clique advocating their own style of political change.

    The louder he shouts the more intellectually challenged he feels.

  40. That picture he’s holding – is that a picture of his career and/or credibility going down the loo?

  41. Gary Pate said:
    “This a**clown is stealing our tax dollars. Liars, Thieves & Whores, all of them.”

    In all my time as a working girl, I was never so vilely insulted. I demand an immediate apology.

  42. John West says:
    January 26, 2013 at 8:09 am
    Mann: “American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations”

    See? It’s a secret, that’s why there’s no proof, you must believe on faith.
    ============================================================================
    Absence of evidence of the conspiracy is the proof of the conspiracy.

  43. Anthony,

    You are obviously quite busy, but is there any way you’d be interested in starting some sort of effort devoted exclusively to pressuring Mann to put up evidence for these claims? They’re annoying, but more importantly these types of insidious lies can affect those who pay less attention to the ins and outs of the climate change debate. Nothing major, maybe just a short, public letter signed by the relevant groups and scientists demanding that Mann present his evidence that billionaires are bankrolling the movement. He’s busy filing baseless lawsuits for defamation, yet throws malicious crap like this around constantly. It could be called “Mann Up.”

  44. Those Koch Brothers must be mighty rich and powerful, they even control the global temperature.

  45. Ill Tempered Klavier says:
    January 26, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Gary Pate said:
    “This a**clown is stealing our tax dollars. Liars, Thieves & Whores, all of them.”

    In all my time as a working girl, I was never so vilely insulted. I demand an immediate apology.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You got it right, sister!

    Whores are honest and trade something of value for the money. They also do not hold entire nations for ransom and trash economies.

  46. And the name of the secret US billionaire funding my dangerous skepticism is . . . .

    Well, you will need to tune into the next Maniacal Mann PR episode where he exposes John Whitman’s billionaire benefactor. I cannot wait to find out who it is that has not been making clandestine payments for my skepticism.

    John

  47. johnnythelowery says:
    January 26, 2013 at 11:06 am

    picture: Can you spot the difference between a hurricane eye and an ass h*le???

    Easy. A hurricane has only one eye.

  48. As an Englishman, I always had trouble with the pronunciation of ‘Koch’: is it ‘Cock’ or ‘Coke’ – as in Coke-head.
    Then I gave up and realised that Mann is really just a Dick-head (allegedly).

    (Sorry mods…)

  49. “Mann overboard”
    If that is a life ring he is holding, the hole is too small for his head to go through.
    Might be big enough for his brain, though.

  50. The Independent reports,

    “A climate scientist who says he has been subjected to a vitriolic hate campaign has denounced the way that American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations that have attacked him.”

    He is obviously has knowledge of these ‘secret billionaires’ who are funding the sceptics, so why doesn’t he come clean and blow the information he has to the press so that we are all made aware of those wealthy funders of the eceptics. I’m sure none of us would be at all upset by his disclosures.

  51. Had a look at the Independent article. It seems to be full of the Koch’s funding the Donors Trust(?), who supposedly fund sceptics. How come their “audit trail” doesn’t actually identify any “deniers”?

  52. Brulle: “By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organisations, and there is no way to prove otherwise.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

    why did the much more widely read Daily Mail think it a good idea to report the Independent’s unsubstantiated claims?

    25 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Meghan Keneally: Revealed: Secretive funding organisation ‘providing millions to climate change counter-movement on behalf of fossil fuel industry’
    The Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, both based in Alexandria, Virginia, have been funding the climate counter-movement which seeks to cast doubt on the climate change while keeping its wealthy backers anonymous, The Independent has said…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268070/Billionaire-Charles-Koch-secretive-fund-casts-doubt-climate-change.html

  53. Matthew W says:
    “Absence of evidence of the conspiracy is the proof of the conspiracy.”

    Absolutely! (LOL, and they call us conspiracy nuts.)

  54. I say we form a “Concerned Citizens Group” and raise the $10K to have him speak. We’ll advise that there will be a discussion panel afterward with local members from the Union of Concerned Scientists and that we’d like him to help them take questions from the audience.

    Of course we will have to provide what we promised, but I think Kenji would be OK with this? Other concerned citizens on the panel might be Willis, rgbatduke, perhaps Monckton, Morano, richardscourtney…

  55. from the About Sunstein at the link: “Sunstein is also a member of the Bloomberg Government Advisory Board”:

    24 Jan: Bloomberg: Cass Sunstein: U.S. Should Act Unilaterally on Climate Change
    Those who make the Sophisticated Objection acknowledge that climate change is a serious problem, and that the world’s nations should be doing something about it. They contend, however, that unilateral action by any country, including the U.S., will impose significant costs without producing significant benefits. The underlying problem is that the risk of climate change is a product of two things: the existing “stock” of past greenhouse-gas emissions and the continuing “flow” of such emissions…
    If the world is to make serious progress in combating climate change, we will have to innovate to develop energy sources that are clean and less expensive. Regulation will likely spur such innovation…
    In 2009, a technical working group of the U.S. government, building on established scientific models, came up with economic values for “the social cost of carbon,” meaning the cost of a ton of carbon dioxide emissions. In calculating the benefits and costs of regulations designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, many federal agencies have been using the working group’s central number, which is $22.80 in 2013 dollars…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/u-s-should-act-unilaterally-on-climate-change.html

    26 Jan: Stuff New Zealand: Industry eager for biofuels ‘hard metrics’
    Forest crown research institute Scion is set to launch its Woodscape report on the viability of generating biofuels from trees, a move that could throw a much needed financial lifeline to the sector…
    However, the introduction of cheap international credits into ETS saw the price of New Zealand carbon units plummet from $25 a tonne when the scheme was launched in 2008 to $2.50 a tonne. It was at $22 a tonne about a year ago…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8225644/Industry-eager-for-biofuels-hard-metrics

  56. Could you list the source of each grant?

    After all, it doesn’t matter how much, or what for, but who you got the grant from that makes it evil.

  57. He’s starting to sound hysterical – good. I suspect that, in the end, his legacy won’t be anything to brag about.

  58. I know how the Ivory tower grant stuff works. Grant committees vote on each other’s proposals, then let them through for consideration of whatever grant they are seeking. Worse, many of these same professionals sit on those grant boards. It is a “palm passing” exercise with octopus like tentacles reaching clear across the globe. Getting grants of the size I see in Mann’s vitea looks very much like what you would get if you were a card-carrying member of the octopus association called Climate Science Grants. No you won’t find this association listed. There are no rules or bylaws. There are no official meeting minutes. But make no mistake, it is a well-oiled machine that has tentacles all the way to our pockets.

  59. Skeptik says:
    January 26, 2013 at 11:28 am
    John F. Hultquist says: January 26, 2013 at 10:22 am
    “Do the same percentages apply to Heartland?

    The only way the question makes sense is for me to assume Heartland might fund a project at an institution where these rates have been negotiated and accepted. So, my understanding (as it used to be) is that the rates would be the same. If the institution accepted less from a non-government source, then the government could claim the institution negotiated in bad faith and, thus, demand the excess be returned from past funding and all new contracts be entered into at the lower rate.

    Going the other way, if Heartland is getting money from a funding source that is likely very open ended. For example, you could just send them $500 for purposes as they best see fit. You might send them a donation for “just a health care study” or maybe you dislike Connecticut and ask them not to spend any money there. If they agree, fine. If they don’t agree you can take your money someplace else. You could ask them, but, they still have to pay all their bills and will have to get money from someone to do so.

  60. Mann rakes in $millions in payola grants. But what does he have to show for it?

    I am still waiting to see his work product on the $1.8 million grant to study mosquito vectors. If the granting agency had wanted real answers abpout the spread of malaria, they would have made the grant to a biologist, or an epidemiologist. Instead, the loot went to Mann. It was always just payola.

    Heartland does a hell of a lot on their relatively small annual budget. That is why I contribute.

    Look at what they do, all on voluntary contributions:

    https://heartland.org

    http://news.heartland.org/climate-change-weekly

  61. Message to Michael Mann….you were defeated by funding of around £500. It came out of the back pocket of a guy called Steve McIntyre who went into a store and bought a laptop. The rest as they say is history…..

  62. I’m unable to get angry about this.

    I used to enjoy reading The Independent, from the day it was launched. Now it just seems like a very old pet who’s time is near, barking at some creature that isn’t there.

  63. I really hope Mann’s wrong, and it’s not a conspiracy funded by the Koch guys. Because if it is, and it turns out all you jerks are getting paid and nobody let me in on the secret but instead allowed me to be a skeptic minion for free, I’m going to be royally pissed at all of you.
    I mean it. ALL of you. :/

  64. johnnythelowery says:
    January 26, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Can you spot the difference between a hurricane eye and an ass h*le???

    A hurricane is far less expensive.

  65. It is ironic to see the press hyperventilating over an undergraduate football player who falsely claimed that he had a girlfriend who died while completely ignoring Mann’s bizarre claim (a full professor, mind you) that he won a Nobel Prize when he didn’t. At what point will the press wake up and realize that this guy has zero credibility.

  66. “I am still waiting to see his work product on the $1.8 million grant to study mosquito vectors. If the granting agency had wanted real answers abpout the spread of malaria, they would have made the grant to a biologist, or an epidemiologist.”

    Who was the granting agency? If he has failed to produce a study, that could potentially get the granting agency in trouble with the IRS (assuming it’s a US non-profit), especially if they are carefully NOT looking for a work product for the reason that you hypothesize.

  67. Well Monique, if you are able to uncover any info on that grant, please post it here. I have found nothing.

  68. Jim D Eagle says:
    January 26, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    Mann’s vita runs to 38 pages. My, my, he has been busy.
    ———————-
    Yeah, well – recycling crap is all the rage these days – and getting paid more than once for the same piece of crap is bonus!

  69. Amongst the Ex Officio members of the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees is Thomas W Corbett, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    Gov. Corbett has given large grants and tax breaks to energy companies.

    Since May 2012 he has given:
    $30 million to Delta Airlines, for taking over ConocoPhillips’ Philadelphia refinery
    $25 million to Sunoco and the Carlyle Group, for overhauling and expanding Sunoco’s Philadelphia refinery.
    $15 million to chemical producer Braskem, which is purchasing Sunoco’s idled Marcus Hook location, and turning it into a natural gas-processer.

    Gov. Corbett has proposed giving a long-term $1.7 billion state tax break to Shell Oil for a planned Marcellus Shale gas petrochemical refinery in southwestern Pennsylvania. The aim of the tax credit is to ensure that natural gas produced in Pennsylvania is used at the Shell cracker plant rather than bringing gas to the plant from other states.

    Shell signed a land-option agreement in March 2012 to build a $4 billion “cracker” plant in Beaver County to convert ethane, a by-product of natural gas production, into ethylene to make a range of plastic products.

    The cracker plant itself would need about 500 staff. But in addition Gov. Corbett and the American Chemical Council predict at least 10,000 new jobs from the off-shoot operations that would spring up alongside the ethane cracker and the increased economic activity in the area..

    “If we used our imaginations and chose to partner with this industry, the wet gas harvested in Pennsylvania will be processed in Pennsylvania,” Corbett said. “The downstream jobs will be created here, and not in some other state or some other country.”

    “What this does — it talks about whoever is governor after me, two or five governors after me,having an economy that is growing based on manufacturing that does not exist right now,” he said. “So they will have money for education, for social services.”

    Shell has to decide by June this year whether or not to build a western Pennsylvania ethane cracker.

    The governor also lashed out at drilling opponents, calling them “unreasoning.” After all the predictions of disaster and the fearful warnings of people with no understanding of the industry, Pennsylvania is reaping a bounty.”

    Who would disapprove of this industrial activity and the immense economic benefits and jobs it would create in Pennsylvania? Many of the jobs at the plant, in the associated industries and other businesses created by the energy boom would go to Penn State graduates.

    Mann must surely disagree with such industrial activity and would therefore deny the people of Pennsylvania and the students at his university a potential golden opportunity. Perhaps he should talk to the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Board of Trustees and If he wishes to stand by his righteous principles he should take his letter of resignation with him.

    http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/09/20/corbett-kicks-off-philadelphia-drilling-conference/

  70. First: I want to know what it takes to get on the “Big Oil” payouts. I’ve never got one. It is a bummer. I would like some cash. Now would be a good time for them to send me some.

    Second: I’m noticing a lot more name calling in the comments for this post. I think it is unbecoming of our side to participate in name calling. Name calling does not inform those whose beliefs we’d like to change in any substantive way. If you are going to do it at all, it is helpful to list evidence that supports the conclusion the epithet you wish to confer describes.

    Third: I’d really like to see what the various government agencies got for their money. That would help in determining if he is in fact fraudulent. Perhaps this could be a fun part of the National Review’s discovery process. Proof of a lack of work product would also help discredit the agencies which continue to fund him. Someone with a name signs off on those grants.

  71. John Whitman says:
    January 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    “And the name of the secret US billionaire funding my dangerous skepticism is . . . .

    Well, you will need to tune into the next Maniacal Mann PR episode where he exposes John Whitman’s billionaire benefactor. I cannot wait to find out who it is that has not been making clandestine payments for my skepticism.

    John”
    ========================================
    @ John Whitman

    AMAZING coincidence! That same billionaire is not funding me! What are the odds??!?!

  72. Take the green pill and enter the Manntrix. See the hidden conspiracies funding the well oiled denial machine. /sarc

  73. Correction: The first science program I fell in love with was “The Nature of Things” hosted by David Suzuki.

  74. Quick;
    post more fawning friendliness on the Manns pages, we need him more than he needs critics, every word the mann speaks, produces more sceptics.
    Where could sanity find a spokesman willing to demand of the public absolute belief or damnation?
    This whole saga of Climatology, has taught me I lack imagination, when it comes to the folly of mann.

  75. Jeff Mitchell says:
    January 26, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    First: I want to know what it takes to get on the “Big Oil” payouts. I’ve never got one. It is a bummer. I would like some cash. Now would be a good time for them to send me some.

    Sign up as an abject idiot shilling Manniacal “climate science”. Join the Warmista’s cause. Apply for Greenpeace and WWF membership. Join the IPCC, even if it’s as a janitor then get your insane falsehoods added to the next Assessment Review. If you scream long and loud enough, you just might see grants and paychecks coming your way. Big Oil has big cash.

    Note: I see you don’t like the name calling and I agree, but “idiot” is defined as “someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

    I’d say Mann is a prime example of the definition. And he’s becoming a better example with each passing day.

  76. Looking at the sources of Mann’s funding, methinks he’s been bought and paid for by Big Gov.

    -theduke

  77. “American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations”

    Perhaps it is time to consider paying a dividend, secretly, to all of us faithful bloggers, Anthony. When sending my cheque, please advise me whether I should declare it for tax purposes, possibly endangering the secret, or whether I must keep very strictly mum. The trouble is, if it is anything over $5 my mates down the pub will readily divine that I have new found wealth.

  78. Jack:

    At January 26, 2013 at 11:22 pm you say

    Michael Mann’s CV past and current funding proposals can be found at:
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

    I wonder if I am alone in thinking it is interesting that Penn State University thinks it useful
    (a) to list on its blog the large funding Mann brings to the university as part of his c.v.
    and
    (b) to hinder FOIA requests for information about Mann’s work
    and
    (c) to have ‘whitewashed’ an enquiry into Mann’s alleged malpractice.

    Richard

  79. I ventured to the Independent climate page…still in shock.
    Their attitude and those of their readers is unbelievable….we the sceptics have stifled debate…we the sceptics have huge financial backing…we the sceptics don’t care about the planet.

    Stories already proved incorrect such as the Antarctic ice sheet melting still displayed, you could’nt make it up.
    Mann looked on as a victim….no mention that Steve McItyre destroyed his theory on his laptop.
    Religious idiots pontificating, you name it….so I decided against trying to post any sort of a comment, it would be wasted on them.
    Whatever happens they will never change….they have no idea that the science has fallen apart, no idea that warming stopped 16 years ago, no idea that Antartica has increased in size, no idea about Holocene’s and previous high temperatures…..and certainly no idea of the tremendous damage that so called green policies have done to the environment.

  80. Dear Reader
    I am looking for co-researchers to assist me, firstly to obtain a grant from the NSF and secondly, to assist me in my research.
    “To investigate global temperatures of and chemical composition of posterior emitted gases by Homosapiens”
    In order to correlate the research samples will be taken from different ethnic groups. Please note war zones and poor areas will not be visited. Countries fortunate to be selected for this important research will require suitable five star accommodation.
    It has taken me hours to find such an important topic of research and I would very much appreciate large donations to The Stacey Foundation, an organisation I am pleased to say is expert at pi**ing away tax payers money. If you can’t be bothered to donate I cannot be held responsible for the damage to your children grandchildren and most importantly of all those cuddly rebarbative Polar Bears.
    Please note boring farts should not apply as this may effect the sampling.

  81. The problem is that individuals like Mann (and even entire pro-CAGW organisations) will keep repeating the myth of sceptical financing by big, bad corporations as long as the main stream media will keep happily (and entirely uncritically) reporting such misinformation as fact (whilst simultaneously failing in their basic journalistic duty to investigate such claims). It’s a sorry state of affairs that the msm repeatedly abrogates it’s responsibility to the truth in this way. And it’s such a simple thing for any broadcaster, when faced with such assertions by warmists, to turn the question back on their interviewee and ask of them how much funding (and from where) do those promoting CAGW receive each year..?

  82. Gee, 500.000 bucks a year for pushing Yamal? I have definitely missed my true profession.

    If nothing else, Michael Mann is a financial genius: He is able to make money out of dead wood….

    And hat tip to Anthony and all co-workers! Awesome website!

  83. John West:

    See? It’s a secret, that’s why there’s no proof, you must believe on faith.

    Good catch, it must be secret or there would be evidence. Rather like his hockey stick. Secret Mann made global warming.

  84. Jeff Mitchell says:
    January 26, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    I agree with his three points: Where’s our share of all the money from these ‘secret’ billionaires? What are the granting agencies getting for all they cash they’re spending on Mann’s little projects? And, what’s with all the vulgar name-calling in this thread?

    As for the last, site policy explicitly states, “No vulgarities of any kind.” I was also under the impression that ad hominem attacks are routinely snipped, even if, in the opinion of the Moderators, they are richly deserved.

    /Mr Lynn

  85. You didn’t read closely enough. The reason why Mann can’t show any evidence is that it’s “secret funding”. It’s all secret. That’s why there’s no evidence.

  86. Are you will thinking lister “opensecret.org” for paiements Greenpeace of WWF ? Exemple : http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=892AB94A-5843-4892-939A-02F44DC38CF9 Or :http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=FEA8CE2A-FD61-4423-ADFE-0B48E08E15A4 and etc…http://www.opensecret.org database for paiements lobbies and dons, buddies and agro-industries, laboratory chemical, Météo arent paids for climate-change. Seing the liste researching. I am sorry I am French and my english is bad. Salute and peace for you and kissing of France (TOULOUSE IN SOUTH WEST AND PYRENEES )

  87. As for the “villains”, I’m reminded of this famous quote from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:

    If Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.
    ———————————————
    If CAGW didn’t exist the UN would have to invent it.
    Oh that’s right.
    They did.
    To create CAGW is the IPCC’s reason for being, if I recall correctly.
    cn

  88. Chuck Nolan says:
    January 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    As for the “villains”, I’m reminded of this famous quote from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:

    If Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.
    ———————————————
    If CAGW didn’t exist the UN would have to invent it.
    Oh that’s right.
    They did.
    To create CAGW is the IPCC’s reason for being, if I recall correctly.
    cn

    Right there is why, at bottom, the whole debate over ‘Global Warming’ is about politics, not science, and why all the empirical falsification and learned scientific argument in the world is not going dissuade the ideologues and stakeholders who have invested in the decades-long program to bring the West to its knees and institute a redistributionist new global order. Here’s a good summary:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on- capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/

    /Mr Lynn

  89. Chuck Nolan says:
    January 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    If CAGW didn’t exist the UN would have to invent it.
    Oh that’s right.
    They did.
    To create CAGW is the IPCC’s reason for being, if I recall correctly.

    Here’s my take on it:

    If Global Warming Didn’t Exist, It Would Be Necessary to Invent It:

    … To lift climatology out of its backwater status …
    … To increase research funding for Academia …
    … To justify the de facto political empowerment of a sector of the scientific / academic elite, setting a precedent for the subsequent empowerment of other sectors of that elite.*
    … To refresh the raison d’être of the EPA & UN …
    … To move environmentalism from the fringes to the center of social concern …
    … To justify increased media coverage of environmental issues …
    … To give enviro-groups a powerful fund-raising and consciousness-raising tool …
    … and allow them access to the levers of national and international power …
    … To give activist & green parties a vote-getting wedge issue …
    … and a case-study justification for their habitual “hammer” (increased regulation and taxation) …
    … To provide at-a-loss “engagé/enragé” types with a new stick with which to bash the beastly bourgeoise…
    … To transfer wealth from the West to the South …
    … To fund alternative energy developers and researchers …

    (* See Pareto on “the circulation of the elites.”)

    So why not “warm” to global warming, if you’re:

    … a climatologist?
    … a bigshot in a boffins’ brigade?
    … a university administrator?
    … an environmentalist?
    … an environmental reporter?
    … an official of an environmental organization?
    … a UN official?
    … a socialist?
    … a natural-born “true believer”?
    … a country in the global South?
    … a worker or investor in an alternative energy company?

    For such as those, what’s not to like about “climatism”? It’s all upside—a gravy train that’s glory-bound. It would be tempting to get aboard, wouldn’t it? (Especially after others did so, threatening to leave you on The Wrong Side.)

  90. rogerknights:

    At January 27, 2013 at 3:03 pm you ask

    So why not “warm” to global warming, if you’re:

    … a climatologist?
    … a bigshot in a boffins’ brigade?
    … a university administrator?
    … an environmentalist?
    … an environmental reporter?
    … an official of an environmental organization?
    … a UN official?
    … a socialist?
    … a natural-born “true believer”?
    … a country in the global South?
    … a worker or investor in an alternative energy company?

    I oppose the global warming scare and I am “… a socialist”
    Indeed, I am a left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned British kind.

    I oppose the scare because I value science and its benefits, truth and post-Enlightenment thought. Everyone who values them opposes the scare whether or not they are on your list. However, many on your list would be sacked from their jobs if they acted on their opposition. And that is why so many overt opponents of the scare are retired.

    Richard

  91. I previously mentioned that my secret Institute deep in the bowels of Holyhead Mountain has adjusted the data. Mann is 2’8″ not 2’9″ even with his new ‘liftee’ cuban heels. He is still strutting about as if he owns the place. The little wanker.

  92. Ed_B says:
    January 26, 2013 at 9:34 am
    Pres. Obama has an agenda to clobber the Repubs in the mid terms. You cannot blame him, as it has been warfare from the Repubs ever since G Bush left Obama with two wars, massive bank failures, massive deficit, ballooning debt and high unemployment.

    Oh phuleeze.

    Same democratic talking points. GWB did not move the deficit from 15 Billion to 1.6 trillion.

    Obama wants to fundamentally change this country to a socialist society and abusing science in the name of AGW is a mere technicality.

  93. Ed_B says January 26, 2013 at 9:34 am

    Pres. Obama has an agenda to clobber the Repubs in the mid terms. You cannot blame him, as it has been warfare from the Repubs ever since G Bush left Obama with two wars, massive bank failures, massive deficit, ballooning debt and high unemployment.

    I guess I would have to ask for some references, citations, evidence to back this up (rather than empty conjecture), as well as details on how the earlier requirements on financial mortgage institutions by government to make “no doc” (no documentation) loans which lead to the eventual financial meltdown when the under-pinnng legs (the mortgages) began to fail ….

    What years was congress all-dem in these years again? When was the last budget passed again?

    .

  94. When all this global warming nonsense is done and dusted, the word mann will most likely live on in infamy in the english language. I can envisage many uses for this new word in every day speech, I will leave it up to it’s eventual evolution as to the descriptive nature in common use.
    That it will enter our lexicon I have no doubt.

  95. wayne Job says:
    January 27, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    When all this global warming nonsense is done and dusted, the word mann will most likely live on in infamy in the english language. . .

    Sort of like ‘gore’.

    /Mr Lynn

  96. Or like ‘mud(d)’, as in “His name was mud,” which reputedly derived from Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, who treated John Wilkes Booth.

    /Mr Lynn

  97. Here is the legal description of *TERRORISM.*

    Notice there it says “if it would otherwise be a crime”?
    That’s what scamming up false research,
    to TERRORIZE people.

    TERRORIZE people into not buying energy. Your competitor’s energy.

    You’re competitor who won the election and whose win stung so bad,
    TERRORIZING the WORLD became the balm.

    That’s what scamming up false research to TERRORIZE people so they install your policies, is.

    TERRORISM.

    Spreading rumor, backed by the full power of the Federal Government’s Climate Research and Executive arms – economic, punitive,

    rumor * threatening mass destruction * if they don’t get their policies installed. *

    No?
    It’s not?
    Here’s the definition.
    <<<<<<<<<<<

    I was gonna cut it down, and I will.

    The "International Terrorism" subsections preceeding have elements regarding that, I'll paste in domestic terrorism's definition.
    ________________

    18 USC § 2331 – Definitions

    "…(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
    ______________

    Do you think when people utterly disregard law
    and begin altering records upon which disaster mitigation,
    emergency preparedness,
    food planting schedules,
    ENERGY AVAILABILITY in winter to entire civilian populations,
    ENERGY AVAILABILITY for EMERGENCY SERVICES,

    are available through political or economic activity,
    that constitutes danger to human life and property, not just specifically but en masse, nation-wide? Affecting a civilian population?

    It's intimidation and it's coercion.

    When people INTENTIONALLY raise energy prices to MAKE YOU UNABLE to RESPOND to local, regional, or overall endangerment to human life -
    it's coercion.

    Do you think what was done in the name of THE WORLD ENDING if Al Gore and political ilk didn't have their policies installed in spite of losing an election,

    were done to INTIMIDATE, or COERCE a civilian population,

    when his allied friends still involved in government, criminal political hacks, staged publicity stunts in which they'd cry out 'when are we gonna start jailing these" ( people who denied his claim of civilization suffering massive destructions) "for crimes against humanity?"

    That is attempt to intimidate. If you act reasonable and have a poltical opinion the government employee doesn't like, he will disrupt your life through taking to mass media to achieve that intimidation. You can't get on tv and scream that about him, and keep YOUR job with the government.

    Using derogatory labels without basis in truth, to discourage participation in political process, hire, or social standing is violation of Federal Civil Rights laws.

    Does it appear Al Gore or
    Michael Mann or
    Kevin Trenberth or
    Phil Jones
    intended to influence,
    by intimidation or coercion,
    by telling people if they didn't do what they said, there would be mass destruction?

    It was intimidation and coercion for them to discuss publicly, setting up legal funds to defend each other against impending lawsuits that could come as result of their claim of massive destruction.

    Mann and fellow political activist government employees are seen plotting on public government work email servers,

    to intimidate and coerce a reporter – hence population through manipulation of press, with their own systematically arranged, false press releases, in Climate Gate;

    as Mann suggests they all stage separate government-bureau and private NGO responses, to a reporter's story on their fraud.

    The reporter didn't know it was fraud. He just knew certain people agreed, there might not be massive destruction as Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Jones, Gore claimed.

    They wanted to shut him up, so they could influence government policy, and lead a civilian population in England and worldwide that, massive destruction seemed likely to occur if their political framework for governance wasn't put in place by that civilian population.

    This is CRIME.
    It always WAS
    It always WILL be.

  98. It would seem that with people like Mann taking so much taxpayer money to conduct their disinformation campaigns, we could probably balance the federal budget just by cutting off all funding for global warming “research.”

  99. One of the maxims of W. Edwards Deming, one of the most influeantial thinkers in Quality Assurance: “A man that knows his limitations is one you can trust”.

  100. Are the “donations” to Mann’s cause increasing? It would appear so. That’s interesting.

    I would have thought that, after Climategate, etc., they would have tapered off. Who are the men behind the curtain?

  101. To John H:

    You wrote:

    So are we really watching a remake of the old TV show “The Six Million Dollar Mann”?

    If so, it is a really, really baaaaddd remake….

  102. D.B. Stealey says:
    January 26, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Mann rakes in $millions in payola grants. But what does he have to show for it?

    I am still waiting to see his work product on the $1.8 million grant to study mosquito vectors. If the granting agency had wanted real answers abpout the spread of malaria, they would have made the grant to a biologist, or an epidemiologist. Instead, the loot went to Mann. It was always just payola.

    It seems to be about mosquitos, although it doesn’t say so above

    If we google “Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases” we easily find

    http://nsf.gov/awards/award_visualization_noscript.jsp?org=NSF&showARRAAwards=true&region=US-PA&instId=0033290000

    which gives a link to

    http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0914384

    Six papers so far, Mann is not an author on any of them.

    The PI on this grant is Matthew Thomas at Penn State. Here’s his home page:

    http://ento.psu.edu/directory/mbt13

    He’s an Entomologist, which is a kind of biologist. As it happens, the most relevant kind. (His goatee and closely cropped head make him vaguely resemble Mann, although more so if you stretch the image horizontally.)

    Mann did not get this grant; he was a co-PI. What that means for his funding is impossible to tell without more detail–it may mean a major role, but often it means that he signed on for a nominal time contribution, or none at all, to prove to the NSF that there was a climate scientist available to consult on that part. Certainly, he did not get 1.8 million to play with, very likely, less than 10% of that would go to bits of his salary, a student he supervised, etc. over the four-year grant period. But the 1.8 mil went to, and was administered by, a bug guy.

    D.B., this stuff is not difficult. Why not try looking stuff up before drawing conclusions? You’ll like it, it’s fun.

    Meanwhile, when you add up all of the grants for which Mann is listed as PI, the amounts come to about 2.1 million. (That includes the $78,000 that supported him for two years as a postdoc). As noted, he probably wouldn’t have gotten much of the 1.8 M disease vector study. This about 2 million of which about 1/4 million is directly assignable to Mann, and the rest, we can’t tell how much Mann got. With walterschneider’s update, there’s another $400k attributable to Mann. Add these up, and we get something like $2.75 million. Then there’s whatever his share was of the rest–we could generously give a total of 3.5 million.

    $350,000 per year sounds like a lot. But if you pay for a prof to work full time on research in the summer and 20% during the academic year (buy out some of his time so he can spend it on research instead of teaching), then throw in a postdoc and three or four grad students, that leaves a reasonable but modest amount for equipment, supplies, travel if necessary. It’s far from extravagent. Nobody’s getting rich, and the students are really just barely getting by. As usual, Mann’s been getting more funding as his career advances, so his research group(s) would be smaller earlier on, and larger more recently.

    I can’t help comparing this with a friend of mine, who, back in the ’90′s, received a single grant for five million dollars over five years. His one grant was undoubtedly for more than Mann ever got. But my friends was doing biomedical research, which is expensive. There’s a huge of money spent on climate studies, but university profs are not, by themselves, deploying phalanxes of robot buoys or purpose-built satellites. In biomedical research, the big-ticket items are purchased by the labs, with grant money (or else borrowed, shared, etc.).

    People have found many ways of criticizing Mann. Pointing out that he has a successful, but unexceptional, track record, as a science prof, for external funding seems to be a way of belaboring him with a wet noodle, with occasional blows from a wilted celery stick.

  103. Mann’s CV is on the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20121026221636/http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

    Honors and Awards
    2012 Awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union
    2012 Inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union
    2008 Profiled in American Environmental Leaders From Colonial Times to the Present
    2008 Website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by M. Mann) chosen as one of top 15 “green” websites by Time Magazine (April 2008)
    ,strong>2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
    2006 American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (for ‘Geophysical Research Letters’),

  104. Re. my last, though the Wayback Machine shows the original CV, the .pdf and .doc links lead to the amended “contributed to” version links.
    Suggest using virtual .pdf printer such as PdfFactory or Foxit pdf printer if a .pdf copy of the page is required.

  105. Yahoo Science News
    ‘Charities’ Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial

    By Marc Lallanilla, Assistant Editor | LiveScience.com – Mon, Jan 28, 2013

    A British newspaper claims to have discovered the convoluted way oil billionaires in the United States can funnel huge amounts of cash toward climate change-denial campaigns, while reaping tremendous tax advantages in the process.
    A shadowy group called the Donors Trust is largely funded by billionaire Charles Koch and his wife Liz, according to an investigation by The Independent. The trust indirectly receives millions of dollars in funding from a third-party group called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, which the Koch family operates, the paper claims.

    Almost all comments favorable. No evidence presented. I sure with someone would pay me for being a long term (from the beginning) skeptic and critic.

Comments are closed.