A Conspiracy of One

Guest post by Brandon Shollenberger

Words cannot describe the humor of Michael Mann’s latest post:

As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding. Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.

Thus starts the latest crazy posting in the climate blog world, unsurprisingly written by Michael Mann.  Snickers abound when Mann talks about “credibility,” but no words exist for the reaction this post should garner.  Specifically, Michael Mann refers to a recent posting from (the long missed) Steve McIntyre, saying: 

…it seems remarkable that Mr. McIntyre couldn’t figure this out, and instead chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory involving not just me, but multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc.

Steve McIntyre has gathered a great deal of respect, including respect from people who don’t agree with him.  He has made many points even his critics accept are true.  How can anyone believe he is some conspiracy nut?  I don’t know, but it can’t be because of anything he wrote in that post.

The term AGU is used approximately 30 times in McIntyre’s post.  In every case, it is used in a sense like “Mann at AGU,” “Mann’s AGU graphic” or “the AGU audience.”  Not a single case of McIntyre saying the AGU did anything exists.  The same is true for the term IPCC, which gets used 10 times.  In fact, the only person (other than Mann) the post refers to as doing anything is Naomi Oreskes, who McIntyre says “appears to have [been] wrongfooted” by Mann.

Put simply, Steve McIntyre blamed everything in this post on Michael Mann.  Mann interprets this as:

…an apparent effort to manufacture a nefarious plot out of whole cloth [where] Mr. McIntyre (parroted by Mr. Watts) imagines a great conspiracy.

While this is arguably a new low for Michael Mann, many people won’t be surprised at him saying things that make him appear delusional.  However, some may be surprised to see John Cook, proprietor of Skeptical Science, agreed, saying (in a comment):

I find it interesting that Steve McIntyre automatically lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events. Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking. The response to the research from climate deniers was a host of new conspiracy theories. We document the originators of these conspiracy theories in the paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf. The chief originator of conspiracy theories? Steve McIntyre.

That’s right, the founder of Skeptical Science, a man who works with people like Stephan Lewandowsky to claim skeptics are conspiracy nuts, promotes this as an example of their conspiratorial ideation.  A man who publishes papers claiming to find conspiracy theorists finds blaming everything on Mann to be a conspiracy theory involving an unknown number of people.

Be careful folks.  Blame Michael Mann for anything, and you may be fabricating a conspiracy involving intergovernmental bodies, scientific communities and “multiple scientists.”

Or so global warming advocates will say.

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

See Steve McIntyre’s observations on Dr. Mann’s graphic shortcomings here

About these ads

171 thoughts on “A Conspiracy of One

  1. Brandon,

    You’ll recall Steve McIntyre’s discussion of dehumanizing language. We are all conspiracists, denialists and thespians, no doubt.

    Being a conspiracist I’m waiting for super Mandia’s tweet defending Michael Mann in 5…4…3….2…1….

  2. “…intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial…”

    …intellectual bankruptcy of the oil industry-funded (BP, Shell, Al Gore and Oxy etc) climate change alarmist centres such as the UEA CRU…

    There Mann, fixed it for ya!

  3. From Michael Mann’s latest post:
    He wrote:
    As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding.

    Little Mickey meant to write:
    As professional climate change doomsayers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the taxpayers-funded climate change fear spreading effort and those who do its bidding

  4. Nothing about Mann using the land-only surface data then. Just my slides are “somewhat out of date” (8 years).

    Words fail me. About as badly as charts fail Mann.

  5. Using the phrase “climate denier” puts any following arguments beyond reason and into the realm of politics and/or religion. If you disagree with them or don’t follow the dogma fully you are a “climate denier.” These folks seem to believe they can control the climate if they can only control all our activities. I’m more than willing to deny them the latter. Climate control used to be on the dash of some cars.

  6. McIntyre did not accuse the AGU of being part of a conspiracy. That is clear from the posts.

    But Michael Mann and John Cook have accused McIntyre of believing in a conspiracy.
    Why?

    Just to disparage McIntyre’s work? It can’t be that. His work is too technical for anyone to follow unless they already have basic English comprehension.

    To promote the SkS created paper that claims everyone who disagrees with the authors is crazy? It can’t be that. The paper is self-published, unable to legitimately pass peer review and is an embarrasment to Australian academia.

    Or maybe it is because both Mann and Cook want people to know about a conspiracy in the AGU? It could be that. But it seems unlikely. What evidence can they have?

    The AGU should ask both Mann and Cook to be clear. What evidence for a conspiracy have they found. And if none they should be forced to agree with McIntyre that it is Mann who is responsible for the misrepresentation. Mann alone

    It is time for the AGU to stand up for its own good reputation while it may still have one.

  7. Mann has either bought his own snake oil pitch, or is intentionally lying. Which is not mine to say. But when he claims his lies are facts, and that facts are lies, he is creating a new form of deception for the willing dupes. They are not to look at the data, but rather, just believe the sermons from his mount.

    Sad really. I expect to see some of his acolytes defending him shortly using his own delusional data. The fun part will be in how they deny reality – the reality of their OWN data.

  8. Ha ha… they are getting a bit desperate now…

    For a long time the default fall-back position in the face of facts has been “… yeah, well, anyway you think it is all a great conspiracy…. ” which eventually fades away to an angry muttering once it is shown that a whole bunch of people making the same errors of logical thinking in pursuing their own particular interests does not necessarily take or make a conspiracy.

    Of course, Lewandowsky jumped on the bandwagon, and in spite of producing nothing of substance, he and his words were embraced very enthusiastically by the believers… and now Mann and Cook are showing a disturbingly Orwellian tendency to not even care about paying lip service to the truth or the details of the original debate, but could think of only this old fall-back line.

    But, in these times of ubiquitous communication, the old tactics of deflection and distraction don’t work so well any more, and they are instead immediately exposed.

  9. Prof. Mann never misses an opportunity to beclown himself. And boy, does he deliver.

  10. Mann seems to be descending into delusion. Lets not forget the (albeit tired and hackneyed) stereotype of the ‘mad scientist’.

  11. I see little to gain from engaging in a shouting contest with the likes of Michael Mann and John Cook. When your critics are screaming like fools, best not try to drown them out.

  12. The funny part about this whole ordeal is that Mann hasn’t once refuted the claim that McIntyer’s article is hitting on: That Mann’s argument that the observations are close to the models is completely wrong and deceptive.

  13. Who’s going to call him out? There are no mainstream reporters or journalists who will. The AGU will do nothing. A cursory glance at their website shows them to be completely in agreement with the CAGW orthodoxy. Penn State hierarchy is unperturbed. It’s not Mann’s chicanery and buffoonery that’s the story here, it’s that he can engage in it with impunity. Skeptical websites have little power. Who is supposed to be the check and balance in this situation??

  14. Conspiracy? None mentioned or implied. Mann has gone well off the rails with his commentary.
    What this whole affair does indicate is a shocking level of “Groupthink”. No one else, as far as anyone knows, looked at this graphic critically. This was presented to a room full of scientists who appear to have simply nodded their heads in agreement.

    I wonder…if this was an investment that carried with it a promise of rapid growth, would these people be as quick to accept assurances that the projections were correct and that things were on track? Would they be mollified by the insistence that this investment could only be measured over a 30 year period? Would they focus exclusively on the trend and ignore the decline in that trend, or might they notice the fact that their stake is worth less now than it was 15 years ago?

    If it was their money involved I’d like to think that they’d be going for the torches and pitchforks right about now, but maybe not. I’ve been to a few gatherings where folks talked about their participation in MLM schemes, and they remained staunchly optimistic even when there was clear evidence that they had been scammed. Groupthink is a powerful thing and no conspiracy is required.

  15. “As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts”

    Shouldn’t that be read :

    “As professional “CAGWers” become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. ”

    Any public opinion poll will show you who is irrelevant & who is relevant,
    Also, any look traffic poll of any climate blog & you will see who is irrelevant & who is relevant.

    His continued use of ad homs & labeling skeptics the the “d” word shows who uses smear & distraction efforts. How about some data for a change, Mike?

  16. “At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”

    Indeed, Dr Mann has a gift for understatement. Imagine an accounting firm showing up with slides about your firm that stop reflecting financial information almost 8 years previously and tries to make recommendations about your firms current financial strategy based on them. I’d wager that the slides would not be considered ‘somewhat out of date’.

  17. Michael Mann – a short, balding, physically unnatractive man thrust into the limelight discovered just how much he likes being an important person and is now desperately trying to extend his 15 minutes.

    While his behavior is repugnant I can’t actually harbor any ill will to this man. If you read “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie it would be apparent that Mann isn’t doing anything that any other person would do, most everyone would like to be considered important and he probably truly believes every word of his BS because of the need to be important. The harder people push and tell him he’s wrong the more determined he’ll become in his efforts; it’s what led Max Planck to say “Science advances one funeral at a time”. Mann will never change is his mind because his ego is too caught up in his standing within the AGW community, to admit he was wrong would destroy him and he will never do that.

    We can laugh and shake our heads and ridicule him (something I’m guilty of doing myself) but at the end of the day this approach will just cause him and his supporters to dig their heels in even further. I’m not sure what the answer is, human nature rarely allows us to see our own failings. It’s the rare person who can do so and Mann has proven incapable many times over.

  18. “Deniers” are so irrelevant that Mann has to expend a great deal of verbiage trying to dismiss them in the usual tired old ways.

    It’s a pity that he lacks self-awareness as much as he lacks statistical competence.

  19. This wouldn’t be so nuts if Dr. Mann actually had a shred of scientific integrity.

    He seems to have caught a really bad case of Skeptical Science Syndrome.

    One knows the Steve is 100% correct when instead of explaining why his analysis is wrong, you conjure up all kinds of idiotic assumptions.

    But hark, AGW is rife with idiotic assumptions.

    Dr. Mann is such wonderful proof of this that I hope he never stops presenting/publishing. He is one of the best examples of Skeptical Science Syndrome I have ever observed. As such, his mistakes will continue, and allow open debate to flourish.

  20. Mannian sophistry from another dimension. None other than that intrepid would-be board member of the Heartland Institute outlines the roots of the rise of this globalised Hot War phenomenon-

    “In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.

    This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing.”

    You won’t win a traditional scientific argument with these innovative thinkers, seers[Freudian spelling] and doers responding to all those nascent political and ideological threats emerging everywhere out there, but as Walter Russell Mead knew some time ago, it doesn’t really matter with these noisy alarm clocks-

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/

    Their incessant jangling is falling on ever more deaf ears for a very obvious empirical reason.

  21. I think Dr. Mann sees dead people or something. Where is this “army of deniers” that are “funded by industry”? Are these dead people he sees with a seance? Are they perhaps his imaginary enemies (instead of friends)? I don’t know, but a man that paranoid just need professional help. It would be funny if the man was not taken seriously like he is, so in the end the best we can do is show the world how crazy he really is and perhaps get him the help he so desperatly needs.

  22. Seriously Mike, why did you stop the trend at 2005? When my colleagues or I would present data at a national convention we would use the most up to date data we could. Some people would pride themselves in showing data that their graduate students collected that morning!

    Is it laziness, hiding the flat trend since 2005, or you fill in option 3?

  23. Like this exchange, the Lewandowsky (SL)exchange was quite interesting. In the end a blogger with the nom de plume of faustusnotes (FN) published an article which contradicted Lewandowsky though in the beginning he sharply criticized Steve McIntyres (SM) handling of the data.

    See here:
    Subsequent to the grand cat fight… FN posted this article on Factor Analysis (PC, EV, FA whatever). (It seems to be well written — maybe I don’t know enough though.)

    http://faustusnotes.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/are-climate-change-skeptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

    It arose from a series of Articles — blog posts by Steve McIntyre. This is the one where FN makes a conciliatory offer and then subsequently (link above) shows that SM’s (major)conclusion was correct — though they got there by somewhat different paths.

    As someone who does not work in the Social Sciences it seemed to me that the article by FN and subsequent comments shed considerable light on the techniques. It certainly showed who believed in wild theories — and it was not Steve M. If one had to judge “who won” I would say that FN and SM argued to a draw with both having a valid approach to the data and both making some initial errors — with the only real loser being SL.

    On this one, I would suggest that Dr. Mann should beware the Stats of March.

  24. Listen to the bully. You know he is an idiot when he accuses the victim of being stupid. It’s called “projectionism”.
    With this in mind, please note what he said, word for word.
    Mann is the one being paid, sidelined, more irrelevant as the media is tending to go with hands on ears singing “lalalalalala” to maintain some sort of credibility. The intellectual bankrupcy of choosing a few tree rings then appending modern temperature data. The bebunking of serious questions through deletion.. At this point “I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”.. i.e. proven to be irrelevant and plain wrong!
    Need we say more? I’m listening :D

  25. The apparent new meaning of a Ph.D.: POWER, higher and deeper.

    I remember when it used to mean you now carry an official green card declaring the holder to be representative of a unique group of people defined by their insatiable curiosity of what they do NOT know and were willing to let an amoeba inform them.

  26. ”However, some may be surprised to see John Cook, proprietor of Skeptical Science, agreed, saying (in a comment):”
    Not in the slightest! It is exactly the kind of narcistic bulldust to be expected from Cook and his ilk.

  27. Too funny.

    Q: How will Mikey explain using land only temperature records to 2005 in comparison to Hansen’s Land and Ocean Scenario B?

    A: He won’t. Instead, he’ll holler “persecute the heretic” and then duck and run.

    More ‘hide the decline’ shenanigans.

  28. Up until now, I thought the Mann was just another Alarmist, out to cash in on Gore’s Global Warming. However…
    After the latest missive by the Mann, I am wondering if he has a psychological problem. Possibly an issue with separating fantasy world from reality or perhaps an obsessive problem where he just can’t come to grips with facts or a combination of both?
    Mann’s made up Nobel Peace Prize, along with his claim of having received the Prize indicates some problem with reality. When coupled with his latest twisted lecture, the above missive from the Mann where there is a mixing of real world with a made-up world, and that even Gore has given up his crusade of Global Warming – it does make one ponder if the Mann needs professional help.

  29. I am vastly amused to find a Specsavers ad. at the head of the comments inviting me to book an eye test now! Hmmm…ask M.Mann!

  30. Mann makes James “they tried to gag me” Hansen sound like the embodiment of calm, dispassionate, sage-like wisdom.

    One wonders on the hubris of a man (Mann) who asserts to remain “aloof”, like God in Heaven, only to incarnate himself when forced to intervene in the most egregious protestations of climate “denialism”, that His Word is enough to reveal climate Truth and uncover Error.

    It makes me wanna puke!

  31. I think the proper technical qualifier for this post is: “WTF?”

    Which post are you talking about? Because in the one I read, there’s a whole section on “wingman” Naomi Oreskes, among others, and all-too-predictable swipes at the supposedly evil “AGU of Oreskes, Gleick, Lewandowsky and Mann”.

  32. I have know idea where to begin with this so I think I’ll write about a wedding instead. My niece’s first name begins with ‘M’. Her spouse’s first name begins with ‘M’ as well. So the upcoming wedding will be ‘MM’. Michael Mann’s name is sometimes shortened to MM. See, I guess I started down the right path after all.

    Anyway, my sister’s working overtime on this wedding. She desperately wants to get my niece out of the house. Anyway, she went to a wedding invitation place (wip) to have invitations designed. She didn’t invite me despite the fact that I’m on permanent disability (therefore with lots of free time) and, most importantly, I worked as a commercial artist for over 30 years. She did, however, show me the designs and ask for my opinion. I told her they sucked and that the wip was clueless about design but tried to act professional while they just moved design elements around on a computer screen. Unbeknownst to me, my sister designed them. Whoops.

    It’s just dawned on me that the foregoing story is exactly about Michael Mann. Consider my sister as the government. She can do some things very well. But she cannot design things. Consider Michael Mann as the wip. He doesn’t know any more about design than my sister so he will give her exactly what she wants so long as she pays him thinking he knows what he’s doing, and best of all, he’s doing exactly what she wants. Consider me as the voter. Neither of them listen to me.

    P.S. Don’t worry about my sister. She’s an older sister. Believe me, I get it worse than I give it.

  33. I discovered the questionable scientific standards in climate science through the statistics abuse of mr. Mann as exposed by mr. McIntyre. It doesn’t really surprise me that he thinks he can get away with (or just thinks it’s fine, I don’t really know if he’s genuinely dishonest or just a bad scientist) using outdated misguiding charts – the simplest form of statistics abuse.

    Mr. Mann, the shoddy science of you and some of your team companions combined with the over-the-top marketing of mr. Gore were the reasons I, after having had confidence in the CAGW theory for almost 30 years, became a “skeptic” (or “lukewarmer”, some would say), but it’s extremely difficult to explain why and how your hockey science was bad to people that are less knowledgable in math than I am (unless they’re open-minded enough to read Montford’s book). But now your statistics is wrong at such a basic level that I think everyone can understand it. Bravo! Bring it on!

  34. Scientists like Michael Mann remain dangerous directly in proportion to the influence he/they wield in places where big, relevant decisions are made. These associations must be eroded. I do hope this thread and McIntyre’s work make it into the hands of the powerful people who are (still) listening/supporting.

  35. I wonder just how much damage that Mann and Gore have done to the world with their fabracated lies……Gore has switched over to Jihad.

  36. Mann, the gift that keeps on giving…..who needs data,prove,when they have a clown like this..priceless.thank you MM

  37. You know what’s really weird?

    Someone out there must read the BS that Mann writes and believes it. I wonder who that someone is?

  38. I’m beginning to see Mr. Mann’s behavior presenting as schizophrenic. I’ve personally dealt with several such people, clinically diagnosed, in my extended family and the similarities are striking. It’s time for Mr. Mann to see a qualified professional about his psychological problems.

    And when Mr. Mann reads this, his response will be determined by which personality he is at the time. I hope it’s the long-lost logical one but I wouldn’t bet on it.

  39. Mann is using Alinsky tactics to marginalize his opponents.He must be hanging out with the pres.

  40. This is exactly why getting Mann in to a court would be such a good idea , [he's] simply unable to make a good argument based on the actual facts and has to resort to smear and BS which is in court would serve him very badly . Even better his unable to see this because he surrounds himself with yes men like Cook how never point out that the ‘king’ is indeed naked .

    If where unlucky someone will get the message across to him and he will drop his law suits .

  41. I would also wager a small amount that Mann didn’t write this, more likely a PR specialist in leftist doubletalk.

  42. I see this as a victory for McIntyre.
    Steve speaks, people listen. Mann agrees that his work needs updating. When did McIntyre ever change anything he did because of what Mann said ?

  43. Penn state’s finest claims desperation, I have to say that, literally and also in metaphorical because he speaks in riddles defending the indefensible and in doing so digging an ever deeper hole – ‘raving’ would be a more accurate description of Mann’s antics.

  44. Yesterday at six o’clock
    I went to Senna square;
    There they flogged by knout
    A young peasant woman.

    Not a sound came from her breast,
    Only the whip whistled, playing…
    And to my Muse I said: Behold!
    There is your own, your beloved sister.

    This is the estimable Nikolai Nekrasov from 1848.
    ==========================

  45. Steve Keohane says:
    March 4, 2013 at 4:49 am
    Wearing a hockey stick just seems awkward.

    That hockey stick more closely resembles reality. Perhap Mr. Mann was over compensating for his own head?

  46. The key point here is the allegations of a conspuiracy.

    McIntyre did not make any references to a conspiracy; he talked about a presentation by Mann and Oreskes following Mann’s conclusion.

    But Mann has alleged that there is talk of a conspiracy. He should be pushed to clarify what he is referring to.

    Remember, Mann and McIntyre were both at the AGU conference a few months back. If Mann saw something there, something curious that he thinks McIntyre is following up on, then Mann should explain it.

    Michael Mann has claimed that a report on his presentation to the AGU springs from a conspiracy. That conspiracy must be at the AGU conference as it is not in McIntyre’s blog.

    The AGU should follow this up with Mann.

  47. It’s the classic ploy isn’t it, when you’re caught stealing the family silver? – point the finger at some other guy and holler “Stop Thief!”

    ["as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding."]

    It really is time Mann and his team were called out on this one. It’s an egregious libel which they keep repeating – and sadly, many seemingly intelligent people believe it. It comes up frequently in arguments on the question of AGW with my left-leaning friends.

    I’m amazed that a supposedly reputable university will give house room to this madman. He has forfeited any shred of intellectual or academic integrity.

  48. The text between the has vanished – mods, if you can replace it? It was the quote
    “as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding.”

    [Noted. Is that rev correct? Mod]

  49. “as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding.”

    This would be a great day to announce the closing of the NY Times Green Blog, wouldn’t it?

  50. “Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking.”

    I don’t thinking posting a paper on your own website counts as “published”.

  51. “Dr.” Michael Mann defended his thesis in 1996. It was not awarded until 1998 when he suddenly went from an obscure grad student to a Lead Author for the IPCC. I think he actually flunked, and then they decided to make him a Poster Boy with his Hockey Stick graph, which was too risky for anyone with an established reputation to get behind. The MSM loved it and now this clown gets 10 grand for speaking engagements. He is a constructed figurehead, and clearly has no clue. No one will be able to “Hide the Decline” of Mann, and soon we hope….

  52. EternalOptimist,

    Agreed, through all the blather and posturing, Mann has yet again found his own scientific behavior in need of correction. He can never acknowledge his mistakes with good character, but he is once again pressed to take note of criticisms from Steve McIntyre. The funny thing is that after all this time Mann proves still unable to elevate his game.

    P.s. Today and tomorrow Mann is speaking at the University of Victoria, in case any WUWT readers are in that area.

  53. A couple notes on Professor Mann’s comments.
    1. Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations. (Andemca). The political tactics of PC-Progressives in all of their various fields of endeavor when their misdeeds are uncovered. This tactic makes clear the pure political nature of Mann’s activities. There is clearly no science involved in anything that he does in this regard.

    2. Projection. A psychological manifestation of guilt in which the guilty party projects his sins upon his opponents. Mann’s projection of vague “conspiracies” working against him and his ilk point to his own activities.

    (Andemca or Acadamnia ? Mod]

  54. As eco-geek said, it is a matter of Mannifest Reality, the doctrine of unstoppable imperial warmist progress.

  55. @mycroft, exactly, got to love the Mann.

    It is clear who has the credibility here, when Mann speaks, even his team gets queasy.
    His opponents most often laugh out loud.
    When McIntyre speaks, people listen.
    They may not agree, but they sure pay attention.

  56. Gee, we’re just noise in the background but somehow intimidated climate scientists into under estimating warming.

  57. Too bad Obama couldn’t actually do something good with Sequestration and cut off Mann’s funding.

    He so richly deserves to have his liplock on the public teat ended.

    Maybe he could get a job as a cable news TV weatherman?

  58. David,

    Their cowardly response is to phony the results even though nobody has been injured..

    That’s an intergenerational crime.committed because of their cowardice.

  59. He’s deleting all the comments. I asked simply where this industry funding was coming from he mentioned, as I wanted to put my name down for some. Free speech? Nah.

  60. Mann’s response is notable only for his complete inability to refute McIntyre’s criticisms of his AGU presentation. He admits McIntyre is correct on one point and then says, “Unfortunately, little else Mr. McIntyre has to say is correct.” I was expecting some specifics at that point, but none were forthcoming. He does not quote McIntyre but rather misdirects the reader away from his specific criticisms.

    All the rest is innuendo, name-calling and character assassination. No engagement on the actual issues, while admitting his slides are woefully out of date.

    Mike, let me put it to you straight. Your presentation was very misleading. Please update your slides and the presentation to reflect current reality. I know the past when all your stars were aligned correctly was a wonderful place to be, but a new reality has crept into the climate picture. It doesn’t square with “It’s worse than we thought.” Please adjust accordingly.

    You are apparently giving a presentation tonight at the University of Victoria in the Engineering Comp Science Building at 8 pm. I’m interested to see how you handle this.

  61. Michael is pretty rapid on the delete button for any unfavorable comments… there were a few there, but they have all gone now! I guess he prefers sycophancy to discussion.

  62. Michael is pretty rapid on the delete button for any unfavorable comments… there were a few there, but they have all gone now! I guess he prefers sycophancy to discussion.

  63. Too funny, all critical or questioning comments are deleted now, except for one that Mikey deigns to answer in this trite, tedious, and predictable way (to one acolyte who had the temerity to suggest that Mann concentrate on scientific work and avoid this kind of posting):

    Michael E. Mann
    “Sorry to differ w/ you on this Daniel, but no–sometimes we need to correct the record. In this case, a number of colleagues were asking me about this, and I felt a response was necessary. Can’t allow these sorts of smears to stand un-rebutted. In this case, the attack goes beyond me, to my colleague Naomi Oreskes and others. Yes, there is a danger in getting down in the mud w/ pigs (we all know the saying, you get muddy and the pig enjoys it). But sometimes we have to do it, and then take a quick shower afterward. I thought it would be useful for readers to get some insight into the anatomy of a smear, and how it exploits plausible deniability, innuendo, and unspoken aspersions…”
    13 minutes ago

  64. This one might have stung a little. At the very least it would appear some of Mann’s colleagues enjoy asking him to explain!:

    “…Michael E. Mann: Sorry to differ w/ you on this Daniel, but no–sometimes we need to correct the record. In this case, a number of colleagues were asking me about this, and I felt a response was necessary….”

  65. At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.

    I suppose there is a possibility that some of the opinion brokers (Andrew Revkin, perhaps; members of the AGU) will read the original post by Steve McIntyre and realize that Mann has here conceded McIntyre’s point.

  66. “As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding. Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”

    And who’s the conspiracy theorist? WOW!

  67. My last comment got et. Is quoting Mann’s paragraph sending comments to spam?

    [certain words and phrases trigger the spam filter automatically - restored above - mod]

  68. RockyRoad writes: “I’m beginning to see Mr. Mann’s behavior presenting as schizophrenic. I’ve personally dealt with several such people, clinically diagnosed, in my extended family and the similarities are striking”.

    I’ve worked with schizophrenics and have studied the literature extensively. Michael Mann is not psychotic, or if he is he’s one of the highest functioning schizophrenics on the planet. But he is character disordered, which is worse in its way given that there’s no help for such a condition.

  69. For those not convinced that Michael Mann of PSU has a bizarre fixation on there being conspiracies against him, you need only to read his book.

    It comes across as a study guide to the manifestations of paranoia.

    Can a person be rational and express the idea, as Mann does in his book, that critics of his scientific work are out to get him personally and out to discredit his support of dangerous / alarming AGW by CO2?

    Read the book and quote it often. It is Mann’s Achilles heel, in a psychological sense.

    One cannot retract a book, like one can retract a scientific paper.

    John

  70. Emotional activists are necessary. Without them, reasonable people could follow their causes without questioning. I don’t know any balanced individual who would want to be associated with an extremist like this.

  71. I guess coincidences should simply remain coincidences…

    For instance when Mike MacCracken suddenly appears out of no where and starts pontificating on a fringe Yahoo group of skeptics, quoting wikipedia (i.e. Connolley’s domain) as a reference on Wegman and its critics… We should all be grateful he did not quote directly Deep Climate and his guitarist shouldn’t we?

    So let’s see where this coincidence man comes from:
    – He is the Director of the Climate Institute http://www.climate.org/about/bod.html

    – The Chairman of this organization is no other than Tom Wigley’s “snake” character, Sir Crispin Tickell, also a Board Member of Thomson Reuters International whose coverage of the climate issue has been of the utmost bias as can be attested through their flagship newspaper in Canada, the Globe & Mail – for instance, it took them over 2 weeks to even mention climategate in 2009 and without counting the Suzuki, Weaver and other green mongers political scientists whose supposed expertise peppered the issues-. Tickell’s reputation as a green cardinal has been enhanced thanks to climategate 1 and 2 (the Wigley quote) and the connections between Monbiot, The Guardian and Tickells’ offsprings are known.

    – For those unfamiliar with The Climate Institute: “In the over 25 years since its founding in 1986 as the first environmental organization on Earth focused on climate protection the Climate Institute has been instrumental in moving climate protection onto the international agenda, (…) and creating the Tickell Interactive Climate Network to create grass roots climate education on climate change and large scale empowerment of individuals to be climate problem solvers.”

    – The Climate Institute was therefore a forbearer of the IPCC and of the Maurice Strong agenda. All this of course implies philanthropic people such as The Rockefeller Brothers, the Bullitt Foundation among others, including our tax dollars through Environment Canada for instance…
    – Here is how the same foundations are playing their green cards in Canada: http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/vancouver-mayor-gregor-robertson-and-nrdc.html
    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/usa-foundations-paid-tides-canada-nearly-57-million.html

    So when MacCracken smooth talking suddenly condescends to honor an obscure group, these people should feel honored that the great Director is spending time with them, away from the rigorous agenda of the institute he so brilliantly leads.

    How lucky!

  72. “People tend to believe evil is something external to them, yet it is a projection of the shadow onto others…it is to the degree that one condemns others and finds evil in others, that one is unconscious of the same thing within oneself…It is a projection of one’s own shadow.” — Carl Jung

    http://phong.com/journal/category/quotation/ [unsourced, but possibly found in Answer to Job, 1952 ]

  73. Michael E. Mann
    “…
    Yes, there is a danger in getting down in the mud w/ pigs…

    The only pig with mud on him is Michael E. Mann. He’s also the only one throwing dirt, and it’s so obvious, everybody can see it.

    That’s why I think he’s mentally deranged–anybody with a grip on reality wouldn’t act like that.

  74. [...]the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding.[...]

    Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking.

    Clearly John.

  75. It is claimed that “97% of scientist believe in Climate Change”…mmmm. What they imply is of course AGW….But survey’s carriied out in the real world suggest pro AGW about a third…the rest against.
    The failure to find the hot spots in 2002 was followed by the IPCC deliberately changing “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” in 2004. It is an all enmbracing catch phrase implying that all weather events are caused by excess CO2. The CRU emails even caught two IPCC half wits agreeing that “Global Warming Freezing” would not go down well with the media.

    So let us examine the 97%….
    In the USA 31,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against Kyoto…and they have left their names and qualifications. With “deniers” being only 3% it means that the 31,000 divided by 3 will give us 1%…just over 10,000. Therefore multiply by 100 will give us 100%……1 million.
    As the 3% from our side of the fence accounts for around 30,000 it means that the pro AGW scientists must number 970,000 (and that is just for this exercise).
    Therefore would the IPCC, BBC, Guardian, Independent, New York Times…Oh..and Michael Mann please publish their names…and qualifications?
    If what we are told is correct….only 77 were asked whatever the question was….and 75 agreed.
    Over to you Michael…..just where are your mates…all 970,000 of them?

  76. For somebody with supposedly so much influence, Mann’s facebook post has had remarkably little support.

    Only 65 ‘recommends’ and 8 supportive comments in 16 hours *

    And Steve McIntyre’s blog shows a photo of Mann delivering his pitch at AGU and there were plenty of empty chairs. A few years ago it would have been standing room only for such a well-known figure

    These statistics do not speak to me of a top scientist at the height of his powers. But of a man of waning influence, and a declining circle of ‘friends’

    * And notable absentees from the comments are any of his Hockey Team – especially onetime RC sidekick and ‘attack dog’ Schmidt! Or Mikey’s tame poodle Phil Jones

  77. If anyone here has ANY respect for Mike Mann and his Mann-made global warming dreck….raise my hand.
    He is the one who has become irrelevent.
    I predict that within 10 years he will be one of those warning of a return of the ice age due to human use of fossile fuels….He is too young to have been one of those who made the cold/warm switch since the 1970’s, but he should be right there in the front row when actual climate makes these gravy train former scientists jump on the north bound express.

  78. Espen says:
    March 4, 2013 at 6:36 am
    I discovered the questionable scientific standards in climate science through the statistics abuse of mr. Mann as exposed by mr. McIntyre. It doesn’t really surprise me that he thinks he can get away with (or just thinks it’s fine, I don’t really know if he’s genuinely dishonest or just a bad scientist) using outdated misguiding charts – the simplest form of statistics abuse.”….

    I knew Mr. Mann in graduate school. I honestly don’t believe he’s a genuinely dishonest person…he’s just a bad scientist that believes his theories with a religious fervor that clouds his judgement. He’s also one that is prone to believe in conspiracies. He would have all sorts of conspiracy theories about everyday things. Made for very amusing discussions over dinner.

  79. I don’t believe Mann is deranged in the normal sence…I believe he is so egocentric that he has been chosen for the sacrifice.
    In time all will see that his scientific value is nil due to his rediculous statements but he, perhaps, is not bright enough to see that when theBIG” gang” determins the time and climate is suited for a regime change to man caused global cooling he will be one of those thrown under the bus. “Poor Micheal, he went a little too far overboard and lost credibility”
    Is there really any question that the basis of all this foolishness is an attempt by extremists to force the world off the oil standard? Not in my mind.

  80. @fellow grad student
    Thanks for further insight into the Mann, but what was the recreational drug of choice?
    Obviously its one my children should know to avoid.

  81. As I had noted about exactly a year ago, following publication of the opus he’s still flogging far and wide:

    “Mann is well on his way to becoming known as the David Irving of climate science.

    “For those who may not be familiar with his name – or his record – Irving is probably the most prolific and prominent Holocaust denier in the English speaking world. His favourite mode of “doing history” includes “add a word here, change a word there”, citing sources (in the hope that few, if any, will bother to check) which completely fail to substantiate his assertions – along with manipulation of data and obfuscation in presentation.

    “And those are the least of his “scholarship” sins. Mann also seems to share with Irving an arrogant – and unwarranted – high opinion of himself.

    “In fact, I’ve often wondered if the myth of the “big oil funded lobby” was a derivation of Irving’s outlandish fantasies of a ‘big Jewish/Zionist lobby’.

    And I had concluded:

    “Seems to me that – just as the German publisher of Irving’s Dresden opus had added the subtitle, ‘A Novel’, to their publication – perhaps, in the interest of truth in publishing, this work of the “wily Cub Scout” wannabe should be re-titled Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A Novel

  82. Mann writes:

    “Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”

    Please be warned that I am referring to words written by Mann and not to some imagined words written by some conspirators. What Mann says in the quotation above is that he will occasionally deny the charges that he is stealing from the cookie jar and after doing so he will stop stealing from the cookie jar.

    I have seen confessions of this sort from pre-kindergarten children but never from an older, rational person.

  83. Fellow Grad Student,
    That’s interesting, because Mann is proving to be quite a buffoon despite his supposed scientific eminence. One wonders how he managed to get through any science PhD program with his poor intellectual tendencies.

    Fellow Grad Student says:
    March 4, 2013 at 9:52 am

    “I knew Mr. Mann in graduate school. I honestly don’t believe he’s a genuinely dishonest person…he’s just a bad scientist that believes his theories with a religious fervor that clouds his judgement. He’s also one that is prone to believe in conspiracies. He would have all sorts of conspiracy theories about everyday things. Made for very amusing discussions over dinner.”

  84. Excellent post, Mr.Shollenberger. It is clear, concise, to the point, and totally effective.

  85. The psychological projection is very apparent as others have noted. Claiming conspiracy when referring to a “industry-funded climate change denial effort” is classic. Mann is showing all the signs of NPD sufferers when confronted with the facts. They project all their own fears onto their perceived attackers. This Mann needs to seek professional help quickly.

  86. Reposted and edited from Climate Audit where Steve will probably moderate in out.

    Brandon,

    I can see where Mann is coming from. If you quickly scan Steve’s original post you will see:

    Mike’s AGU Trick
    IPCC AR5
    AGU
    Hansen
    Mann and Kump
    Mike’s AGU Trick
    Pierrehumbert
    Naomi

    If you interpolate the data, do some infilling, it possibly looks like Steve could be saying:

    “That fiendishly clever Dr. Michael Mann, the most feared opponent of climate change deniers, has been conspiring with the AGU,the IPCC and scientists like Pierrehumbert and Naomi, taking data from Hansen, Kump, and Mann (TMFOOCD) to prepare AR5 and warm humanity of the future dangers caused by their folly.”

  87. I am not tweeting (stupid word in itself), but here is something that needs to be brought to Mann’s attention, as it seems to have the same appeal at explaining things like his own attempts:
    At least in the UK – and I didn’t want to research this for more than 5 seconds – the main funder of climate scientists is the oil and gas industry.

    How do I know? Well, I googled for “oil-industry contribution uk tax” and up comes a PWC link like so:

    http://www.pwc.co.uk/tax/publications/total-tax-contribution-of-the-uk-oil-gas-industry.jhtml

    So since the number one TAX payer is the oil industry, and research is TAX payer financed, all money going to climate research is inevitably funded by the oil industry before anything else.

    There you go.

    PS: Free tip for Micheal: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you ;)

  88. Daniel Boguszewski
    Michael you are better and smarter than this post. Just focus on work. This political fight will make you look a activist.
    2 hours ago

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

    Despite this friendly warning on his FB page Mann cannot help but “look” like an activist because he IS an activist…. A politically correct hacktivist.

  89. Jeff Norman says:
    March 4, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Preposterous! If one writes an article on Mann he must refrain from mentioning anyone associated with Mann?

  90. I think that for Dr Mann, the opposition to his assertions have to be be ‘professional’ or funded by some immensely rich cartel. Why? Because it would be unbearable if he were proven incontrovertibly wrong by unfunded amateurs.

  91. Jeff Norman
    March 4, 2013 at 10:52 am

    ###

    But to be sure, one should do some data adjustment as well.

  92. hro001:
    As I had noted about exactly a year ago, following publication of the opus he’s still flogging far and wide:
    “Mann is well on his way to becoming known as the David Irving of climate science. For those who may not be familiar with his name – or his record – Irving is probably the most prolific and prominent Holocaust denier”

    Now, get real. Mann has commented on SM’s piece and has, yet again, demonstrated his ability to avoid the issue and talk cr*p with a healthy dose of “conspiracist ideation”. But seriously, “Holocaust denier”? You are sounding just like ‘the opposition’. I’m ashamed to admit to reading WUWT when I see a comment like that.

  93. @ Jeff Norman, or you could actually read Steve’s arguments and think for your self?

  94. ROFLMAO

    Dear Dr Mann, there is help for your condition but you have to first admit to having a problem. We are waiting and able to assist you through this crisis of faith but first you must shelve your beliefs in AGW and reacquaint yourself with the scientific method.

    Sincerely, Those who can prove their position.

  95. john robertson says:
    March 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
    @fellow grad student
    Thanks for further insight into the Mann, but what was the recreational drug of choice?
    Obviously its one my children should know to avoid.”

    Actually just beer that I know of, and not even too much of that!

    “Skiphil says:
    March 4, 2013 at 10:38 am
    Fellow Grad Student,
    That’s interesting, because Mann is proving to be quite a buffoon despite his supposed scientific eminence. One wonders how he managed to get through any science PhD program with his poor intellectual tendencies.”

    Believe it or not, Mann was pretty good for some very intelligent conversations. He was originally in the Theoretical Nuclear Physics dept. My belief is, as I stated, he so much believes his convictions that it clouds his judgement. He would really dig in his heals and argue his point with folks and never back down, no matter how strong the counter argument. Basically not open minded at all.

    • @Fellow Grad Student: re: “Basically not open minded at all.”

      I have found that to be the case with most PhDs I have had the misfortune to interact with.

  96. I wonder who helped Mann type the big words? Hansen, Mann, Obama, Jackson etc. should have to prove they’re so sure they’re right by agreeing to hand themselves publicly if AWG hasn’t reached a tipping point by 2020.

  97. Jeff Norman, but of course. Why didn’t I realize the data clearly shows McIntyre is blaming Mann’s decisions on everyone he mentions? I guess I just wouldn’t cut it as a member of the Team.

  98. I find it sad nobody seems to have paid attention to this wonderful comment by toto:

    I think the proper technical qualifier for this post is: “WTF?”

    Which post are you talking about? Because in the one I read, there’s a whole section on “wingman” Naomi Oreskes, among others, and all-too-predictable swipes at the supposedly evil “AGU of Oreskes, Gleick, Lewandowsky and Mann”.

    It would appear Mann isn’t the only one who thinks merely talking about people is saying they’re part of the conspiracy. And this isn’t just a conspiracy folks. toto clarifies this is an evil conspiracy.

    By evil, I assume he means in the Dr. Evil sense of comprised of complete buffoonery.

  99. For those who might not have realized it (such as Theo Goodwin and john robertson), Jeff Norman was joking. He was making fun of how data has basically been manipulated to show certain results by Mann.

    In other words, Mann’s just doing the same thing here he does for his “science.”

  100. Taken from his book, here is just one example of many indicators in the book showing Prof Michael E. Mann of PSU is fixated on his mental projections of imaginary conspiracies against him and his alarming AGW supporting science:

    Quote from Prof Michael Mann of PSU, taken from his book ‘The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars – Dispatches From The Front Lines’ {Chapter 1 – Born in a War}. Mann said:

    “With the help of sympathetic media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, climate change deniers were able to spread false charges about Santer faster than he – or his colleagues – could possibly hope to refute them. The practice of isolating someone like Santer to make an example of an individual scientist – what I [Mann] call the “Serengeti strategy” – is a tried-and-true tactic of the climate change denial campaign. The climate change deniers isolate individual scientists just as predators on the Serengeti Plain of Africa hunt their prey; picking off vulnerable individuals from the rest of the herd.”

    “The Santer episode encapsulates the toxic and incendiary environment that existed, largely unbeknownst to me [Mann] at the time that I [Mann] was finishing my [Mann] Ph.D. and preparing to enter the world of climate research. Little did I [Mann] know that similar attacks might be made against me [Mann] just a few years hence, when my [Mann] work, like Santer’s, would be featured as a major pillar of evidence by the IPCC.”

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Are those the words of PSU Prof. Michael E. Mann also the words of a climate science professional and trained objective observer? They appear to me to be as the words of people under mental strain. They appear to me as the words of people projecting into reality a need to believe in the existence of some kind of organized, confidential and widespread plot against themselves and their work.

    PSU Prof Michael E. Mann’s book is more than sufficient self-testimony that he is a leading public practitioner of projecting imaginary conspiracies which he wants to believe are being carried out by those who disagree with him.

    John

  101. tgmccoy says:
    March 4, 2013 at 5:39 am

    LOL. He proved it with a geometrical logic thingy.

    observa says:
    March 4, 2013 at 5:55 am

    “We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing.”

    So, they sought and found these “innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing” from 19th century philosophers and scientists. Plus ca change…

    toto says:
    March 4, 2013 at 6:23 am

    First pro-Mannian comment! You guys are slowing down.

    … some minutes later… And, only as of 11:11 AM.

  102. He’s going to update his slides? Really? Does he dare? Either the truth will be all over him – or we will be if he doesn’t show it. Could be interesting. I somehow think, though, that he won’t get around to it as that will dig a deeper hole than the one he’s in at the moment.

  103. Alvin says:

    March 4, 2013 at 6:59 am
    I would also wager a small amount that Mann didn’t write this, more likely a PR specialist in leftist doubletalk.
    ==============
    Yep, there was no thought put into it.
    Passionless prose befitting the vanquished.

  104. Just for the record, yesterday I posted a reply on Mann’s FB page. It was short & polite and just said that the issue was that Mann’s chart was missing the 2005-2012 observations, and that if added they would be seen to follow Hansen’s “scenario C” and not “scenario B”. My comment was deleted in about 2 minutes, and myself blacklisted as well (since the comment box has gone). So this is why there are so few comments on his FB posting, and my guess is that Mann’s blacklist is the longest one on FaceBook — good for a FB technician to confirm.

  105. Re the idea that Mann is basically honest – he might have been way back then in school, but he isn’t honest now. His infamous hockey stick did not happen by accident.

  106. “At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”

    In other words, Mann will update his lecture slides, which he admits are out of date, at some unspecified point in the future. My guess is he’s waiting for global temperatures to rise first so he doesn’t look completely foolish.

  107. It would be interesting to get Lewandowsky’s professional opinion on Mann’s state of mind and his obsession with conspiracy theories.

  108. Bob says:
    March 4, 2013 at 4:54 am
    Using the phrase “climate denier” puts any following arguments beyond reason and into the realm of politics and/or religion. If you disagree with them or don’t follow the dogma fully you are a “climate denier”. . .

    Exactly right. Real scientists don’t talk about other scientists with contrary views as ‘deniers’. The Warmists are essentially claiming that their opponents are heretics, rejecting some kind of revealed gospel. This of course makes them immune to strictly scientific arguments. They can stand up and proclaim the Gospel According to AGW with a straight face, no matter how completely erroneous the ‘facts’ they cite are. And their sycophants in the media and the ‘environmental’ movement just nod and sing hallelujah!

    The problem is that the Warmists cloak their litany in the guise of science, which can fool most of the people most of the time. That makes sites like WUWT valuable, but hard to get out of the dungeon of ‘heresy’. We are lucky that there is yet no Grand Inquisitor to take more drastic action against the ‘deniers’.

    /Mr Lynn

  109. @ A.D. Everard says: March 4, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    “Re the idea that Mann is basically honest – he might have been way back then in school, but he isn’t honest now. His infamous hockey stick did not happen by accident.”

    True.

    People need to stop looking for reasons, which in contemporary culture automatically transmute to excuses. The underlying causes are clear and there are no excuses.

  110. Brandon Shollenberger,

    Thank you for serving up a feast of commenting via your ‘A Conspiracy of One’ post.

    I suggest your post can also be sub-titled, ‘The Platonic Ménage-à-Trois Conspiracy by Mann’s Nature Tricksters’.

    The ‘trois’ being: Mann, Oreskes and Cook.

    John

  111. John Trigge (in Oz), I’m currently writing an e-mail to John Cook to point out McIntyre’s post has nothing resembling a claim of conspiracy. After that, I intend to write one to Stephan Lewandoski to see what he thinks of Mann’s claim (and his co-authors promotion of it).

    I think it should be interesting to see what, if any, response I get.

  112. Blame Michael Mann for anything, and you may be fabricating a conspiracy

    OK, I’ll bite.

    One of the papers I like to cite in blog discussions is Knight et al 2005 (GRL). The full title for this paper is:

    “A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate”, Jeff R. Knight, Robert J. Allan, Chris K. Folland, Michael Vellinga, and Michael E. Mann

    So, a paper on the AMO by Mike Mann. And here is what it says in the abstract:

    Analyses of global climate from measurements dating back to the nineteenth century show an ‘Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation’ (AMO) as a leading large-scale pattern of multidecadal variability in surface temperature. Yet it is not possible to determine whether these fluctuations are genuinely oscillatory from the relatively short observational record alone. Using a 1400 year climate model calculation, we are able to simulate the observed pattern and amplitude of the AMO. The results imply the AMO is a genuine quasi-periodic cycle of internal climate variability persisting for many centuries, and is related to variability in the oceanic thermohaline circulation (THC). This relationship suggests we can attempt to reconstruct past THC changes, and we infer an increase in THC strength over the last 25 years. Potential predictability associated with the mode implies natural THC and AMO decreases over the next few decades independent of anthropogenic climate change.

    I’ve added the highlights. Dr Mann finds the AMO is:

    1. persistent over at least 1400 years
    2. a natural variation
    3. is cyclical
    4. affects the surface temperature (the AMO is a surface temperature based index)
    5. is expected to decrease “over the next few decades independent of anthropogenic climate change”

    I’ll add that the AMO shows a pronounced ~60 year cycle which is evident from his Figure 1 and other data. Furthermore it is easy to see the same cycle in Hadcrut directly or when detrended. And that the trough-to-peak rise and fall of the cycle is about 0.3 C. Also that the cycle was close to bottom in the year 1906 and peaked in the year 2005 one-and-a-half wavelengths later. So of the 0.74 C rise in the HadCRUT temperature dataset during the period 1906-2005 near to 40% was due to the ~60 year cycle, not CO2. You can also see the cycle in the PDO and in ENSO. Note that the PDO and the AMO are not in phase, which may be a feature of the themohaline circulation or great conveyer belt velocity. I defer to Bob Tisdale on this.

    Mike’s paper has demonstrated that the AMO is real and persistent, and by inference corresponds to almost 40% of the global temperature rise during the last century. And that in his own paper’s words it is “independent of anthropogenic climate change” with expectation of cooling “over the next few decades”.

    Ladies and gentlemen I give you Professor Michael E. Mann, climate sceptic.

  113. M. Mann: “the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding”

    Best example of conspiricist ideation I’ve ever seen. Quick, someone call Lewandowsky and Cook!

  114. Mike Mangan wrote: “Who’s going to call him out? There are no mainstream reporters or journalists who will. The AGU will do nothing. A cursory glance at their website shows them to be completely in agreement with the CAGW orthodoxy. Penn State hierarchy is unperturbed. It’s not Mann’s chicanery and buffoonery that’s the story here, it’s that he can engage in it with impunity. Skeptical websites have little power. Who is supposed to be the check and balance in this situation??”

    My thoughts exactly. I think we all just have to keep pushing. i’ve sent several letters for example, to Matt Taibbi. the brilliant journalist who famously wrote of Goldman Sachs: (It’s a) vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

    A guy like that has a nose for the dirt bag scam artists who prey on our society, and do so much damage thereby. Establishment climate scientists would be right in his wheel house. Yes, it’s true, he writes for Rolling Stone, but don’t you see, that’s just the kind of guy we need. Someone on the liberal side of the fence, blowing the whistle on these fraudsters.

    He’s ignored me so far of course, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. What I’m trying to say in my awkward way is much of this is up to us. Eventually we’ll find the right journalist with a nose for one of the great stories of our time. We just have to keep trying.

    • Pokerguy,

      Forget journalists, they only write an expose when they have a source. Think of Woodward and Bernstein and “Deep Throat.”
      Without Deep Throat, there was no Watergate story.
      The only way this scam will be blown open is by a whistleblower.
      If all of us focused on finding a whistleblower among Mann’s students/colleagues/co-authors/co-grantees/admins/IT guys this game could be over pretty quickly.
      Here’s an article written about this issue in the Penn State newspaper: http://onwardstate.com/2010/01/14/former-cia-agent-investigates-climategate/
      The potential rewards, monetary, are huge. The law, called the False Claims Act, allows an individual with inside knowledge of fraudulent grant recipients to initiate legal action on behalf of the US government.

      http://howtoreportfraud.com/examples-of-federal-fraud/grant-fraud

      One person with access to Mann’s government-paid-for data could blow the whole scam sky-high.
      How can we encourage or help them to do the right thing?

  115. I don’t have John Cook’s e-mail, so I haven’t been able to contact him. However, I did just send an e-mail to Stephan Lewandowsky drawing his attention to this issue. Hopefully he’ll respond.

  116. To be fair, Mann took several years to address some of the errors of MBH98, and many of those errors last to this day. He’s got a lot to do before he worries about catching up to data post-2005.

  117. Not only do Mann and Cook wrongly accuse Steve McIntyre of claiming a conspiracy, but Mann himself charges McIntyre and other “climate change deniers” of engaging in a conspiracy of their own, being supposedly “industry-funded” to spread “egregious smears and falsehoods.” It’s all projection all the time with these guys.

  118. We’ve been dancing this merry dance for years now. Notwithstanding that I am generally a polite and live and let live sort of person, I think that if i met Mann I would just knock him out. We are way beyond reason with this moron. They have had such an effect on our lives that it is no longer about science, the scientific method, rational disourse, etc. Mann has shown himself to be such a rabid paranoid activist that he no longer merits anything other than a smack in the mouth.

  119. Well done Richard M and others. Not gone through all but Richard is the only one to mention NPD, (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) directly, others mentioned egotism which is related.
    I think Dr. Mann exhibits at least 5 of the 9 traits of NPD.
    Sorry, it’s quite a long video.

    DaveE.

  120. If Mann believes he’s been wronged by McIntyre, perhaps he should point out where in Steve’s excellent and easy-to-follow analysis that he is wrong? But no. All he does is ad hominem Steve to death…

  121. john robertson says:
    March 4, 2013 at 11:39 am

    @ Jeff Norman, or you could actually read Steve’s arguments and think for your self?
    ###

    Jeff was joking, and what he wrote was pretty funny.

  122. I’ve said this before and must repeat.

    Yes, Michael Mann is a professional scientist who has become completely invested in his theories. So had Lysenko, Willhelm Reich (Orgone) and the guy who discovered N-rays … Forget his name.

    Now, with these people, all but one was innocent in so far as they truly believed what they believed and if the data were wrong, then the data had an error.

    Actually, they all felt that way. However, the difference was Lysenko’s ill-starred theories provided cover for political action, and advancement for political ideas unacceptable on the face of it …Stalin’s desire to eliminate the Kulak class.

    Does anyone see any modern parallels here? Perchance? The well-to-do bourgois left liberal intellectual who can afford more expensive energy because they are stinking rich, find the opportunity provided by Mann ( and Hanson ) so choice that theywill fund this person they probably laugh at behind his back,just to further their own political goals.

    Don’t evr get me going.

  123. Mann: “the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding”

    The only industry-funded effort is the one he’s part and parcel of, the climate change industrial complex, which also sits atop the pedestal of intellectual bankruptcy. President Eisenhower warned of this in his Farewell Address. Professional climate alarmists see this warning differently, rather as an opportunity and are only too eager to participate.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/ikes-second-warning-hint-it-is-not-the-military-industrial-complex/

  124. Ian Hoder points out Mann’s words –
    “Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking.”
    and concludes-
    I don’t thinking posting a paper on your own website counts as “published”

    Translation- ‘published’ means whatever we at the commanding heights of Big Climate allow in our tightly controlled Journals, the IPCC, grey literature, certain approved MSM puff pieces or whatever we mean it to be whenever it suits us, but clearly that does not apply to anything penned by conspiratorial climate deniers in the clutches of Big Oil.
    Unfortunately too many ignorant laypeople don’t understand the need to abide strict peer review protocols and processes in such matters of great import.
    .

  125. 3×2 says: March 4, 2013 at 11:34 am

    hro001:
    [...]
    “Mann is well on his way to becoming known as the David Irving of climate science. For those who may not be familiar with his name – or his record – Irving is probably the most prolific and prominent Holocaust denier”

    Now, get real. Mann has commented on SM’s piece and has, yet again, demonstrated his ability to avoid the issue and talk cr*p with a healthy dose of “conspiracist ideation”.

    Precisely. And that’s how Irving “does history”.

    But seriously, “Holocaust denier”?

    Sorry, I can’t change the facts about Irving – and while you may be aware of his reputation, his name and claim to fame might not be recognizable to some.

    So, I’m also sorry that the irony of narcisstic Mann lifting and adapting pages from narcissistic Irving’s playbook appears to be lost on you.

    But, that’s life, eh?!

  126. It was shown to me John Cook’s e-mail address is available via a whois on Skeptical Science, so I was able to send him an e-mail. It will be interesting to see if I get a response from him or Stephan Lewandowsky.

    I’d try sending an e-mail to Michael Mann, but I figure it would be pointless. I was banned at RealClimate before I even posted there because he didn’t like my criticisms of his book. I can’t imagine he’d actually respond to an e-mail from me.

  127. In making continual statements about the “industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding”, isn’t it he warmists who are truly the conspiracy theorists?

  128. Stephan Lewandowsky has claimed, now for some 9 months, that his “NASA faked the moon landing | Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” paper has been peer reviewed and is “In Press” at Psychological Science.

    This is a purely false statement. This paper has NOT been published anywhere (other than the authors website as noted), let alone at Psychological Science. Neither has it been posted in the Psychological Science “Early Online” section.

    In fact, to the best of my knowledge there has been NO acknowledgement from Psychological Science that that supports Lewandowsky’s claim the paper has been published.

    No worries for Lewandowsky, John Cook or any of the others, however – they’ve simply forged ahead and pretended it was published, citing it in several subsequent papers.

    John Cook referenced the recent “Recursive” paper which has been posted at the Frontiers in Psychology pay to publish journal. There to the authors make the claim the paper has been published, yet again, s with the “Moon Landing” paper, there are significant issues with this paper as well.

    When originally published the paper included an online PDF version of the full paper – both at the Frontiers site and Lewandowsky’s Shaping Tomorrows World blog.

    When initially posted at the Frontiers site, there was a link to the PDF in the “Article Info” section at top right of the article. It has now been removed.

    Additionally, in the story on this paper on principal author Stephan Lewandowskys blog page at the Shaping Tomorrows World, he notes he paper “accepted a few days ago by Frontiers in Psychology, and a preliminary version of the paper is already available, for open access, here.” Clicking on the link in the word “here” originally, as noted by the author, took you to a PDF of the paper. It has now been redirected to go simply to the Abstract at the Frontiers site.

    Presumably the removal of the PDF originally provided is due to the true and accurate claims (as reported here at WUWT) that the paper negatively misrepresents at least one of its referenced cites,

    Further, since posting of the paper at the Frontiers site, despite claims its been peer reviewed, the listed peer reviewers have been changed 3 separate times. The two initial reviewers listed both are also have work cited as references in the paper they are reviewing.

    The following shows the changes, all of which occurred within approx. 10 days after the paper was published online at the Frontiers site;

    Original:
    Reviewed by: Michael J. Wood, University of Kent, United Kingdom
    Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Rev. 1:
    Reviewed by: Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
    Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Rev. 2:
    Reviewed by: Prathiba Natesan, University North Texas, USA
    Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
    Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Rev. 3:
    Reviewed by: Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
    Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    The first reviewer removed – Michael J. Wood at University of Kent, does seem qualified – his area of research is conspiracy, he is a postgraduate researcher in the Psychology Dept. at U-Kent whose thesis work is “Understanding beliefs in conspiracy theories” and he teaches Psychology Stats … making him seemingly ell qualified to review both the “Recursive” paper and the underlying “Moon Landing” paper that Recursive was based on. I suppose it is little surprise the seemingly most qualified reviewer was the first to be removed I guess.

    The 2nd original listed reviewer, Elaine McKewon is a journalism graduate student at University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. She is also an author at “The Conversation” along with Lewandowsky, Cook et al. Her research interests include “Climate Change Skeptisim,” “Message Framing,” and “Advocacy Groups.” Her graduate work topic is “Manufacturing Doubt: The role of the industrial-thinktank-media complex in the production of ignorance about climate change in Australian newspapers, 1996-2010.”

    Her work demonstrates a clear activist/advocacy point of view nearly identical to the authors of this paper. She also lists a business relationship with the authors institution, University of Western Australia, in her CV.

    In my opinion there could be no better example of lightweight “Pal review” than Ms. McKewon. Yet she has remained, thru three different changes of listed peer reviewers.

    Wood was initially replaced as a listed peer reviewer by Dr. Prathiba Natesan, University North Texas, USA. Dr, Natesan appears well qualified, with no appearance of bias or conflict. As an Asst. Professor in the Psychology Dept, teaching Statistical Theory, Structural Equation Modelling etc., her background and expertise would be particular useful in reviewing the issues related to the statistical analysis of the underlying “Moon landing” paper, which is the basis for the Recursive paper.

    Yet Dr. Nateson was removed as a listed reviewer within a day or two as well.

    This left only the original Ms. McKewon as a peer reviewer. At this point the Editor of the paper, Dr. Viren Swami, also was listed as a reviewer.

    While Dr. Swami is well qualified – as his prior work (Swami 2009, 2010, 2011)was the basis for a good part of Lewandowskys “Moon Landing” paper – it seems highly unethical and suspect for the Editor responsible for oversight and approval of the paper to also be a reviewer.

    To date neither the Frontiers Journal nor the authors have responded to questions about these issue.

    To review – the original Lewandowsky 2012 “Moon Landing” paper, which Lewandowsky, Cook et al, have claimed since July 2012, to be; peer reviewed accepted for publication by, and “in press” with, Psychological Science has not seen a one of those claims acknowledged or confirmed. The paper has not been published and no acknowledgement has been made by the journal of its acceptance.

    And the same type questionable conduct and issues are arising on the follow on “Recursive” paper as well.

    And all the while the authors of “Moon Landing still have failed/refused to provide the Supplemental Online documentation they claim contains the information necessary to verify and validate their work.

    These are simple, honest, fair questions. Each and every one ignored.

  129. Brandon Shollenberger says:
    March 4, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    “For those who might not have realized it (such as Theo Goodwin and john robertson), Jeff Norman was joking. He was making fun of how data has basically been manipulated to show certain results by Mann.”

    He was trying to do a parody. One important lesson in life: there are some so low that they cannot be parodied.

  130. As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts.

    The head of the IPCC said recently something to the effect of “No warming for the last 17 years.” Does that make him irrelevant?

  131. Lawyers have a “side” and can freely argue their case by choosing which facts to put forth to best win their argument. Mann should have been a lawyer because he doesn’t have what it takes to be a scientist.

  132. Think of Michael Mann as an “orthostatic recusant”– one who adamantly refuses to admit anything, holding his position like an unyielding Standing Stone. Such lithic “menhirs” or “orthostats” stand typically in neolithic circles erected as primitive astro-calendrical observatories.

    Green Gangsters in general, Mann in particular, are nothing if not druidical postulants immune to any objective or even rational debate. Calling them “by names aright” –“orthos”, perhaps “ORs”– would go far towards “rectifying” climate discourse in Confucius’ sense that “names as words imply reality, which leads to action … therefore, no name properly understood should imply opposite actions in reality.”

  133. A. Scott says:
    March 4, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    Great sleuthing! (I hardly ever use exclamation marks, so thank you for that also).

    However, The Powers That Be are covering all of these jackasses asses. Anyone who believes otherwise is a conspiracy theory denier ;)

    In My Far From Humble Opinion.

    What’s a guy got to do to get a break?

  134. I am reminded of a friend from the ’60s who, with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, took issue with the various conspiracy theorists of that era – from the assassination theorists to the John Birchers – by wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with “The Paranoids Are After Me!”

  135. Socratease says:
    March 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    It’s not fair. Nobody ever lets ME in on their conspiracies!

    Phew, (wipes sweat from brow,) I was becoming paranoid, I thought it was just me. ;-)

    DaveE.

  136. I’m no expert. In fact, I admit to bring a relative newcomer to this debate. Nonetheless, has anyone considered the possibility that the likes of Mann and Gore are impostors, created to discredit the whole Climate Change conspiracy? They certainly appear expert in inserting their feet in their mouths! Perhaps a tad too good?

  137. A.Scott, thank you for the incisive account of the review/publication status of these two papers. Can anyone obtain current publication status on either paper?

    A hypothetical: what is the ethical and professional status of a researcher who might be found (a) engage in media PR about supposed scientific papers while (b) misrepresenting the publication status of either paper?

    Hypothetically speaking, Lewandowsky could be following in the distinguished steps of such Hockey Team fanboys as Wahl/Ammann.

  138. With no response from John Cook or Stephen Lewandowsky so far, I’m starting to think there won’t be one. I wonder if I could get one by posting on their blogs (on appropriate pages). I’ll give it a try.

  139. I just posted a comment on Skeptical Science on a topic that is only a week old. I think I was perfectly polite and reasonable, and I can’t see any way they could justify deleting it. In case they do though, here is a screen grab of it.

  140. Long time passed since I clicked a link to the SS. This gets interesting – thanks Brandon.

    I have been on the front page of Paranoid Monthly twice.

  141. And the insanity continues. John Cook has found yet another non-conspiracy theory to promote as a conspiracy theory. Namely, saying SKS was paid to set up a website is believe in a conspiracy theory:

    http://bit.ly/14Atd48

  142. This will probably be my last comment on this page (though I might see if I can write a follow-up Anthony would be willing to publish), but I have to share this somewhere. Over on Skeptical Science, a moderator told me I was “skating on the thin ice of sloganeering.” I said I would drop the issues to avoid that, but I asked the moderator “to say or do something about the repeated accusations of dishonesty that have been leveled against me.” After all, the Skeptical Science comments policy explicitly forbids such accusations. The response?

    They deleted my comment without saying a word. That’s right. Skeptical Science deleted my comment asking them to enforce their rules while allowing others to break their rules in order to attack my integrity. Apparently it is okay to break their rules as long as they like what you say. For those who want to verify what I say, here is a screenshot of my comment, and it’s easy to find accusations of dishonesty in the comments (Tom Curtis even admits to making such).

    Oh noes. I’m saying Skeptical Science secretly moderates their site in a dishonest way to attack their opponents. I’m a conspiracy nut!

Comments are closed.