‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’

Above: Actual photo from Dr. Mann’s Facebook page courtesy Mark Steyn writing in: “The Mann I love

LOL, gotta love the caveat “almost” anything. Redditers are welcome to ask Dr. Mann questions in this online forum today:

Science AMA Series: I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything! (self.science)

submitted 1 hour ago by MichaelEMann Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Penn State

I’m Michael E. Mann. I’m Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). I am also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). I received my undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. My research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system. I am author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and I have written two books including Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming, co-authored with my colleague Lee Kump, and more recently, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”, recently released in paperback with a foreword by Bill Nye “The Science Guy” (www.thehockeystick.net).

“The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” describes my experiences in the center of the climate change debate, as a result of a graph, known as the “Hockey Stick” that my co-authors and I published a decade and a half ago. The Hockey Stick was a simple, easy-to-understand graph my colleagues and I constructed that depicts changes in Earth’s temperature back to 1000 AD. It was featured in the high-profile “Summary for Policy Makers” of the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and it quickly became an icon in the climate change debate. It also become a central object of attack by those looking to discredit the case for concern over human-caused climate change. In many cases, the attacks have been directed at me personally, in the form of threats and intimidation efforts carried out by individuals, front groups, and politicians tied to fossil fuel interests. I use my personal story as a vehicle for exploring broader issues regarding the role of skepticism in science, the uneasy relationship between science and politics, and the dangers that arise when special economic interests and those who do their bidding attempt to skew the discourse over policy-relevant areas of science.

I look forward to answering your question about climate science, climate change, and the politics surrounding it today at 2 PM EST. Ask me almost anything!

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

Go here to ask “almost anything”: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1yj3o7/science_ama_series_im_michael_e_mann/

h/t to WUWT reader “devijvers”

About these ads

131 thoughts on “‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’

  1. What has he done? I can’t think of anything other than ignoring 20 tree ring data sets to cherry pick 2 data sets in order to fabricate a hockey stick graph. My garbage man does far more than that for me.

  2. From the site:
    –]CashAndBuns 9 points 2 hours ago

    “If a scientific hypothesis must include in its statement the possibility to prove it to be false, under what conditions would the global warming hypothesis be falsified?”

    [–]ningrim 0 points 2 minutes ago

    “more specifically, the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis”
    —-l
    Can anyone predict Mann’s answer? ( CAGW might have been better, but I think this is a good start and won’t be answered.)

  3. Why in heaven would any climate scientist have Bill Nye write even a scribbled note in a climate science book, let alone a forward???? He is on youtube demonstrating how the trade winds blow, except he has the fan blowing THE OTHER WAY!!!!!!!

    So Michael, in case you or Bill Nye do not know this, the trade winds blow FROM THE EAST. Make a note of it. Stronger trade winds (again, from the EAST) blows warm surface water up against the Western Pacific. Weaker trade winds (again, from the EAST) allows that warm water to slosh back towards the Eastern Pacific. So next time, make sure the fan is pointed towards the WEST in video demonstrations. Got it? Once again, trade winds blow from EAST TO WEST. As in the following cartoon:

    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/eln/elyr.rxml

    Idiots.

  4. Reddit is very CAGW-friendly. Anyone posting anything but the most rabid support of CAGW gets viciously attacked. Even a neutral point of view is attacked. Mann will be happy there.

  5. What was your work at The University of Virginia? Why is it not part of your profile?
    Not submitted – I am not going there.

  6. Fast forward to 7:12 for a lovely demonstration of trade winds courtesy of Bill Nye’s oh so intelligent understanding of all things sciency. Yeh. I want him writing my forward on climate science!

  7. Perhaps someone with a Facebook page will ask: “Dr. Mann, does the phrase; ‘state pen, not Penn State‘, mean anything to you?

  8. Pamela Gray says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:48 am
    ====
    When you stop and think about all the people that had to be involved producing that…
    ….it really makes your head explode

  9. I show that film to my students all the time to help them understand what it looks like when you say something idiotic when preparing the required science projects in Oregon’s system of assessments and work samples.

  10. mkelly says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:45 am

    “Just read that Mann lost his case against Dr. Ball in Canada. Counter suits to follow.”
    *****

    This is huge news. Do you have a link for this? Will Anthony be posting the story?

  11. The only questions worth asking derive from this statement: “In many cases, the attacks have been directed at me personally, in the form of threats and intimidation efforts carried out by individuals, front groups, and politicians tied to fossil fuel interests.”

    Who are these individuals and front groups (we know the politicians)?
    What evidence ties them to fossil fuel interests?
    What do you mean by “ties” and “interests”?
    What was the nature of the attacks?
    Specifically, what did they say and what documentation do you have?

    Let’s see some facts, not vague allegations.

  12. Read through the questions posted….interestingly about 80% of them seem to be questioning uis methods/beliefs. Some good questions. SADLY, it appears that mods/other posters are answering some of the better, tougher questions for him. Do they think Mann cant handle them?

  13. This guy’s ego is incredible.

    As a purveyor of dodgy pseudo-science, he genuinely believes he has some value.

    If I could buy Mann for what he is really worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, then I would make a small fortune.

  14. RaiderDingo asks:

    >Does this article refute Steve McIntyre?

    Nothing ‘refutes’ Steve McIntyre. More to your intended point, nothing produced so far refutes Steve’s deconstruction of the silly paper that underlies the CO2-warming cult, the paper with the hockey stick chart fabricated by M Mann.

    It is unlikely in the extreme that anything will in future be produced that will revive that dead, bent stick. It has been falsified because it made falsifiable claims. The CAGW movement, which does not really make falsifiable claims, has loose and poorly defined goals to do with ‘decarbonising’ the economy. It promotes carbon intensive investments in carbon-reducing technologies that are invariably more expensive and inconvenient that anything already in use. Many simply don’t work and just crash and burn, economically speaking, though windmills in particular are well-known to both burn and crash quite spectacularly from dizzying heights.

    If anyone wanted to ‘refute Steve McIntyre’ they would get off to a good start by becoming a brilliant scientist with a broad understanding of statistical methods and when to use them. Having a fantastic, high quality blog would help.

  15. Just read Mark Steyn’s response to Mann’s suit. Quite fun, although tedious going back and forth between the Mann complaint and Steyn’s answers. It appears that things like this Facebook thing only bolster Steyn’s defense.

  16. Pamela Gray says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:48 am
    Fast forward to 7:12 for a lovely demonstration of trade winds courtesy of Bill Nye’s oh so intelligent understanding of all things sciency.

    Starting at 7:10, Nye says the trade winds stop, then the sun beats down, and the fishees die? Result: El Niño? Jesus. Has the stupidity of Americans come to this?

  17. They seem to be deleting posts which go to far in questioning him.

    The most recent post was written by someone by a name in the realm of typerwriterous, and he had written something to the effect of

    “with the hockey stick now being largely discredited, and seeing how there has not been any rise in temperatures for +17 years, has the fit to CO2 been reevaluated”
    (that is as best I remember it before it was chopped from the site)

    Maybe someone even has it in them to make a log of the comments and see which ones disappear into the ‘hey this is settled science’ abyss?

  18. I have a question for the dodgy doctor:

    You have a .Bachelor’s degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics.

    You have a Master’s degree in Physics.

    You have a Ph.D in Geology and Geophysics.

    How the heck did you get to become a “Distinguished” Professor of Meteorology?

    There seems to be a serious disconnect here, how do you get to become – unless it is an honorary title – a Professor of Meteorology, when you appear to have no qualifications in meteorology?

  19. ‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’

    — Ask him if atmospheric GHG loading increased or decreased net entropy production in the Earth system.

    A Distinguished Professor of Meteorology should know the answer to such elementary questions.

  20. I’ve noticed that Mann isn’t answering questions. It seems that a few Reddit trolls are answering all the qeustions for him in typical trollish fashion.

  21. Mann gave a talk at St Mary’s college of MD while my daughter was there. She asked him to sign my miniature hockey stick from the Chicago ICCC in 2010. (It has a label on the handle saying “Mann-made warming.”)

    He declined, so I guess that’s one of the questions he won’t answer. It was a bit cheeky of her….

  22. From Wikipedia:

    Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. “Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs.”[1]

    Does this remind you of anyone in particular?

  23. As a meteorologist, it’s interesting that a guy with no degree in meteorology is teaching meteorology.

    Also, if you want to know how big someone’s ego is, count how many times he uses the word “I.” It’s directly proportional. ;)

  24. I would love to ask … “Dr. Mann – I’m trying to write software that will create a hockey stick shape from a white noise input. Can you show me how this is done?”

  25. The Reddit mods will not tolerate anyone who they judge to be intolerant and judgmental. So I don’t expect any hard questions to get through. They’ve made up their minds, the debate is over before it ever happened, and banning the questioning of scientific hypothesis is the only way to preserve a free and open community. The purpose of this is to promote Mann’s book and, as the moderator points out, “[t]he Science AMA Series invites guests to /r/science, and is not a promotion. We fully expect all commenters to treat our guests with courtesy, and require that all commenters behave respectfully.” In other words, don’t say anything objectionable to Mann because we’re trying to help promote him.

  26. jayhd:

    At February 21, 2014 at 8:25 am you say

    Just read Mark Steyn’s response to Mann’s suit. Quite fun, although tedious going back and forth between the Mann complaint and Steyn’s answers. It appears that things like this Facebook thing only bolster Steyn’s defense.

    In hope of encouraging others to read Steyn’s defense I quote para. 111 which is my personal favourite.

    Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-Eleven of the Amended Complaint, and feels Plaintiff is going round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, like the circles that you find in the tree-rings of your mind.

    Richard

  27. RaiderDingo says:
    February 21, 2014 at 8:03 am
    Does this article refute Steve McIntyre?

    I started reading the article and got to the point where it stated, “While M&M clearly identified a mistake (or, at best, a poor methodological choice)…”

    How can an article refute Steve McIntyre when it acknowledges that he “clearly identified a mistake”? That sounds more like a vindication to me.

  28. How did he get an undergraduate degree in Applied Math when he doesn’t seem to know his Chi-Square from a T-square?

  29. Steyn is now seeking at least $5 million in compensatory damages and another $5 million in punitive damages !!!! This could get VERY interesting!

  30. I learned long ago that being a Professor Emeritus or “distinguished” professor means practically nothing. I’ve seen non-tenured PHd teaching assistants make such professors look like
    complete dimwits. Here we have a goofball self-promoter who continually violates the laws of logic with pathetic ad hominem fallacies, a sure sign that Mann cannot refute counter arguments by the skeptics. To my knowledge, only Freudian psychiatry can compete with modern climatology as a science with no power to predict, yet embraced by such true believers (like Mann). Of course,
    while Mann sets forth non-existent well-funded opponents motivated by money, we all know that the biggest motive of all, and one that guarantees a high income level, is the motive of public
    adulation, which Mann so obviously holds very dear. If Mann were to admit that what climate change there is is either of an unknown origen, or nothing to get excited about, that would be the end of Mann’s chances of being a somebody. And THAT , my friends, is why this eccentric guy keeps believing what everyone with any sense can clearly see is utter nonsense. Or, at least, he still SAYS that he believes the BS.

  31. We need some real legal heat, from an investment bank who bought into these various schemes with allegations of stock manipulation.

  32. Tom says:
    February 21, 2014 at 9:03 am

    “I’ve noticed that Mann isn’t answering questions. It seems that a few Reddit trolls are answering all the qeustions for him in typical trollish fashion.”

    He will be answering at 2pm ET, according to the article.

  33. If Mann lost his case against Tim Ball that would be big news. But the only place I see it is here: [snip – garbage from the slayers – Anthony]

    and its treated as if its old news. Can this be relied upon? Does anyone have a second source?

    REPLY: Finally, somebody with a lick of sense. The article by O’Sullivan is nothing more than a rah-rah moment for slayers. “bankruptcy” is only mentioned in the headline as a typical “suck you in” tactic. But he doesn’t cite any sources other than his own self delusional blather.

    The reality is that Mann is well funded via the outfit that Scott Mandia founded, and there’s some deep green pockets there. See http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/

    -Anthony

  34. Keep your eyes peeled. If he doesn’t receive an appropriate number of Valentines, we will soon see a new peer-reviewed paper entitled: “Love found to decrease with global warming…”

  35. As expected, an increase in solar activity has caused drop in temperature in the stratosphere and the troposphere above the Arctic Circle. Does polar vortex also will accelerate?

  36. Last night I was reading about Trenberth’s claim to be a Nobel Laureate, due to being involved in the IPCC’s work, and recalled that Mann made the same claim. I suddenly realized that, using their claim metrics, that I am also a Nobel Laureate. In 1988, the Nobel Awards committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to all Peacekeepers. I have served on a UN peacekeeping mission therefore, thanks to Kevin and Mike, I am eligible to make my claim to Nobel Laureate status. ;)

  37. I can see it all now… former frozen- toed Canadian Dr. Tim Ball, happily keeping up with blog threads while working on his tan at the beach down in Margaritaville.

  38. A legal defeat for Mann in DC could be a turning point in the struggle on the socio-political front. Warmism will start to look like a losing cause. Most people are followers. They want to shelter under the wing of winners. They’ll defect or at least distance themselves. Contrarians will start to get a little air-time.


  39. Walt Allensworth says:

    February 21, 2014 at 9:27 am

    I would love to ask … “Dr. Mann – I’m trying to write software that will create a hockey stick shape from a white noise input. Can you show me how this is done?

    Here’s how it can be done:
    1. Create a bunch of sets of time series white noise.
    2. Filter out the high frequency noise leaving only lower frequency variations.
    3. Create a selection program that looks at the last N samples of each and selects those sets which either increase or decrease dramatically like the supposed global temperature value has done over the last 100 years or so.
    4. Invert those sets where the last N samples have fallen dramatically.
    5. Average all selected sets (using the inverted versions of falling ones) into one time series.
    6. Plot out the results which will be a graph that is flat prior to the last N samples and rising steeply for the last N samples.

    The blade exists because that was the selection criteria that only selected those sets increasing in the last N samples. The flat handle exists because when you average random samples with no systematic contribution, they average towards zero.

    Of course Mann used real sample sets but evidently used this approach to select the sets that he used. It might even be possible that he used the world average instrument record T increase as the selection process which would be unrelated to the actual local temperatures experienced by the individual trees rather than the best estimates of the actual temperatures. Using trees not suitable for temperature estimates was evidently one of the factors. Also, using a yamal tree that was 6 standard deviations off of the normal probably helped contribute some as well. Regardless of the precise details mann used, it appears that he managed to filter out whatever weak temperature signal might have existed in the original tree datasets and succeeded in producing a result that was pure random noise until the selection criteria point of the set (last N samples) which always increased since decreasing ones were inverted. The proof of that is in the shape of the resulting graph.

    **********
    As for Steve McIntyre being disproven, not going to happen. Steve analyzed the data and showed errors in the activity. Steve’s results shows mann screwed up or falsified his work. Steve doesn’t prove that CAGW exists or doesn’t exist – but he does show that the supposed proof offered by mann is incorrect. AND so far(to my limited knowledge), mann has not presented a corrected result that actually provides evidence for CAGW or supports his claims from his faulty paper.

  40. I just realized that the news of Dr. Ball’s triumph in the BC courts was reported by John O’Sullivan of P.S.I.
    I withhold further comment in re this matter until substantive reporting from reliable sources is evident.

  41. For those of you that keep wanting to post that article from “principia”…don’t. It will be snipped.

    The article by O’Sullivan is nothing more than a rah-rah moment for Slayers. Note that “bankruptcy” is only mentioned in the headline as a typical “suck you in” tactic. But he doesn’t cite any sources other than his own self delusional blather.

    The reality is that Mann is well funded via the outfit that Scott Mandia founded, and there’s some deep green pockets there. See http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/

    -Anthony

  42. Top Ten Gags about the Baggage Carried by Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.

    10. It takes the whole hockey team to carry it.

    9. It needs its own sky cart.

    8. If you cut the hockey stick into 1 foot sections, it would still not fit in the overhead compartment and would have to be checked.

    7. William Connolley needed help to edit it all on Wikipedia.

    6. Tamino does not have room for it all on his Open Mind blog.

    5. The NAS Panel had to rent an extra storage room for it all.

    4. The peer review process had to be redefined to handle it all.

    3. If you hung it on the tip of the blade, it would turn it into a decline.

    2. Andrew Montford had to write another book.

    And finally, the number one gag about the baggage carried by Michael Mann’s hockey stick:

    1. Congress would have to legalize hemp in order to make a biodegradable bag robust enough to carry it all.

  43. This is Mann once again proving his not a public figure by pimping his ‘expertise’ on the internet for all to see?

  44. Hi, I’m basically an average kinda guy. Only a buffoon would think I have the charm of a Robert Redford. Sure, during my adolescence I had dreams of maybe being a movie star. But, even if I exhibited any kind of talent at acting the best I could do would be as a Danny Devito stand-in. I certainly don’t have the looks of a Brad Pitt or a Richard Geer. Of course, if my acting ability was stellar I could maybe be a Gene Hackman, who’s also quite average if not frumpy looking. But, then again, he’s also possessed of a commanding presence. I have the presence of a flee. And, did I say I have no acting ability? Yeah, so my road to fame can’t be through that route.

    And my road to fame certainly can’t be through professional sports. Look at me: short? There goes basketball, especially since I can barely toss a crumpled up paper into the garbage can. Football? Look at me, what do you think? I’d be in intensive care the first time I got tackled.

    And the Rock Star route is certainly out of the question. Look at those guys; they’ve got lots of hair. Heck, I hardly have any. Moreover, check out how thin and gaunt they are – all that partying. Me, I’m pudgy, and more than two beers and I’m puking. Geez, those groupies woulda been nice though – ‘cept they probably woulda’ snickered ’bout it to the tabloids the next morning.

    Yeah, I’m just an average, short, pudgy, balding, run-of-the-mill kinda’ guy. I’m no prodigy. I possess no unique talents. I’ve uncovered no eternal truths. I’m not a towering intellect, a born leader. I’m just like just about everybody else.

    And I hate that. I want to be famous, adored, remembered throughout history. And, like the vast majority of people, I possess nothing exceptional that would put my name on everybody’s lips. So I have to come up with a plan, a plan that can transform my common mediocrity into something of importance, something to realize my adolescent fantasies of greatness and fame.

    I know; I have to save that which requires no saving (since I don’t, otherwise, have the courage to really jump in the fire and save something). I have to rescue that which needs no rescuing (ditto). Since I’m not a person that possesses something extra I must provide a perceptional elevation to the mediocre, the everyday, up to that of something of a crisis proportion so that my mediocrity, my averageness is sufficient to combat this alleged menace. That’s the trick; climate science here I come.

  45. Anthony,

    In Mann’s case I’m not entirely sure that one is allowed to pay judgements from a legal defense fund. You can from liability insurance but I’m not so sure about defense funds.

  46. RaiderDingo says:
    February 21, 2014 at 8:03 am

    Does this article refute Steve McIntyre?

    Not when you read it. In fact, the author is criticising Wegman et al, who did blundered pretty seriously in the pot-kettle department, probably due to what I used to think of as professorial blindness back in the old salad days:

    Professor to Grad student: I need this research on my desk yesterday
    GS: but I have a date!
    PtoGS: Irrelevant.
    GS slopes off and half-***edly assembles “data” for professor.
    Professor assumes “data” is simply the brilliant product he has “trained” his GS to produce.
    Professor is then embarrassed and GS smiles.

    The author argues ineffectively that because M&M showed graphs of the most pronounced 1% of their results (“Oooh, cherry picking”, but!!! they are avowedly making cherry pie). M&M give the descriptive statistics of the resultant distributions of their simulations on page 1 of their paper, and the author dodges that little fact. M&M used the graphs they did in order to illustrate that, using simulated data, a Mannian hockey stick indistinguishable from their worst-case results occurs around one per cent of the time. The take away was that Mann could not attribute his stick to causal conditions if he could not exclude mathematical artifacts, and apparently, he was unconversant with the existence of the problem or the standard steps to mitigate it. Worse, he can’t even say with certainty that he really understands that character of his data!

    I believe that Jeff Id and others demonstrated similar problems with other AGW papers that relied on Mann and team’s methods. That doesn’t go away. It is also important to remember that Mann really did “fabricate” his hockey stick and did not either identify that he did so or justify why he did so. He added in temperature to the end of the series where his ring data ceased to behave as he wanted it to. Those actions (or the non-actions really) are the crux of the matter. Openness in science is essential, as is the ability to listen to, and more importantly, to use criticism to improve your work. Mann is not open about his work and he can’t use criticism constructively to improve his work. In fact he throws lawsuits – the adult version of temper tantrums instead when criticism occurs. Deep Climate’s arguments simply gloss over the issue by employing strawman style argumentation

  47. I am really dissappointed to learn that the happy news that Mann had lost his suit against Dr Ball was… er… not reliable. I am still very hopefull that the suit will come to a fair conclusion acquitting Dr Ball, and he can put this behind him.

  48. Alan Robertson says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:36 am

    I just realized that the news of Dr. Ball’s triumph in the BC courts was reported by John O’Sullivan of P.S.I.
    I withhold further comment in re this matter until substantive reporting from reliable sources is evident.

    Mann dropped his suit over a year ago, as was reported on WUWT somewhere. The news reported today was that Ball has just filed a countersuit for $10 million.

  49. ” Mike Tremblay says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Last night I was reading about Trenberth’s claim to be a Nobel Laureate, due to being involved in the IPCC’s work, and recalled that Mann made the same claim. I suddenly realized that, using their claim metrics, that I am also a Nobel Laureate. In 1988, the Nobel Awards committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to all Peacekeepers. I have served on a UN peacekeeping mission therefore, thanks to Kevin and Mike, I am eligible to make my claim to Nobel Laureate status. ;)”

    I am a citizen of Britain, and thus a citizen of the EU. The EU won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, so I am a Nobel laureate.

  50. I too am finding the status of Dr Balls legal engagement with the mann confusing, perhaps Dr Ball could provide an update.
    Ditto for the action brought by that weaselly activist Weaver, who is now an elected public leech in BC.

  51. Oops–I wrote just above:

    The news reported today was that Ball has just filed a countersuit for $10 million.

    Actually, it’s Steyn who’s suing. See the thread after this one.

  52. “Big Don says:
    February 21, 2014 at 9:19 am
    From Wikipedia:

    Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. “Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs.”[1]

    Does this remind you of anyone in particular?”

    It certainly explains Mann’s behavior over the years, doesn’t it? If Mikey is living in his own delusional meglomaniacal fantasy world, the real tragedy of it is that those that his followers and believers are totally unaware of it even as he displays the symptoms of it right in front of their faces, including many in government and the media.

  53. rogerknights says:
    February 21, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Alan Robertson says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:36 am

    I just realized that the news of Dr. Ball’s triumph in the BC courts was reported by John O’Sullivan of P.S.I.
    I withhold further comment in re this matter until substantive reporting from reliable sources is evident.

    Mann dropped his suit over a year ago, as was reported on WUWT somewhere. The news reported today was that Ball has just filed a countersuit for $10 million.
    ______________________________
    I haven’t found any news reports of this event, have you?

  54. I’m Michael E. Mann. I’m Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI).

    How many “distinguished” professors actually use this adjective in self descriptions?

  55. Dear Dr. Mann, In your claim against Steyn, et. al., you claim to have been exonerated by several institutions including a review by Penn State? How could any reasonable person not question that claim? Also, why doesn’t your defense fund just drop your suit now before you totally embarrass them?

  56. ” Canman

    How many “distinguished” professors actually use this adjective in self descriptions?”

    Distinguished Professor is an actual academic rank and not self-glorification

  57. I looked at the picture. Then I saw the little heart shaped symbol in the sentence, ” show the Mann a
    (heart) on Valentine’s day. The first picture that came to my mind was an Inca high priest (Al Gore) showing “the” Mann’s heart in front of his face.

  58. gb_dorset says:
    Dave L says:
    Paul says:
    David L. Hagen says:
    gbdorset says:
    Gary Meyers says:
    Fred says:
    mpaul says:

    There is a lot of redundancy amongst these names… Slayers indeed, more like someone is trying to poison this thread.

    Thanks for being alert Anthony! (and dealing with the tedious!)

  59. Concerning Trenberth – I think y’all have misunderstood his claim. Rather than Nobel Laureate, I think he was claiming to be a Noble Lariat. That is to say a model of ford pickup truck sold second hand through the Noble Motors Inc. of Tucson AZ.

  60. Gary Meyers says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:52 am

    OK. What is “Slayers”? I was all happy and such!
    =============================================================================
    They are a group that claims to have completely disproved the atmospheric green house effect.

    The term “Slayers” comes from the title of a book written by several members of the group titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”

  61. Anthony – could you explain what “garbage from the slayers” means please?
    I can’t find anything online to explain the phrase.

  62. There is a sort of parallel story, I should say oblique is a better descriptor, going on in Biblical Archaeology. An ex-curator of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) has made accusations of all sorts against Prof. James Tabor and Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici regarding the Talpiot Tomb, better known as the “Tomb of the Jesus Family”. Both Tabor and Jacobovici have tolerated these accusations because they believe in academic freedom, freedom to dissent, and so forth. But the accusations have gone on for a very long time (probably beginning before 2007), and are being made to Prof. Tabor’s home academic department at the University of North Carolina, and to sponsors of Tabor’s research. The accusations have been quite abusive at times and have become such a nuisance that Jacobovici has now sued this fellow for defamation in Israel (where justice grinds at a biblical pace). If one compares this situation with that of Michael Mann vs. Ball or Steyn, it is apparent that Mann is unbelievably thin-skinned. Tabor has put up with orders of magnitude worse, and has yet to take any civil action.

  63. In Steyn’s response to Plaintiff’s claims, one jewel out of many is:

    “Denies…claim…..except admits that there was an investigation by former FBI Director Freeh concluding that Penn State and its highest officers had helped cover up the serial child rape perpetrated by Dr Mann’s colleague Jerry Sandusky. ”

    You gotta love this unrepentant fellow.

  64. Okay, well an answer to my question was denied by Michael E Mann (Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Penn State)

    That was my question (and you can see he answered the two surrounding questions without issue, so I know he read mine, dammit!)

    …but why didn’t he answer my question? =-(

  65. I think Mann my feel a worming feeling in the seat of his pants if he goes to court against Mark Stein. It could stain his reputation. Well, it is already stained so I stand corrected on that one.

  66. …Ask Me Almost Anything!
    Yes, can you just STFU?

    One of these days UCB, Yale, Penn State and maybe UVa will regret your very existence with embarrassment.

  67. Michael Mann

    I understand you think greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) cause the “33 degrees of warming” rather than it being already there because gravity forms an autonomous lapse rate.

    So I’m asking “What is the sensitivity to a 1% change in the percentage of water vapor above any particular region?”

    You see, I just want to work out if, say a wet rain forest with 4% water vapor is supposed to be about 20 degrees hotter than a dry desert with only 1% water vapor.

    My problem is that a comprehensive study based on 30 years of temperature data on three continents showed that wetter regions had lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions.

  68. DocMartyn@12:36pm,

    Distinguished Professor is an actual academic rank and not self-glorification

    Thanks for the clarification. I still think many “distinguished” professors would avoid the adjective in a self description (especially an informal one).

  69. Paul Westhaver says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:10 am

    I am not going there. Let them talk to each other in their closed self-gratifying box.
    ————————————————————————————————————-
    At times that is the best response to make.

    On another note, would anyone know if Mann was clean shaven back in early 2011? At that time, I was in SF staying with my sister while the State of California took care of removing the cataracts from my eyes. One morning about this time of year, I had gone down to the family restaurant in North Beach for my morning coffee. As I was weaving my way out of the always crowded restaurant, I heard a voice whisper, ‘there he is’, I snapped my head to the right. Sitting at a table next to the doorway was a group of 4 men. I locked my tiger-gaze on the one who had spoken, who was now staring open-mouthed at me. Then I turned and walked out. He looked rather similar to Mann, although he was clean shaven. Would anyone know?

  70. [snip – I don’t like Dr. Mann’s actions any more than you do, but lets focus on the issues, not his appearance – Anthony]

  71. That this follows so closely to “Drink Wine Day” (Feb 18), I’m thinking this is one of those examples of why people shouldn’t drink and post. I’m not saying that is what Mann did, but his post is indistinguishable from such an act.

  72. The folks at reddit apparently didn’t like my question. They down-voted it until it disappeared from the page because it was below the rating threshold:

    Dr. Mann,

    In your famous “Nature trick” you replaced the most recent section of your proxy-derived temperature graph with a graph of *measured* temperature data, to “hide the decline” in the proxy-derived values, because that decline was inconsistent with measured temperatures. Splicing in the measured data hid the fact that the proxy-derived values were plainly wrong during that period of time, a fact which (were it not hidden) cast doubt upon your method of deriving ancient temperatures from tree ring proxies.

    Phil Jones discussed using your “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series…to hide the decline” in this 1999 email:

    http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/0942777075.txt

    This was the reaction of a prominent longtime climate alarmist, physicist Richard Muller:

    Muller sounds like a cheated-on spouse. He said he’s “infuriated.” He says your team is the group he “trusted the most,” but he vows that now he’ll no longer even read your papers.

    Dr. Mann, will you please take this opportunity to apologize for deceiving the community with your “Nature trick?”

  73. Ever notice that some of these doomsdayers worried about consuming the Earth’s resources
    look like they have consumed too many resources themselves?

    Big Al and MM could make sure some small island sinks.

    By taking a holiday there together…

  74. It’s probably worth getting a list of the questions he didn’t answer, though I thought he said he may do a few more tomorrow. Mine is so far unanswered:

    MBH98 said: “the long-term trend in NH is relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators”,
    yet in your book you said: “revealed that not all of the records were playing an equal role in our reconstructions. Certain proxy data appeared to be of critical importance in establishing the reliability of the reconstruction–in particular, one set of tree ring records spanning the boreal tree line of North America published by dendroclimatologists Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D’Arrigo”.

    How can trend be robust to inclusion of indicators if certain proxy data was of critical importance?

    Brandon Shollenberger has it covered in more detail here: http://tinyurl.com/k9ur6e2

  75. “…the uneasy relationship between science and politics…”

    Read: “I am uneasy that, unless I keep pumping out the unfounded and discredited climate model ‘outcomes’ that back AGW, politicians will reduce grant funding levels for our cargo cult science.”

  76. (Where’s Barbara Walters when you need her?)

    Question for Mann: If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

  77. Pamela Gray says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:48 am
    Fast forward to 7:12 for a lovely demonstration of trade winds courtesy of Bill Nye’s oh so intelligent understanding of all things sciency.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I reckon when he moved from helping to design airplanes to comedy, the comedy over rode his engineering skills. So you really need to take everything Bill Nye says with a huge helping of salt.

    http://www.billnye.com/about-bill-nye/biography/

  78. Dear Mikey;
    Where abouts in your colon do you predict your head will meet your foot? Or has it already happened?

  79. Be aware that this was competing self-promoter Muller trying to diss his rival, and simultaneously don the honourable mantle of a skeptic, before whipsawing Ant*ony and others and repositioning as an “ex-skeptic” when his own fiddle of the records (AKA “jacknifing”) was hyped in the press (pre-publication) as the BEST truly true data. .

  80. Blew a blockquote tag above:
    < daveburton says:
    February 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    This was the reaction of a prominent longtime climate alarmist, physicist Richard Muller:

    Etc

  81. Blew it again! Sorry:

    daveburton says:
    February 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    This was the reaction of a prominent longtime climate alarmist, physicist Richard Muller:

    Etc

  82. Brian H wrote, “that this was competing self-promoter Muller trying to diss his rival…”

    Brian, regardless of what you think about Muller or his motivations, he did an excellent job of explaining Mann’s hide-the-decline Nature Trick fraud.

    Firefox said, “I posted some proof of how the mods were covering for Mann… At 9:17pm ET there were 397 total comments and only 291 visible comments.”

    Well, the reddit mods didn’t delete my question. Instead, the participants just down-voted it until it disappeared from view, and Mann ignored it.

    BTW, I wouldn’t mind if someone here would up-vote it, so that it reappears! It’s currently at -6. I think it has to be -4 or higher to be visible. (I just went through the comments, ctrl-F searching for “comment score below threshold” and up-voting most of those comments.)

  83. I was going to suggest this is proof of my article Women love ugly men. However google for the article I also found:
    Daily mail Why we women love an ugly man

    http://uk.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/26_dating_advice.html

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060705103054AA7icge

    So, this is more than just my observation. To summarize the article: it seems to be proof that women prefer a man “with character” (or it could be men of women). This strongly suggests that there is no “ideal” man or to go further: we actively seek partners who are not some ideal looking person. This is shown by the way the human race continues to have a huge diversity of faces even though we’ve had millions of years to breed out “ugly”.

    So, “ugly” must have a genetic advantage over “barbie-clone” faces.

  84. I asked a simple question of Mr Mann. Whether or not he was in discussion with UVA for a position there when the president was dumped by the board and later re-instated. If you remember there was that 2012 scandal. not only did I not get a response, but the question was disappeared and now I can’t log onto reddit. Looks like they silently disabled my account.

    Shades of 1984, eh?

Comments are closed.