This video from the AccuWeather website. Since Dr. Mann is in the same city, it is easy for them to get an interview, which they did.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Michael Mann Responds to Climategate Allegations
I wish the interview wasn’t edited so much. I was trying to read his body/facial expressions but the clips were so short that it made it difficult.
The only TENURED LIAR on the Penn State campus.
I posted on the very first thread that Mann would claim the e-mails would be taken out of context. Mann yu are not very bright. an e-mal has a subject line which annouinces the context and the topic. It announces to whom the message is sent and what the goal is.
You can’t say you didn’t say what was said.
Sure it is a distraction. Thatis true of every scandel.
Mann has proven in writing he is a vindictive person.
Man also tells us very clearly in writing that he is manipulative and will manipulate editors to delete articles and keep people out that question him.
Mann gets to read this and see that he can’t fool the skeptics.
This is worse than expected.
Funny thing here…
When Republicans or conservatives are outted for something the person doing the outting is a brave whistle blower or some such nonsense…
When the tables are reversed its a crime of some sort: Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over ‘Climategate’
Here is a fair assessment of the Moonbot debate here in Canada last evening. Synopsis: Climategate kicks a$$!
Link here
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/02/terence-corcoran-skeptics-score-a-win-against-alarmists.aspx
Just a few comments though, again, as I said, hard to tell, but he did seem to be looking down quite a bit, which isn’t a good sign. Also, when he said that “no emails were deleted” he was nodding “yes” – as in “yes” they were deleted and at the end of that sentence he seems to lick his lips a bit. Oh, and he wasn’t blinking at all when he said that – I suspect right after that clip ended he blinked a bunch, a release of the stress caused by lying.
This might cheer everyone up a bit:
Larry Geiger (16:59:15) :
He’s a known liar. Expecting any more integrity from his research under difference circumstances is not warranted. Liars lie, even when they have no need to lie.
Mark
Doesnt seem to play in Australia :'(
I guess I will stop calling him Piltdown Mann after that performance…. Not.
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.
Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.
“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”
Well, Senator, we’ve looked at ’em for quite some time now, and we see some very bad things were done in the name of AGW.
And it all depends on who leaked the emails.
Looks to be internal.
Keep reading Senator, you will eventually find that AGW was concocted, and while you are at it, why don’t you lean on somebody to get the destroyed data back into the public record.
Some action by CEI:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/competitive-enterprise-institute-petitions-epa-to-suspend-proposed-co2-regs/
The crime is the coverup and the real damaging data is the Fortran Computer Code. Forget about the emails. The experts out there need to examine the code because it is the tool that many so called scientists relied upon. It will be their undoing along with the coverup. Nail them Anthony!
Mann has an inflated ego. His reference to “it is a distraction” tells us he thinks it is a noble calling. That line tells us he is incredibly self important and this interferes with his gift to the planet. How dare the insignificant people waste his time.
The smug expression on his face indicates denial. This denial explains why he is too important to release his data to people that have the nerve to question his proclamations.
I noticed he rapidly released more studies after his exposure. I wonder if he has faced a classroom full of students since the big bust.
Uh, different, not difference, in the above post.
Just got an email from Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort: most snow in 30 years in the month of November, 18 feet, 4 times the average.
Mark
Ref dearieme (16:29:17) post linking to the Dailymail
Love the picture caption:
‘Victim’: Professor Phil Jones
Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400, AD 1600… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! mike
p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first.
This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
Meltdown Mann and one of the CRUtape letters
Smugly superior condescension matched only by astounding arrogance. Mann shows he has the wherewithal to dig himself a truly deep hole.
tokyoboy (16:43:40) :
I wonder whether the IPCC AR5 would come out in due course. Its publication will at least be heavily delayed?
Maybe it will come out in comic book format.
He lost a little weight. Has he been a tree ring diet? MMMM So much data to hide.
It woz Hansen wot dun it!
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/it-woz-hansen.html
re: DotEarth on Roger P. Sr. ( http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ )
Headline “Critic of ‘Climate Oligarchy’ Defends Case for CO2-Driven Warming”
Has anyone seen any comment by Roger Sr on Andy’s take on Roger’s statements?
What are the implications of this exchange?
See 1213201481.txt.
I have trouble understanding why this simple exchange is not the end of Michael Mann. Does Penn State, by turning Nelson’s blind eye, support this sort of thing?
1. Mike to Phil, requesting Phil’s H index ( a measure of publishing success) for application as a fellow of the AGU:
Hi Phil,
I’m continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel
room in Trieste–the weather isn’t any good!). If its possible for a case to
be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as
supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of
the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I’m told is important!
Surprisingly, Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I’m guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had
something to do w/ that 😉
Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value
of “N” where “N” is the number of papers an individual authored/co-authored
that have more than N citations. N=40 (i.e., an individual has published
at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I’m guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind figuring out that number and sending–I think it would be useful is really sealing the case.
[……]
mike
2. Phil tells mike that the index is 62 if other ‘phil jones’ are not removed, 52 otherwise:
Mike,
Off to the US tomorrow for 1.5 days in Asheville.
On 1, this is what people call the H index. I’ve tried working this out and there is software for it on the web of science. Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got
52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52.
Cheers,
Phil
3. Mike tells Phil he will use 62 regardless:
HI Phil,
OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.
[……]
mike
Phil Jones was subsequently admitted as a fellow.
Does this mean, as it certainly appears to mean, the Phil Jones was fradulently admitted as an AGU fellow?
OT, not sure if this has been posted before there are so many to read…but…
Scientists resigns from the Australian CSIRO.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742