Quote of the week #32 – hockeying up a zinger

You have to wonder, has Dr. Mann decided to pull a CYA in the face of Climategate, or is he just not cognizant of how ridiculous his statement is in the context of his past behavior?


Since “Climategate” Dr. Michael Mann has been on a nonstop media blitz. It seems he’s given dozens if not hundreds of interviews since the story broke on November 19th. It seem obvious that he’ll talk to anyone in an effort to get his point across. Up until this one interview, the message has been consistent with much of what he’s said and done in the past. That is, until this zinger.

In an interview given to The Morning Call, Dr. Mann was able to alienate both sides of the debate with a single sentence:

“I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”

Climatician, heal thyself. Start with a mirror.

Yet, while saying things like:

“I wish in retrospect I had told him, ‘Hey, you shouldn’t even be thinking about this,’” [reference to deleting emails]

… when his own work is subject to “scrutiny”, he has to resort to FTP data folders labeled “censored“. Look at what happens when that Mann “censored” data is used.

Here’s the complete interview transcript.

You know, The Daily Call only has one side of the story. They really should interview Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick next. Their contact page is helpful for such requests.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

However he spells ‘skeptic’, I think I’ll spell it the other way.

Richard M

I’m sure Dr. Mann believes he has done nothing wrong … but I suspect the same was true of [snip – lets not use that comparison here] The human mind can fool itself easily.

Dermot O'Logical

“I’m a skeptic”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We’re still waiting on the evidence for THAT claim.

Henry chance

Mann is both troubled and confused.
The rapidfire scheduling of interviews is a cover for insecurity issues.
That is the total point of the warmist ideology. They crave acceptance and validation of fellow extremists. Now that their boat is sinking, Mann is appealing for sympathy and playing victum to get it.
Mann is exposed and trying to save face.
His desire to “subject it to scrutiny and Validation” Actually means peer review and personal validation.
He indicated in the e-mails that “peer review” was the insiders group that predictably brown nosed each other and shunned folks that raised questions.
Cheating hurts his club.


yesterdays mann

“I am not a crook.”

Rick K

One Mann’s quote is another man’s “Quote of the Week!”


The Manniac school of fear mongering is falling apart, and the person responsible is Mann himself.

I’m happy to use anything to help the Hockey Stick fall apart. The fact that this comes from one of its co-creators is perhaps indicative of the personality-type that Establishment climate science in its present form attracts.

Steve Goddard

I’m always curious how these people correlate small changes in sea level with CO2 from fossil fuels. That is quite a stretch, given that sea level has increased over 100 metres in the last 20,000 years.


Mann has said nothing different in this interview than what he has always said: humans are dangerously warming the planet, hurricanes are becoming stronger, temperatures are higher than ever in the last 1,000 years, polar bears are threatened and the atoll islands are doomed.
Once a Mann, always a Mann.

Rich Day

Someone really needs to send Mann a 2010 calendar. April Fool’s Day is on Thursday.


Oh, the comments here are priceless. Stephen Parker wins.

David Ball

They are interviewing only the criminals and NO ONE else. This is the largest scientific hoax of all time and the media remains asleep. On the bright side, all the interviews that Mann has given since the release of the emails have done nothing to change anyones mind. The true believers still believe and we still do not have voice. What is very funny is that they seem to be blaming the skeptics and blogs like this one for the failure of their predictions. It would have nothing to do with them being wrong, would it?


This article is on a par with the recent article written by Dr Pachuari.(In the Guardian)
Neither article is worthy of debate in my opinion and i regret taking the time to read them both.However, as a skeptic, i will continue to read all available material because i hope that i am open to persuasion. My current position, based on all the information that i have consumed is that of a raving skeptic who is outraged by what i deduce to be going on. The name, DENMARK and the word ROTTEN immediately spring to mind.


“I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.” M. Mann
Isn’t that what McKitrick and McIntyre have and are still trying to do? Why Mann doesn’t offer up data willingly means even he knows he’s been up to no good.
Meanwhile ther rest of us are deniers. Deniers of what may I ask? As for the validation all we get are failed predictions & forecasts.

David Ball

Dr. Ball’s latest on groupthink. Posted here because Dr. Mann is involved. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21463


How dare you question a Living God!!!!


Exactly my impression when I read this. Mann, a perpetrator of the hoax now calls himself a skeptic who merely follows the data. Hmmmm.

David Ball

The Omega Mann ?


Its good to see than Mann is all about transparency and replication:
“When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”
I’m glad he’s seen the light. No doubt now he’ll apologize for his past obstructionism and release all of his raw data and codes.
Hmm.. now I’M the one who’s skeptical…

Tom G(ologist)

This is my hometown newspaper, and, believe me, a letter to the editor is in the offing already.


Sitting in his No Mann’s Land.

John of Upton

Mann for all seasons ?


I think you have all mis-heard him, what he actually said was;
“I’m Spartacus”
which he can’t be because obviously ” I’m Spartacus”


Perhaps he really is a believer: He faithfully believes. We should calm him down by saying: “Yeah buddy, just don´t worry, you are right, you are a sage and not only that but a prophet who has came down from above to this world to warn us not to behave bad against climate”
Then ask him: “Wanna a drink?” (with a pill in it, of course). That´s all! and take him to the asylum.

Steve in SC

rectal linear

Mr. Mann,
Bad science is bad science no matter how you try to spin it.


Will he never learn to Shut-the-H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks-UP !?!

Phillip Bratby

Piltdown Mann?


Wow, he is slippery! Whenever asked a question that he could be picked up on he doesn’t answer with his personal opinion but sidesteps, referring to IPCC reports or others saying XYZ. When asked about something that could be tested by objective observation in the near future he says he doesn’t make predictions, but he makes numerous predictions when its something in the distant future or not easily testable.

When we think about Mann’s spelling of the skeptics he belongs to, we should ask which of them is correct?
I think that Mr Mann only belongs to the intersection of the groups of skeptics and sceptics – i.e. he has the properties that skeptics and sceptics have in common. He is a septic.
Thanks to the Wikipedia fraudster William Connolley for inspiration.

Alan the Brit

Now, as I understand it form icecore data, at least the last three interglacials over the last 400,000 years, were considerably warmer than today by at least 5°C, so why does Mann choose to use an example of100 million years ago?
A BBC Horizon programme a few years ago talked about the causes of mass extinction several hundred million years ago of 95% of all life as a result of a fairly rapid rise in global temps of 10°C. Theory upon theory was aired in the show, but none seemed to be complete, but they eventually plumped for one whereby the Siberian basalt volcanic eruptions raised the global temperature by 5°C, (Earth would have been in Pangea at that time) but which was insufficient to cause mass extinction in itself, but in turn would cause the melt of methane clathrates beneath the sea which it was claimed would cause a further 5°C rise in temperatures, thus causing the mass extinction. I am guessing that theory has been ditched in light of the previous para? I am no expert!

Edmund Burke

O.T. But has anyone noticed the Arctic ice coverage. It is at it’s highest since 2003 despite the “record Feb high anomalies” concentrated in the Arctic region.
Shome mishtake shurely.

John Blake

Meet Der Grosse Herr Professor Michael Mann, New Creationist prophet of biblical proportions. If something rather than nothing exists, it couldn’t have “just happened”, could it? By necessity an All-powerful Old Man with White Whiskers dwelling beyond space-and-time, stirring the quantum pot with a relativistic finger, is a force of destiny akin to Anthropogenic Global Warming (sic). Facts, objective rationality, need not detain us, for the science, she is settled. Mama mia!
As for testable hypotheses, falsifiable experiments, disinterested replication of results not just in hindsight but in future time-frames: Fuhgeddabudit. FOIA, puh-leeze… we got grant applications to fill out. My good buddies Hansen and Jones have a whole bunch a’ new tricks up their sleeves.


He’s just trying to Mann up.

F. Ross

“I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”

Hah! It is to laugh.
Can’t wait to hear McIntyre’s & McKittrick’s responses.

Steve Keohane

Time we send a Mann to the moon?


Presumably sometime soon a hotshot lawyer is going to see the Billions of Dollars that can be made off of lawsuits against these lying hucksters.
The only surprising thing is that it hasn’t happened already. The victims, all of us, just need to coalesce around a point of attack that the Citizens of anywhere can identify with.
Proof of duplicity is everywhere and starting with Pachauri, Mann and Jones would yield some positive returns.


Let’s put it this way: “The guy has ‘issues'”

Cassandra King

Man made global warming or Mann made global warming?
I think man made global warming fits the theory perfectly only not in the way the theorys proponents describe.
They started with a theoretical model which perfectly aligned itself to a socio political narrative, because those who saw AGW as a pefect vehicle to enact this new socio political model had the control of the purse strings it provided compliant scientists with generous funding to supply evidence to back the theory up.
The temptation to find evidence where none exists can be almost irresistable when continued funding depends on finding those links and proofs, we all know that when the rewards are high enough most of us will justify almost anything to ourselves and others.
The essence of the AGW theory is that it became a perfect vehicle for a political narrative and as such the temptation to make the evidence fit the theroy became just too tempting, too much money became available too quickly to scientists starved of funding, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The moral of the story is simple and frankly the lessons of history have already shown us the dangers, science and politics should never be mixed.
Unless we learn from the mistakes of histroy we are doomed to repeat them until we do learn those lessons.

As the ship sinks, the rats start to paddle furiously.


With apologies to the Beatles (and all lovers of music):
He’s a real nowhere Mann,
Sitting in his Dendro Land,
Making all his warming plans
for nobody.
Clearly has a point of view,
Knows not where he’s taking you,
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere Mann please listen,
You don’t know what you’re missing,
Nowhere Mann, the world ain’t at your command!
He’s as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Mann can you see me at all?
Nowhere Mann, don’t worry,
Take your time, don’t hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
lends you a hand!
Clearly has a point of view,
Knows not where he’s taking you,
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere Mann please listen,
you don’t know what you’re missing
Nowhere Mann, the world ain’t at your command!
He’s a real Nowhere Mann,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody!


To a layman, all this looks quite plausable.
And that is a worry.


kim (08:57:01) :
Sitting in his No Mann’s Land
Apologies Kim, I’ve only just spotted your post


The next new-age science fiasco on TV:


I’ve seen a number of alarmists recently claiming they are sceptics, see the likes of Boleslas Broda and Lazarus on Paul Hudson’s BBC Blog. It seems a new strategy to confuse the media as to who the AGW heretics are.


Perhap’s Mann’s skepticism comes from realization that something else far surpasses CO2 as the cause of Global Warming:
(Of course, such a staggering correlation has to be adjusted for the divergence caused by all those new recruits from Somalia.)

Janice The American Elder



MangoChutney 9:42:44
The only thing you need to apologize for is brilliantly outshining my contribution.