From Penn State, the best news they’ve had all month:
Mann to receive Hans Oeschger Medal from European Geosciences Union
Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State, was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union.
The medal was established in 2001 in recognition of the scientific achievements of Hans Oeschger to honor outstanding scientists whose work is related to climate: past, present and future.
Mann’s research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system. He is best known for the “hockey stick,” a chart he and his co-authors published in 1999 using proxy climate data such as tree-rings and ice cores to estimate temperatures over the past thousand years. The hockey stick demonstrated that temperatures had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels and is the subject of Mann’s new book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,” due out in early 2012.
Mann received his undergraduate degrees in physics and applied math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in geology and geophysics from Yale University. He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report and has served as chair for the National Academy of Sciences “Frontiers of Science.” In 2007 he shared the Nobel Prize with other IPCC lead authors.
He will receive his award during the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, April 22-27, 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Mann will also present a Medal Lecture during the conference.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
HankH, it is absolutely true that this is a peer (peer here being the members of the EGU committee which decides who gets the award) nominated award. It speaks volumes about what Mann’s peers think about his work. He isn’t a bad or incompetent scientist. He’s pretty damn good.
Jokers, clearly!
The former B.C. premier was awarded with the Order of B.C., the province’s highest honour, for creating North America’s first carbon tax as well as the carbon offset purchase regime that every hospital and school board is compelled to participate in, even though he was not eligible for the award.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/05/bc-protest-gordon-campbell-order.html?cmp=rss
Corruption is rife throughout the AGW community. And please people, don’t use the words “post normal” when the proper term is “corrupt”.
Buddy-awards too?
davidmhoffer,
So you are very selective about what you consider to be good research by a person you revile, if, and only if, it may support your point of view. However, research by the same person that you don’t agree with is invalid? Please explain.
R. Gates;
Suggest you contact the nominating committee if you’re so keen to know. Or simply read his rather extensive Wikipedia listing. Since I didn’t nominate him nor did I say “well deserved” (though it well could be), but simply congratulated him, as it is the polite thing do…you’ll have to try to pick an argument with someone else.>>>
1. As usual, asked a direct question, R. Gates gives excuses for not being able to answer, and a vague reference to other sources of data.
2. Is it your habit to congratulate someone for an award you admit you have no idea what it is for, nor do you know if it is deserved? I’m certain that plenty of people congratulated Joseph Stalin when he rose to power. There were those to believed in him, and those who were sucking up. Since you admit to not knowing what the award is for, and not knowing if it is merited, might I assume that you are just sucking up?
3. I’m not picking an argument with you, quite the opposite in fact. Do you sincerely suggest that you were merely congratulating Michael Mann and figured that this would be a good forum to get that message to him? Come on! You posted a congratulatory remark in a site which has had a strong hand in debunking many of his claims and the bulk of the audience has an intensly negative view of him. I can ascribe only a limited number of logical possibilities for doing so. Either you were attempting to provoke a reaction, or you just wanted to rub skeptic noses in what you think is a victory. You are the one picking a fight, and when challenged on it, point at the other party and shout “he started it”. Nice. Mature. Not.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm
davidmhoffer,
So you are very selective about what you consider to be good research by a person you revile, if, and only if, it may support your point of view. However, research by the same person that you don’t agree with is invalid? Please explain.>>>
Your position was that you find it ironic that some people cite the AMO to support their anti-CAGW position and that Michael Mann had a hand in that research. I never said if I thought it was good research or not. I don’t know, and for the purpose of taking you to task on your original comment, I don’t care. He is being taken to task for having frabricated many of his results. That he produced other results at some point that perhaps supported a different perspective is immaterial.
Well, unless he fabricated those too.
There is well performed science underpinning the AMO. Doesn’t matter who did it if it done well. There is fradulant science underpinning CAGW. Who did it and why suddenly is important. If Michael Mann went into a bank and withdrew money from his own account, and the next day robbed the same bank at gun point, would you excuse the crime because yeserday he played by the rules, so its OK for him to break them today?
Rattus Norvegicus says:
November 16, 2011 at 9:57 pm
HankH, it is absolutely true that this is a peer (peer here being the members of the EGU committee which decides who gets the award) nominated award. It speaks volumes about what Mann’s peers think about his work. He isn’t a bad or incompetent scientist. He’s pretty damn good.
===================================================
I guess that’s subjective, but I wouldn’t say stubbornly refusing to admit mistakes, even after he’s shown, to be “pretty damn good”. Not once, not twice, but over and over again. He gave up any credibility he could have had with the Tijlander debacle. Typically, rent seeking advocates who refuse to show methods and data for replication aren’t considered “pretty damn good”. They are considered rent seeking advocates with highly questionable scientific methodologies.
Second prize is two Hans Oeschger medals.
What’s the betting that Michael Mann has been putting pressure on the EGU for the Oeschger medal. After all, his partner in crime, Ray Bradley received it a few years ago. Oeschger was one half of the team that discovered Dansgaard-Oescher events, abrupt climatic changes which occur periodically, typically in Greenland where temperatures rises of several degrees over a decade are evidenced. Something that Michael Mann says can’t happen without CO2. Oeschger must be turning in his grave.,
Leftists love awards. It keeps plebian minds from independent thought. That’s why the New SCOTUS Justice Elana Kagan has more honors and honorary doctorates than senior Justices on form the Right, serving a decade or two, or even three.
The case against the Hockey Stick
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TnxpgCrmN3o/TEjw2wLSprI/AAAAAAAAADQ/G-lu-XmsLWU/s320/GaddafiUniformII(mad).jpg
He’s got some catching up to do!
Pamela Gray says:
November 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Someone needs to hang that medal upside down on the ribbon. That way Mann can read it.
Haha! Good one! But seriously, the fact that Mann hasn’t corrected his use of upside down Tiljander yet (but in fact defended it in a bizarre way), should disqualify him from any scientific honor. I take this as a statement from the EGU that they’ve decided to do politics rather than science.
Maybe Mann, along with others, should be nominated for some fiction awards.
http://youtu.be/8qkSe4YM7EY
I think McEnroe said it best:
“You cannot be serious!!11!1!one!”
Joe, put all that stuff on your CV. Don’t stop until you’ve got 40 pages or more.
My third grade teacher gave me a gold star every day for a month. Yup! (Then, I got arrogant.)
It was an artistic hockey stick! Don’t be such a meany ; you’re causing global warming, or freezing, or what’s the next waterloo?
Dr. Mann paper about the AMO contributed to its attaining ‘mystic’ powers (I mean the AMO, not Dr. Mann). However he was correct in the ‘thermo-haline’ aspect of it, I’ve correlated it to the Arctic circle’s summer atmospheric pressure anomaly
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm which directly leads to
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm
see pages 11 + of http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm
Thick as thieves.
Spot on davidmhoffer, on your replies to the trolls Gates and Rattus. Some people have no decency or shame or a conscience.
I think this says more about the EGU than it does about Mann. They claim “The hockey stick demonstrated that temperatures had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels”. I thought it demonstrated the truth of the phrase “There are lies, damn lies and statistics”.
This is something that may well come back to bite the organization very hard indeed .
I received a medal for winning a sack race when I was eight. What’s more I didn’t cheat…