WSJ pans 'climate warrior' Michael Mann in book review.

All I can say is “ouch”! Mann of course will be sending his usual letter to the editor whining about unfair treatment. He’s really just misunderstood you see.

Excerpts from the review by Anne Jolis:

The book’s climax is a recounting of the 2009 leak or hack of emails and other documents written by Mr. Mann and his associates (and funneled through the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit). The correspondence, along with a second trove released in 2011, highlighted the patchwork behind IPCC science. The leading lights of publicly funded climatology appeared to be brainstorming to pressure journals and review boards to suppress work that challenged their theories, trading tips on how to avoid public-information requests and planning how to present their findings so as to best further “the cause.”

In his book, Mr. Mann dubs the unauthorized release of his emails a “crime” and claims that the ensuing “witch hunt” constituted “the most malicious” of “attack after vitriolic attack against us” by the “corporate-funded denial machine.”

Yet for all his caviling about “smear campaigns,” “conspiracy theorists” and “character assassination,” Mr. Mann is happy to employ similar tactics against his opponents. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a past program chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Applied Climatology, is introduced as “a prominent climate change contrarian at the University of Virginia primarily known for his advocacy for the fossil fuel industry.” (Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politically controlled institution.)

Just this February, Mr. Mann took to the Daily Kos to praise the theft of internal documents from the free-market Heartland Institute for offering “a peek behind the curtain of industry-funded climate change denial.” It was revelatory, but not in the way he thought. Hours after Mr. Mann posted his online musings, the much-decorated hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick (2003 MacArthur fellow, adviser to the EPA and, until recently, chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s task force on scientific ethics) confessed to the Heartland theft. Apologizing for his actions, he wrote that he had been “blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists.”

Mr. Mann closes “The Hockey Stick” with a passionate call for more scientists to join him “on the front lines of the climate wars.” “Scientific truth alone,” Mr. Mann writes, “is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion.” It would be “irresponsible,” he says, “for us to silently stand by while industry-funded climate change deniers succeed in confusing and distracting the public and dissuading our policy makers from taking appropriate actions.” These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.

=========

Full review here

Also related:

Shollenberger’s Technical Review of Mann’s recent book

A detailed review of Mann’s book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as it relates to the Wegman report to Congress

Josh on Mann’s Jurassic Moment

Gleick declares in Mann’s book review (after phishing Heartland) – “there IS a war on”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
121 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 15, 2012 12:09 am

What an arrogant guttersnipe “Mr.” Mann is. The naked use of the ‘denier’ meme coupled with his ‘noble cause morals’ really make for an incomprehensible mish mash of ideas, none of which seem to help his case. Oh well.

March 15, 2012 12:22 am

And I still wonder…is there anything NEW in Mann’s book? His supporters don’t think so.
From everything I’ve read so far, it’s just a rehash of things anybody can find on the ‘net.

March 15, 2012 12:30 am

Scientific truth alone is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion…eh?
Why would a real ‘scientist’ even care about ‘public opinion’ surely that’s what activists and PR consultants get paid for?

March 15, 2012 12:32 am

We await the comments from the NYT and The Sydney Morning Herald with some anticipation.

Harriet Harridan
March 15, 2012 12:41 am

Also see Video Interview with the Author here: http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-climate-kamikaze/7E12309E-7064-498A-BCD3-FEC6108C3D5C.html
Rough quote: “Mr Mann does not seem to realize that reasonable laypeople can follow the arguments, but just come to a different conclusion than he does.”

Goldie
March 15, 2012 12:51 am

Oh my! She doesn’t like him very much does she.

Doug UK
March 15, 2012 12:53 am

“These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.”
Ouch Ouch Ouch!!

kMc2
March 15, 2012 1:05 am

“(Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politicaly controlled institution.)”
Nor can he.

Gilbert K. Arnold
March 15, 2012 1:05 am

As “Tommy Boy” would say: “That’s gonna leave a mark”

Alan Fields
March 15, 2012 1:07 am

Ouch indeed!

Peter Miller
March 15, 2012 1:20 am

An excellent article.
Clearly Mann is confused on more than a few matters, let’s put the matter straight about at least a couple of things:
1. The CAGW cult is outfunded by the sceptics by at least 1,000 to 1 and probably by over 2,000 to 1.
2. The general public is becoming increasingly sceptical about the claims of the CAGW cult leaders, like Mann, not because their message is not being well delivered, but because it is plain wrong and this can be easily demonstrated.
3. The standards of disclosure, repeatability and analysis in “climate science” are so low – not to mention their habitual distortions of data etc. – that many, like myself, find it offensive that scaremongers, like Mann, choose to describe themselves as scientists.

March 15, 2012 1:26 am

The Mann behind the myth…

Stefan
March 15, 2012 1:37 am

Glad to see the papers highlighting the hypocrisy and activism.
Even the tag line gives away the ego trip, “DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT LINES”, as if like a woman dodging bombs and bullets in Syria to bring the news of atrocities to the world. The eco-ego inflation is quite astounding (they should try modelling it!) Utter boomeritis. “I’m saving the world!!” Yesterday I helped an old lady across the street — I saved humanity!

Otter
March 15, 2012 1:43 am

Not knowing (yet), I have to wonder two things:
1. Did Lysenko write a book?
2. Will mann’s book be standing next to it in a few years’ time?

3x2
March 15, 2012 2:01 am

“corporate-funded denial machine” – working 24/7 to expose shoddy statistics

March 15, 2012 2:03 am

I’ve benn snipped twice at WUWT, Once for comments on Steven Schnider And once for comments on William Connolloy :[sp?]. I’m not too ashamed of myself in either case, ATTENTION MODERATORS!!!!!! Michael Mann is a [Insert nasty insult here]’ a{Insert grossly demeaning ststement here] and who he is, the worst insult of all.

onlyme
March 15, 2012 2:05 am

I can hear it coming now, Mr. Mann whining that the review is not “peer reviewed”.

Jeef
March 15, 2012 2:07 am

Vanity publishing at its finest. Why do we even give this [snip] the oxygen of publicity?

H.R.
March 15, 2012 2:12 am

Ah… another journo from the MSM recognizes what a fine whine Mann has paired with his cheesey book.
Good.

mike about town
March 15, 2012 2:22 am

ouch! That is intense! Somewhere he is blushing…..
Is this indicative of the media beginning to shift?

Peter Stroud
March 15, 2012 2:31 am

I was engaged in various branches of physics for decades and can honestly say I never heard a single colleague claim that he was working for a ’cause.’ Such dramatic language would have either resulted in a humorous retort or sheer embarrassment.

Stefan
March 15, 2012 2:47 am

Author Howard Bloom wrote that capitalism relies on three pillars: the government, the corporations, and “the protest industry”.
The “protest industry” is the people’s freedom to criticise any and all things which aren’t working.
Some environmentalist movements seem to be more part of the government that’s not working, than they are about criticising what isn’t working in government.
The protest industry is key to making capitalism work in a healthy way. Those who have valid critiques are the genuine protesters. Those who call themselves environmentalists but who are just defending their position in government or industry are exactly what protesters should be taking aim at, to highlight and make public in the media (and blogs) what is wrong.
Without a protest industry, Bloom writes, capitalism would become very unhealthy. Public critiques are essential to health. It is hard to see how those who seek to close down debate could ever be considered genuine protesters or environmentalists.

Stacey
March 15, 2012 3:08 am

I didn’t realise that Anne Jolis reviewed works of fiction? 😄

Bloke down the pub
March 15, 2012 3:20 am

In the UK, and I suspect most of the English speaking world, the media have a long tradition of puffing up people to the status of hero, only to take great delight in bringing them crashing back down to zero. Look out Michael, just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

March 15, 2012 3:21 am

The most striking thing for me is that fact that the review is a very direct and straight forward listing of simple facts.
There are no emotive words or extreme adjectives, just a calm assessment.
Yet it appears to be extremely harsh.
I think that says a lot.

1 2 3 5