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
Josh on Mann’s Jurassic Moment
Gleick declares in Mann’s book review (after phishing Heartland) – “there IS a war on”
The Unscientist.
Antonia says:
“I’m not sure if the news has reached WUWT but in the tradition of ironic Australian humour some Australian farmers have renamed “inches” of rain as “flanneries”: “yeah, we had two flanneries yesterday, how much did you get?” ”
Outstanding!
And inspirational. Next year, I’m going to work on getting people I know in Michigan to talk about gores of snow. (Or maybe, gores of global warming.)
The last sentence in Ms. Jolis response accurately reflected my opinion of Mann, Hansen, Gleick, et. al. .
“These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.”
Well said!
When we have a Christopher Monckton article, the CAGW trolls are out in droves to attack him. Why are these same minions not here defending Mann’s reputation and intellect?
On a different note, Monckton is coming to my town (London, Ontario), perhaps because Chris Essex is a prof here at the University of Western Ontario. I wouldn’t miss this for anything. I hope some naive greenies turn out so I can witness Monckton “educating” them.
Gail Combs says: March 15, 2012 at 8:55 am
For anyone who may be interested, Quigley’s book can be purchased from Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X
or downloaded in pdf format for free from the Carrol Quigley site here:
http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm
Yesterday I was enjoying a detective novel called ‘Victims’ by Jonathan Kelleman at Starbucks with my daily triple venti cappuccino and was struck by this quote;
So I noted it on my phone’s notepad for purpose of somehow paraphrasing it in future comments about the team of IPCC centric scientists who are supporters of the CAGW cause.
This WUWT post on Mann’s book review seems an appropriate place to use it. : )
Here is my adaptation (paraphrase) of it wrt the CG1/CG2 team that had Mann as an active member:
I thought it fit well wrt the CG1/CG2 team that Mann was part of. Enjoy.
John
When, in the due course of time, the history of the AGW Climate Hysteria is written, the award for inventing Climate Scientology will certainly go to Mikey.
He can share it with the rest of his Team.
The Lateline interview with Mann is comedy gold. Many thanks. I do think he should be handled the way Napoleon said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Mann is digging himself an ever-deeper hole. I wonder if scientists, when they go off the deep end, are not the most dangerous zealots? They are drawn to science because of its “purity” and “certainty” and “objectivity.” Which allow a dependent, insecure personality to enjoy strong feelings of virtue. Of being really, really right. So long as that tendency is checked by humility and adherence to the scientific method, good things (even great things) may result. But if that personality slips into advocacy and moral crusades (us vs. them, etc), then they become very dangerous. Not only because they still sound like scientists; but because they have developed deep networks of enablers and co-conspirators. Who tolerate their nonsense; who are subject to their peer review and funding decisions; who can score political points from their pseudo-scientific ranting. So it goes on, and on.
Eventually it fails; but at what cost?
Peter Miller says:
March 15, 2012 at 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.
Peter.
You were very low in your estimates it’s a lot worse than we thought, this is just the Federal Governmental spending not including State, County and Municipal government spending. Plus the 1000’s of left leaning charitable funds and Eco green groups, the real amount spent to promote/push and propagate Global warming will never be known but it could easily be $100 + billon /yr in the USA alone. World wide we could be looking at $500 + Billion. Here are just a few quick examples:
US AGENCY SPENDING = $2481 MILLION
HEARTLAND SPENDING = $6.5 MILLION
2.481 BILLION for climate research in 2011 – USACTION NEWS
How can climate scientists spend so much money. 2.481 BILLION for climate research in 2011. The amount of money being spent on climate change research this year is astounding.
http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/2-481-billion-for-climate-research-in-2011/UK: £1.5bn foreign aid wasted on tackling climate change
***********************************************************************************************
$3.9 Billion In Federal Funds Went To 21 Green Energy Companies Owned By Five Obama Officials 16 February 2012 11:49
http://12160.info/group/exposebarackhusseinobama/forum/topics/3-9-billion-in-federal-funds-went-to-21-green-energy-companies-ow
‘Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama. Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.
***************************************************************************************
UK: £1.5bn foreign aid wasted on tackling climate change
Posted: 18 Feb 2012 01:59 PM PST
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/02/uk-1-5bn-foreign-aid-wasted-on-tackling-climate-change/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uk-1-5bn-foreign-aid-wasted-on-tackling-climate-change
This is the brutal reality at the pointy end of dangerous climate policies concocted in ivory towers, insulated from reality. Precious resources, which should rightly be directed towards alleviating poverty and disease, are being frittered away on pointless attempts to tackle climate change. We have suspected for some time that such policies will benefit wealthy […]
Peter B says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:41 am
The video is very good. Interesting to see how it’s not necessary to be a “climate scientist” to grasp what Mann is all about. Which leads to the question – how is it that so many people do not grasp that, or do not care? The most obvious explanation is, because they share Mann’s attitude.
____________________________
Dr Evans nailed it with his definition of the “regulatory class” Do not forget that large Corporations and Banks are financial beneficiaries of big government too. Laws and regulations give big corporations an advantage over their smaller competitors and allow banks to engage in wholesale theft of wealth by the fractional reserve banking mechanism.
Well Mr. Mann, the people will see you in court (again and again and again and again…..). Your book reads like the guilt-ridden paranoid rationalizations of a small child. More power to Tim Ball.
Excellent review!
Wade says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:55 am
I was thinking how much of a blowhard these climate scientists are. They are losing the war and instead of admitting their idea is wrong, they think it must be some well-funded anonymous group. The problem Michael Mann and his cohorts have is they refuse to believe that could possibly be wrong in anything.
______________________________
Mann and Company know full well they are spouting hogwash.
There is a Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) by Ged Davis Here is who the Ged Davis in that e-mail is. A retired senior Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection and now a bank advisor Ged Davis
Not only that but CRU was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies ,Shell and BP. – Wikipedia
“Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] “
Another Source for CRU funding: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
There is plenty of other evidence such as the e-mail where climate scientists are discuss getting grants from Shell Oil and a journalist who was an eye witness to a discussion in the Oval office between the CEO of BP and a US president pushing the carbon tax. (Don’t feel like digging the links out)
Regarding what Ms Jolis calls Mann’s “similar tactics against his opponents”, he doesn’t simply get his material out of thin air. Mann says this about anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, while doing a brief review of the Hoggan/Littlemore “Climate Cover-Up” book at an October 2009 RealClimate blog: “Ross Gelbspan who has set the standard for investigative reporting when it comes to the climate change denial campaign…” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/
Throw the name “Gelbspan” into a ClimateGate search window, and you’ll see how the results take you to Mann’s cc email address lists, and to a suggestion he made to Osborn, Briffa, Jones & Ray Bradley about sending material to sympathetic ‘outlets’.
I could go on for pages on these troubles concerning what has every appearance of being a literally unsupportable accusation against skeptic scientists stemming from a highly questionable single source…….. oh, wait, I already have. Click on my name above.
Mann, that arrogant pseudo-scientist, is in the throes of a career death spiral. Let him spin until he disappears.
This is what led the self-confessed criminal and liar Gleick to commit wire fraud. They have convinced themselves that there MUST be a well-funded fossil fuel backed ‘denialist’ machine, otherwise why are sceptics so effective? Propaganda is expensive, the truth is cheap. Gleick, via his criminal act, exposed this charge of “well funded” as a lie.
Only SOME of Heartlland’s $6.4 million budget went on climate curriculum for schools. That’s not a well funded denialist machine compared to the FULL $75 million per year since around 2002? for Standford’s climate research program.
Great review! But here in Canada, people listening to the CBC are getting a different picture of Mann. I just heard him being interviewed (and genuflected to, and commiserated with) on the CBC’s The Current. You can find the audio of that interview at
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
Look for the audio clip under the title “Climate Activist, Michael Mann” (Wednesday March 14, 2012).
Keep a barf bag handy.
While we are seeing some progress with the media others still have some way to go. Remember the humans with cat’s eyes to save on lighting and drugged meat to induce vomiting authors? They have defended themselves in the Guardian.
“Typical liberal academics”!!!!!
Let’s all hope that climate change does indeed stay their “lower end of concern.” 😉
polistra says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:17 am
She hit the key with “low estimation of the public intellect”.
That’s exactly why Americans have stopped believing in all the “scientific consensus” pseudotheories. Not just carbon, but evolution, Big Bang cosmology, quantum “physics”, and economics. …
I tend to agree about Big Bang cosmology, but where would you be without quantum physics? You would have no electronics to speak of and you certainly never would have posted here. Even a lot of physicists don’t really like QM, but they’ve learned to live with it. It works, unlike climate models.
Concerning evolution, what most Americans understand about the “theory of evolution” comes from their pastor, who never learned what it was either. As a simple hint, Darwin never propounded a theory of evolution. Find a searchable copy of the text of “The Origin of Species” -earlier versions are better – and look for the term and the results will surprise you. What Darwin and Wallace discussed was the effect of selection on populations. When you walk your dog, pet your hairless cat, ride your horse, eat an egg, or plant your vegetable garden you are enjoying the successful results of selection on a breeding population. Herbert Spencer was the lump who propounded the “law of evolution” and then conflated it with the Victorian concept of “progress.” Darwin finally caved, but that was essentially because it was a European social meme he couldn’t deflect.
The theory of “natural selection” simply argues that the response of a population to “selective” effects is sufficient to explain speciation. Looking at maize and blue roses, Great Danes and chihuahuas, it is hard to argue against that. Using the property, which is real, is how we come to have corn (maize), wheat, rice, cotton, tomatoes, poodles and pekinese, thoroughbreds, fell ponies and arabians (the horse – not the group who speak the language ).
Not only all of the above but Mr. Mann, great author that he is, occasionally splits an infinitve:
“” It would be “irresponsible,” he says, “for us to silently stand by …””
[+emphasis]
“(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.)”
Excellent point.
Applies whether a university or an advocacy operation like Greenpeace.
You see in such remarks the underlying nature of climate alarmists – Marxism’s hatred of business, and specifically its exploitation theory.
Business is bad, government (taxpayer funded universities) are good, Marxist revolution is democracy but people voting with their earnings is bad (even people electing current governments is to be over-ridden by Marxist revolution,
Well said.
Peter B says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:41 am
The video is very good. Interesting to see how it’s not necessary to be a “climate scientist” to grasp what Mann is all about. Which leads to the question – how is it that so many people do not grasp that, or do not care? The most obvious explanation is, because they share Mann’s attitude.
———–
Peter, I kind of doubt that.
I think most ‘regular people’ are “rationally ignorant”. Collectively, they just have a very strong BS meter. It’s the “Stories for the Cause” people don’t buy because they change so much and so often and it’s always getting worse and it’s just so unbelievable, so people don’t.
note: I don’t know the right answers either but, I try to stay attuned to some degree but like I said above….it’s just so unbelievable….so I don’t.
Maybe if they just had a better story…………..maybe they should tell the whole story.
I’m not gonna buy his book – I have enough fire lighters.
Chuck Nolan says: @ur momisugly March 15, 2012 at 1:38 pm
….I think most ‘regular people’ are “rationally ignorant”. Collectively, they just have a very strong BS meter…..
_____________________________
Actually most ‘regular people’ have been INTENTIONALLY MADE ignorant the better to feed them BS and propaganda. It is only thanks to the internet that we have been able to defeat the intentional “Brainwashing” done by the Regulating Class
The deliberate dumbing down of America
Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld
the education quality productivity index is declining year after year…
Ritilan: The Drugging of Our Children by Schools
Every time I read these, especially the last one, I keep thinking of Tar and Feathers…