UPDATE: uh oh
The National Review decided to offer congratulations to Dr. Mann, they write:
Honoring Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize
To mark Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, we bought this full-page ad that ran in today’s Penn State student newspaper.
—Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
h/t to WUWT reader Frank K
UPDATE: Proof that it actually ran, here
h/t to Brian Lemon
What he said…
Rats! Looks like my joke disappeared.
Did anyone notice the climate cartoon, several pages before the NRO ad?
Mann is a fraud. But it is wrong to link such an imposter to Rigoberta Manchu. She is a very brave woman who is a worthy Nobel Prize winner. Henry Kissinger is an appropriate comparator for Mann.
As Michael Mann has no problem casting aspersion on Steven McIntyre, this is poetic justice. he should think before accusing other people of the same behaviour that he indulges in himself. Then again, he sets his own standards, does he not !
Well done NR, giving him a taste of his own medicine is classic.
_Jim says:
October 31, 2012 at 9:13 pm
…….
“Which???? The ‘Peace’ prize or one of the ‘prizes’ as for Economics, Physics, etc.
People confuse the two ‘types’ of prizes ALL the time … the two types are not even awarded by the same organization in the same country!”
People confuse the “prize in Economics in the memory of Alfred Nobel” awarded by the national bank of Sweden.
The genuine Nobel Committee still regrets that they let that happen.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
November 1, 2012 at 12:26 am
“Stortinget is the Norwegian parliament, not the government. Otherwise you are correct that the Nobel committee members are politically appointed. It is a parking spot for useless former politicians.”
Carsten, what influence does the evil which of the North, Gro Harlem Brundtland, have on these?
This wonderful joke makes me wonder if this is the way to tackle “climate science”. Take iCAGW absolutely seriously – take all the most extreme predictions (particularly those from 10 years back!) and create a spoof apocalyptic article. Once you get people laughing, the job is done!
Oh you bunch of Wisenheimers just laugh it up. You won’t be laughing so hard after Mike unleashes the fury with the most DEVASTATING Tweet response EVAH! You just wait…total epicness is coming for you. Get ready to feel the pain. Oooooooh, Mike is so going to go Twitter-nuke on you.
Brilliant. Thought might be given to running this again in the alumni magazine or other media of even wider circulation, but this is enough to sting Mann, embarrass him on his home turf, and force him and his lawyers onto the defensive “but I can explain this” mode. I agree that it may also force his lawyers to amend the complaint to avoid misleading the court about a material allegation of fact. It’s puzzling to me that they didn’t check the facts they allege. I don’t know that the court will deeply care about the amendment (people amend complaints all the time) but it might pique the court’s curiosity and it will definitely weaken Mann’s argument. And the longer the delay before amending, the worse the whole thing looks.
Finally, and not trivially, this costs the plaintiff energy, confidence and money. How many billable hours are being spent trying to sort through this sideshow, under pressure and probably with growing friction between counselor and client?
The Frankenstrom (spell?) and his bride? Yes, I notice.
Mark Smith said: Awarding the peace prize to the IPCC was illegal too – the terms of Nobel’s will clearly state “the person who…..” Not organisation; person.
Steady on: this is a matter of legal construction (interpretation) of Alfred Nobel’s 1895 Will under Norwegian and/or Swiss law, as to whether “person” includes “organisation” (or in UK/US parlance, “corporation”).
Nobel died in 1896. The 1904 Peace prize was awarded to the “Institute of International Law”, an organisation. One would have thought that if the executors exceeded their legal powers in 1904 this would have been challenged well before now – and this pedigree almost certainly means that it is just too late to challenge it now.
As one other example it is commonplace under UK law that, as a matter of interpretation “person includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate”, in private documents and in interpreting statute. See for example the UK Interpretation Act 1978 (general interpretation of statute) at the following link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30
I think goes without question that the 2007 Peace price was validly awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore jointly – and it was certainly not awarded to Michael Mann.
Love it! It draws full attention to the kind of Mann he is, derides him and punctures his massive ego in one page! And Mann was worried about the damage done to his reputation by Steyn’s original article! Perhaps Mann should have been more careful what he said subsequent to filing suit – he is now more undone by what he himself has said since filing suit than anything that was ever said before. After all, before filing suit his case that he was not responsible for “torturing the facts” was at least arguable. Now he looks like a serial offender……
I’m just wondering what kind of reaction Steyn is hoping to provoke from Mann. If Mann reacts true to form he’s bound to dig himself deeper in somehow.
I know I should get out more, but that’s the funniest thing Ive seen this year.
Now that’s funny!
Could be a good business now selling addled eggs and tomatoes at PSU’s campus. 😉
Don’t you know? “The Buck stops with YOU!” according to our current POTUS. Some lower level advertising manager will be canned. The Editor can’t be responsible for ALL of the content of the publication. But I’d like to be a fly on the wall when MM comes a calling. OUCH!
If he e-mails either the University President or the editor on this matter with his Penn State account, would those e-mails be FOIA available?
National Review – Well played 🙂
Limerick corner:
The Mann with the Nobel surprise
Has his fingers in too many pies
He’s now setup to fall
In his case v Tim Ball
When discovery brings out the lies
The ever derisive Mark Steyn
Hooks Mann on the end of his line
His Nobel Surprise
Is covered in more flies
Than you’ll find on a bristlecone pine
I suppose Mann could use the Obama argument.
“I didn’t build this mess, the government did,”
I looked up the bio of Rigoberta Menchu and am very disapointed that she is compared to MM.
MM has not suffered for his science.
History will rank the true value of Mann’s work; Penn State will eventually rank them alongside Jerry Sandusky’s contributions to their sports program.
A full page ad was a bit much. Should have been a quarter panel ad on the same page with the Penn State child sex abuse article (as posted from the electronic version of the paper).
Evidently anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming also cause relativistic time dilation: my calendar now shows April 1st!
What better way to take a dig at Mann (Boyy?) than by supporting my Alma Mater’s paper. Well played, NRO.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2i7mfex.jpg
21 Oct: NYT: Nicholas D. Kristof: Will Climate Get Some Respect Now?
President Obama and Mitt Romney seemed determined not to discuss climate change in this campaign. So thanks to Hurricane Sandy for forcing the issue: Isn’t it time to talk not only about weather, but also about climate?
It’s true, of course, that no single storm or drought can be attributed to climate change…
But many scientists believe that rising carbon emissions could make extreme weather — like Sandy — more likely…
I was schooled in the far-reaching changes under way several years ago by Eskimos in Alaska, who told me of their amazement at seeing changes in their Arctic village — from melting permafrost to robins (for which their Inupiat language has no word), and even a (shivering) porcupine. If we can’t see that something extraordinary is going on in the world around us, we’re in trouble…
Politicians have dropped the ball, but so have those of us in the news business. The number of articles about climate change fell by 41 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to DailyClimate.org…
Democrats have been AWOL on climate change, but Republicans have been even more recalcitrant. Their failure is odd, because in other areas of national security Republicans pride themselves on their vigilance. Romney doesn’t want to wait until he sees an Iranian nuclear weapon before acting, so why the passivity about climate change?
Along with eight million others, the Kristofs have lost power, so I’ve been sending Twitter messages on my iPhone by candlelight — an odd juxtaposition that feels like a wake-up call. In the candlelit aftermath of a future hurricane, I’m guessing, we’ll look back at the silence about climate in the 2012 election and ask: “What were they thinking?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/kristof-will-climate-get-some-respect-now.html?_r=0
kristof…a fully-fledged member of the tweetering class! what is he thinking?