This statement was issued today from the IPCC, which appears to be inspired by the recent claims of Dr. Michael Mann in the lawsuit against NRO that we discussed here and here. The colored bold text in the paragraph below is my emphasis, otherwise it is presented as it was released. A source link to the original press release follows.
Reviewing what has transpired for Dr. Mann recently, this quote comes to mind:
A mann’s GOT to know his limitations – Harry Calahan, Magnum Force
– Anthony
2012/12/ST
IPCC STATEMENT
Statement about the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its work on climate change, together with former US Vice-‐President Al Gore.
In its citation, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said that the IPCC and Mr Gore shared the prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-‐made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. In its announcement the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated that through the scientific reports it had issued over the past two decades, the IPCC had created an ever-‐broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming, and that thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries had collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming.
The prize was awarded at the end of the year that saw the IPCC bring out its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.
For more information contact:
IPCC Press Office, Email: ipcc-‐media@wmo.int
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
h/t to Chris Horner
UPDATE: Dr. Mann posted on his Facebook page today this scan of a letter from the IPCC dated October 30th:
The press release from the IPCC was authored on October 29th according to the document properties in the PDF file. There is no hint in Dr. Mann’s Facebook page statement today of any apology or walkback for Dr. Mann claiming to have been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” and that on the NRO lawsuit complaint itself NRO was accused of the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”
In contrast to Dirty Harry’s boss, Mann is unlikely to be blown to bits…
REPLY: Nor would we want him to be. He’s the climate skeptic’s best weapon – Anthony
The entire IPCC team of fraudsters just got pwned
Didn’t Pachauri claim Nobel prize winning status?
Michael Mann tweeted at 1.30pm a link to a photo on his Facebook page
“On the IPCC’s Nobel Prize Guidance [facebookurl]”
Here is the page
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=441602745895933&set=a.221233134599563.54502.221222081267335&type=1
As you will see it is a letter from the IPCC, confirming that they really did issue a certificate to Dr Mann.
Here is the associated text written by Mann when posting the image to Facebook:
On the IPCC’s Nobel Prize Guidance
There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion.
After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinatin
g lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either “shared” or were a “co-recipient” of the award.
To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter (see letter above and also this statement by the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf ). I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.
re: Pachauri – here’s an example – though to be fair, its possibly the media that get it wrong some of the time!
http://www.wec.org/news/nobel-laureate-r-k-pachauri-discussed-key-climate-change-issues-at-wec-forum
“…were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.”
Which of the above categories does Mann come under.?
I can’t help but wonder: Given this statement and the statements of the Nobel Committee, and given that Mann has claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in sworn legal documents, what is the likelihood of perjury charges being brought?
As a karate expert…
Kev: here’s Yale Environment360 claiming the untrue: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_conversation_with_nobel_prize_winner_rajendra_pachauri/2006/
Google has 68,000 mentions of Pachauri as Nobel Prize Winner. I guess once the Untrue takes hold, it’s hard not to be swamped by it.
I don’t suppose Mann has gained many friends over this little debacle. Quite a few of his team mates are going to have to change their CV’s and drop some of their more outlandish claims to sainthood. Even Trenberth might have to drop from distinquished senior climate scientist back down to a mere climate journeyman.
Ivor Ward
Dang, that’s gonna leave a mark … 😉
WOW !!
Just the fact that the IPCC would even concern themselves with this says a lot !!
Mann’s not the only one:
“He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC.”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Who wrote this??? “Monckton’s assertions aren’t confined to science; he has even claimed, falsely, to have won the Nobel Prize.”
Did anybody guess Michael E. Mann (Chapter 5 of his book)???
The important question is — did the IPCC advise Mann not to call himself a Nobel Prize winner prior to Mann filing the false claim with the court? Does anyone have evidence of this?
Actually, about Pachauri at least, there might be a case of misleading advertising: http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/rajendra-pachauri
“…were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.”
This is most likely a carefully walked line aimed at supporting Mann, well sort of, while still condemning Monckton.
The points are:
1. Mann’s defense, is “my certificate is genuine, really from the IPCC”. Of course this was never the issue, but it plays on the fact that some people initially thought Mann had made his own certificate as well as claiming to be a Nobel prize winner. So this statement from the IPCC, and the other statement on Mann’s website from the IPCC, support this defense – “look Mann’s certificate is genuine!”.
2. In Mann’s book (chapter 5), Mann condemns Monckton’s joke (without mentioning it was a joke) claim to a share of the Nobel prize. Again these statements support Mann’s condemnation, sort of, because Mann was a lead author (therefore got a certificate), whereas Monckton was a reviewer (therefore did not get a certificate).
Finally, Pachauri’s TERI’s website has at least three pages where he is described as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
REPLY: Well, he did stand on the stage and accept the medal alongside Gore…so in his mind he surely believes it to be true for him. – Anthony
I can see Mike’s point, it’s just simple confusion over the exact terminology to use. For instance on my resume, I could claim that I am a former astronaut. I could also claim: “I once met an astronaut”. These things are just nuances of terminology and in the absence of guidance, how’s a guy to know how to properly state it?
The wheels on the bus go thump thump thump…
Would have been nice if the IPCC had documented the number of certificates awarded. Were Mann and Trenberth within a group of 100 or perhaps 1000 others?
Rule One of Holes – for the kind attenton of Dr. M. Mann:
When you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.
copner said on November 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm
“Michael Mann tweeted at 1.30pm a link to a photo on his Facebook page
As you will see it is a letter from the IPCC, confirming that they really did issue a certificate to Dr Mann.
Here is the associated text written by Mann when posting the image to Facebook: I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.”
———————————————————
A clever bit of spin by Mann, but transparent nonetheless. Mann is really going for broke. I can’t see any Judge agreeing with Mann’s view of this. Lundestad clearly said something quite different to what Mann implies he said.
Didn’t Mann have a similar dispute with a newspaper a while ago, claiming the newspaper had said one thing when in fact the newspaper had said the opposite. Anyone remember where that was and got a link to it ?
The gift that keeps on giving:
“Nobel Peace Prize-sharing climate scientist Andrew Weaver”
http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/377266/nobel-winning-climate-scientist-andrew-weaver-to-run-for-b-c-greens/
This, my friends, is a prime example of how to double down on stupid. He’s gonna ride that horse all the way to perdition, isn’t he?
LOL
“Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver
First Briffa, now the IPCC. How many buses can one guy take?
I think he is going to sue them…
It’s all just so post normal!
If it wasn’t already clear, this episode should make it clear that Mann’s tremendous ego makes it impossible for him to admit that he’s wrong about anything. We should not ever expect to see such an admission.
For anyone wondering about the ‘perjury” issue, it is categorically not perjury to knowingly or inadvertently make a mis-statement of fact in a Statement of Claim. It may be professional misconduct for the lawyer endorsing the claim (particularly where the lawyer was aware of the deliberate false statement), but for the claimant himself it cannot be perjury, because in most jurisdictions, the Statement of Claim is not sworn evidence on oath, it merely constitutes allegations of fact.
I am in fact quite free to commence a law suit alleging that One Direction gang-raped my Labrador, and impregrated her with doggy hybrids.
Likely to cost me a bit, though….
So Mann has a certificate for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” Since the Nobel Committee made that award, is the IPCC saying that recipients of their little piece of paper contributed to the work of that committee?
The “Certificate” was awarded by Christ.
– Renate Christ
Does this trump a Nobel Prize awarded by the same committee who awarded Arafat and Obama?
I attended a talk by Susan Solomon in which she was introduced as a Nobel Prize winner.
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/susan-solomon/Content?oid=2610340
It’s not limited to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, the 1985 Peace Prize was also awarded to an organization, yet:
“Nobel Laureate Explores Links Between Climate Change, Biodiversity
…
” Medical doctor Eric Chivian who shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for spotlighting the effects of a nuclear war on global health.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec09/biodiversity_12-18.html?print
The Nobel Peace Prize 1985
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1985/physicians.html
I personally can see this as being a clarification that Mann or his lawyers have asked for. Now that he has airbrushed from the internet all previous claims that he personally made or were made by someone on his behalf, of being awarded the nobel prize or having been awarded a share of the prize I think that will be his defence when it’s brought up.
“see judge? It’s quite simple. This is what I meant and the IPCC have clearly explained that I’m quite right to say that I contributed. Nothing to see, let’s move on.”
It will be a travesty if the missing references can’t be found. It’s the act of disingenuously claiming to be a prize winner for years even after it being made clear that this was not the case. ( they were discussing it on his wiki talk page over a year ago and there is the supposed advice from Pachauri that no member could make this claim ).
It is this deception that must be exposed in court because it speaks to the integrity of the man, the hubris and willingness to embellish his credentials so as to present a reputation that simply did not exist in the real world.
I don’t see this as Mann going under the bus I see it as the IPCC going as far as they dare to provide him with support.
Mann’s people will say it’s nothing. I still think that it’s everything.
. . . Here is Clint saying it:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=CG2cux_6Rcw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCG2cux_6Rcw
John
this says it is estimated between one and two hundred aussies and 28 new zealanders received the citation!
JewishHistoryAustralia: Australian Jewish Nobel Prize Winners and New Zealand Jewish Nobel Laureates
The Citation which the IPCC presented to Dr (Tom) Beer to mark his participation in the award is below…
The International Panelon Climate Change, the IPCC, presented like Citations to all who contributed to preparation of the studies for which the IPCC gained the Nobel Peace Price 2007, whether they be lead authors, referees, or served as panelists. It is estimated that one hundred to two hundred Australians received such Citations, a number of whom would be Jewish…
However, with the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a further 28 New Zealanders achieved the status of Nobel Laureates as recipients of a “shared” Nobel Prize…
The IPCC acknowledged the outstanding contribution to the Award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize of the New Zealand climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger…
http://jewishhistoryaustralia.net/jha/Nobel.php
Mpaul says:
The important question is — did the IPCC advise Mann not to call himself a Nobel Prize winner prior to Mann filing the false claim with the court?
No, that is not an important question at all.
IPCC does not award Nobel Prizes. Their guidance is irrelevant. The Noble Committee awards Nobel Prizes. It is the Nobel Committe’s guidance that matters here, and they have been telling people who weren’t awarded a Nobel Prize to not claim they were awarded a Nobel Prize long before Michael Mann was not awarded one.
The distribution of certificates by IPCC is hilarious. The criterion for receiving a certificate is given as: “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”.
Explicitly denied such certificates are: “contributing authors”.
Apparently, a contribution is certified as contributory, except when it is contributed by a contributor.
Don M says:
November 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm
As a karate expert…
Careful, Mann’s got a black belt in Origami, and an Olympic medal to prove it.
zootcadillac says:
November 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm
“Mann’s people will say it’s nothing. I still think that it’s everything.”
I don’t think it’s everything. This isn’t Perry Mason or My Cousin Vinny. Most cases are decided by a thousand small cuts. Mann suffered his first small cut before the ink was dry on the complaint. Not a good sign. The high bar he has to get over just got a little bit higher. I’m sure he’ll do better once he gets on the stand and has less time to think.
JeanS over at CA says Mann attacked Monckton in his book for falsely claiming to be a Nobel recipient:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/01/olympic-mann-2/#comment-368749
Kev-in-UK,
Yes.
“25 Jun 2011,20:40 IST
RK Pachauri, the Nobel laureate was present in the city today. ”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Rajendra-Pachauri
“…It seems Ive spent too long
Only thinking about myself – oh…”
lyrics from: Genesis- In Too Deep
A triple travesty: a fake scientists makes a fake claim to have received a fake prize.
Any honorable, decent human being would have rejected the Nobel Peace Prize.
Being remembered in Arafat’s company? Unthinkable. Unless you are the Piltdown Mann.
JJ, Mann’s lawyers are facing a potential misconduct charge. It would appear that they simply accepted Mann’s claim at face value and failed to check its factual basis.
So I’m curious to know whether Mann knowingly misrepresented his status to his lawyers, or can he claim to be a victim of confusing communication by the IPCC (which is his current defense).
There’s a assertion out there that the IPCC sent a notice to contributors awhile back (long before the lawsuit) that they should not claim to be prize winners. I’d like to know if this is true.
Thrown under the bus!
That makes Mann a road kill?
– – – – – – – –
Well that link was odd.
Let’s try Clint’s famous ‘limitations’ quote in this link:
John
Yeah and something else, he ain’t never gonna get one of them darn awards from Norwegian cowboys not now, not ever and ain’t it the truth.
Still, there’s always Mike’s statistical method to fall back on and peer review – can have its own rewards.
When are Penn State going to rumble this guy? More importantly, just when are the US government going to say, “enough is enough” and cease forthwith; all and any state funding to this climatological dream works?
It’s gonna be awkward when Mann and Al Gore next meet up.
Didn’t Mann share his Nobel Prize with John Christy: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/11/01/u-n-scientist-rejects-nobel-prize-share-denounces-alarmism?
@ttfn i didn’t make myself clear enough. I don’t think that it’s ‘everything’ in the sense that it will be a point the case hinges upon but rather in the face of a claim that it’s ‘nothing’, it will in fact be quite something because it is testimony to establishing reputation so it should play a part in the case rather than be dismissed as mere semantics which i suspect will be Mann’s direction.
reading Copner’s comments in full above I see that I’m in agreement with him as to the reason for this release but I was not aware of the comments in Mann’s book regarding Christopher Monkton.
Those very comments make it abundantly clear that Mann knew full well that it was wrong to make any claims regarding receiving a Nobel prize by any individual associated with the IPCC regarding the 2007 award.
What needs to be done is that all references and archives where Mann or organisations Mann is associated with made specific claims to Mann being a Nobel laureate or received a shared Nobel prize, are collected, screen-capped and made available to the NRO before they all disappear and are replaced with the new ‘contributed to the award of’ weasel-words.
This can be added to the statement in the particulars of claim which I expect will be attributed to some over-zealous intern no longer with the firm or some other such ruse but Mann will be distanced from those claims by his lawyers..
zootcadillac wrote:
Not so fast zoot.
The post-scrubbed Michael Mann
———————————
Michael Mann’s bio at RealClimate now mentions this:
Whereas previous versions archived at the Wayback machine (the last being taken on 1 July 2010) make no mention of the prize.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110701200607/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/
His personal page at Penn State has identical wording to that now on RealClimate
The page provides a link to his C.V. which contains similar:
As does the PDF copy
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv/cv_pdf.pdf
And the bits he missed
————————-
I think that mention of the Nobel Prize on Mann’s RealClimate page and elsewhere has been added to lend credence to the idea that he only presented himself as a “contributor” to and not as a winner or recipient of the Nobel Prize.
But his scrubbing was incomplete. In a current link to an HTML version of his C.V. Mann describes himself as being “co-awarded” the Nobel Peace Prize.
That page is not yet archived but there are several archived copies of yet a third description (again with “co-awarded”).
When the craving began
————————-
Even before the award ceremony (and long before the IPCC issued their ’employee of the month’ type slap-on-the backs) members of “the team” were trying to get their hands on copies of the Nobel certificate -presumably for the walls of their offices.
Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:
Anthony writes “There is no hint in Dr. Mann’s Facebook page statement today of any apology or walkback for Dr. Mann claiming to have been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” and that on the NRO lawsuit complaint itself NRO was accused of the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.””
And why would he? In Mann’s mind he was an important enough part of the award to claim it as his own and I’m sure he doesn’t think other important AR4 people also should think of it as theirs.too. The thing is though, this is Mann’s MO. Just a stretch of the truth as he sees it. No biggie.
Where he crosses the line is that he has no problem tailoring papers to more effectively show what he wants them to show and in doing so, he has no problem ignoring or even hiding results that dispute his desired result. Papers to Mann are less about unbiased science and more about convincing debate.
Does that mean that my BS, MS, and MA degrees are “shared” by those who contributed towards it? What about the honors stuff, like the Phi Beta Kappa? Logically, that should be “shared” by all my professors. Not to mention my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. Just trying to follow the new post-normal rules here.
re Pat:
quote ” It is estimated that one hundred to two hundred Australians received such Citations…”.
With mathematical addition skills like that, it’s no wonder all I can do is laugh at them.
Can’t count, can’t be bothered trying, I’ll just pull a figure out of here *ouch*….
Good work David Ross. That’s exactly the information that needs to be protected should the NRO defence need to rely upon it.
the definition if is is …………..LOOK A SQUIRREL
“I can’t help but wonder: Given this statement and the statements of the Nobel Committee, and given that Mann has claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in sworn legal documents, what is the likelihood of perjury charges being brought?”
I can’t help wondering how the world manages to get itself out of bed in the morning. Is it that we don’t use our God given brains, or is it that our brains just aren’t as good as we think they are. All a roundabout way of saying… this is just one big fat dumb question.
Why does it still claim on Kevin Trenberth’s cv he is a Nobel Laureate? Scroll down to awards section. “Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC) Oct 2007”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth-cv.html
has anyone posted this? what is “four generations”?
Stephen H. Schneider Biography
He along with four generations of IPCC authors received a collective Nobel Peace Prize for their joint efforts in 2007.
http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-H.-Schneider/e/B001K8IXWS/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
Hubris knows no bounds.
According to this IPCC letter, Michael Mann can honestly claim that he was awarded a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize… diploma.
Mann is convinced that he’s enough of a Nobel Peace Prize winner that it’s acceptable for him to continue to claim it – even in legal documents. This is an incredibly strange thing for a scientists – that are usually superlatively adept at grasping black and white technicalities such as this.
The same disconnect seems to be responsible for his refusal to understand the problems with his work.
Overall, I don’t think he has the aptitude to be a scientist.
tallbloke says:
November 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Don M says:
November 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm
As a karate expert…
Careful, Mann’s got a black belt in Origami, and an Olympic medal to prove it.
—————————————————
Careful, that was the Olympic Peace Committee – it’s a different organization than…
Pokerguy writes: “I can’t help wondering how the world manages to get itself out of bed in the morning.”
How does Mann even deal with his ego-driven ‘morning wood’ that must surely be stimulated by dreaming of himself all night long?
For R Christ, Your unprecedented IPCC letter of 2012/12/ST headed ‘Statement about the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize’ is in clear contradiction of my robust understanding of the intent of those awarding the Nobel peace price and I demand its immediate retraction. If you let the statement stand as written, it will cause argument and financial loss, which are inversely related to the objectives of a ‘Peace’ prize.
I will draft a statement for you that properly reflects my understanding of the intentions of the Nobel committee. You should print the corrected version within 5 days and ensure that it is sent to all IPCC coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007.
I shall need at least 500 free personal copies so I can autograph and sell them on eBay. MM
Mann is no Dr. Fautus. Marlowe’s tragic hero image do not work in the mythos that Mann self-created.
John
Like John West above, I see that Dr Andrew Weaver likes to be ambiguous with who won the prize also.
When he speaks at Universities they often call him a Nobel Laureate and news media calls him that. He might say it’s not his fault they make the mistake but he should make them correct that.
From one of his book covers from Amazon:
“Dr. Andrew J. Weaver, Canada’s top climate scientist, is professor and Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis at the University of Victoria. He was a lead author in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
I see he is going to run for the Green party in British Columbia. I do give him credit for running. If these highly political scientists act like politicians then they should put up and run for office. (but I would never vote for him)
Feb 2011: ABC: Climate expert says more extreme weather likely
Nobel prize-winning scientist David Karoly says Australia’s current extreme weather is strong evidence of climate change…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-31/climate-expert-says-more-extreme-weather-likely/1891882
cute, tho to be fair, Flannery does not make this claim himself, not for a Nobel Prize nor a Nobel Peace Prize:
Wiki Answers: Did Tim flannery win the nobel prize?
Answer: Yes
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Tim_flannery_win_the_nobel_prize
Mike IS the IPCC, even if he has to redefine what a Nobel Prize Laureate is.
It was the IPCC wot done it
In Michael Mann’s latest Facebook entry he claims that it was a letter from the IPCC that led him astray.
Apart from portraying the IPCC authors as sheep who blindly follow each others lead, the statement is false. The letter from the IPCC is dated 30 Oct 2012. Yet at least as far back as May 11 2011 Mann’s C.V. claimed that he had been “co-awarded” the prize.
Another version of his C.V., which is impossible to date, inflates his part even more.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv/cv_hyper.htm
It is impossible to date not just because it has not been archived -it also appears to contain an element of prophecy.
Re:
The proper terminology to describe Michael Mann is confused and mendacious.
David Ross… don’t think MM can touch webarchive.org, but may be mistaken.
We’ve made copies, just in case.
Luther Wu wrote:
Thanks Luther. People can ask for entries that infringe copyright to be removed from Wayback but (as so often happens) the system is often abused.
But there are other archives and Webcite.
Mann’s “Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors)” C.V. webcited (before it gets scrubbed.
http://www.webcitation.org/6Bt8XtGxQ
And Trenberth’s “Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC)” C.V. webcited
http://www.webcitation.org/6Bt9VLo0N
h/t julianbre
Pamela Gray says:
November 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Does that mean that my BS, MS, and MA degrees are “shared” by those who contributed towards it? What about the honors stuff, like the Phi Beta Kappa? Logically, that should be “shared” by all my professors. Not to mention my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. Just trying to follow the new post-normal rules here.
In the famous words of our current president:
“You didn’t do that on your own. Somebody else made that happen.”
If one gets bestowed with the Nobel Peace Prize, it is acknowledged one has in some way contributed to PEACE. Nothing could be further than the truth or contributed to ‘PEACE’, it has caused more problems to the world than before, with millions being spent on green energy that Gore for one has financially benefited by. But when people like Obama only in office a few weeks, wasn’t it?, the prize seems to have become extremely easy to acquire and politics is involved. If the NP was awarded for something specific, like Science, medicine, Literature, etc., fair enough. I think Mann is now regretting being a man seen as exaggerating the truth and being self serving at least. Go peel a grape and admit your mistakes, Mike.
Here are the attorneys struggling to portray their client as an unassuming scientist whose Nobel Prize involuntarily thrusts him into the limelight. Because in a defamation suit, the distinction between a humble citizen and an attention-grabbing self-promoter is huge.
Oh, the irony.
I wonder if applying for government research grants using fake credentials is a problem?
Actually it appears after some searching that i may have done Dr Mann a disservice and that his achievements go far beyond such a simple feat as winning the Nobel peace prize.*
Here he is after the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic.
http://i.imgur.com/1EADk.jpg
and here upon returning from a successful walk on the moon with his fellow astronauts on Apollo 11
http://i.imgur.com/j70u9.jpg
and here, pictured with Sherpa Tensing Norgay after their successful conquest of Everest
http://i.imgur.com/jMjG2.jpg
egg squarely on my face eh?
/parody
*photoshops were poorly created by me, just now.
Apparently Michael Mann has some reading comprehension trouble. And he sued Mark Steyn? Good luck with that buddy.
When I read the comments from Mann’s supporters after his latest Facebook entry, I increasingly get the impression that the guy is running his own little religious cult with CAGW being the religion of course. Mann, like David Koresh (who was supposed to be Christ, remember?), certainly has the giant ego to start his own cult and attract gullible followers. The downside to this for his followers as well as the MSM and the politicians who believe in him is the shock and disbelief they will experience one day if and when Mann is finally exposed to the world as a fraud. But I guess that is how we as individuals grow and learn to become less susceptible to fraud–or at least some of us anyway.
If Mann’s ego ever gets so big that his head explodes someday, the only downside to that will be the mess that somebody will have to clean up. How that would be compared to the way the Waco disaster ended makes for interesting speculation, but Mann no doubt is a walking one-man scientific disaster in the eyes of many already.
We should always keep in mind that the “real” Nobel committee is in SWEDEN. We have to ask how the NORWEGIAN Nobel committee got the okay to award the Peace Prize. Did they just take it upon themselves? The Norwegians, as I understand it, are a group from the Norwegian parliament. I suspect that they might be of leftist leanings, but I don’t have any proof.
IanM
zootcadillac,
Fine job! Kudos.
It warms the cockles of my heart to know that Dr. Mann “couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.” I wonder how proud he is of advertising himself as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Nice shops zoot. Here’s one I created earlier.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of greenhouse gases,
I will fear no carbon: for Thou art with me
Thy rod and thy hockey stick they comfort me
http://postimage.org/image/ag7m4brw7/
“How does Mann even deal with his ego-driven ‘morning wood’ that must surely be stimulated by dreaming of himself all night long?”
As the great Woody Allen has argued: “Don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with someone I love”
D Böehm says:
November 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm
zootcadillac,
Fine job! Kudos.
====================================================
Seconded!
Maybe one of Mann turning into Gollum because he hung onto The Ring to long?
MrE says:
November 2, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Like John West above, I see that Dr Andrew Weaver likes to be ambiguous with who won the prize also.
When he speaks at Universities they often call him a Nobel Laureate and news media calls him that. He might say it’s not his fault they make the mistake but he should make them correct that.
From one of his book covers from Amazon:
“Dr. Andrew J. Weaver, Canada’s top climate scientist, is professor and Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis at the University of Victoria. He was a lead author in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
I see he is going to run for the Green party in British Columbia. I do give him credit for running. If these highly political scientists act like politicians then they should put up and run for office. (but I would never vote for him)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not meaning to insult some of my British ancestors, but anyone notice that Andrew Weaver seems to have a bit of a British accent like so many of the Socialist activists that have immigrated to North America to become union heads, teachers and others with an strong left wing bent? Did they leave before or after the Thatcher version of conservatism? So many of them seem bent like Andrew Weaver. Maybe it is genetic. Or caused by CAGW. Could be room for a big government financed social study here. Sorry – I sometimes get tired of ex-pst left wingers that left there country of origin trying to screw up ours. (or maybe it is an affected accent from his studies in Cambridge and Australia and he got bent from association given his original degree was from the University of Victoria – a paragon of west coast British transplants.)
All marvelous stuff.
The whole episode indicates Mann’s main driving force is fame. It seems he is not so much wanting to ‘save the world’ as wanting to go down in history as ‘the saviour’. IN this manager he is completely blinded to logical thought processes. Truly the story is becoming very ‘religious’.
Equally marvelous are the cries of ‘harbinger of doom’ regarding the storm Sandy. Any individuals with an ounce of common sense are surely thinking “Hey, that ain’t right, storms like this have happened before and will happen again”.
zootcadillac, brilliant.
All marvelous stuff.
The whole episode indicates Mann’s main driving force is fame. It seems he is not so much wanting to ‘save the world’ as wanting to go down in history as ‘the saviour’. In this manner he is completely blinded to logical thought processes. Truly the story is becoming very ‘religious’.
Equally marvelous are the cries of ‘harbinger of doom’ regarding the storm Sandy. Any individuals with an ounce of common sense are surely thinking “Hey, that ain’t right, storms like this have happened before and will happen again”.
(Aaaargh! typos corrected)
From a post at Climate Audit:
“Independent: As someone who has spent a major portion of his professional career researching climate change and advocating for societal change, what does winning a share of the Nobel Peace Prize mean for you personally?
Running: There was of course a fair bit of buzz that Al Gore might get it. We were really just rooting for Al Gore to get it. That’s why we were all completely stunned Friday when the news started coming up that Al Gore and the IPCC committee had won the prize.
It didn’t sink in for us as individual authors until around 9 a.m. when I got an e-mail from the IPCC head office in Geneva, Switzerland saying, and I quote, “This makes each of you a Nobel laureate.” And that’s when I started going, “Whoa. Wait a minute here.”
Indy: What did it feel like to read those words from the IPCC office?
Running: Well, because this is a shared prize among 600 of us, I’ve kind of continued to oscillate back and forth between a thought that this is all almost kind of a funny game on the one hand, and on the other hand thinking quite profoundly that this is… I read in the last day or two that the Nobel Peace Prize is considered the biggest prize on earth about anything. You start thinking about that and start thinking even one six-hundredth of the biggest prize on earth is just…well, you’re left really speechless. It’s hard to have that sink in.”
http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/01/olympic-mann-2/#comments
(tlitb1 at 5.57 on Nov. 2)
————————————————————————–
Mann’s delusions of grandeur know no bounds. Firstly, it transpires that the IPCC never notified him, or anyone else, that they are now ‘Nobel laureates’. Secondly, there were a lot more than 600 people who would be under the umbrella of the award. Thirdly, in the quote above, Mann refers to ‘the IPCC Committee’ (of which he claims to be a member) as winning the prize. This is simply false.
His lawyers are going to have a lot to put up with in the forthcoming case. But, Mark Steyn is going to have a lot of fun.
Apologies, the quotes above were made by Runner, not Mann – Mann merely referred approvingly to them.
Note to self: read more carefully before posting.
@David Ross. Nice one David and totally relevant.
And I know I made a cheap shot: Won’t happen again, tonight.
It was funny roasting Mann over this for maybe 5 minutes.
But 5 minutes are over. Can we move on now?
What I’m wondering is what the conversation between Mann and his lawyers looks like right now. One of the first things you learn when you are involved in litigation where issues central to the case become public is to STFU and let the lawyers deal with it. Not only has Mann more than likely p*ssed them off royally by trying to spin his way out of this instead of letting them handle it, he’s now also made them known to the public, and more importantly, the judiciary, as “that law firm that tried to pass one of their clients off as a Nobel Laureate”.
They can’t be happy right now. As a prestigious law firm, this is the kind of detail they are expected to get right. They can either claim they took his word for it, which means they failed to do their due diligence, or they can claim that they did their due diligence and misunderstood the technicality. Either way, I’m thinking they are no longer a “prestigious” law firm.
Did anyone snap a pic of the ninja driving that bus. Bahahahaha, so far Mann’s conquest to regain his “lost honor” is getting more hilarious by the minute. Which is right where I’d hoped it would go. Let’s hope the revelry shall continue…
Let me mention that you may be overplaying the subtle differences between winning and being a part of an organization etc. Moreover, this label has been used for various people who had been associated with the IPCC.
For example, here no one else than the BBC calls no one else than Richard Lindzen a “Nobel winner”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009yfwl/One_Planet_Climate_change_pot_plants_and_small_frogs/
News Flash: Dreadnaught Bismarck-Mann has been torpedoed by Swordfish planes launched form HMS Arc Royal (Force H).
Earlier, HMS Prince of Whales had engaged Bismarck-Mann suffered heavy damage though gave significant damage to Bismarrk-Mann in the engagement.
Other Royal Navy ships Norfolk, Dorsetshire and Rodney have engaged with exchange of heavy artillery and torpedo striking Bismarck-Mann.
RAF Scout Aircraft report sighting Bismarck-Mann low in the water and listing to port with fires on the midships and aft.
Two torpedoes from Rodney struck Bismarck-Mann with great effect. Dorsetshire also rounding Bismarck-Mann has fired torpedoes and Bismarck-Mann’s deck is awash.
A second wave of Swordfish planes from Arc Royal armed with contact bombs and torpedos are now in sight and closing in on Bismarck-Mann for the final kill.
This looks to the the finale for the Dreadnaught Bismarck-Mann who terrorized the peoples of the nations of the Free World.
Good Joy Royal Navy. God Save the King.
Mann’s biography on Amazon still states that “He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Michael-E.-Mann/e/B001KP3VIW/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
As does the blurb about the Author of his book …
If he got such an e-mail, and saved it, that lets him off the hook, mostly. But if what it said was not exactly “This makes each of you a Nobel laureate,” then he’s gotten himself in deeper with another “stretcher.”
“a lead author on Chapter 2 of the Working Group I contribution the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001 [of work done by thousands of people between 1998 and 2007, inclusive].”
Well, that’s exactly the same as being a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
/sarc
As a Norwegian I know that some of the people, like Jaggeland, that deceide who is given this prize are socialists.
If you look at who has been awarded this prize the last 10 years it seems to me that it’s less about peace and more about promoting national and international socialism?
kind of o/t but, it is because of the likes of MM, that the public is subjected to at least one CAGW alarmist story every day in the MSM and it is, quite frankly, becoming as ridiculous as the pompous CAGW team itself:
3 Nov: SMH: Reuters: Rising seas prompt Panama’s islanders to move inland
Every rainy season, the Guna people living on the Panamanian white sand archipelago of San Blas brace themselves for waves gushing into their tiny mud-floor huts.
Rising ocean levels caused by global warming and decades of coral reef destruction have combined with seasonal rains to submerge the Caribbean islands for days on end…
It is the largest of the Guna’s 45 inhabited islands, and its planned evacuation is among the first blamed largely on climate change. Scientists say worldwide sea levels have risen about 3 millimeters (0.12 inch) a year since 1993. Recent research suggests they could rise as much as 2 meters (6.5 feet) by 2100…
“It’s another example that climate change is here, and it’s here to stay,” said Hector Guzman, a marine biologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-seas-prompt-panamas-islanders-to-move-inland-20121103-28qdf.html
speaking of inaccuracies, how’s this new thread up at joannenova:
Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years?
If Alan Jones needs to get “educated” because he got the level of CO2 wrong once, the Climate Commission surely needs to go back to do high school maths, because anyone who has done junior high can see that the running average in the graph below is an impossibility. The latest Climate Commission report: “The Critical Decade: Queensland climate impact and opportunities” starts with blatantly incorrect figure. Since when do “averages” run outside the extreme highs and lows? Thanks to reader Ian E.
Eyeballing this graph suggests Queensland’s average temperature has risen by 2.7 C since the 1950′s.
The text on the same page says: “The average temperature for Queensland has risen by about 1°C since early last century”. So at least the writing matches the official (if exaggerated) records.
Who proof-read this document?
Three professors (Will Steffen, Lesley Hughes, Veena Sahajwalla) and Mr Gerry Hueston, all Climate Commissioners, signed off on it…
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/climate-commission-report-queensland-warmed-by-3-degrees-in-50-years-look-out/
Does this mean the the “crime” is now “defamation of a person who mistakenly claimed to be a nobel prize recipient but is now thankful to have had it brought to his attention that he had actually all he did was contribute to an organisation which was a joint recipient of a nobel prize”?
I know it’s not quite as catchy as the first draft.
you can be absolutely sure Hugh Riminton would NEVER EVER write the following with Mann’s name instead of Monckton’s:
5 Feb 2010: The Punch, Australia: Hugh Riminton: Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate
Sorry Lord Monckton. You are a fraud.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton. I emailed him the Monckton website.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate – no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off an a Nobel Laureate…
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/asc/
There has got to be a money making opportunity for someone to create personalised “Nobel Peace Prize” certificates for citizens of the EU. After all, I’ve done my part in keeping Europe peaceful, well apart from Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia ….
So then the headline changes from ‘throwing under the bus’ to ‘confirms his story’, as far as the screen-cap of Mann’s tweet, which recently had it’s own coverage here.
Ian H says:
November 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm
It was funny roasting Mann over this for maybe 5 minutes.
But 5 minutes are over. Can we move on now?
———————————————-\
No, I don’t much go for rare, let;s wait until he’s well done!
When I was at Uni many years ago, there were 13 Nobel Prize winners also attending the uni. These were real Nobel Prize winners in hard sciences. Does that mean I can claim to have 13 Nobel Prizes? That would be really cool on my resume.
Mann’s tricks are clearly not limited to hiding the decline.
Let us not forget who the Nobel Prize Committee passed over to give the Peace Prize to these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
anthony, reality bites in Calif? is this an admission they were wrong?
1 Nov: Bloomberg: James Nash: California Environmental Law Marked for Biggest Change Since ’70
Brown, a 74-year-old Democrat, said he expects lawmakers to vote next year on changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, the 1970 law that requires the state and local governments to weigh environmental consequences when considering approval of public and private projects.
California’s environmental laws place limits on development, require a unique blend of gasoline to reduce smog and will impose a statewide cap on greenhouse-gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The largest U.S. state by population, with an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent in September, is frequently accused of being unfriendly to business.
Changes in the law are “very important” to spur economic development, Brown said yesterday in Los Angeles at a forum to promote Proposition 30, a ballot measure to raise taxes for education.
“There are many people who work very well under CEQA and don’t want to change it,” Brown said about the environmental act, responding to a question from the audience. “And yet, changes are needed.”
Brown didn’t disclose specifics. His aides referred questions to Rubio, a Bakersfield Democrat who is working on a bill to amend the law…
Rubio said he wants to streamline environmental reviews to avoid long delays on projects such as the proposed extension of the subway in Los Angeles and student housing near the University of Southern California, which was stymied by a rival developer’s lawsuit…
Brown signed a bill last year to waive provisions of the law for a proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, arguing that environmental challenges shouldn’t be allowed to delay the project indefinitely.
This year, Brown proposed exempting California’s planned $68 billion high-speed rail project from the law. Under pressure from environmentalists, the governor backed down from the idea.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/california-environmental-law-marked-for-biggest-change-since-70.html
——————————————————————————–
Richard 1:52 am:
“…there were 13 Nobel Prize winners…..does that mean I can claim to have 13 Nobel Prizes?”
If you were one of the 57 people thanked by an Oscar winner at the awards you could claim to be an Oscar winner yourself, I suppose:-)
My correct title is Graphite OBE*
*owe bookies everywhere
Richard says Nov 3 1.24am. Very funny, I enjoyed that logic – Mann’s logic.
The IPCC isnt throwing him undert the bus. Its pointing out the reality that any climate science “laureate” could have ascertained for himself with 2 minutes of effort.
Instead Mann on his Facebook page says that receipt of a certificate of involvement from the IPCC led to his understanding that it was “appropriate to state that we either “shared” or were a “co-recipient” of the award.” His understanding was clearly not arrived at by anything so mundane as checking.
This affair speaks volumes about Mann’s credibility and integrity.
At the time of Alfred Nobel, Norway and Sweden was in union (“Sweden-Norway”). Unless I am mistaken, it was Nobel’s decision that the peace price should be awarded from the city of Christiania (city renamed to Oslo in 1924). After Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905, the peace price remained in Christiania.
The Nobel committee in Oslo is appointed from the Norwegian Parliament (“Stortinget”). It consists of 5 members. 2 from the Labour party (Arbeiderpartiet) including the committee leader Thorbjørn Jagland. One is from the Socialist Left (SV), one is from the conservative party (Høyre) and one is from the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) further to the right of Høyre. Regarding AGW, none of this matters. 100% of the Norwegian politicians, from any party, are AGW believers.
Ian H says:November 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm
“….It was funny roasting Mann over this for maybe 5 minutes.
But 5 minutes are over. Can we move on now?…”
Nah. It thought that for a moment too.
But Mann’s ego is so much a part of this (who the hell else would have made such an interpretation and claimed it so loudly?), I’d say while he’s still dancing keep the blowtorch to his feet.
Except in Mann’s case, there are no limits to his deception and deceit.
I think this is simply an unfortunate misunderstanding. You see, the University of East Anglia got Prince Dumbo… er Charles to award the title of Noble to Mann for his contribution to the IPCC report and he just misspelled Noble for Nobel. Can happen to anyone
About Monckton — several have suggested that his long-ago and since abandoned claim to the Nobel was a joke. Several have argued he was serious and seriously mistaken and (therefore) just as wrong as Mann, which of course then makes Mann correct by consensus.
I’m wondering if Monckton wasn’t seriously attempting to deflate ALL the various contributors to IPCC AR4. By inflating his own claim, and drawing the response, it seems he could have gotten the same sort of “correcting instruction” then as Mann has received now. And with that general rule in place Monckton would then have had a skewer, plucked from his own hide, with which to prick every other opponents inflated ego.
Just seems to me that such a stunt would be in character.
The odd thing is, that if so, and if it had worked, Mann’s claims would have been reset to the smaller but more accurate version now on offing. Mockton’s skewering would have helped Mann by avoiding the current derision.
This sort of adversarial relationship leading to improved communication is of course why the normal scientific method insists on sharing data, replicating techniques, re-running the code, etc. It’s truly tragic that many in this branch of academics do not seem to avail themselves of the resources provided by clever adversaries.
to mann
“liar liar bums on fire”
its ok C02 can put it our for you
geronimo says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:30 am
Let us not forget who the Nobel Prize Committee passed over to give the Peace Prize to these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
Thank you geronimo I was thinking about her too. It could make an article for WUWT if you are up to it. or Anthony? Anyone else?
Not to toot my own horn, but over the course of my career I received a number of certificates. Some were even for ‘contributing’ to some sort of corporate or even international standards success.
At no point, did I ever misconstrue a certificate, (AKA official thanks from your sponsor for good work), for a personal subdivision award of the actual achievement.
Having given employees similar certificates ‘thanking’ them officially for their efforts; I am especially aware that at no point could I actually give the employees the offical award their efforts helped achieve. Why? At no time did I, or even my superiors, have the authority to assume official capacity to make such awards. Our attempts were always to make sure we appreciated the efforts of the staff.
When entered into resume’s or applications, the certificates were always certificates of award for the effort involved. Never for actually winning the award. If any applicant listed a certificate as actually winning the award (co-win is winning), that applicant was in for a grilling. Grilling as intended to ‘teach’ accuracy and honesty in preparing a list of one’s honors.
Mann’s current belief version that the IPCC intends certificate recipients are “…“shared” or were a “co-recipient”…” of the Nobel prize is absurdly egomanniacal. The IPCC statement itself states that the certificates were for “contributing” to the award, not as being a ‘co-whatsis’ Manny is trying to elevate it to. Fast back-editing and fancy word replacements still leaves Mannmostfoul construing grandiose claims out of simple thanks. Construing grandiose claims is darn close to construing grandiose delusions and it may be that Mannmostfake is unable to accept reality.
Manniacal Manns attempts to make the certificate into anything more than acknowledgement of Mann’s efforts by the IPCC is bogus. Or as Pamela G. hints, flagrantly fraudulent. so if Mann expects to walk into a courtroom touting his “…“shared” or were a “co-recipient”…” of the Nobel Prize, I expect to hear a lot of derision and some sharp legal reprimands. What should be happening is half a dozen organizations immediately start organizing ‘official’ review boards into Manny’s fakery of his achievements. This kind of review historically is almost always a zero tolerance of falsehoods approach.
What seems to me as interesting is:
Did egoManniac state his Nobel heritage in the “Tim Ball” lawsuit?
Did egoManniac state his Nobel heritage in the “UVA” intervention?
Is there an official grant or Penn State document where egoManniac states his Nobel heritage as part of his ever so wonderful background? Not the easily Manniacal accessed web stuff, but the hard documentary stuff on official files. Grants would usually be kept in the grantor’s application files. Penn State should have an HR department with his, ahem, official application history and claims of dubious wonder…
Seems to me, that there are legal and official goldmines aplenty where the gold pated Manniac likely set legal precedent for his pompous Nobel claims.
Mann is still claiming he shared the award.
The implication of the IPCC statement is that it renders Mann as no different or more important than the xx others that happened to be on the list and received the internal certificate, which is contrary to Mann’s view of grandiose self-importance, a view he clearly used repeatedly for gain (prestige & financial) and to claim superiority and infallibility in the current and impending court cases.
I’ll drive the bus.
Still up at http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
“He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”
and
“2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001)”
You would think that a man as inteligent and educated as Dr. Mann would intuitively know that contributing to a work that recieved a Nobel Peace Prize is not the same as sharing the same prize; it’s sad but this kind of misjudgement and sophmoric behaviour seems to be a character flaw of the Doctor’s. I’m now more certain than ever to consider any work that Dr. Mann has done or contributed to be unreliable until proven otherwise.
I hope that Michael Mann’s lawyers have changed the wording on their law suit.
Their horse fell at the first hurdle. This doesn’t look good for Mann.
The next organization that is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will likely receive pretty tightly controlled restrictions from the Nobel committee on what they can say on certificates of thanks given out to a recipient organization’s members. And then its members will fall or not on their own swords if they “embellish” that certificate when citing it in their employment vitae. Trenbreth’s use of parenthesis to squeak through the embellishment loophole on his certificate is exactly the kind of loophole the Nobel Peace Prize committee could, if they impose restrictions, go after in court for trademark infringement.
And make no mistake, I do hear bloodhounds barking in the distance. Their collars tags read “Nobel Peace Prize Committee”.
Perhaps it’s a case of ‘Norwegian Wood’? (H/T John Lennon)
Yes, and I’m sure that the Nobel Committee is none too happy about the IPCC’s infringement of their copyrighted artwork on the ICPP certificates or participation. I imagine they will add language in the future along the lines of the famous NFL statement: “Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s expressed written consent is prohibited,”
well-done says:
November 2, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Two torpedoes from Rodney struck Bismarck-Mann with great effect. Dorsetshire also rounding Bismarck-Mann has fired torpedoes and Bismarck-Mann’s deck is awash.
==================================================================
A side note. If I’m not mistaken, when the Rodney torpedoed the Bismarck that the first and only time in history one battleship torpedoed another.
(Now back to the Mann-roast!)
I was inspired to read the original indictment:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf
Quite a lot of bizarre text. Apart from the several references to being “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”, we have:
“he was one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s”, supported by reference to his hockey stick work.
A number of points:
– the steady rise during the 20th C was well known probably before MM graduated
– what’s the “steep rise” post 1950s?? The rise between 1979 and 1998 was steeper than the AVERAGE pre-1979, but certainly not much different than the 1910 to 1945 rise.
– In any case, the ‘steep rise’ up to 1998 is based on instrumental data from other sources, not the work of MM.
– MM’s (et al) own HS work does not show the late 20th C rise at all! Because of the ‘well known’ divergence problem.
– MM goes on and on about defamation of him by others, but he regularly uses the term “climate change deniers” for all those who disagree with him.
– MM complains about his association with a child molester, but its well known that the original reason for using the term ‘denier’ was to associate AGW-sceptics with Holocaust denial. So which is worse?
I think a fair-minded assessment of his complaints is:
– he overplays the comparison with a child molester. No-one has accused him of being one, but he’s trying to suggest they have. The ‘child molester’ association was in bad taste, and I would agree not appropriate, but does not represent liable against MM.
– the rest of his argument is more about free speech. Understandably, he doesn’t like what was said about him, but this was tabloid journalist talk in a free world, and little different from him denigrating all those who challenge his own work as ‘climate change deniers’.
– Overall, I find the indictment document rather amateurish, in contrast to his normally rather smooth approach to handling the media. I tweeted him that he would make a good public affairs spokesman in the corporate world. (No response).
Overall, a very entertaining episode from MM.
Also entertaining is to follow his tweets on how he is constantly talking up the link between Hurricane Sandy and CC. He’s certainly exploiting the tragedy of Sandy as much as possible to regenerate his own reputation and divert from the Nobel fiasco.
CD (@CD153) says:
November 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm
“If Mann’s ego ever gets so big that his head explodes someday, the only downside to that will be the mess that somebody will have to clean up.”
The current administration will take credit for creating thousands of green jobs.
The essence of Mann’s excuse seems to be that it was not explained to him that he could not claim to be a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. If that is to be accepted, then I can ask myself just what coveted awards I would have liked to have received but have not, at least as yet, come my way. There are institutions beyond count that have failed to award me with a certificate acknowledging my contributions to mankind. There are some that I would shun such as the Nobel Peace Prize which I feel would associate me with some of the nastier politicians of my lifetime, but that leaves several thousand estimable bodies that have not taken the trouble to explain to me personally that I am not free to lay claim to their awards. I am tempted to start modestly with a Ph. D. Not from Penn State, of course, but M.I.T. might be nice without overdoing it. I shall have to decide on what discipline would suit me best. I can work my way up slowly from there.
There is something wrong here, and if I sleep on it, perhaps I shall be able to put my finger on it.
@TonyG November 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm:
As I understand the way it works, a competent opposing lawyer would love to present such claims on court documents to the jury or judge, so as to plant the idea not only of perjury per se, but as one whose assertions before the court simply are not to be believed; i.e. him being considered a liar before the court. This would have great effect even before any charges of perjury. Once seen as lying, his case will be dead as a door nail. The judge may even get to hit him with contempt charges for lying to the court if he brings any of it up again (which his lawyer would certainly prevent him from doing).
It is amazing his lawyer would draw up such documents.
Afterward, it is up to the D.A. re perjury.
Steve Garcia
A Mann CV still stating he was awarded the Nobel Prize:
“2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for
involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the
Third Assessment Report, 2001)”
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Mann_Vitae.pdf
Two ‘Penn State Live’ news articles:
“Mann was lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Scientific Assessment Report and was among the scientists who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for that report.”
http://live.psu.edu/story/57526
“Mann ………… was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report ………….. In 2007 he shared the Nobel Prize with other IPCC lead authors.”
http://live.psu.edu/story/56383
Would Mann and his institution have received all the funding for research since 2007 if the awarding bodies had understood that they were awarding grants to a scientist who was lying on his CV by falsely claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Prize?
Six successful people who lied on their resume, five of whom had to resign.
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-1154-Cover-Letters-Resumes-Infamous-R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9-Lies/
If Mann got a position somewhere with claims on his CV are that he was a recipient of the Nobel Prize, Mann would be subject to dismissal. As Ken Harvey says just above, we all could claim to have PhDs from MIT, and then argue that, “Well MIT didn’t TELL us we couldn’t claim the degrees,” so we should be allowed to do it.
It is fraud in a job application, and it is fraud in court docs.
Steve Garcia
As I thought previously – They did give Certificates to the Secretaries as well – it must be kinda like a movie set at IPCC Land – everybody gets a gong in the credits.
Wonder who the hairdressers were ?
I wouldn’t get too excited about any claims made in a plaint – even egregious errors like incorrectly naming the defendant can usually simply be amended by application – at least that is how it has worked here in Aus when a plaint lodged for prosecution mis-named the defendant – it was simply a clerical filing error that the magistrate allowed to be amended and re-served – no big deal with that type of thing and I suspect Mann will not suffer any detriment because of this other than dimunition of character reputation.
In the voices of my generation, (X-Y)
Snap, you lost, get over it.
I don’t speak for all of us, but I do speak for many of us.
Best I can.
Dale Wright.
You’ll have to ask Mike who did his hair.
It look like mine
cn
Didn’t Jimmy Savile get a Nobel Prize? No, sorry, it was a papal knighthood….
Maybe Mann could quickly get one of those?
Pamela Gray says:
November 3, 2012 at 9:26 am
The next organization that is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will likely receive pretty tightly controlled restrictions from the Nobel committee on what they can say on certificates of thanks given out to a recipient organization’s members. And then its members will fall or not on their own swords if they “embellish” that certificate when citing it in their employment vitae. Trenbreth’s use of parenthesis to squeak through the embellishment loophole on his certificate is exactly the kind of loophole the Nobel Peace Prize committee could, if they impose restrictions, go after in court for trademark infringement.
And make no mistake, I do hear bloodhounds barking in the distance. Their collars tags read “Nobel Peace Prize Committee”.
—————————————————-
Pamela, I’m not so sure the Nobel Committee’s ‘movers and shakers’ would come out and do anything to damage the CAGW mime. They gave the award to Al Gore and the IPCC.
Maybe that says it all.
cn
Here’s a sane and balanced reaction to the award by another well known climate scientist:
“I’ve had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don’t think I will add “0.0001 Nobel Laureate” to my resume.”
John Christy
geronimo says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:30 am
Let us not forget who the Nobel Prize Committee passed over to give the Peace Prize to these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
——————————————–
My mistake. This is today’s Nobel.
Truly, this says it all.
cn
During my lifetime I have contributed significantly to the European Union.
I guess that means I am a Nobel prize winner also!
If nothing else, this saga emphasises the absurdity and stupidity of giving Nobel’s to organisations.
mods ~ surprised this one made it through….
dwright says:
November 3, 2012 at 1:37 pm
[Reply: Is there a problem? — mod.]
Perhaps David Hoffer’s post at 4:16 should also be deleted for the same reason.
[Reply: Good point. Done. — mod.]
It’s fun to read about IPCC spouting Mann as a complete douche, but, however, shouldn’t the big pic zoom in on the fact that apparently the nobel peace price committee somehow have the blue print on who’s to blame?
Too very funny. Poor Mann is such an unworthy opponent for Steyn and NRO. It’s like watching Maxine Waters trying to debate Ann Coulter. …a cat with a half dead mouse.
I have a not-so-secret wish that Michael Mann ends his career as a waiter, not a fraud scientist.
“The wine? A domestic vintage, with no breeding. But, I think you will be amused by its impertinence.” …and Mann bows from the waist.
…Lady in Red
This has been the Nobel Peace Prize from its outset.
Mark
The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus
Meh……
MtK
Irene Sendler smuggled 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw Ghetto and then provided them with false identity documents and with housing outside the Ghetto, thereby saving those children from being killed in the Holocaust.
So this stalwart lady of iron courage was passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize, in favor of lesser mortals of questionable honesty? Pathetic….These ‘judges’ believe they have some moral understanding? !!!!!!
MtK
Are you kidding?
pat says:
November 3, 2012 at 1:14 am
“you can be absolutely sure Hugh Riminton would NEVER EVER write the following with Mann’s name instead of Monckton’s:
5 Feb 2010: The Punch, Australia: Hugh Riminton: Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate
Sorry Lord Monckton. You are a fraud.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton. I emailed him the Monckton website.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate – no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off an a Nobel Laureate…
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/asc/ ”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Oh my sweet nuclear weapon, did you guys look up who the Geir Lundestat guy is?
He’s the SECRETARY of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
Way to go, pat, and all you guys. I noticed the bizarre claim about ‘the first man to document steady rise of temperatures in the 20th century,’ whatever the precise wording is – just pure, delusional, lawsuit gold.
These sorts of lawsuits is like the country of Belize naming itself the ‘United States of America,’ then wondering why everybody doesn’t pull over on the high seas for their little inflatable Zodiac navy.
Except he had Al Gore, the man who was #2 in the Federal Government 8 years, telling everyone to pull over or else someone was gonna die.
pat says:
November 3, 2012 at 1:14 am
you can be absolutely sure Hugh Riminton would NEVER EVER write the following with Mann’s name instead of Monckton’s:
5 Feb 2010: The Punch, Australia: Hugh Riminton: Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate
Sorry Lord Monckton. You are a fraud.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton. I emailed him the Monckton website.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate – no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off an a Nobel Laureate…
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/asc/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geir_Lundestad
OT but looks like solar 24 may have peaked already were at 34 SSN currently!
http://www.solarham.net/trends.htm
J Martin says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:40 pm
“If nothing else, this saga emphasises the absurdity and stupidity of giving Nobel’s to organisations.”
Don’t forget that the peace prize has developed into becoming a political tool, instead of a price for promoting peace. A political prize promotes conflict, not peace, because you then support one side in a conflict, instead of those who work for peace.
It also told you everything you need to know about the IPCC. A political organisation, with a political agenda. Against the western civilisation. Supported by a bunch of misguided people in Christiania .(Sorry, “Oslo”.)
This is what in porn movies is described as “the money shot”
CSIRO Press Release:
Climate scientists share in Nobel Peace Prize
Reference: 07/204
Australian scientists who have been leading contributors to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been recognised for the crucial part they played in the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC.
16 October 2007
In a letter to lead and convening lead authors, the Chair of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, wrote: “I have been stunned in a pleasant way with the news of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC.
“This makes each of you Nobel Laureates and it is my privilege to acknowledge this honour on your behalf. The fact that the IPCC has earned the recognition that this award embodies, is really a tribute to your knowledge, hard work and application,” Dr Pachauri said.
http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine–Atmospheric-Research/NobelPeacePrizeWinners.aspx
It’s hardly fair. Michael Mann actually did a fair amount of work for the IPCC over a number of years, contributing more than just AR4 which was the basis of the award. Barak Obama made a bunch of speeches on “hope and change” and got elected president and was nominated for the Peace Prize just a few weeks after taking office. Yet Obama is the undisputed solo recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and Mann is just a resume embellisher.
I should think it would sour MM’s view of the award to realize just how much “image” rather than substance determines the decision.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL !
The SMARTEST MENN in the W.O.R.L.D.
DiDn’T KNOW they weren’t NOBEL LAUREATES, yet we have to ASSUME THEY’RE SO SMART WE aren’t ALLOWED to ARGUE, and ONE of them SUED some PEOPLE for CLAIMING he was a FAKER?
And INCLUDED IN the SUIT, not once but SEVERAL TIMES, that
HE
was a NOBEL LAUREATE !?!?!?
LoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoL !
So the SMARTEST MANN in the WERLD
Was told by the TRAIN ENGINEER the UN put in charge of the WORLD’S most PRESSING PROBLEM,
that HE WON a NOBEL PRIZE,
and
that MANN BELIEVED HIMM?!?!?!?
*g*o*L*F* *c*L*a*P*
And
WE’RE
ALL
RABBLE?
I hope the bus runs on bio-diesel or is a Hybrid.
Wondering if the Nobel Committee is a bunch of lunatic lefties is very easy to confirm. The majority are former Labour government members and socialists. Who else would award aone to a murderous terrorist like Arafat or give one to Obama for “gonna do something”, which he never did.
The Nobel prize is quickly becoming a joke just like the EU is, they got one too as well, just for being there regardless of a joke that has become. All the decisions to award that “prize” is solely based on left wing politics and how far they have promoted their doctrine. It is sadly becoming a complete politicised scam and nowhere near what it was originally created for.
They are going to need a bigger bus!
Larry
Surely you mean convoy Larry! ;¬)
Time for a Everybody Draw your own Nobel Prize Day?
Waiting for Saul Alinsky to receive a posthumous Nobel certificate indicating his contribution to Obama’s Nobel Peas Prize, 3.. 2… 1…
Rosco says:
November 3, 2012 at 12:18 pm
it was simply a clerical filing error that the magistrate allowed to be amended and re-served
=========
a clerical error attaches no fault to the person making the claim. A false claim is an entirely different animal. Far from being a small item, a false claim establishes either that the person is gullible, careless or dishonest.
If you appear before the courts waving the IPCC documents as proof of being a Nobel Laureate this shows you are gullible. If you failed to check the accuracy of these documents, then it shows you are careless. If you knew, of should have known the documents were not correct, then it shows you are dishonest.
Everyone making a claim has a responsibility to exercise due diligence to make sure the claim is accurate. If you “cherry pick” documents from the IPCC and use this as the basis for a claim that you are a Nobel Laureate, then this speaks to your character, how you will act in other circumstances. It establishes that you would “cherry pick” other evidence in making other claims. Which is pretty much what this case is about.
Alan Watt;
Barak Obama made a bunch of speeches on “hope and change” and got elected president and was nominated for the Peace Prize just a few weeks after taking office
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the voting was BEFORE he took office, they only announced it afterward. Does that mean that everyone who voted for him shares in his Nobel Prize? Wow, you Americans got MILLIONS of Nobel Laureates! And if Mann voted for Obama he can say he won it twice!
Seeing as how Mann’s Nobel Prize has been snatched away, he probably should get a consolation prize of some sort such as the:
Hide The Decline Award
Golden Hockey Stick Award
Yamal Better Not Defame Me Award
Etc.
Hm, I left M.Mann a question at his fb-site. He deleted it. I asked him who should get “recognition” when the UN won the prize in 2001. Or when the EU won this year. To tricky, perhaps.
Perhaps a good compromise would be to give Mann an Ig Nobel, so that Mikey would have something substantial to show for all of his efforts. On the other hand, are people who have had humorectomies eligible for Igs?
I don’t grasp thrown under the bus in this case, but it is notable that IPCC played it straight, essentially repeating what the Nobel price organization said – the facts, with clear explanation of what is and is not a Nobel Prize.
Rather an amazing performance by Michael Mann, he is now trying to wriggle out of it with his Facebook statement (which falls in the “just a mis-understanding” category of excuse attempts).
And I’m ROFL at Andrew Weaver’s misleading statement.