Guest post by Brandon Shollenberger
Words cannot describe the humor of Michael Mann’s latest post:
As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding. Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.
Thus starts the latest crazy posting in the climate blog world, unsurprisingly written by Michael Mann. Snickers abound when Mann talks about “credibility,” but no words exist for the reaction this post should garner. Specifically, Michael Mann refers to a recent posting from (the long missed) Steve McIntyre, saying:
…it seems remarkable that Mr. McIntyre couldn’t figure this out, and instead chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory involving not just me, but multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc.
Steve McIntyre has gathered a great deal of respect, including respect from people who don’t agree with him. He has made many points even his critics accept are true. How can anyone believe he is some conspiracy nut? I don’t know, but it can’t be because of anything he wrote in that post.
The term AGU is used approximately 30 times in McIntyre’s post. In every case, it is used in a sense like “Mann at AGU,” “Mann’s AGU graphic” or “the AGU audience.” Not a single case of McIntyre saying the AGU did anything exists. The same is true for the term IPCC, which gets used 10 times. In fact, the only person (other than Mann) the post refers to as doing anything is Naomi Oreskes, who McIntyre says “appears to have [been] wrongfooted” by Mann.
Put simply, Steve McIntyre blamed everything in this post on Michael Mann. Mann interprets this as:
…an apparent effort to manufacture a nefarious plot out of whole cloth [where] Mr. McIntyre (parroted by Mr. Watts) imagines a great conspiracy.
While this is arguably a new low for Michael Mann, many people won’t be surprised at him saying things that make him appear delusional. However, some may be surprised to see John Cook, proprietor of Skeptical Science, agreed, saying (in a comment):
I find it interesting that Steve McIntyre automatically lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events. Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking. The response to the research from climate deniers was a host of new conspiracy theories. We document the originators of these conspiracy theories in the paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf. The chief originator of conspiracy theories? Steve McIntyre.
That’s right, the founder of Skeptical Science, a man who works with people like Stephan Lewandowsky to claim skeptics are conspiracy nuts, promotes this as an example of their conspiratorial ideation. A man who publishes papers claiming to find conspiracy theorists finds blaming everything on Mann to be a conspiracy theory involving an unknown number of people.
Be careful folks. Blame Michael Mann for anything, and you may be fabricating a conspiracy involving intergovernmental bodies, scientific communities and “multiple scientists.”
Or so global warming advocates will say.
=============================================================
See Steve McIntyre’s observations on Dr. Mann’s graphic shortcomings here
Related articles
- Mike’s AGU Trick (climateaudit.org)
- Michael Mann’s new ‘trick’, pulled off at the American Geophysical Union Convention – exposed by McIntyre (wattsupwiththat.com)
- John Cook: Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They’re Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories (huffingtonpost.com)
- Friday Funny – John Cook’s withdrawal symptoms (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Mann was an Inquisitor a whole lot more witches would have been burnt.
Mann writes:
“Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”
Please be warned that I am referring to words written by Mann and not to some imagined words written by some conspirators. What Mann says in the quotation above is that he will occasionally deny the charges that he is stealing from the cookie jar and after doing so he will stop stealing from the cookie jar.
I have seen confessions of this sort from pre-kindergarten children but never from an older, rational person.
Fellow Grad Student,
That’s interesting, because Mann is proving to be quite a buffoon despite his supposed scientific eminence. One wonders how he managed to get through any science PhD program with his poor intellectual tendencies.
Excellent post, Mr.Shollenberger. It is clear, concise, to the point, and totally effective.
The psychological projection is very apparent as others have noted. Claiming conspiracy when referring to a “industry-funded climate change denial effort” is classic. Mann is showing all the signs of NPD sufferers when confronted with the facts. They project all their own fears onto their perceived attackers. This Mann needs to seek professional help quickly.
Reposted and edited from Climate Audit where Steve will probably moderate in out.
Brandon,
I can see where Mann is coming from. If you quickly scan Steve’s original post you will see:
Mike’s AGU Trick
IPCC AR5
AGU
Hansen
Mann and Kump
Mike’s AGU Trick
Pierrehumbert
Naomi
If you interpolate the data, do some infilling, it possibly looks like Steve could be saying:
“That fiendishly clever Dr. Michael Mann, the most feared opponent of climate change deniers, has been conspiring with the AGU,the IPCC and scientists like Pierrehumbert and Naomi, taking data from Hansen, Kump, and Mann (TMFOOCD) to prepare AR5 and warm humanity of the future dangers caused by their folly.”
I am not tweeting (stupid word in itself), but here is something that needs to be brought to Mann’s attention, as it seems to have the same appeal at explaining things like his own attempts:
At least in the UK – and I didn’t want to research this for more than 5 seconds – the main funder of climate scientists is the oil and gas industry.
How do I know? Well, I googled for “oil-industry contribution uk tax” and up comes a PWC link like so:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/tax/publications/total-tax-contribution-of-the-uk-oil-gas-industry.jhtml
So since the number one TAX payer is the oil industry, and research is TAX payer financed, all money going to climate research is inevitably funded by the oil industry before anything else.
There you go.
PS: Free tip for Micheal: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you 😉
===================================
Despite this friendly warning on his FB page Mann cannot help but “look” like an activist because he IS an activist…. A politically correct hacktivist.
Jeff Norman says:
March 4, 2013 at 10:52 am
Preposterous! If one writes an article on Mann he must refrain from mentioning anyone associated with Mann?
I think that for Dr Mann, the opposition to his assertions have to be be ‘professional’ or funded by some immensely rich cartel. Why? Because it would be unbearable if he were proven incontrovertibly wrong by unfunded amateurs.
Sticky Micky – the hockey jockey!
Jeff Norman
March 4, 2013 at 10:52 am
###
But to be sure, one should do some data adjustment as well.
hro001:
As I had noted about exactly a year ago, following publication of the opus he’s still flogging far and wide:
“Mann is well on his way to becoming known as the David Irving of climate science. For those who may not be familiar with his name – or his record – Irving is probably the most prolific and prominent Holocaust denier”
Now, get real. Mann has commented on SM’s piece and has, yet again, demonstrated his ability to avoid the issue and talk cr*p with a healthy dose of “conspiracist ideation”. But seriously, “Holocaust denier”? You are sounding just like ‘the opposition’. I’m ashamed to admit to reading WUWT when I see a comment like that.
@ur momisugly Jeff Norman, or you could actually read Steve’s arguments and think for your self?
ROFLMAO
Dear Dr Mann, there is help for your condition but you have to first admit to having a problem. We are waiting and able to assist you through this crisis of faith but first you must shelve your beliefs in AGW and reacquaint yourself with the scientific method.
Sincerely, Those who can prove their position.
john robertson says:
March 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
@fellow grad student
Thanks for further insight into the Mann, but what was the recreational drug of choice?
Obviously its one my children should know to avoid.”
Actually just beer that I know of, and not even too much of that!
“Skiphil says:
March 4, 2013 at 10:38 am
Fellow Grad Student,
That’s interesting, because Mann is proving to be quite a buffoon despite his supposed scientific eminence. One wonders how he managed to get through any science PhD program with his poor intellectual tendencies.”
Believe it or not, Mann was pretty good for some very intelligent conversations. He was originally in the Theoretical Nuclear Physics dept. My belief is, as I stated, he so much believes his convictions that it clouds his judgement. He would really dig in his heals and argue his point with folks and never back down, no matter how strong the counter argument. Basically not open minded at all.
@Fellow Grad Student: re: “Basically not open minded at all.”
I have found that to be the case with most PhDs I have had the misfortune to interact with.
I wonder who helped Mann type the big words? Hansen, Mann, Obama, Jackson etc. should have to prove they’re so sure they’re right by agreeing to hand themselves publicly if AWG hasn’t reached a tipping point by 2020.
Jeff Norman, but of course. Why didn’t I realize the data clearly shows McIntyre is blaming Mann’s decisions on everyone he mentions? I guess I just wouldn’t cut it as a member of the Team.
I find it sad nobody seems to have paid attention to this wonderful comment by toto:
It would appear Mann isn’t the only one who thinks merely talking about people is saying they’re part of the conspiracy. And this isn’t just a conspiracy folks. toto clarifies this is an evil conspiracy.
By evil, I assume he means in the Dr. Evil sense of comprised of complete buffoonery.
For those who might not have realized it (such as Theo Goodwin and john robertson), Jeff Norman was joking. He was making fun of how data has basically been manipulated to show certain results by Mann.
In other words, Mann’s just doing the same thing here he does for his “science.”
Taken from his book, here is just one example of many indicators in the book showing Prof Michael E. Mann of PSU is fixated on his mental projections of imaginary conspiracies against him and his alarming AGW supporting science:
– – – – – – – – – –
Are those the words of PSU Prof. Michael E. Mann also the words of a climate science professional and trained objective observer? They appear to me to be as the words of people under mental strain. They appear to me as the words of people projecting into reality a need to believe in the existence of some kind of organized, confidential and widespread plot against themselves and their work.
PSU Prof Michael E. Mann’s book is more than sufficient self-testimony that he is a leading public practitioner of projecting imaginary conspiracies which he wants to believe are being carried out by those who disagree with him.
John
He’s right!
tgmccoy says:
March 4, 2013 at 5:39 am
LOL. He proved it with a geometrical logic thingy.
observa says:
March 4, 2013 at 5:55 am
“We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing.”
So, they sought and found these “innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing” from 19th century philosophers and scientists. Plus ca change…
toto says:
March 4, 2013 at 6:23 am
First pro-Mannian comment! You guys are slowing down.
… some minutes later… And, only as of 11:11 AM.
He’s going to update his slides? Really? Does he dare? Either the truth will be all over him – or we will be if he doesn’t show it. Could be interesting. I somehow think, though, that he won’t get around to it as that will dig a deeper hole than the one he’s in at the moment.
Alvin says:
March 4, 2013 at 6:59 am
I would also wager a small amount that Mann didn’t write this, more likely a PR specialist in leftist doubletalk.
==============
Yep, there was no thought put into it.
Passionless prose befitting the vanquished.