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climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.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.
Just for the record, yesterday I posted a reply on Mann’s FB page. It was short & polite and just said that the issue was that Mann’s chart was missing the 2005-2012 observations, and that if added they would be seen to follow Hansen’s “scenario C” and not “scenario B”. My comment was deleted in about 2 minutes, and myself blacklisted as well (since the comment box has gone). So this is why there are so few comments on his FB posting, and my guess is that Mann’s blacklist is the longest one on FaceBook — good for a FB technician to confirm.
Re the idea that Mann is basically honest – he might have been way back then in school, but he isn’t honest now. His infamous hockey stick did not happen by accident.
“At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.”
–
In other words, Mann will update his lecture slides, which he admits are out of date, at some unspecified point in the future. My guess is he’s waiting for global temperatures to rise first so he doesn’t look completely foolish.
It would be interesting to get Lewandowsky’s professional opinion on Mann’s state of mind and his obsession with conspiracy theories.
Exactly right. Real scientists don’t talk about other scientists with contrary views as ‘deniers’. The Warmists are essentially claiming that their opponents are heretics, rejecting some kind of revealed gospel. This of course makes them immune to strictly scientific arguments. They can stand up and proclaim the Gospel According to AGW with a straight face, no matter how completely erroneous the ‘facts’ they cite are. And their sycophants in the media and the ‘environmental’ movement just nod and sing hallelujah!
The problem is that the Warmists cloak their litany in the guise of science, which can fool most of the people most of the time. That makes sites like WUWT valuable, but hard to get out of the dungeon of ‘heresy’. We are lucky that there is yet no Grand Inquisitor to take more drastic action against the ‘deniers’.
/Mr Lynn
@ur momisugly A.D. Everard says: March 4, 2013 at 1:09 pm
“Re the idea that Mann is basically honest – he might have been way back then in school, but he isn’t honest now. His infamous hockey stick did not happen by accident.”
True.
People need to stop looking for reasons, which in contemporary culture automatically transmute to excuses. The underlying causes are clear and there are no excuses.
Brandon Shollenberger,
Thank you for serving up a feast of commenting via your ‘A Conspiracy of One’ post.
I suggest your post can also be sub-titled, ‘The Platonic Ménage-à-Trois Conspiracy by Mann’s Nature Tricksters’.
The ‘trois’ being: Mann, Oreskes and Cook.
John
John Trigge (in Oz), I’m currently writing an e-mail to John Cook to point out McIntyre’s post has nothing resembling a claim of conspiracy. After that, I intend to write one to Stephan Lewandoski to see what he thinks of Mann’s claim (and his co-authors promotion of it).
I think it should be interesting to see what, if any, response I get.
Blame Michael Mann for anything, and you may be fabricating a conspiracy
OK, I’ll bite.
One of the papers I like to cite in blog discussions is Knight et al 2005 (GRL). The full title for this paper is:
“A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate”, Jeff R. Knight, Robert J. Allan, Chris K. Folland, Michael Vellinga, and Michael E. Mann
So, a paper on the AMO by Mike Mann. And here is what it says in the abstract:
I’ve added the highlights. Dr Mann finds the AMO is:
1. persistent over at least 1400 years
2. a natural variation
3. is cyclical
4. affects the surface temperature (the AMO is a surface temperature based index)
5. is expected to decrease “over the next few decades independent of anthropogenic climate change”
I’ll add that the AMO shows a pronounced ~60 year cycle which is evident from his Figure 1 and other data. Furthermore it is easy to see the same cycle in Hadcrut directly or when detrended. And that the trough-to-peak rise and fall of the cycle is about 0.3 C. Also that the cycle was close to bottom in the year 1906 and peaked in the year 2005 one-and-a-half wavelengths later. So of the 0.74 C rise in the HadCRUT temperature dataset during the period 1906-2005 near to 40% was due to the ~60 year cycle, not CO2. You can also see the cycle in the PDO and in ENSO. Note that the PDO and the AMO are not in phase, which may be a feature of the themohaline circulation or great conveyer belt velocity. I defer to Bob Tisdale on this.
Mike’s paper has demonstrated that the AMO is real and persistent, and by inference corresponds to almost 40% of the global temperature rise during the last century. And that in his own paper’s words it is “independent of anthropogenic climate change” with expectation of cooling “over the next few decades”.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you Professor Michael E. Mann, climate sceptic.
M. Mann: “the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding”
Best example of conspiricist ideation I’ve ever seen. Quick, someone call Lewandowsky and Cook!
Mike Mangan wrote: “Who’s going to call him out? There are no mainstream reporters or journalists who will. The AGU will do nothing. A cursory glance at their website shows them to be completely in agreement with the CAGW orthodoxy. Penn State hierarchy is unperturbed. It’s not Mann’s chicanery and buffoonery that’s the story here, it’s that he can engage in it with impunity. Skeptical websites have little power. Who is supposed to be the check and balance in this situation??”
My thoughts exactly. I think we all just have to keep pushing. i’ve sent several letters for example, to Matt Taibbi. the brilliant journalist who famously wrote of Goldman Sachs: (It’s a) vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
A guy like that has a nose for the dirt bag scam artists who prey on our society, and do so much damage thereby. Establishment climate scientists would be right in his wheel house. Yes, it’s true, he writes for Rolling Stone, but don’t you see, that’s just the kind of guy we need. Someone on the liberal side of the fence, blowing the whistle on these fraudsters.
He’s ignored me so far of course, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. What I’m trying to say in my awkward way is much of this is up to us. Eventually we’ll find the right journalist with a nose for one of the great stories of our time. We just have to keep trying.
Pokerguy,
Forget journalists, they only write an expose when they have a source. Think of Woodward and Bernstein and “Deep Throat.”
Without Deep Throat, there was no Watergate story.
The only way this scam will be blown open is by a whistleblower.
If all of us focused on finding a whistleblower among Mann’s students/colleagues/co-authors/co-grantees/admins/IT guys this game could be over pretty quickly.
Here’s an article written about this issue in the Penn State newspaper: http://onwardstate.com/2010/01/14/former-cia-agent-investigates-climategate/
The potential rewards, monetary, are huge. The law, called the False Claims Act, allows an individual with inside knowledge of fraudulent grant recipients to initiate legal action on behalf of the US government.
http://howtoreportfraud.com/examples-of-federal-fraud/grant-fraud
One person with access to Mann’s government-paid-for data could blow the whole scam sky-high.
How can we encourage or help them to do the right thing?
I don’t have John Cook’s e-mail, so I haven’t been able to contact him. However, I did just send an e-mail to Stephan Lewandowsky drawing his attention to this issue. Hopefully he’ll respond.
To be fair, Mann took several years to address some of the errors of MBH98, and many of those errors last to this day. He’s got a lot to do before he worries about catching up to data post-2005.
Not only do Mann and Cook wrongly accuse Steve McIntyre of claiming a conspiracy, but Mann himself charges McIntyre and other “climate change deniers” of engaging in a conspiracy of their own, being supposedly “industry-funded” to spread “egregious smears and falsehoods.” It’s all projection all the time with these guys.
We’ve been dancing this merry dance for years now. Notwithstanding that I am generally a polite and live and let live sort of person, I think that if i met Mann I would just knock him out. We are way beyond reason with this moron. They have had such an effect on our lives that it is no longer about science, the scientific method, rational disourse, etc. Mann has shown himself to be such a rabid paranoid activist that he no longer merits anything other than a smack in the mouth.
Well done Richard M and others. Not gone through all but Richard is the only one to mention NPD, (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) directly, others mentioned egotism which is related.
I think Dr. Mann exhibits at least 5 of the 9 traits of NPD.
Sorry, it’s quite a long video.
DaveE.
If Mann believes he’s been wronged by McIntyre, perhaps he should point out where in Steve’s excellent and easy-to-follow analysis that he is wrong? But no. All he does is ad hominem Steve to death…
john robertson says:
March 4, 2013 at 11:39 am
@ur momisugly Jeff Norman, or you could actually read Steve’s arguments and think for your self?
###
Jeff was joking, and what he wrote was pretty funny.
I’ve said this before and must repeat.
Yes, Michael Mann is a professional scientist who has become completely invested in his theories. So had Lysenko, Willhelm Reich (Orgone) and the guy who discovered N-rays … Forget his name.
Now, with these people, all but one was innocent in so far as they truly believed what they believed and if the data were wrong, then the data had an error.
Actually, they all felt that way. However, the difference was Lysenko’s ill-starred theories provided cover for political action, and advancement for political ideas unacceptable on the face of it …Stalin’s desire to eliminate the Kulak class.
Does anyone see any modern parallels here? Perchance? The well-to-do bourgois left liberal intellectual who can afford more expensive energy because they are stinking rich, find the opportunity provided by Mann ( and Hanson ) so choice that theywill fund this person they probably laugh at behind his back,just to further their own political goals.
Don’t evr get me going.
Mann: “the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding”
The only industry-funded effort is the one he’s part and parcel of, the climate change industrial complex, which also sits atop the pedestal of intellectual bankruptcy. President Eisenhower warned of this in his Farewell Address. Professional climate alarmists see this warning differently, rather as an opportunity and are only too eager to participate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/ikes-second-warning-hint-it-is-not-the-military-industrial-complex/
Ian Hoder points out Mann’s words –
“Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking.”
and concludes-
I don’t thinking posting a paper on your own website counts as “published”
Translation- ‘published’ means whatever we at the commanding heights of Big Climate allow in our tightly controlled Journals, the IPCC, grey literature, certain approved MSM puff pieces or whatever we mean it to be whenever it suits us, but clearly that does not apply to anything penned by conspiratorial climate deniers in the clutches of Big Oil.
Unfortunately too many ignorant laypeople don’t understand the need to abide strict peer review protocols and processes in such matters of great import.
.
3×2 says: March 4, 2013 at 11:34 am
Precisely. And that’s how Irving “does history”.
Sorry, I can’t change the facts about Irving – and while you may be aware of his reputation, his name and claim to fame might not be recognizable to some.
So, I’m also sorry that the irony of narcisstic Mann lifting and adapting pages from narcissistic Irving’s playbook appears to be lost on you.
But, that’s life, eh?!
Plot. Lost. Send funds. OUT
It was shown to me John Cook’s e-mail address is available via a whois on Skeptical Science, so I was able to send him an e-mail. It will be interesting to see if I get a response from him or Stephan Lewandowsky.
I’d try sending an e-mail to Michael Mann, but I figure it would be pointless. I was banned at RealClimate before I even posted there because he didn’t like my criticisms of his book. I can’t imagine he’d actually respond to an e-mail from me.
In making continual statements about the “industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding”, isn’t it he warmists who are truly the conspiracy theorists?