Mann, it's hairy in the climate wars

Sometimes, you just have to laugh. Doing a Google search for Michael E. Mann to find his CV to respond to this comment, I came across this odd presentation from Google. In it, Michael E. Mann gains hair, and I lose it. I blame “climate disruption” and the “Hair Club for Climatologists”.


And in case you didn’t notice, the photos aren’t of Mann or myself at all. The silly mix-up is likely an artifact of other prominent people with the same names. At least it got the other guys right.



33 thoughts on “Mann, it's hairy in the climate wars

  1. The Anthony Watts picture is the one of the disgraced soccer player of the same name. Bald and wearing his colors.

  2. Yes, but your dollar per hour rate as a bald-but-hirsute footballer/soccer player is much, much higher than the ever-so-extinguished so-called Micheal E Mann.

  3. Regarding “your” picture: William Connolley working his Wikipedia tricks again?

  4. “anthony-watts-penis-biting-rugby-video”
    Watts Up With That?

  5. The photo of Gavin Schmidt looks a lot more like Mann. (I can’t comment on what you really look like as I haven’t the faintest idea.)

  6. Some of the “research” that is done on names is pretty funny. My recent guest essays on WUWT (many thanks by the way) have resulted in my identity being discovered as a “real estate agent” in Iowa. Not as notorious as Anthiny Watts misidenty but funny none the less.

  7. Ha! and some wonder how integrated the digital world is?
    As you read this, is your digital locating device, your phone etc , online? How long is that stuff kept anyhow? I know where I was tonight. Who else does, physically or digitally ?
    Yep, many of us authorize that kinda stuff by clicking without knowing.
    Did you ever check out your personal history on your Google account?
    Ya might want to dig into that (recomended if you don’t have a clue)….. and you must dig to find it, but it is there.
    Be well and smart. It works better than the alternative!

  8. N.S.A. Collecting Millions of Faces From Web Images
    The National Security Agency is harvesting huge numbers of images of people from communications that it intercepts through its global surveillance operations for use in sophisticated facial recognition programs, according to top-secret documents.

    The agency intercepts “millions of images per day” — including about 55,000 “facial recognition quality images” — which translate into “tremendous untapped potential,” according to 2011 documents obtained from the former agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. While once focused on written and oral communications, the N.S.A. now considers facial images, fingerprints and other identifiers just as important to its mission of tracking suspected terrorists and other intelligence targets, the documents show.

    Oh look, Google is trying to protect Watts’ privacy by obfuscation.
    The NSA is gathering all those images. The Surveillance Society progresses per the Progressives, with traffic cameras, “public safety” street and sidewalk cameras, collecting more images into centralized repositories.
    If any of you serfs shall ever speak out against the elites, facial recognition shall doom you, as shall be heaped upon your head all possible charges for every recorded time you didn’t come to a complete stop at the sign, or failed to signal when passing, or technically broke the speed limit going down a hill, even for laws and regulations you never knew existed, until your driver license is permanently revoked and you are drowned by inescapable fines.
    If it is not now possible to charge someone with serial jaywalking, with such blatant disregard for public safety worthy of a felony conviction that strips gun and voting rights, it will be. How many times can you spit on the sidewalk before being guilty of illegally disposing of bio-hazardous waste?
    And as with the inherent infallibility of fingerprints, there will be no defense, it must be you, the software confirmed it. Do you think they altered someone else’s image to convict you, if that was even possible by government employees? Pah, you break enough laws anyway, even when you don’t know you did, especially the laws you don’t know about.
    BTW, good luck demanding the original footage before trial to check for alterations, as it ceased existing after being automatically copied to the archives, however the archive copy must be perfect (computers are involved) thus it IS the original for legal purposes like convicting you so they’ll send you that. You can easily verify it has none of the telltale signs of tampering looked for by any software YOU have access to.

  9. Hey now you better listen to me everyone of you
    We got a lotta lotta lotta lotta work to do
    Forget about your woman and that water can
    Today were working for the mann
    …Don’t relax
    I want elbows and backs
    I wanna see everybody
    from behind
    … I’m pickin’ ’em up and I’m laying ’em down
    I believe he’s gonna work me into the ground
    I pull to the left I heave to the right
    I wanna kill him but it wouldn’t be right
    ‘Cause I’m working for the mann working for the mann
    gotta make him a hand when you’re working for the mann! 😉
    Roy Orbison

  10. RACook–I like extinguished better, too.
    I have to add, this just goes to show the anonymity in having a common name. If you don’t know me fairly well, you will have a heck of a time separating me from the millions of other Johnsons out there.

  11. So you are now a rugby player in England? You certainly get around.
    It is near impossible to get the Google collective to correct anything. Perhaps you could sue them for defamation of character?

  12. When I have spent time with rich people, I have noticed that a lot of the rich men are bald, more so than in the general population. I have therefore come up with a theory, which can be stated thus: I can state with a high degree of certainty that there is a 97% probability that 97% of rich men are bald, alternatively there is 97% chance that being rich make men bald. At no time however, is the probability of my being wrong higher than 97%.

Comments are closed.