Friday Funny – Mann Overboard at #AGU14

Today I visited the poster sessions again, where I’m not allowed to take photos. I also visited the commercial exhibition, where I am allowed photography. I was surprised to find that Mann’s penchant for hype even permeates that part of AGU 2014. It makes me wonder if they spent more on that big board display than the amount of the award…


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 19, 2014 11:40 am

$250 ???

Reply to  kenw
December 19, 2014 1:04 pm

That’s exactly what I thought. He is making a big deal about giving $250 ???? Wow, and he wears platform shoes too?

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Odin2
December 19, 2014 4:06 pm

and maternity clothes…admittedly an odd combination.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Odin2
December 21, 2014 5:46 am

Wow – He’s really, REALLY serious this time.. 🙂

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  kenw
December 19, 2014 2:27 pm

The graphics & printing cost for that oversize check-poster is at least $100, probably closer to $150 in San Fran.

Reply to  kenw
December 19, 2014 6:30 pm

Having started my career as a banker, I was always amused by the seeming correlation between what people chose to put in the upper left corner of their checks and pompous assism.
How do I get a grant to research the validity of my hypothesis?

Glyn Palmer
Reply to  bonanzapilot
December 20, 2014 5:57 am

Tell ’em it’s a possible effect of climate change!

Scott Basinger
Reply to  kenw
December 19, 2014 8:13 pm

The fake cheque probably cost $50, heh.

Reply to  kenw
December 20, 2014 3:47 am

Nope, damage paid by ATI to Mann in that lawsuit, as far as I remember correctly.

Reply to  kenw
December 20, 2014 5:55 am

Anyone know the % of his grant money that represents? About .0001%?

December 19, 2014 11:49 am

What is the point of showing that MM contributed to the fund? Is it a slam to highlight how cheap he is or an attempt to shame others into contributing? You have to wonder about any movement that feels the need to proactively lawyer up. They obviously know they are on shaky ground.

Reply to  markl
December 19, 2014 5:43 pm

Ahh, but I now know how shaky. In fact Merry Christmas Anthony. Did you know Michael Mann describes Stephen Lewandowsky and John Cook as “communication researchers” in reports he is involved in he doesn’t think anyone will see?
It’s no secret I have been targeting mental models and manipulating perception as what is really the aim of the K-12 curriculum going forward globally. Guess who signed his name on to the report as an advisor on the communication strategy on creating mental models for adults grounded in narrative instead of science?
Fits right in with the World Bank’s declaration last week that shaping those perceptions and mental models was its primary policy too.
It may not be a White Christmas but it is certainly a confessional one.

Reply to  markl
December 21, 2014 3:43 am

It may be influential but it ain’t penitential. Gesundheit!

December 19, 2014 11:51 am

So he contributes $250 and collects how much?

December 19, 2014 11:53 am

$250 for damages? Did he trip over a tree stump in Yamal?

Reply to  Mike Smith
December 19, 2014 11:54 am

My bad – I see he wrote the cheque to go towards the damaged tree stump.

Grey Lensman
Reply to  Mike Smith
December 19, 2014 8:12 pm


Reply to  Mike Smith
December 21, 2014 9:50 am

Wouldn’t be the first time he’s been stumped…

Go Home
December 19, 2014 12:05 pm

Hey, at least that is more than Joe Biden gave annually to charity, with the gall to say American’s paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do.

John M
December 19, 2014 12:10 pm

Given that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars in “stimulus money”, it’s the least he could do.

Hot under the collar
December 19, 2014 12:11 pm

As the display shows, I believe $250 was the amount of damages awarded against the American Tradition Institute in the University of Virginia v ATI case.

Charles Nelson
December 19, 2014 12:13 pm

He was awarded $250 in ‘damages’?

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Charles Nelson
December 19, 2014 12:13 pm

That’s the kind of award people get when they lose the case on all but a technicality!

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Charles Nelson
December 19, 2014 12:15 pm

I meant ‘win the case on all but a technicality’.

December 19, 2014 12:14 pm

It was a symbolic victory for him. He is showing off because hardly anyone else cared, cares, or will care… except on places like this one.
And, yes, $250 is nothing to this crowd. A tiny dribble of their spit is worth far more in grant money. This too is being flaunted here.

ivor ward
December 19, 2014 12:15 pm

I wonder what the actual cost of the case was and who paid for the lawyers.

December 19, 2014 12:16 pm

Say what you will, Mann is laughing all the way to the bank.

Reply to  brians356
December 19, 2014 3:45 pm

Carrying a cheque like that I’m surprised he wasn’t laughed AT all the way FROM the bank……

December 19, 2014 12:25 pm

Now start the world court case against him for policy science fraud and crimes against science humanity.

December 19, 2014 12:25 pm

…just demonstrates how incestuous their happy little club is.

December 19, 2014 12:25 pm

He’s donating $250 to his favorite charity.

Reply to  ttfn
December 19, 2014 2:29 pm


Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Pho
December 19, 2014 4:10 pm

Ha ha. BTW Phe, Phi and Phum say hi.

December 19, 2014 12:27 pm

UVa’s a really great brand to be associated with these days. But then again, there’s Penn State…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Harold
December 19, 2014 12:32 pm

And not too far off, the state pen…

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2014 2:28 pm

Careful. That is the kind of comment that got Mann all fired up and threatening to sue. Personally, I think it is an excellent play on words, and one that should be widely disseminated. After all, anyone who engages in frau—ent activity should be concerned about ending up in the pen.
Woops! Close one there. I almost wrote something that could be interpreted as mean and generally spiteful of the Mann. Of course it was not intended that way. I wouldn’t want to get sued or anything. 🙂

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2014 6:19 pm

Ahhh, but there’s what appears to be a band that can be adjusted down to a one-man-band (one-Mann-banned?) in Hamburg, Germany. Who the actual Frau Du Lent is, I’m not sure. Perhaps his booking agent?
Pen? Jean-Marie le Pen?
From the site:
“Willkommen auf der Startseite von Frau Dulent – der Entertainmentmusik- und Coverband.
Einsichtig. Zweideutig. Dreifaltig. Vierdimensional!
Kennst Du nicht? lernst Du kennen!”
Meanwhile, back on the US side of the pond, assures us that there are
folks of the Du Lent clan, Man(n) and Frau, in the grand state of Lousiana.

December 19, 2014 12:32 pm
Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Danny
December 19, 2014 7:18 pm

Maybe he used the Nobel Prize Winner discount. Oh, wait…

Robert W Turner
December 19, 2014 1:04 pm

That check has a huge carbon footprint. Shouldn’t we tax him on that?

Reply to  Robert W Turner
December 19, 2014 3:51 pm

Carbon footprints wasted on frivolous activities are only a problem when done by others. These guys have no intention of cutting back, or reducing their lifestyle to that of the third-world nations they want to oppress.

Henry Galt
December 19, 2014 1:05 pm

The defense they so dearly need is some evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 alters the GASTA.
Up or down. Let the chips fall where they may.

December 19, 2014 1:07 pm

Did they have the check certified?
After all, this is the same guy who claimed a Nobel prize he didn’t have, listed a graph on his CV that he later said he had nothing to do with, said he wanted to get rid of the MWP. produced a graph based mostly on a single tree that did just that, came up with the “trick” to “hide the decline”….
They took a check from this guy? They should have demanded cash 😉

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 19, 2014 6:17 pm

If that thing bounced, it would really hurt.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
December 19, 2014 1:10 pm

So the AGU pays 10 million dollars annual to fund the “Climate Legal Defense Fund (CLDF)” from membership fees, then gives Michael E. Mann 1 million dollars for “defense”, he invests in Facebook for 12 months, then gets 100 thousand dollars by selling short, still has the 1 million dollars in AGU membership fees, pockets 99 thousand 750 dollars, then gives 250 dollars to the CLDF, which he will get back again when the CLDF forks over another 1 million dollars in AGU membership fees for 2014 to him as AGU gives the CLDF another 10 million dollars.
Is this the point when Daffy puts the mouse in the nematic tube to Bugs Bunny’s room to disturb the elephant in the room who had earlier push out the tiger?
😀 ha ha

David Schnare
December 19, 2014 1:35 pm

Mann didn’t get a dime. The $250 went to the University, to offset the cost of the appeal. There were no damages whatever.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  David Schnare
December 19, 2014 2:35 pm

$250? So that’s the going rate for lying now? Cheap!

December 19, 2014 1:36 pm

They got the decimal point wrong when ordering the oversize check.
It was actually $2.50

Ian H
December 19, 2014 2:07 pm

Just printing a check that size would probably have cost in the order of the amount that was filled out.

December 19, 2014 2:15 pm

There was a Curriculum Vitae commercial exhibit?

December 19, 2014 2:16 pm

There is no bank name, routing information, nor account number on the “check.” Ipso facto, it AIN’T A CHECK!

Reply to  Gamecock
December 19, 2014 5:30 pm

Right, no Drawee Bank. Legally it doesn’t need the routing #, but it won’t be processed very fast. Without a drawee bank I believe it reverts to an unsecured promissory note.

Reply to  bonanzapilot
December 19, 2014 6:22 pm

Sounds like their homogenized, cooked data…

Just Steve
Reply to  bonanzapilot
December 19, 2014 7:41 pm

I’ve seen these “checks” in Reno or Vegas when a jackpot winner has his/her promotional picture taken. In other words…it’s a prop.
So that begs the question. ..did he give them a real one?

William Astley
December 19, 2014 2:21 pm

Mann’s appeal for donations for ‘climate change’ legal action is pathetic, sad.
It appears there is something to hide when a ‘scientist’ abandons the normal scientific process.
There is something amiss when a scientist/university will not provide access to data and analysis, related to ‘climate change’.
There is something amiss when a theory cannot be defended in the open, using logic, with written responses to criticism.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  William Astley
December 20, 2014 6:10 am

We better hurry on this before progressives erase logic and replace it with ‘narrative’.

December 19, 2014 2:28 pm

Maybe he was buying ethics from Peter Gleik …

December 19, 2014 2:38 pm

Can’t see the train coming down the tracks.

December 19, 2014 2:46 pm

It reminds me of hte Leon Uris novel, QB VII, where the doctor who worked for the Germans during the Holocaust won the slander suit….and won a half-pence in damages, the value of his reputation.

December 19, 2014 2:46 pm

If I had been given only $250 in damages I would be embarrassed that the court awarded that piffling amount.
The last thing I would do is advertise that the court valued my inconvenience at that value.
I guess I value myself too highly…

Gunga Din
December 19, 2014 3:30 pm

If only the real damage the hokey stick has done to the future of his own children was only $250!

December 19, 2014 3:46 pm

$250? I just spent more than that for dinner for 4 at a local restaurant. Ok, it was my birthday, and this is Europe.

December 19, 2014 3:47 pm

Is this the only example of climate activists ever ‘winning’ a court case? A very poor ‘win’ at that.

John another
December 19, 2014 4:00 pm

Of coarse, in their world, the Scales of Justice are heavily weighted to the left.

William Astley
December 19, 2014 4:04 pm

Agnotology: Definition
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.
It appears Mann’s hockey stick paper has created to mislead (agnotology) by attempting using incorrect data and analysis to eliminate the Medieval warm period.

A likelihood perspective on tree-ring standardization: eliminating modern sample bias

This is a very interesting paper. The conclusion is that it is possible for a biased climate ‘researcher’ to cherry pick data dendro chronological data to push one’s own climate change agenda.
It appears, Mann cherry picked inaccurate dendro chronological data, it appears Mann attempted to hide the cherry picked data from independent researchers (i.e. non-warmist researchers) and attempted to hide the faulty application of a mathematical algorithm that was used to enable the cherry picked inaccurate data to create the ‘hockey’ stick.
An indicate that Mann’s paper is incorrect scientifically is the hockey stick is not supported by other proxy data, not supported by pervious previous analysis by prominent scientists, not supported by the historical record written by people at time (which notes climate facts such as the Medieval warm period or Little Ice Age) and is not supported by agriculture practices at the time (such as which Northern regions that could or could not grow grapes for wine production and famines due to cooling).
P.S. Note there is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The fact that there is cyclically warming and cooling in the paleo record (named after the two discoverers of the cyclic warming and cooling), makes Mann’s attempt to eliminate the Mediaeval warm period and the IPCC willingness to ignore the Mann’s funny science pathetic.
Just for fun, I am going to start a record of agnothologically news articles in the common media.
Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years. This is a graph from Richard Alley’s paper that shows temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. The D-O cycle is clearly evident. As noted there is no correlation in Greenland ice sheet temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels in the past. The majority of the warming of the Greenland Ice sheet observed in the 20th century was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. The majority of the warming was caused by the solar magnetic cycle change and is the same mechanism that caused the past D-O cycles.

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
… At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing…
…The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.

The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory

Robert of Ottawa
December 19, 2014 4:38 pm

Do you mean agnatology or Mannology?

December 19, 2014 5:18 pm

He is running with Hillarity for prez 2016…

December 19, 2014 5:21 pm

Was it presented with adequate drama?

Reply to  bonanzapilot
December 20, 2014 7:35 am

An abundance of drama, perhaps?

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 20, 2014 7:37 am

Or an outburst of drama?

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 21, 2014 9:21 am

Oh good. I’d hate to see someone “err on the side of least drama” and raise the possibility of an ethical violation.

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 22, 2014 1:10 pm

There was more drama present than has been observed in the past 1000 years.

Eamon Butler
December 19, 2014 5:26 pm

I don’t think I’d take a cheque (check) from this guy.

John Whitman
December 19, 2014 5:57 pm

The check pic shows hubris on display by a third rate intellect. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, he is arguably a fourth rate intellect.

December 19, 2014 5:58 pm says in part:
UPDATE: From David Schnare, General Counsel, Energy & Environment Legal Institute
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the $250 “damages” assessed by the Court. Any appellant that loses their appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court has to make this payment to the opposing party. It is generally intended to pay for the costs of printing of briefs. It does not include attorney’s fees or any other costs. Mann won’t get a cent. It all goes to the University who may or may not have to transfer it to the Attorney General’s coffers since that is who represented the University and who had to pay for preparation of their briefs.
More importantly, this is not all over. The court only decided the meaning of the term “of a proprietary nature” and they took our (plaintiffs) definition verbatim. They just refused to admit that which was their way of denying us our costs and fees. (We used over $300,000 worth of our time on this case, and thousands of dollars in costs.) What the court did not do was to discuss the rest of the “research exemptions” and that will come up with the next case that is already in the pipeline. That FOIA is seeking all emails associated with John Daly, Steve McIntyre and the IPCC. As none of those were collected by or for the faculty in pursuit of a research project sponsored by UVA, they should not be subject to being withheld. We will see what slimy games the University next plays to prevent the release of those documents. We’ll keep you informed.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2014 6:11 pm

Popcorn shares have just gone up.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2014 9:34 pm

You can try to justify it all you want, but the fact is you lost.
Private emails do not fall under FOIA.
You are welcome to seek climate science research papers, which are in the public domain.

Mark T
Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 12:35 pm

There is no such thing as a private email on a government system.

Reply to  Mark T
December 20, 2014 2:55 pm

+1 if it is on a .gov domain. Not sure about .edu but since some of the grants were from the government the FOIA should have been upheld. The court’s interpretation is definitely suspect.

Reply to  Mark T
December 23, 2014 9:11 am

A college is not the government. DUH!

December 19, 2014 5:59 pm

The fruits of their settled science and deceptions have made Climate ‘science’ synonymous with fraud. There is another comment feeding frenzy going on now at an Associated Pres Article. Fraud in Science is immediately associated with Climate ‘science’ in comments section.
Japan scientist quits as cell research discredited

December 19, 2014 6:08 pm

So how much of the CSLDF has Mann used so far in his case against Steyn (and others)?
Expect a response from Steyn in …….3…2…1.

Reply to  BruceC
December 19, 2014 6:11 pm

Steyn’s lawyers are undoubtedly telling him to hush up. Don’t blow your you advantage with a big mouth. Wait….is that a dirty comment?

David C. Greene
December 19, 2014 7:23 pm

Anyone else notice that the “Check” has no transit number, bank ID or account number? It’s as phony as the hockeystick.

Bill H
Reply to  David C. Greene
December 19, 2014 8:42 pm

I was laughing at the fact the paper it’s written on is worth more than the check is…

December 19, 2014 7:40 pm

So along with his fabricated science data he now writes fabricated fake checks that are illegal to transact? If nothing he’s consistent at fabrication in various forms.

Reply to  pwl
December 20, 2014 1:51 am

Did he do it in his own , spare, time , or during the hours for which he is paid to teach or conduct research?
I would have thought that he could have used his privileged , tenured, position to better effect. The years when one’s brains and energy are good enough for proper research are short enough .

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
December 19, 2014 8:25 pm

So, of the 10 million dollars in AGU membership dues and contributions to the “funds”, just how many dollars come back, in cash, from the CLDF to the Executive Officer and President?
Could be big booty in equivalent mass units of Viagra and Cocaine.
Are the “Executive Officer” and “President” crooks?
You bettcha!

December 19, 2014 9:18 pm

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 3:39 am

Do not forget upside down Tijlander lake sediments. wink, wink…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 5:12 am

Yes, the effort to get rid of the MWP continued on, in zombie fashion. Fancy that. All to try to blame man’s CO2. It’s nothing but agenda-driven pseudoscience, and it is all coming apart now, your Belief system notwithstanding.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 23, 2014 9:13 am

Got proof? No? Thought so!
By the way, there understanding of scientific facts about global warming, unlike your belief in fossil fuel industry propaganda.

Reply to  talldave2
December 23, 2014 9:09 am

Thanks for the fossil fuel industry propaganda that no one with half a brain believes!

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 22, 2014 1:06 pm

It’s funny that they think so little of their audience that they just come right out and say obviously wrong things like “They all confirm.” I mean, anyone can find McShane and Wyner or numerous other studies, never mind the IPCC itself abandoning the hockeystick. Why not at least make an honest statement like “we believe the evidence supports?” I feel sorry for them.

Reply to  talldave2
December 23, 2014 9:10 am

If it is obviously wrong, then why can’t you prove it wrong? I feel sorry for you.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 22, 2014 1:11 pm

Skepticalscience is nothing but a propaganda blog.
They say:
…the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years…
Scary, huh? But for the thinking people here, what we see is the fact that a thousand years ago was during the MWP, when temps were higher than now. That was also before human emissions mattered. See? No human emissions; higher temperatures.
Thus, your scare comment isn’t scary at all. It shows that what we are currently observing is nothing more than natural variability.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 23, 2014 9:08 am

Skeptical Science posts real climate science from real climate scientists. If you had bothered to read it, you would see the links.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 23, 2014 9:30 am

Skepticalscience is a bogus propaganda blog — the only blog with it’s own category on the right sidebar: “UNRELIABLE”.
That blog has low traffic because most folks here know it is a propaganda blog run by a cartoonist who parades around in neo-Nazi regalia. And John Cook isn’t the only one [<–that's Nutticelli].
Really, if you want credibility here, don't link to neo-Nazis. People will just point and laugh at you.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 24, 2014 9:33 am

kevinschmmidtojai states “Skeptical Science posts real climate science from real climate scientists”. After all, it says so right on the site’s masthead, so it must be true.

December 19, 2014 9:21 pm

One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts, is that James Hansen erroneously predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater by 2008. James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. A close examination of the interview reveals Hansen did not, in fact, predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years. Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:
“When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”
James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:
“Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.”
The book The Coming Storm and the article are different. In The Coming Storm the question includes the conditions of doubled CO2 and 40 years, while the article which is quoted by skeptics does not mention doubled CO2, and involves only 20 years.
To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events. The original conversation was in 1988. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at about it. As he puts it,
“although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 19, 2014 10:16 pm

Suggestion – save such topics for a later post where your comment is more germane. It comes up often enough. I think there’s a WUWT post on that too, people here are more likely to revisit a WUWT post than one at SkS.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 1:54 am

In March 2011, perhaps in reaction to the March 10 SkS item you quoted, AW updated his original 2009 story to correct the record and concede that 40 years was the correct number:
I notice that SkS, hasn’t taken notice of AW’s concession and continues to smear him with this outdated charge. (“One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts, is that James Hansen erroneously predicted . . . .”) I looked through the entire SkS comment stream. Its last comment was in October, 2012. So SkS had time to post an update that acknowledged AW’s update, even just as a comment. SkS would surely (very high confidence) have been aware of AW’s back-pedaling within 20 days at most of its own thread. It monitors WUWT. But it chose to lie by omission.
Perhaps you’ll say “fool me twice” the next time you encounter one of SkS’s claims.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 20, 2014 3:36 am

Oops–I’ll take it back about SkS “lying by omission.” I now realize that AW’s update to his thread would not have appeared as a new item in WUWT’s sidebar, so SkS probably was unaware of it.
I’ve posted a comment on the SkS thread informing it of AW’s update and urging it to update its own thread too.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 2:24 am

Here’s a 2013 WUWT thread criticizing the scientific basis for Hansen’s far-outlying claims of a high sea level rise:

Reply to  rogerknights
December 23, 2014 9:15 am

Thanks for the easily discredited fossil fuel industry propaganda nonsense!

Reply to  rogerknights
December 23, 2014 9:38 am

What a stupid and inane comment. Your opinion means nothing. Try to support it with verifiable facts, and it might matter.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 2:52 am

We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 . . .

Wrong—we can trashcan Hansen’s prediction right now. 26 years ago Hansen said the West Side Highway nearby his office would be underwater in 40 years. That implied that its initial rise couldn’t be hidden until 26 years in the future. (I read somewhere that the rise since 1988 is 2.5 inches.) If the Hudson hasn’t risen by more than an inch or two in the next four years, his prediction will look very unlikely.
Hansen would only have wiggle room on his prediction if CO2 levels had flattened or declined since 1988. But, instead, they’ve steadily risen, as in his Business As Usual scenario.

. . . as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.

Strawman. Hansen’s claim is (and should be) attacked for a different reason: because it illustrates his extremism and his poor prediction record, which therefore justifies not giving much weight to his other claims.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 22, 2014 1:08 pm

Nicely done. I can’t add much — but I will note the reporter’s “mistake” as very convenient to Hansen’s scaremongering at the time, and typical of press reports that suggested calamity was nigh.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 23, 2014 9:15 am

That’s an obvious misquote, very common with the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 23, 2014 9:42 am

You can stop now with your meaningless assertions about the fossil fuels, unless you want to continue to be a hypocrite.
See, you use fossil fuels every day, and you would cry like a baby if they were taken away from you. So stop with the hypocrisy, it got old fast.

tom s
Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 20, 2014 8:51 am

You are one of the hoodwinked and link to the infantile ‘skeptical science’ site. I ignore all of your posts going forward.

Reply to  tom s
December 23, 2014 9:12 am

That’s no surprise since you ignore the real science in favor of obvious fossil fuel industry propaganda.

Reply to  kevinschmidtojai
December 22, 2014 1:33 pm

EVERY alarming prediction over the past thirty years has failed to happen, from disappearing Polar bears, to accelerating sea level rise, to ocean ‘acidification’, to vanishing Arctic ice, to disappearing glaciers, to runaway global warming itself. In fact, none of the alarming predictions have happened. They were all wrong, every one of them.
When one side has such an abysmal record, rational folks will disregard their arguments. Your side has attempted to scare the public with an endless litany of scare stories. But the public is finally losing interest in your Chicken Little scares. You have cried “WOLF!!” far too often, and it has always been a false alarm.
Finally, if you knew the first thing about radiative physics, you would understand that the result of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is harmless. And more is better for the biosphere. Even if your “560 ppm” eventually happened, the warming effect would be unmeasurable. CO2 is still just a tiny trace gas.
So if you would quit promoting the climate catastrophe alarm, we would appreciate it. And you would do yourself a big favor by ignoring John Cook’s SkS propaganda blog. As the rest of us can see, it only steers you in the wrong direction. That’s what happens when you swallow their lies.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 23, 2014 9:07 am

Thanks for posting easily discredited fossil fuel industry propaganda that no one believes!

Reply to  dbstealey
December 23, 2014 9:44 am

You reply with a meaningless assertion? Doesn’t your credibility mean anything to you?

Reply to  dbstealey
December 23, 2014 10:24 am

Don’t feed the pigeons.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 23, 2014 4:23 pm

Right. If he won’t respond to facts, it’s just trolling.

December 19, 2014 10:00 pm

$250 is about what it would cost to have such a large ‘poster’ prop made.

December 19, 2014 10:19 pm

$250 wouldn’t pay for the first billable hour with his attorney. Pyrrhic victories are certainly nothing to brag about. But then critical analysis of facts has never been Mann’s long suit.
Reminds me of an old friend who told me he’d won $50 on a lottery scratcher. He’d spent $100 on the tickets. Technically he did win $50. In reality he lost $50.

December 19, 2014 10:53 pm

Hyperbole knows no bounds…

Mark T
December 19, 2014 11:31 pm

My friends and I regularly play Pathfinder, an extension of sorts of D&D… one of us plays a Bard, and his favorite spell is Touch of Gracelessness. You need to look that up. Mann’s normal state. My friend calls it a Derp Field. 🙂

Peter Miller
December 19, 2014 11:50 pm

In any field of real science, there is no need for the equivalent of the ‘Climate Defence Fund’.
In the wacky world of ‘climate science’, where anything goes, the major benefactors of data manipulation and misuse feel the need to get others to pay for their crimes against the scientific method.

December 20, 2014 2:44 am

To be fair its clear Mann , or someone else for him, is shovelling a fair amount of cash to lawyers given how quick he is to run to the law when it comes to anyone his ego.

December 20, 2014 2:49 am

kevinschmidtojai , sorry if you wish pull the smoke and mirrors trick you much better off staying with the SS kiddies where that is normal pratice , or you could get some eduction on just why Mann’s stick is so very broken that these days even the IPCC find it ‘problematic’ .

December 20, 2014 3:42 am

Big size check, obviously he is trying to compensate for something.

Bob MacLean
December 20, 2014 4:40 am

Nice to see Kevin Schmidt joining in the conversation. Even if we don’t agree with everything he says I hope we can all be polite and civil in our responses.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bob MacLean
December 20, 2014 5:26 am

Are we supposed to know who Kevin Schmidt is, and why should we care? His comments certainly speak volumes though.

Bob MacLean
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2014 6:03 am

I suspect he’s this Mr Schmidt, who also features regularly on an alarmist blog called EcoWatch . So long as he’s reasonably polite I think we should let him stick around; he might learn some facts about Climate, and also that WUWT users don’t abuse those with differing opinions (unlike SkS). As you say, we shouldn’t care who he is, but given his academic background perhaps he’s willing to learn.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 23, 2014 9:47 am

Oh, great. Another ignorant climate lemming shoveling his personal propaganda beliefs into students’ heads. Schmidt belongs with Cook and his neo-Nazis; the originals did the same thing.

December 20, 2014 5:02 am

My electric bill is more than that, thanks to Mr. Mann.

Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2014 6:19 am

Phony check to go along with phony science. How fitting.

Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2014 6:57 am

MacLean, one should never confuse academic credentials with willingness to learn. In fact, with respect to Belief in CAGW, usually the opposite is true. And if he’s indoctrinating students with it, then all the more so.

Bob MacLean
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2014 9:04 am

Bruce Cobb – I was hoping he’d come back and confirm either way, but perhaps he just wanted to do a “hit & run” thread disruption and wasn’t happy that I (maybe) realised who he is. At least our tolerance means he won’t be able to go back to SkS bleating that he was banned by “those horrible people at WUWT”.

Steve Oregon
December 20, 2014 7:46 am

They made a dopey ceremonial/promotion check for $250.00? That’s a lampooning.
It only took 5 of us lowly & duped WUWT followers to toss Anthony 50 bucks each to reach that 250.00 with his last ask. No juvenile ceremony was needed.
Mann has lost his luster, draw, credibility and integrity.
These people are not even adults.

December 20, 2014 8:16 am

The Green Machine loves to give awards to each other.

Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2014 8:42 am

That’s one small check for Mann, one giant leap for Mann’s ego.

December 20, 2014 9:05 am

Are they sure the check is good?

December 20, 2014 9:54 am

If I remember correctly it wasn’t even damages. It was a disbursement – the cost of preparing and copying the brief. It has more than a whiff of the old nobel prize misrepresentation about it.

Gunga Din
December 20, 2014 10:04 am

Maybe this was asked and explained already, but if this check is the court ordered payment, why is it signed by Mann and paid to the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund?
The memo says it’s the court thing but is it?
Might it be something to blow the court thing out of proportion and make it appear that Mann and not the University were paid? Just another PR ploy?

John Greenfraud
December 20, 2014 10:37 am

Mann’s name will go down in history as a synonym for fraud. The check only represents cheap publicity for the liar and and narcissist that wrote it, but his name will live-on in infamy.

December 20, 2014 11:46 am

I used to think he was an ass, now I think he’s a complete ass. Who does this?

December 20, 2014 11:59 am

I’m looking forward to what Steyn will say about this.

Jim Jelinski
December 20, 2014 8:13 pm

Look at the banner behind the ‘check’, with the seal ‘Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’.
Note that the ‘Scales of Justice’ are tilted all the way to the Left.
Are they advertising what it appears they are advertising?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jim Jelinski
December 21, 2014 11:43 am

Note that the ‘Scales of Justice’ are tilted all the way to the Left.

When the “balance” bar isn’t on the level……….

December 20, 2014 10:06 pm

$250 his own legal team can’t spend on lunch this week. And it’s Christmas, the man simply has no heart (now added to the list alongside charisma and scruples).

December 21, 2014 4:31 am

Just when you thought Manns hubris and stupidty cannot get worse, it does.
A symbolic check from Mann to the climate defense fund for $250 when Mann is a huge beneficiary of that fund. Are they that clueless as to the stupidity? I guess so.
As another side note in the territory of “You can’t make this stuff up”, the scales of justice are tilted in the climate science defense fund logo. Yes that is what we all want in the world, tilted justice.

Verified by MonsterInsights