Bill Stoltzfus leaves this comment on the post Hump Day Hilarity: Mann-o-War at the House Climate Science Hearing
I thought it was worth elevating for the general readership.
Bill Stoltzfus 2017/03/31 at 9:01 am
I listened to the entire hearing yesterday, and while I don’t have any individual experience with any of the people on the panel, I can now understand why Dr. Mann is not liked, and globally not liked at that. For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject, seems to transition smoothly from one topic to the next, almost glib, which is strange for a profession that should be characterized by caution and hesitancy to over-reach. I saw those qualities in the other 3 panelists, but not Dr. Mann.
He seemed to have no problem veering off into innuendo and personal attacks and weaved them into the threads of his testimony. And of course there was the preening megalomania of him reciting his CV again, even though the chairman had already done that for everyone (no one else saw the need). I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style. And then going off on Pielke and Curry repeatedly, right out in the open in one of the halls of Congress, while still portraying himself as the victim.
He had absolutely the biggest whoppers I have ever heard from a scientist, including the proposition that “climate change denier” and “climate science denier” were 2 fundamentally different things that should not be confused. Not to mention that it’s perfectly OK to label someone either way in any event. But of course my favorite whopper was that the consensus has the same acceptance rate in the scientific community and the public at large as the theory of gravity. Wow! Just Wow! Does anyone here care to step off a climate science cliff?
So yeah, now I understand. I hope I never meet him. I do hope to meet Dr. Curry, Dr. Christy , and Dr. Pielke at some point—I think they handled themselves well, refrained from personal attacks like adults should, gave their opinions without advocacy, and generally tried to be good stewards and citizens.
Anthony comments:
I’ll add to that. When Dr. Mann said in his testimony:
But I’m here today because I’m also passionate about communicating what we know to the public and to policymakers. I have become convinced that no pursuit could be more noble.
The first thing that went through my mind is that Dr. Mann may be an unwitting practitioner of Noble Cause Corruption
John P. Crank and Michael A. Caldero (2000) define noble cause corruption as
“corruption committed in the name of good ends”
While written about police conduct, the paper is germane to the climate debate because people who are convinced that they are “saving the Earth” often have the same issue with noble cause corruption as police officers planting evidence to put away somebody they “know” is a bad guy. The “end justifies the means”, as we saw demonstrated in the Climategate emails.
Piltdown Mann is headed for the dustbin of science history, but not before the miscreant cashes out with a fat, tax-payer supported pension. Only a well deserved vacation at Club Fed could derail the charlatan’s profitable scheme.
Steyn’s countersuit for $10 million should take care of the pension aspect.
You, my friend, have more faith in the American criminal and civil justice systems than I. But I pray your assessment prove more accurate than mine.
It’s just post modern policy based “science”?
Gloateus,
“…American criminal and civil justice systems…”
It’s not a justice system. It’s a legal system. Big difference. Especially when it’s largely controlled by the side that believes in “social justice” as a foundational concept.
Boulder Skeptic, re: “social justice”: Either social justice is justice, in which case normal justice processes will handle it, or it isn’t, in which case it is evil.
Pensions are protected from litigation. If he loses, he still get’s his pension. Ask OJ about that.
I think it may depend on where you live.
OJ moved to Florida to get this protection from lawsuits.
Who would pay that? Mann or his employer?
Penn St seems to have unlimited funds to pay out lawsuits these days… 9 figure payouts
Usually federal gov’t pensions are exempt from garnishment.
Personally, I’ve always preferred “Meltdown Mann”, both for his “Trea Ring” readings and his reaction to anyone who disagrees with his colludesions.
(Lots of money paying for his various lawsuits.)
Maybe “Tree” Ring?
Personally I think his ideas come from Tree Leaf reading. He should have stuck to tea-leaves, they’re more accurate.
jon March 31, 2017 at 4:06 pm
“He should have stuck to tea-leaves, they’re more accurate.”
I’m sure if he pumped the tea leaf data through his smoothing/homogenization secret algorithm, you’d also see a hockey stick magically emerge.
How can any rational adherent of the scientific method not applaud “meltdown”?
Mann is surely the master of a Tree Ring Circus.
I keep wondering if Mann has been reporting the money spent on Mann’s law suits as other income.
There is a nagging suspicion, that money is not reported as income. The amount of money supporting Mann’s gullible lawyer corps must be substantial.
Just waiting till some of the IRS swamp is drained before recommending IRS double check Mann’s income and taxes statement.
National Post, Canada, Sept.26, 2015
Full Comment
‘Conrad Black: On Climate Alarmists and other discarded relics’
“It is with inexpressible pleasure that I reply to the attack on me this week by Dr.Michael Mann …”
Read the rest at:
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/index.html?q=Conrad+Black%26+Michael+Mann
Try: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/index.html?q=Conrad+Black+%26+Michael+Mann
Or Piltdown Mann?
Of course, the Piltdown hoax was finally uncovered, but unfortunately I think it took many years.
Let’s hope the Piltdown Mann frauds (e.g. the hockey stick and Upside Down Mann) will be publicly recognised in the near future, but I’m not holding my breath.
Chris
And sustainable….until Scarface…er…Soros goes broke or Mann has served his usefulness.
Shouldn’t that be Putdown Mann?
I much prefer the term “Piltdown Mann” – which seems to have its origins circa 2009. I started using it about then but am pretty sure I got the idea elsewhere. Wish I could claim credit – it’s a beauty!
I cant compete on this thread. The wit comes too fast and perfectly.
Eugene WR Gallun .
Its a case of acknowledging the limits of your wit. I’m with you. These guys are far too good for me.
Don’t sell yourselves short guys. You guys comment quite effectively in many threads. Definitely no reasons for self-deprecation.
It’s really sort of hard to understand why Mann still has a seat at that table, I’d think by now the alarmist crew in Congress would have found someone who hadn’t already completely destroyed his own reputation.
But maybe I’m naive. I suppose it’s always possible they use Mann just because is is such a pompous buffoon, and there really isn’t anyone who supports his “position” anymore. Could it be he’s just being use as a sideshow geek?
Then there’s the Honorable Congresscritter from Texas, Ms. Johnson, who suggested the room should have at least 96 other Mike Manns in it just to correctly represent the current scientific consensus on climate.
96 others like Mike Mann? If she’s correct, and the field is really that heavy with pompous, pedantic, arrogant @sshats like Mann, it would explain a lot.
The “ends justify the means” is the clarion call of every “do gooder”, with the majority of them being on the left. Maduro is the perfect present day example of that.
http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517
Higgins to Mann: are you affiliated or associated with Climate Accountability Institute? Mann: no.
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and
1:30:00 into the video of the hearing Mann clearly says “no” then starts to waffle about what may be the meaning of being “associate with”.
Yet Mann is listed as being on the CAI Board of Directors:
http://www.climateaccountability.org/about.html
I guess he must have ‘forgotten’ otherwise he would have been lying in his testimony to congress.
Minor correction. He’s a member of the Council of Advisors, not the Board of Directors.
Whether member of or director of, the key is that both are either “affiliations” or “associations.” Either way it was a flat lie.
Minor correction to your correction. The website lists him as a member of the Council of Advisors. His CV as submitted to the hearing lists him as being on the Board.
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
What is, is. Whats what,,….I don’t recall.
What’s the penalty for lying to congress?
AP What Are the Penalties for Lying to Congress?
By George Khoury, Esq. on March 2, 2017 2:56 PM
Perjury and lying to the federal government are both crimes that could land a person in some serious legal trouble. If convicted of either crime, a person could be looking at up to five years in prison. This means that if a person is found to have lied during a congressional hearing or investigation, or simply lied to an FBI or other federal agent, actual jail time could result.
Maybe it was just Contempt of Congress. There’s no penalty for that.
(see Eric Holder)
I don’t believe any of the panelists were under oath, so there would be no specific perjury under USC 1621. If he lied about his association he ‘could” be accused of violating of the general perjury section of the USC, 47, sec 1001 (2), “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;”. I’m not sure anyone would be able to make the case that his lie concealed a ‘material fact’.
well, not muchat all,
after hearing madame Klinton and the rest of them
they all walk free
So soon we forget that ONLY the DC Republicans get convicted of either real or imagined “misdeeds”.
Democrat chicanery either gets totally ignored …. or the guilty party gets punished with a “love pat” on their backside.
Aka: Richard “Sandy” (the burglar) Berger ….. who burglarized the National Archives ……. and was told he better not ever be caught stuffing National Archive documents into his undershorts ever again.
And then there was poor ole Scooter Libby.
It’s not a lie if you believe it.
Samuel C Cogar April 1, 2017 at 7:09 am
And then there was poor ole Scooter Libby.
“The Plame affair (also known as the CIA leak scandal and Plamegate) was a political scandal that revolved around journalist Robert Novak’s public identification of Valerie Plame as a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer in 2003.
At that time I was talking to a former CIA officer about this and he was furious about it, he regarded it as treason and thought that it compromised US agents in place. If he’d got hold of Libby he wouldn’t have got off so slightly!
Sorry Phil. You and your “CIA” friend are woefully ignorant. Libby outed no one! And it has been proven so. He was nailed for lying. Robert Armitrage did the outing, and he was never prosecuted because Plame was never covert!
So your friend would be guilty of murder without justification. Sad that our CIA has come to such gross ignorance.
Thankfully, we no longer see Eric Holder
Libby was convicted of not remembering a conversation the same way Novak remembered it.
Plame had been outed years before and was openly working at CIA headquarters in Langley.
Yes, that was indeed the case. She was not “outed”
Phil. – April 2, 2017 at 7:59 am
Phil, your above testimony only proves that some “former CIA officer” (as well as many currently employed ones) are dumb as a box-of-rocks for believing the intentionally concocted, dastardly disingenuous lies and disinformation that the Democrat partisan are constantly “leaking” to the news media ……. to protect their own and the criminal activities they are GUILTY of engaging in.
Phil, ……. you shudda told that former CIA officer to GETTA CLUE, ….. it was Richard Armitage that done the “leaking” or “outing” of Plame’s name, ….. not Scooter Libby.
Samuel C Cogar April 3, 2017 at 4:34 am
Phil, your above testimony only proves that some “former CIA officer” (as well as many currently employed ones) are dumb as a box-of-rocks for believing the intentionally concocted, dastardly disingenuous lies and disinformation that the Democrat partisan are constantly “leaking” to the news media ……. to protect their own and the criminal activities they are GUILTY of engaging in.
Phil, ……. you shudda told that former CIA officer to GETTA CLUE, ….. it was Richard Armitage that done the “leaking” or “outing” of Plame’s name, ….. not Scooter Libby.
“ Novak had learned of Plame’s employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage”
As had Judith Miller who learned it from Scooter Libby, she spent time in jail for refusing to name her source.
The CIA officer was a smart man who had put his life on the line for his country, and was rightly furious that his colleagues were being put in harm’s way for petty political reasons.
Apparently not very smart if he blamed Libby. The facts have long been known. Richard Armitrage gave up the name of Plame. And plame was not covert, so there was no crime or outing involved in it. The politics was by Plame’s spouse who used her status in the CIA to try to justify his incompetence.
Don’t know if this has been posted.
see also https://energyindepth.org/national/with-each-new-batch-of-foiad-emails-more-insight-into-collusion-behind-rico-climate-effort/
Similar response from Al gore when asked about his connection with Ken Lay of Enron-
3:10
I notice Mann is associated there with the Australian Green Party’s very own former leader Christine Milne. Ah the credibility of it all!
From Mann’s citiation on the CIA website: “Dr. Mann has received numerous awards: contributing to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (with other IPCC authors)…” I wonder who wrote it for him.
And he links to his ‘bio’ – a 46 page cv. What a guy!
What did he ‘contribute’ to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize? He really needs to let that particular false claim go. The IPCC authors did not receive the 2007 Nobel Peace prize, in part or in whole, it was awarded to the IPCC, the organization, not the authors of the IPCC AR.
Honestly, don’t you think debating who gets credit for a Nobel “Peace Prize” is a bit like arguing over who gets credit for farting in the back seat?
The same clown who wrote Obama’s autobiography pamphlet claiming he was born in Kenya for 17 years.
Higgins to Mann: are you affiliated or associated with Climate Accountability Institute? Mann: no.
The question Mann was attempting to answer was with reference to the Union of Concerned Scientists but Higgins just talked right over his answer and asked the question about the CAI which Mann referred to as being in his CV which had been circulated to the committee! Higgins never appeared interested in asking a question and getting an answer he just kept reading his script.
Yet Mann is listed as being on the CAI Board of Directors:
http://www.climateaccountability.org/about.html
I guess he must have ‘forgotten’ otherwise he would have been lying in his testimony to congress.
He’s listed on their Board of Advisors, which as he pointed out he lists on his CV.
It seems to me as if Higgins just acted like a prosecutor by routinely asking questions any answer except “yes” or “no” might be considered a lie or misleading. By the way that Heterocephalus glaber-like Mann reacted it seems as if Mann was really worried about Higgins questions and his answers.
He couldn’t quite figure out how to “parse” that question properly. 🙂
However, he or many others seem to use the term “climate change denier” instead of “catastrofic anthropogenic climate change denier” when they seem fit.
“He had absolutely the biggest whoppers I have ever heard from a scientist, including the proposition that “climate change denier” and “climate science denier” were 2 fundamentally different things that should not be confused.”
While agreeing with urederra. On this one point can I stick up for Mann.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can deny that climate changes.
However, what now passes for climate science is a cult. Vast numbers of true scientists who have studied aspects of climate, be they physicists, geologists, chemists, geographers, dendrologist, engineers, mathematicians, biologists or whatever, are denied entry into that cult by self proclaimed “climate scientists” if they are not true believers. How many times have we read “so and so is not a climate scientist she is an astrophysicist”?
Because the cult members do not accept that they can be wrong and because they have appropriated the term “climate science” for themselves these “climate scientists” have made the term “climate science” an oxymoron.
Solomon Green writes
Almost nobody at all believes this. I’m not aware of anyone on this forum who does, for example. “Climate denier” is used far more broadly than for people who deny climate changes. Its synonymous with “Climate science denier”.
Tim I disagree, it’s not synonymous with “climate science denier”, at least not using any reasonable description of climate science. It’s really synonymous with people who question alarmist conclusions presented by some claiming to be climate scientists, and that’s a point that is completely lost on non-combatants.
Folks who have no dog in the fight don’t distinguish. They don’t see that simply disagreeing with the extremist CAGW view is enough to be labeled a “climate science denier”, in fact they’ve been led to conclude that anyone who isn’t jumping up and down screaming the sky is falling is in fact an extremist. It’s truly bizarre that, in today’s scientific climate (pun intended), a person of moderate views can be successfully labeled an extremist.
Solomon, who denies that climate changes? Possibly your occasional biblical fundamentalist who firmly believes the earth was made just as it stands in 4004 BC, and the odd Muslim who derives their ideas from the same sources. The argument and all the money being spent has to do with why and how it changes – not “if.” The true puzzle is why there are people this anxious to pin it on human action. Alarmists can’t even point to a concrete period in the past and say “it was better then.”
Bartleby writes
Not only people who “claim” to be climate scientists but people who arguably are climate scientists. People like Michael Mann. We can see through his advocacy and manipulations of results and see how they’re twisted to meet the conclusions he wants to project.
So being a “climate denier” and “climate science denier” are one and the same…except there is a possibility that there are a very few actual climate deniers around. But that’s not the attack.
As you say, the general public wouldn’t have a clue. The “denier” term is the important part.
“noble cause corruption” is the same thing as Plato’s famous “Noble Lie”: a lie that is told to support a supposedly “noble” cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
Mann also has a case of Nobel cause corruption.
There is nothing noble or nobel about anything Mann does .
He should adhere to No Bull.
I agree with Andy, Mann doesn’t seem motivated by nobility. He may have been 20 years ago, but that’s no longer true.
Watching him speak, I sense he’s just defending ego now, he really doesn’t care about “the cause” in any real way. I think he draws a sense of justification and ego support from others who “fight the good fight” as it were, but that’s not why he’s there. He has real skin in the game and unless the world comes to a flaming end in his lifetime he’ll never be vindicated.
People like Mann don’t back down. He’s cornered himself and now he’s doomed. He has no graceful way out.
Agree with the ” ” around noble, Mr. Sheaffer. This is not noble cause corruption, for the cause is NOT good. Envirostalinism and enviroprofiteering are not good. Given Mann’s performance in his starring role in Climategate 2009, he is just a two-bit shyster. Only the genuinely duped Cult of AGW members can possibly claim noble cause corruption. Not their elders and priests.
There is never any nobility in any sort of corruption, that way lies the road to a hell on earth.
My sentiments exactly Janice, you phrased it better than I did. Mann is just in it for himself now. There’s no “cause”, noble or otherwise.
It appears that Mann understands his audience. The members of congress obviously have little understanding, looking for authority to tell them what is right. Even the physician who preens his science credentials seems to want to condense the issue into melting ice. Mann does the ‘shameless self promoter’ speach listing every credential and spraying absolute and irrefutable ‘facts’. For the science trained this is the antithesis of science but for the general public this is someone who knows what he is talking about – look ma no doubt, not like the three others who were reserved about their conclusions and qualified their information.
There is a little man
Whose ego is so huge
His world revolves around him
Like a human centrifuge.
Arrogance, it orbits him,
So haughty is his praxis,
That all the world awaits the day
He falls upon his axis!
I was just happy to see at least one of the congressmen had the fortitude to call Mann out on his non-sense and ad hominem attacks against his peers. People in our government seem to want to be overly polite to people’s face these days lest it should be used against them somehow.
I had the same response. It was nice to see someone call BS when he saw it. For the life of me I can’t remember his name though, which could be a problem I suppose. I’ll remember he did it though.
Mann sounded like a game-show host without the sense of humor. What a grim, ardent, determined advocate, with such turgid prose. His new paper is laughable, describing a “new” pattern in the Jet Stream which was first discovered in WWII. His statistics would have been laughed out of my Stats courses at U of M. He just makes stuff up, churns up masses of data, highlights the bits that support his hypothesis (“Principle Component Analysis,” indeed), hides the rest, splices in thermometer data to his proxies without mentioning it, and is still a voice for the Warmists.
He may have been a scientist years ago, but since 1998 with his Hockey Stick he has gone over to the Dark Side, just helping the “Climate Scientists” keep the money trough filled. History will find him and his ilk out, they will spit on him in the streets.
Mann has never been a scientist … none of his work is science … its all statistical manipulation of someone elses data … if that is science then every financial business analysts is a “scientist” … he is a researcher at best … a con man at worst … he is certainly a fraud …
I spent years studying statistics and applying mathematics to the design of experiments. My bible was “Statistics for Experimenters” by Box and Hunter. I was a little proud of it.
It was Mann’s 1998 paper that brought my attention to the subject of “paleo-climate” modeling. I came to it with the preconception he was an authority, it took very little time for me to recognize him for what he was. The ClimateGate scandal of 2009 was entirely predictable from my perspective, I was surprised it took so long to out him, but the truth has a way of doing that.
I have no idea why he’s still tolerated in polite company.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Say what you want about the tenants of national socialism, at least its an ethos.
the road to hell was already paved with pride.
Repaving is allowed.
tenets.
An “ethos” which includes among its lovely tenets:
1) some are more equal than others;
2) confiscation of wealth earned honestly; and
3) enforcement out of the barrel of a gun.
Uhm, that pretty much covers all government, not just National Socialism. Don’t forget the Whiskey Rebellion: taxes on honestly earned wealth and force backed up with guns.
It does cover all government, however socialists want there to be lot more government than most other systems.
Such certainty is very persuasive.
It’s hard to doubt in the presence of someone so convinced.
But faith requires the long dark night of the soul to test the faith. You need to choose to trust your belief having examined your uncertainty.
Otherwise it’s not faith. It’s madness.
Mann speaks well. He’s very convinced.
And disdainful of those who doubt.
Mann is not “convinced.”
Mann is just a very good liar.
Mann’s entire career is dependent on his lies and absolute refusal to admit error, no matter how egregious.
When you understand who Mann is, you can see through his “certainty” to his advocacy. He is a child unable to accept his own mistakes and unwilling to allow others to critically assess his work because he’s not open about what was done to produce results. He’s no scientist.
The very best liars become convinced their lies are the truth. Sociopaths. Narcissists. Tiny little parsers. 🙂
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”…The good intentions are fame and fortune and not much else IMO.
Liberals tend to think of themselves as superior good people. For that reason, they give themselves license to do absolutely horrible things. It’s another version of noble cause corruption.
They love their theories way more than they love their fellow humans. In some ways I suspect that Michael Mann is actually quite stupid. It reminds me of Joseph McCarthy who thought he was king of the world until he went a little too far and people turned against him.
You should remember that Senator McCarthy actually called out some hidden communists. It was the Democrat controlled house of representatives that ran the House Committee for Un-American Activities.
We should also remember that he had the goods on quite a few of them. Did he go too far? Maybe, but the Venona Files showed otherwise. Can’t let the rubes know that their government, especially the parts of government charged with protecting the rights of the people from enemies, foreign and domestic, is riddled with spies and traitors, which it was then and still is, now.
In hindsight, he was correct. However, I don’t think we are to where hindsight applies yet.
Even his detractors usually admit that he had a point. He scared some people, offended others, and generally made enemies, all of which led to his censure.
I wonder if McCarthy and Mann are examples of useful idiots who are easily disposed of when they become inconvenient.
Read Jan Kozak”s “and never a shot fired” It explains a lot.
It was “The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)” or “The House Committee on Un-American Activities.” It was never the House Committee for Un-American Activities.
I’m waiting for the modern equivalent of lawyer Joseph Welch who confronted McCarthy with his famous line, “Have you no shame.” It certainly should apply to Mann, Gore, Hansen,Trenberth and dozens of others.
They have no shame. They think we should be ashamed.
Gunga, they have not got a clue what “shame” is, the word doesn’t exist in their dictionary.
The theory of gravity is falsifiable. CAGW, as “defined” by Mann et al. is not.
Theory of gravity?
I’ve always liked LeSage’s theory(s) wrt the effects of the magical force called gravity. Of course LeSage is not accepted, but has it been outright disproved …?
Well, JC, just to play silly bugg&rs, do you know what gravity is? We know what it does (yeah, I know, it sucks), but why? How? Isn’t it just a theory? If not, why do some scientists continue to look for gravity waves?
Just a thought from someone with his feet on the ground.
He is a gravity denier!
Both Newton and Einstein put forth ideas which made testable predictions about the Universe.
If those predictions had the same track record as the ideas put forth by the warmistas, they would have been discarded immediately.
Well it is still a theory until we can figure what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are because they have to be related to gravity in some manner.
Yeh see my comment below. And this link:
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
The “theory of gravity” is not certain, at least not if one is referring to what causes gravity. That is not the same thing as the existence of gravity, which is 100% verifiable.
Bill,
Gravity, like evolution, is a fact with a body of theory explaining it. Over the centuries, the explanations become refined. But universal gravitation, like evolution, is not “just a theory”. Its an observation, ie a scientific fact.
Not that a theory in science is nothing. To rate theory status, there has to be a lot of confirmation.
I can’t claim to know much about gravity but I do know, as a quantitative forecast modeler, that I can quantify gravity and get consistent results and count on it in the future.
That I cannot say about climate models.
NdGT fell into the same trap, confusing the law of gravity with the theory of CAGW. A law of nature is a statement of an observed phenomenon. A theory is an attempt to explain the phenomenon.
I do not understand anything at all this gravity debate. But… I can prove to anyone “denying ” that it exists,
I have a 50 pound ball,
you put your head here,
and I will drop the ball,
You have an argument with my experiment?
I wish someone would try to falsify the computation at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq .
There is a reason why people ignore you.
Listen to Judith’s description of how one responds to fringe science.
Still , the computations sit there as clearly defined and testable as
Fg : G * m1 * m2 % r ^ 2( presented in the same freely downloadable K notation ) , and far more relevant to resolving these decades of stagnation , waiting for anyone to experimentally verify or falsify .Either I’m wrong or James Hansen is , and experimentally settling these undergraduate laws of spectral radiant heat transfer will be a major step towards returning “climate science” to the standards of other branches of applied physics .
Mr. Mosher: So you agree with Dr Curry on that. Anything else?
Concerning “the same acceptance rate … as the theory of gravity”. Has anyone taken a poll recently on Einstein versus Brans-Dicke?
Per the “unbiased” Wikipedia:
1) there are strong indications the theory is incomplete
2) general relativity is rich with possibilities for further exploration
Few if any scientific theories, no matter how often improved and confirmed, are ever complete.
Einstein however made falsifiable predictions based upon his expansion of the theory of universal gravitation, which were shown valid.
CACA, OTOH, was born falsified, so has been maintained only by political power, not the scientific method.
Virtue signalling as a career.
Sounds like any other ‘noble cause’ ego maniac.
The catastrophic AGW story won’t truly be over until :principle component analysis (used to create the hockey stick) is taught in every basic statistics course in a chapter on how to fool friends and influence politicians with numbers and data.
On a sadder note, In today’s academic environment, scientists are often rated on their ability to obtain funding as the administrative bloat has become so large. Mann’s ability to to create scientific support for political positions in hot button topics make him a valuable member of any faculty.
Unfortunately MY faculty. At least the football team is good again . sigh….
Not sure how nice a retirement this Mann fellow will have once our friend Mark Steyn gets through with him. Hopefully in my lifetime.
Amen to that! Perhaps that’s what the polar bear down below is praying for so that she’ll be left alone.
Unfortunately, Steyn is toast. Since the case will be heard in DC, the jury pool will be strongly predisposed to believing in AGW.
Secondly, as both the appeallete court and the trial court have already indicated, “Mann has already been proven correct” – per the trial court. “Mann has been exonerated by 8 investigations and therefore Simburg ,NR & CEI knew their statements were false” per the Appeallete court. (apologies for paraphrasing the actual court statements).
Steyn, Simburgs/ CEI/NR’s only hope is a hearing en banc by the DC court of appeals, (unlikely) or a reversal at SC (highly unlikely – Scotus only takes 150 or so cases a year out of 5000 certs). Even though harte hanks and sullivan have already decided the issue, and even though the DC appeallete court misapplied the standard, Scotus remains highly unlikely to take
That is being reheard en banc. If not, goes to SCOTUS. The appelate court statements are just wrong as to fact and as to law.
Steyn is not toast. Anything but. Mann is toast. Amended pleadings on Nobel Laur ate and other matters.
I think you ought add “non-lawyer” to your title.
Steyn has often mentioned this. He does not seem extremely hopeful that the cesspool of DC will give him a fair hearing.
One of the things Mikey has going for him is the “investigations” into … scientific sloppiness is that he was exonerated.
The basis of Mann’s suit against Steyn was a comparison (that Mann took to court of context) of Penn State’s looking into Sandusky and kids and Penn State’s looking into Mann’s fibs. This guy was the president during both.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/us/former-penn-state-president-convicted/
And the officials who did the looking are now doing time.
“Instant Karma”, anyone?
Mann’s smirk is almost as insufferable as Hillary’s. To (almost) quote Ted Knight’s character in Caddy Shack, “The Mann’s a menace!”
LOL.
[Can one see “Caddy Shack” being made by today’s Hollywood, and if so, would it be a comedy classic?]
Trump = Dangerfield
“Trump = Dangerfield”
Exactly! He can’t get no respect!
No, I have not seen it. I didn’t know they made it. I am not surprised to hear that it was bad.
It stars Jackie Mason, while I like the guy, it was painfully bad.
Trump is closer to Thorton Mellon in Back to School.
He grew up in the construction business and understands how the real world works.
He knows how to deal with people and prosper while playing their game.
Give him a chance.
Washington needs to get behind him and watch the roaches scurry.
Hey, mikerestin: From IMdB’s Caddyshack page: “Al Czervik is a rich✔️, fun-loving✔️, real estate and construction mogul✔️, who is visiting Bushwood with the possible intention of buying (Mar-a-Lago?✔️) it and/or using the land for condos. He believes in poking fun at anyone/everyone – he is somewhat obnoxious/boorish✔️, but is not prejudiced or snobbish.✔️”
See also: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/cinderella-story-outta-nowhere/405547/
All too apparently far too widely distributed.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
– H. L. Mencken
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots
~ H.L. Mencken
A strong conviction that something needs to be done is the parent of many a bad measure. ~ Daniel Webster
“Everything you know is wrong” — Firesign Theater
I like the term “mannic regression” as a multipurpose reference to the very unique and mathematically suspect statistical treatment of tree proxy’s in the fetid bit of science detritus that led to the hockey (hokey) stick debacle, and also a word with echos of a certain psychopathology where self aggrandizement and loss of touch with realty go hand in hand. I think If I were able to raise this term to the level of accepted clinical diagnosis, the testimony given at the science committee hearing would serve as an excellent illustration of the relevant pathology in action, while the first two and last speakers would provide a nice background of sanity.
Where is man on Eugenics? Nobel warrior here too (or would have been)?
Michael Mann may be the worst of the “climate scientists” for a host of reasons — many mentioned in this comment section already. But he is just the shining example of a lunacy practiced as if it were science. He just makes the evil and lying much easier to see than with most of the lying, deluded people who make a fine living from the propaganda that industrial civilization is going to cause the earth to fry to a crisp.
May Mann roast in that special place after his miserable life is over; but may many thousands of other “scientists” join him there.
This is the same guy I knew in graduate school. He has not changed one bit! He was just as certain of global warming in 1989 as he is now. Never a doubt…ever!
Well, the earth has warmed since 1989… at about 38% of what was forecast then.
Stoltzfus said, “For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject, seems to transition smoothly from one topic to the next, almost glib, which is strange for a profession that should be characterized by caution and hesitancy to over-reach.”
There is an old Japanese proverb that seems appropriate here: “It is rare to find a man who speaks well who is trustworthy.”
You have a source for that proverb? My Bogosity Meter just went off-scale.
It could be borrowed from Confucius.
Lun Yu [I:3]
http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&no=3&m=NOzh
Were they showing the movie ‘Good Morning Vietnam’ the night before the House Climate Science Hearing?
It seemed that someone was channelling the mean-spirited character of Lieutenant Steve Hauk with alarming fidelity during proceedings!