A newcomer’s first opinion of Michael Mann in the context of science discourse

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.

 

Advertisements

261 thoughts on “A newcomer’s first opinion of Michael Mann in the context of science discourse

  1. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • Penn St seems to have unlimited funds to pay out lawsuits these days… 9 figure payouts

    • 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.

      • 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

      • ATheoK April 1, 2017 at 9:40 am
        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.

        And sustainable….until Scarface…er…Soros goes broke or Mann has served his usefulness.

      • 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        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.

        A week after Wilson’s op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from “two senior administration officials” that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame’s employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson’s article.

        The scandal led to a criminal investigation; no one was charged for the leak itself. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush.

        The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
        Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

      • 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.

      • Phil. – April 2, 2017 at 7:59 am

        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!

        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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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?

      • “Dr. Mann has received numerous awards: contributing to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (with other IPCC authors)…” I wonder who wrote it for him.

        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.

  4. 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.

    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

        I find it hard to believe that anyone can deny that climate changes.

        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

        It’s really synonymous with people who question alarmist conclusions presented by some claiming to be climate scientists

        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.

      • 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Say what you want about the tenants of national socialism, at least its an ethos.

  8. 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.

      • 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.

  9. 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.

    And here’s a crucial part of the puzzle… the authoritarian PC left cause most of the problems, social conflict, attacks, victimhood competitions, violence, and a barely hidden desire to tear down western society. If they were smart enough to understand what they are doing, they could almost be called “evil”, but they generally aren’t too bright, and so they often believe their own BS. But the authoritarian PC-left wouldn’t be able to get away with their irrational and destructive behaviour as much without the intellectual cover of the (relatively smarter) PC-liberals. link

    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.

    Joe McCarthy died in May 1957. The doctors said liver failure. Supporters said a broken heart, … link

    • 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.

      • You should remember that Senator McCarthy actually called out some hidden communists.

        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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 .

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

      • Steyn has often mentioned this. He does not seem extremely hopeful that the cesspool of DC will give him a fair hearing.

  13. 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!”

  14. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

    – H. L. Mencken

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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!

  18. 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.”

  19. 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!

  20. “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.”

    -Bertrand Russel

  21. I’ve heard a number of times, in the context of this debate, that the theory of gravity is an example of “settled science”. I’d like to remind everyone that gravity was considered “settled science for several hundred years after Newton’s work, until a fellow called Einstein came along.

    Furthermore, gravity is still not “settled science”:

    https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

      • Physics is the “how”, not the “why”. “Why” is philosophy or religion. We just model how things work. When people start saying they know the why, they’re off the rails, or selling something.

      • nearly good, michael.
        ‘why’ requires that a purpose be specified. among scientists, this is known as the crime of anthropomorphism, i.e., attribution of purpose to entities incapable of intention.
        this illustrates the failure of thinking brought about by the failure of verbal cognition.
        words have definitions. (if no definition, not a word but a grunt)
        definition is the set of distinguishing characterstics (not a description)
        logic can only be performed by symbols with definitions.
        and that’s why words, themselves, are deliberately deformed – to make reasoning difficult.

    • AP Lets just say that “Post Newtonian Gravity” is a little more “complicated!
      Post Newtonian Gravity for the Common Reader
      https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/postN.pdf
      The current estimate I have for a post doc to prepare the software to code the theoretical equations for the full details at the sub 1 cm level at earth’s surface is about 3 years!
      A bit more than F=G*M1*M2/R^2.
      Sounds very similar to “climate science” of “more CO2 warms the planet” vs the full models –
      except we are not sure on the “more CO2” bit compared to clouds etc.

      • David how would you compensate for the different densities of the materials that make up the earth without a detailed subsurface geological model?

        I have used gravity surveys in the past as a mineral exploration tool, as the densities of certain rocks differ greatly and can lead to gravity anomolies.

        3 years could turn out to be quite an underestimate.

        I have an estimate from a consultant presently to develop a 3D numerical model about 1km square by 180m deep on a 1m grid and the computing time is around 3 months.

      • AP Yes, important issues for high resolution vertical and transverse evaluation in the range of vertical sensitivity of ~<1 cm or 1.1 x 10^-18 in time. Similarly secular transients from lunar, and diurnal oceanic, atmospheric tides, precipitation, and groundwater. On Post Newtonian gravity see e.g. Mueller (2017) High Performance Clocks and Gravity Field Determination”; Sergei Kopeikin (2016) Post-Newtonian reference-ellipsoid for relativistic geodesy. etc.
        I’m exploring issues on the potential to measure gravity by > order of magnitude better sensitivity. The 3 years was purely on the full post Newtonian equations. Would like to chat at myname at gmail.com.

  22. “Never allow yourself to be caught marching with a sign proclaiming the world is going to end on Thursday; and it’s Friday.”

    -Pearce, Matt

  23. “A fool is someone whose pencil wears out before its eraser does.”

    -Marilyn vos Savant

    • I think that’s called “humility” or “meekness”.
      The more humble/meek one is, the more willing one is to use it, but not need it.

  24. “Noble cause corruption”

    I don’t think so. Mann is simply an extreme self promoter. Nothing noble there…

    • This fellow is interested in one thing: ‘enforcing’ the particular view of impending climate doom as a function of current and future human CO2 emissions. To that end, he is willing to make a fool of himself, besmirching anyone brave enough to stand up to some of the more outrageous nonsense passing for “Climate Science” today.

      Kudos to Curry, Cristy and Pielke, Jr. for showing grace under pressure.

      But Mann’s delusions of grandeur, coupled with his arrogant spouting of half-truths and gutter polemics, even outright psychological projection of his own blatant failures upon his adversaries, point to a particular form of pathology. He has long since jumped the shark with his ridiculous non-scientific claims and self-aggrandizement. Pure narcissism.

      Somewhere deep inside, he must realize that the entire scam upon which his very career was built is about to come crashing down like a house of cards in a summer breeze.

  25. “The main difference between the wise man and a fool is that a fool’s mistakes never teach him anything.”

    • 8-)
      Just think.
      If Mann wasn’t a fool then he might, now, really be the world’s premier climate scientist!

    • “An intelligent person learns from his mistakes, a wise person learns from the mistakes of others”. — No idea who said that…

  26. Mann’s claim to fame was the hockey stick was so poorly constructed it disintegrated . Does the IPCC use it anymore ? Even science journals now require scientific hypothesis to be replica table .They no longer want to be in the science fiction business .
    So what happened to Mann’s hockey shtick data ? Let’s see it replicated and compared to real observation .
    Taking shots at some of the three best climate scientists in the world showed Mann’s true character .
    This was his chance to act like a open minded scientist, maybe build some bridges, instead of reinforcing the reputation he is known for . He finished any lingering questions about that.
    Would anyone want their kid going to Penn State listening to that trash talk deflection ? The credentials of the other three panelists are deep with whole career commitments minus the smug arrogance thinking they have it all figured out . They don’t pretend to have all the answers or absolute certainty and that on it’s own tells people everything they need to know about the overhyped global warming fear mongering industry.

  27. One thing has struck me recently and that’s the IPCC claim that predicting the climate is impossible.
    If so then Climate “Science” has failed the essential principle of Science of TESTABILITY.
    If it can’t predict then it can’t be tested.
    Astrology has a better standard than that!

    Don’t you think Mike’s mien would suit him being dressed in a black cloak and pointy hat with stars over them?
    The goatee is perfect.

    I doubt the Astrologer’s union would accept him though, it would lower the tone too much.

    So, aside from Mike acting like someone in denial, does that make Climate Science a pseudo-science?

    • jon:

      You ask

      I doubt the Astrologer’s union would accept him though, it would lower the tone too much.

      So, aside from Mike acting like someone in denial, does that make Climate Science a pseudo-science?

      Science is a method to determine the closest approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information that refutes existing understanding and replacing, amending or rejecting existing understanding in light of discovered information.

      Pseudoscience is a method that accepts an understanding as being ‘truth’ then seeking information which supports it.

      There is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); n.b. no evidence, none, not any of any kind. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was soon shown to be an artifact of his improper data selection and was rejected. Since then, there has been decades of research to seek some – any – evidence for discernible AGW. This research has been conducted worldwide at a cost of more than $2 billion per year. But no evidence for discernible AGW has been found.

      The complete lack of any evidence for discernible AGW induces some Climate Scientists to claim outputs from climate models are evidence of AGW but – in reality – outputs of the models are only evidence of the understandings that Climate Scientists have put in the models.

      Summarising, the answer to your question is
      By definition, Climate Science pertaining to AGW is pseudoscience.

      Richard

  28. Quote: He had absolutely the biggest whoppers I have ever heard from a scientist …

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What makes you think that Mann is a scientist?

  29. Why don’t Mann and Naomi Oreskes hook-up, produce the anti-Christ, and get this whole apocalypse-thing overwith already?

    • Scary thought.

      I hope I am correct in believing that each has already reproduced with humans. I suppose that doesn’t rule out spawning the Anti-Christ, but Dr. Oreskes first appeared on earth in 1958, so we might have dodged that bullet.

  30. “the same acceptance rate in the scientific community and the public at large as the theory of gravity.”

    I have to laugh when such comparisons are made by the warmists. But I’m surprised nobody jumps at the opportunity to point out that the “consensus” views (97%?) on fundamental aspects of science (gravity, heliocentrism, flat Earth etc.) have been historically debunked by heretical “deniers” of the day. The dogma du jour is relegated to the dustbin of history by those annoying anti-science contrarians … again and again.

  31. Could not agree more. All, despite Mann, were exceptional and humble enough as a scientist should be. Mann is vain, arrogant and pale as a scientist. The new Ptolemy!!

  32. Mann looks like he took conviction training from Gore . What scientific papers has Mann produced that support any claims he makes ? Let’s see an updated hockey stick backed with supporting evidence .
    Not going to happen .

  33. I was impressed with his math skills (at about the 1:44 mark in the video posted yesterday)

    “Yeah, well, Roger is pointing to outdated reports, outdated data. Um, three years ago, uh, he actually posted the following on his blog, he said” … (quotes Mr. Pielke) … “That’s what he said back in 2015, well, that’s you know, three years ago …”

    . . I would hesitate to exaggerate under those circumstances, personally ; )

  34. Amazing anyone could make it through the whole thing. Listening to the self annoited Savior of the Planet and the Libtards feeding in the leading questions was worse than ‘nails on the chalkboard’. Made it about half way and just couldn’t devote any more of my life’s arc to it.

  35. I urge you all to look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in the DSM Psychiatry V, as I believe it is extremely relevant to Michael Mann. This was pointed out by poster Leo Smith in the recent previous thread on Mann. Please see his inclusion.

    These narcissists are insidious and extremely dangerous. When they get into positions of authority, they become even worse. Their grandiosity kicks into overdrive, as does the prevarication to prop up their world. It’s not that narcissists cannot be right, or do good work, but they will attack and retaliate against any threat, real or perceived. They take up more time retaliating than doing actual good work, with consequent negative effects on those around them. Beware the narcissists! If a narcissist owns a private company, he or she can run it into the ground, or succeed; but, IMHO, public entities need to be rid of these horror shows.

    • @4caster, I hope you are being partially sarcastic. As a parent of such a person, please do not be flippant.
      They are dangerous.

    • +10
      But public entities are where they thrive without the baggage of responsibilities and day to day work.

  36. It is time to bring out the wrongdoing by Mann when he constructed his hockey stick. I find it necessary because he promotes his hockey stick as a legitimate representation of recent temperature history which nit is not. Originally it was based upon observations of tree rings which is a legitimate technique. But when his tree ring data showed something else than what he expected he had a problem. He believed temperature should go up as it approached current time, so he found a set of current measurements, of unknown origin, and attached it to the end of the original tree ring curve. And then pretended, as he still does, that this combined graph is a real temperature record of the last 1000 years. Of course, it is not and such mixing of data sets to achieve a desired result is plain falsification of data. It is a scientific crime and should have been rejected by peer reviewers. It obviously was not which brings up questions about how it passed peer review. The reviewers had to be either incompetent or worse, “buddy reviewers” of the type we know from the Climategate files. Passing the review meant publication and removed any obstacles that could stop him. He used that fact fully to advance his career. It is plain scientific fraud but it appealed to the IPCC enough to use it on two of their reports. It appealed to the University of Pennsylvania personages who control things there. They gave him a cushy academic job and made him boss of a climate studies section. But a fraud by any other name is still a fraud. The upturned blade of the hockey stick is constructed out of foreign data fraudulently introduced. As a scientist, I feel strongly that under no circumstances can this hybrid temperature curve be used as a representation of global temperature today or in the past. The added data can in no way be correlated to the tree ring data that failed to show the warming he was after, by hook or by crook.

    • Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) March 31, 2017 at 8:28 pm
      It is time to bring out the wrongdoing by Mann when he constructed his hockey stick. I find it necessary because he promotes his hockey stick as a legitimate representation of recent temperature history which nit is not. Originally it was based upon observations of tree rings which is a legitimate technique. But when his tree ring data showed something else than what he expected he had a problem. He believed temperature should go up as it approached current time, so he found a set of current measurements, of unknown origin, and attached it to the end of the original tree ring curve.

      Perhaps you should read the paper again. It was not only tree rings but included the following, also the temperature source was referenced:

      HISTORICAL DATA

      Central England Temperature air temperature 52N 0E 1730 Manley 1959
      Central Europe Temperature air temperature 45N 10E 1525 Pfister 1992

      PROXY DATA

      Burdekin River Coral-fluorescence Precip/Runoff 20S 147E 1746 Lough 1991
      Galapagos Isabel Island Coral-O-18 SST 1S 91W 1607 Dunbar et al 1994
      Gulf of Chiriqui, Panama Coral-O-18 Precip 7.5N 81W 1708 Linsley et al, 1994
      ” Coral-C-13 ocean circ ” ” 1708 ”
      Espiritu Santu Coral-O-18 SST 15S 167E 1806 Quinn et al 1993
      New Caledonia Coral-O-18 SST 22S 166E 1658 Quinn et al 1996
      Great Barrier Reef Coral-band thickness SST 19S 148E 1615 Lough, personal comm.
      Red Sea Coral-O-18 SST/Precip 29.5N 35E 1788 Heiss, 1994
      ” Coral-c13 ocean circ ” ” 1788 ”

      Quelccaya Ice Core summit Ice O-18 (air temp) 14S 71W 470 Thompson 1982
      ” ” Ice accumulation precip ” ” 488 ”
      ” Core 2 Ice O-18 (air temp) ” ” 744 ”
      ” ” Ice accumulation precip ” ” 744 ”
      Dunde Ice Core Ice O-18 (air temp) 38N 96E 1606 Thompson 1982
      Greenland Ice melt summer air temp 66N 45W 1545 Kameda et al, 1996
      Svalbard Ice melt summer air temp 79N 17W 1400 Tarussov 1992
      Penny Ice O-18 (temp) 70N 70W 1718 Fisher et al 1998
      Central Greenland (Stack) Ice O-18 (temp) 77N 60W 553 Fisher et al 1996

    • For the record:
      Mann is employed at Penn State University, in State College PA.
      He does not work at the University of Pennsylvania, which is an Ivy League school in Philadelphia.

  37. Mann oh Mann this guy is a piece of work. Despite his earnest striving he will be in the public stocks at the end. Heaping scorn on scientists sitting right next to you while claiming victimhood. Pathetic.

  38. The thing that struck me while listening to Mann go on about Lysenkoism was that this was perhaps the most striking example of projection that I’ve ever witnessed. [Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. (Wikipedia)]

  39. Another bright light supporting CAGW is the President of the Sierra Club. In the video here Aaron Mair is questioned by Sen. Ted Cruz on Climate Change:

  40. Michael Mann exposes himself under severe and focussed questioning at the House Committee hearing on Science – but he is oblivious to any questioning or criticism – he just keeps on digging a hole – for himself

      • He was the First Secretary of the East German socialist party from 1945 until 1970. “All must look as if it were democratic but we (the commies) must keep control.” And he was a stout Stalinist, as Rohrabacher quite rightfully said abot that abominable Mann.

  41. There is something worrying me and perhaps if I air and share it , it will go away .
    You remember a few weeks ago President Trump annoyed Sweden with comments about the unfortunate consequences of unrestricted immigration of young men of Middle Eastern extraction . He is also believed to be sceptical about CAGW which the Swedes take as gospel. Some way of upsetting Trump would no doubt appeal to the Swedish establishment..
    Well Sweden awards the Nobel Prize for Physics and there have been no new particles or advances in , say , superconductors lately so who better to award this year’s Physics prize to than the triumvirate of Mann, Schmidt and Hansen. I am sure that many, including some who post here, would consider it long overdue and fully justified
    Mann would then be totally invulnerable to any attack , whether legal or scientific.

    • Don’t mistake what the Swedish government says ,and what the people think as the same thing.
      The general feeling among my Swedish friends is that a mass round up and deportation is long overdue.

    • If the Nobel Prize committee wants to completely discredit themselves and render their awards meaningless, they could do what you suggest is possible.
      But praising a jackass does not make the jackass praiseworthy, it just means you have low standards and poor judgement…or you love jackasses.
      The ideas and contributions of Nobel winners are not valuable because of the prize.
      Giving the prize to charlatans would make them invulnerable to legal attack, or scientific discredit?
      I think not.

    • If it came to be it would not be the first time that a phony warmist(s) got a Nobel prize. The fist Nobel for a phony warmist went to Al Gore. How phony was that? He told us to expect a twenty foot sea level rise by the end of this century. I checked out scientific literature and determined that a sea level rise for a century could be no more than 10 inches. That was in 2008. Quickly, I wrote a paper for Science and one for Nature too pointing out what science had to say about sea level rise. What was their response? Both journals threw my paper back into my face, not even a peer review to justify this outrage. I could see that the warmists were in control of both journals, so I did not bother with any more papers. I simply wrote a book about global warming entitled “What Warming?” which is still available by Amazon and other booksellers.

  42. Perhaps the one thing that marks Mann out form other climate ‘scientists’ is not his poor professional practice and lack of academic ability, those being a given in his area and in no way a draw back to having a successful career in the field which in turn says much about the area . But that he manages to p-off even those on his own side , which is why to save themselves they will throw him under the bus . Can’t be soon enough , could not be to big a bus . But let us not try to cheer to loudly when it happens .

  43. Common signs of narcissistic personality disorder include a grandiose sense of self-importance, the feeling of being special or unique, the need for excessive admiration, a strong sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy, according to the diagnostic criteria listed by Psych Central. Narcissistic individuals may also regularly exhibit haughty or arrogant behavior.

    Another sign that someone is narcissistic is that he is highly reactive to criticism, often changing the subject when asked a question that potentially reveals a vulnerability or deficiency, states Psychology Today.

    Narcissistic individuals may be unnecessarily defensive and self-righteous, according to Psychology Today. They may react with anger or rage to viewpoints that contradict their own, and they may project qualities they are unwilling to accept in themselves onto other people, focusing on others’ flaws while refusing to acknowledge their own.

    https://www.reference.com/health/common-signs-narcissist-41a7d2f4be3e699c?qo=contentSimilarQuestions

    Draw your own conclusions…

  44. After watching that hearing video, and also reading Disgrace to the Profession … there’s only one phrase to describe Mann:

    It starts with “snake oil” and ends with “salesman.”

    • Right or wrong, this has to be said:

      Epi fanny to a poisonous dwarf.

      Mann the greater,
      Mann the higher,
      Mann the pumps,
      The world’s on fire.

      In one word: bollocks.

  45. Mann on a clapham Omnibus

    Having listened to much of the committee statements by Mann, what gets most ‘up-my-nostrils’ is his metronomic re-assertion of being a “Distinguished” [this] and a “Distinguished” [that]. The one thing that really does distinguish him is his ‘no-prisoners-taken’ arrogance, his assertive aura of absolute rectitude, his hackles-up repudiation of any views contrary to his , and his implausible denials when confronted by Awkward & Inconvenient Questions.
    In Ernglsh Law, there is the ‘Man on a clapham Omnibus Principle’ by which behaviour of a Defendant can be compared with societal norms. Wijkipedia explains thus: “The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would – for example, in a civil action for negligence. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant’s conduct can be measured……..
    3. It follows from the nature of the reasonable man, ….. how they would have acted in a given situation or what they would have foreseen, in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. The behaviour of the reasonable man is established by the application of a legal standard by the court. The court may require to be informed by evidence of circumstances which bear on its application of the standard of the reasonable man in any particular case; but it is then for the court to determine the outcome, in those circumstances, of applying that impersonal standard……

    I would consider myself a typical Man on the Clapham Omnibus, and if I were a Juror adjudging Mann, listening to Mann’s depositions and answers, I would be asking myself not only if Mann acted as that reasonable Man on the Clapham Omnibus would, but also that other interesting question: “Would I buy a used motor-vehicle from this Mann.”
    I leave it to you, Reader, to ask yourself the same question in the same context, and then ask yourself the Question: “Of a jury of 12, who would find ‘For’ this Defendant, and how many ‘Against”
    “Distinguished Professor” Self-anointed[???] Michael Mann appears to claim he sticks *only* to Science, while eschewing implications of influencing the Policy Debate. This is risible, given the [discredited] and very much hyped “Hockey-Stick invention” to influence the “Public Debate” as promoted by IPCC , to say nothing of his central role (as if BandMaster) in he ClimateGate Shenanigans, where he and co-conspirators were caught red-handed at mannipulating[?!] he Public Policy debate whenever & wherever the opportunity arose to advance the Alarmist Proposition of Anthropogenic Global Warming. So much so, that our “Distinguished Professor Mann” comes-across far more as a Crusader wielding the sword of Scare-Tactics than the objective Student of Science he tries to portray in Proceedings such as this Committee Hearing.

    I see a strong parallel between ISIL’s Caliphate and one led by these Alarmists (led by Mann andf his cabal). Comparing the two, I don’t know which would be worse.

    • @ Ross King: I ANAL but I believe there is as similar concept in US jurisprudence called “the reasonable and prudent man”(RPM). I am sure our resident “legal eagles” will correct me if I am wrong. In US jurisprudence the RPM has the same qualities as the “Man on the Clapham Omnibus’.

    • Michael Mann appears to claim he sticks *only* to Science, while eschewing implications of influencing the Policy Debate.

      About three years ago, I read that he addressed a leftist rally in PA somewhere, concluding by pumping his fist in the air and leading a chant of “The people united will never be defeated.”

      • @Roger Knights: Tks, Roger…. I SEARCHED AND GOT THIS (ECN BETTER!!) [oooops! caps,sorry]
        The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
        As for the Mannipulator, I wd argue the application of this principle would go a long way in removing the clothes from this “Distinguished” (repeat endlessly “distinguished”) Emperor!

  46. Mann IMO exhibits the Baconian inductive view of empirical science, vs the other three displaying Karl Popper’s ideas of empirical falsification.

    However, I doubt that Ms Johnson of TX caught that…

    • Some sociologists, historians and philosophers of science now claim Popper is obsolete. Because science is now so specialized, every discipline needs to define its own criteria for theory, and scientific truth. In this manner, climate catastrophe scientists now talk about GCM runs as ‘experiments’.

  47. Oh, I am home, now! ‘Noble Cause Corruption’: I love that. I truly do. It says everything briefly and succinctly, and applies to so many, many, many of the people who have been scamming money out of the taxpaying public via government grants for years, among other things, of course. It applies to a lot of areas.

    I do have one thing. In regard to ‘climate change’ denial stuff, I have a nice Excel chart which shows quite clearly that ice ages are interspersed with warm periods – glacial maxima -> interglacials ->return to glaciation, that sort of thing – and happen all the time, and I’d be happy to share it with Dr. Watts. It’s rough, not meant to be ‘EXACT’ as to time length, but shows very clearly that these things happen on a recurring basis on this planet, and very likely happen on other planets which we may be considering for future colonization.

    Therefore, for this greedy little egocentric, unethical, frequently foul-mouthed and hyperaggressive, inglorious basterd to say that people who disagree with him are ‘deniers’ or whatever is a clear manifestation of denial of reality on his part. And he can go pound sand up his behind sideways.

    Thank you for your time.

    • When a scientist “takes it personal” that someone else is sceptical of his theory, that is a definite red flag. There is something much deeper motivating Mann than merely scientific curiosity, that is certain.

    • Nice and thorough job with citations! I would encourage reading the link provided to all for review and comment.

      I wonder how many Skeptics even ask the alarmist types if they have an understanding of the basic physics associated with a CO2 and temperature relationship. My experience tells me very few have an understanding of the difference between linear and logarithmic relationships in this Arena. Just my take…..

  48. “… convinced that they are ‘saving the Earth’”

    That really is a heavy burden. Perhaps they should lighten their load.

  49. Anyone with any rational common sense can see that these four people are all reasonably qualified and intelligent and have well thought-out views and ideas, and just because they disagree on some matters, doesn’t mean they are woefully ‘wrong’, or deliberately ignoring or ‘denying’ relevant evidence, and that many things concerning climate science are obviously not settled and are quite complicated.

    Anyone who can’t see this after watching this lives in another universe.

  50. I also watched the whole thing and agree with all in this article …… an only add the Californian Climate FOOLS that loved Mann and hung on his every word made me SICK …….. How these fools can not see the wood for the trees is beyond me …….. Thanks to the others on the panel for bringing some sense to the so called debate.

  51. It was late when I watched it, I will admit, however…shiny-headed Mann’s defense of the hockey stick just stunned me.

    Then again, he did claim to be a Nobel Prize Winner some years ago.

    As to the credibility of the Nobel Committee…that ship sailed when Obama got his.

  52. Mann is a convincer. As in everyone knows now that the climate science community oversold the CAGW / CO2 theory and since their political muscle is gone the best they can do is try to convince people that there really is a CO2 problem. Or they believe their own deception and they’re trying to convince everyone that their view of reality is actually reality. Mann seems like a classic case of both situations, he’s a convincer.

  53. Maybe it was just on my end, but one the Congressman’s time was broken up. I don’t remember his name but he was the one who started out pretty hot about the name calling and innuendos directed at the witnesses and the chairman.
    Does anyone have a link to what he said?
    (He’s the one picture on right here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/31/a-newcomers-first-opinion-of-michael-mann-in-the-context-of-science-discourse/comment-page-1/#comment-2465548 )

    • Looks like Mr. Rohrbacker to me, Gunga; About the 1:40 mark on the video posted by Josh . .

    • Yes, that was Rohrbacher from California. His remarks were perfect in their timing coming right after Mann’s spiel where he used the term denial multiple times. It was so ironic as preceding the two of them was a supporter of Mann during the questioning who called for less contentious interactions in the discussion. Then Mann came right out after that flying his typical colors of rancorous verbiage.

      I just finished watching the hearing. Dr Curry did a great job in defining the issues. Mann acted like a contentious child. Many of the congresspersons who engaged in this hearing also did an excellent job in asking the right questions, and had obviously spent some time to build some level of understanding of this topic. Well done.

  54. Thanks, Anthony for reposting my original comments. I hadn’t noticed it was up there until this morning. I’ve been a reader of this blog and many others for years on both sides, very infrequent poster but I always enjoy the scope of the articles here–everything from direct reprints of scientific articles to commentary to Josh’s cartoons.
    One person touched on the thing that I forgot to mention, how Dr. Mann seemed to always state that the organizations and people that he worked with were distinguished or noble or prestigious (and in one case I think he even said “august”). While it’s nice that you can compliment the people and groups that you work with, do these people not see that just naming someone as important doesn’t make them any more correct? Goes back to the consensus and the Einstein comment about just one person proving him wrong.
    Anyway, thanks again!

  55. Anthony – Noble Cause Corruption is the smoking gun to the demise of our society. Once we start cherry picking which laws to abide by (sanctuary cities), which results to champion (science) and how to interpret the law (judicial review) based on our personal convictions and preferences, it undermines the laws of science and society in such a way that is possibly in-recoverable. I believe we have reached the point where the left is so confident of their righteousness (as well as a few on the right) that the “ends justify the means”. This is the single biggest difference between 2017 and 1950 in my view, and the last pillar between us and a diminishing culture is the media who should keep everyone honest, but they have sold out to the highest dollar and are perhaps the single biggest driver of this trend. I am sad for my children that our generations have made it this way.

  56. ‘Dr. Mann may be an unwitting practitioner of Noble Cause Corruption’

    I disagree completely with the ‘unwitting’ part. There has never been someone more cognizant of their actions.

Comments are closed.