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.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1950
Absolute certain that the red is more than 50% caused by mankind.
No idea what caused the green part!
And still about 2K cooler than it was ~3000 years ago.
Check this one out… one is almost certainly natural (green). The red one probably had some AGW.
Can you tell any difference in the two ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1908/to:1940
Oh Mann, it’s deep.
Well he got the ‘Noble Prize’ didn’t he…
..I’ll get my coat…
Since Mann referred to gravity – how about Münchhausen pulling himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a mire by his own hair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
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 .
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…
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.”
Damn this idiot is disgusting. Yuk.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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’.
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!
“The Era of Trust Me Science is Over”
Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/scientists-not-served-here-real-scientists-need-not-apply/
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’.
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.
Michael Mann just gave everyone the battle plan to expose this hoax. Please share this article.
Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/michael-mann-just-jumped-the-climate-change-shark/
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…..
Thanks a million for the comments. Please share the article.
“… convinced that they are ‘saving the Earth’”
That really is a heavy burden. Perhaps they should lighten their load.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . .
Oh, it’s all chopped up on that video . .
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.
Fabiusmaximus’s blog producerd this excellent piece:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/04/02/michael-mann-makes-the-case-for-climate-action/
AGW’s Mann of La Mancha. Tilting for Windmills. He shares many odious character traits with that other Nobel Prize winner, exPrez Barry Soetoro.
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/31/j-scott-armstrong-no-one-asks-researchers-scientific-method/ … says it well.
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!
@asybot
re: Kozak’s “And Not a Shot Is Fired”
Free download: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Not a Shot.pdf
Try again: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Not%20a%20Shot.pdf
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.