Climate Scientist Michael Mann Borrows the Words of a Holocaust Survivor to Express His Personal Angst

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Judith Curry – Climate scientist Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress at having his theories and scientific conduct criticised is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller, who endured eight years of internment in NAZI concentration camps because of his outspoken opposition to Adolf Hitler.

Michael Mann: If You Believe in Science You Must Now Make Your Voice Heard

That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.

And so here we are, at a crossroads.

Let me be blunt.

Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.

Nor have we witnessed an assault on the environment like the one we are witnessing in the current political atmosphere.

I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:

First they came for the immigrants and I did not speak out—

Because I was not an immigrant.

Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a scientist.

Then they came for the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not an environmentalist.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Friends, let this not be our legacy.

Read more (transcript of a speech to students and parents at Green Mountain College): https://www.ecowatch.com/michael-mann-green-mountain-college-2414347465.html

Why do people still listen to this clown?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tom Halla

Well, Mann does seem assured about historical parallels. I just think he has the sides reversed.

Bryan A

Well his choice in quotes certainly could be reversed

That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will easily be able to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic Climate Regulations that will threaten the future of life as we know it, taking money from the poor of this country to place it in the hands of other corrupt governments around the world.
And so here we are, at a crossroads.
Let me be blunt.
Never before have we witnessed the underprivileged under the kind of assault it will be subject to right now in this country.
Nor have we witnessed an assault on personal freedoms like the ones we played witness to in the prior political atmosphere.
I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:
First they came for the immigrants and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an immigrant.
Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a scientist.
Then they came for the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an environmentalist.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Friends, let this not be our legacy

There, that’s better.

Gerry, Engliand

Then they came for me….and everybody clapped an cheered.

G Mawer

Mann says: “Let me be blunt.
Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.”
In truth, IMO, it is not science under assault it is his FINDINGS that are under assault. (never mind how good his science/study is!!! His statement “under assault” is not very accurate either.Questioned, yeah.

TA

“In truth, IMO, it is not science under assault it is his FINDINGS that are under assault.”
That was my thought, too. Mann is equating his Hockey Stick to the whole of Science. Mann implies Science and his Hockey Stick are unassailable. He wants them to be unassailable. When they start whining they are losing the argument.

Actually, it IS science which is being assaulted, but the assault is by flaky climate liars coming out with more and more ridiculous, unsupported press releases posing as scholarly articles.

RockyRoad

Mann distortions the truth, especially science, every chance he gets.
Mann’s only blunt quality is his ability to lie and go after others who call him out.
He’s not a scientist–he’s a political activist, with an ego to match the universe.

He’s the one assaulting science…
And he’s projecting like the pro leftist activist that he is…

BernieG

I think he is lying scum who adds to the ignorance and confusion of mankind.

[snip – you’ve changed handles from Jonathan Wundersamer, and in the last day produced several posts that violate site policy – banned – Anthony]

stan stendera

I am carefully not going to say anything about Mikey Mann because if I spoke my mind, a wonderfully good man, Anthony Watts, would justifiably ban me. Good on you for how you run this site Anthony. I say this as someone who has suffered your wrath. I still know how to spell cretin. I have differences with you, mainly because you don’t call the fools out in strong language, but boy oh boy do I have respect for you.

Quilter52

What a disgusting comment from someone who has given science a bad name.

Louis Hooffstetter

We need to stop calling Michael Mann a scientist because he is anything but. His ‘research’ is based on voo doo statistics, he refuses to share his data for replication, and his papers are so dense and obfuscating they could have been written by a bot. Anyone who questions his work is “too stupid to comprehend his ‘science'”, and when criticized, he sues first, and then plays the victim.
Please, from now on, everyone refer to him using an appropriate title: Charlatan, Con Artist, Fraud, Quack, Witch Doctor, Grifter, Sham, etc.

TheDoctor

While I perfectly agree to the first paragraph of your post, I veto your suggested solution in the second! It is very tempting but, this way we would put ourselves down to the same level – it will not be helpful when you try to debate with somebody who is not totally brainwashed yet.

I understand the sentiment, but as someone who lives and works in the world of science I think we need to make it clear that this type of behavior is quite normal among those who carry the label scientist. It is, unforatunately, not an exception but a very common phenomenon. Individuals must be judged by their own actions and words, not by their labels. Fortunately, with someone like MM it is all too easy to see the lack of quality in both.

Phil R

Louis Hooffstetter,

his papers are so dense and obfuscating they could have been written by a bot.

Slight correction. based on a recently published paper in Sociology, it’s obvious that his papers were written by a Social Constructed Conceptual Penis.

Convict en Australie

@TheDoctor
and it would defame all self respecting Charlatans, Con Artists, Frauds, Quacks, Witch Doctors, Grifters, Shams, etc.to be assocaited with Mann.

Auto

Louis H.
Surely, under a Republican administration, everyone, including multiple Nobble Laureate, repeat Oscar winner & multiple Olympic gold-medallist, Doc ‘Doctor’ Mann, should seek employment to pay their way.
Indeed, Doc M has done so:
“Several years ago Michael Mann found a gig that would potentially pay him big bucks and notoriety. He left the realm of science and now peddles a far-left climate change agenda in the spirit of the western snake-oil salesmen during the 1800s.” – many thanks to
pyeatte May 25, 2017 at 6:59 am – who is spot on!
Indeed, so ahead of his time is Doc M, that he obviously sought gainful employment under a Democratic administration, when such activity was optional . . . .
Auto

Alan Esworthy

I try to be as polite and charitable as possible (I’m not always successful),
so I submit that his title should be Scientist Manqué.

Several years ago Michael Mann found a gig that would potentially pay him big bucks and notoriety. He left the realm of science and now peddles a far-left climate change agenda in the spirit of the western snake-oil salesmen during the 1800s.

Greg

science is under threat from jerks like Mann.

RockyRoad

…and so is Western Civilization. Heed Mann’s nefarious pronouncements and we’d have to curtail productivity to the gruesome edge of survival.
And I think in his devious mind, it would be worth it. What a schmuck!

Words fail me – what a hypocrite.

Greg

That was also the conclusion of one of the senators at the recent senate hearing.

AndyG55

Mann STARTED the assault on science, with his hockey stick charts.
Josh could make a great satire on Mann attacking science with a hockey stick !!

Graemethecat

*Speechless*

ozspeaksup

yeah..the pity is?
MANN isnt

RockyRoad

Actually, a broken tool makes the most noise.

higley7

The problem is, as with most well-crafted propaganda, there is a kernel of truth in what he says. Science is under siege, but he talks about his junk science as if it’s the real science.
We really need to get him together with a real scientist/skeptic to actually debate science. He cannot, as he nothing at all that can stand the light of day. All of his arguments are ad hominem and false.

4TimesAYear

Exactly – and it seems he’s also forgotten that it was the alarmists that were looking to have skeptics locked up.

Mark

‘it seems he’s also forgotten that it was the alarmists that were looking to have skeptics locked up.’
Exactly. It is the climate extremists who keep on promising to put into prison those who question their data and findings. Some have even promised death to those who dare question their findings. Weird.

4TimesAYear

I think psychologists call it “projection” when people accuse others of doing things they themselves are guilty of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Crispin in Waterloo

High 5 higley7
Real science is under attack by the likes of the ‘clevah’ who think that they can fiddle and hide the evidence and no one is as clevah so no one will ever to be able to prove the BS.
Yesterday and the day before I read the concatenation of papers by M&M in which they politely and excruciatingly dismantle the claims of Dr Mann that the 14th century was cooler than the world at present.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
The lengths Dr Mann went to to ‘cleverly’ change the centre of his data sets so that the MWP would appear to be cooler than now is amazing – creating, disfiguring, misleading, staunchly defending, ultimately made of the same cloth that propagandists used in pre-War II Germany to disguise the truth – the cleverly constructed lie.
It is therefore not completely surprising that we see a news item like today’s where perps portray themselves as victims. I am wondering if something went badly wrong in the DC courtroom with the eternal case against Mark Steyn. As was asked about the little king in Shrek, “Compensating for something?”

Mike the Morlock

I came across stuff like this in my studies years ago. Naturally what Mann is trying to do is sickening,
Below are some examples of “experts” in their field and how Martin Niemöller’s proverb apply’s to them.
And yeah those who don’t learn from the past are destine to repeat it. You can spot Mann and his cronies a mile away.
http://ldn-knigi.lib.ru/JUDAICA/Flieger/Jued_Flieg1.htm
michael

Dictatorial little Nazi.

Clyde Spencer

I think that title is better applied to Cook, who like to dress up like an SS officer.

Eugene WR Gallun

Well, I guess since John Cook The Books likes to photoshop himself into Nazi uniforms there is a tenuous connection here.
I have been trying for some time to write a poem about John Cook The Books but have been having immense difficulties. Its like trying to write a poem about pond scum — as the name says it all.
Sort of playing off a really bad previous poem i wrote, I thought I might work through the use of “fairy” tales. After well over a year this is all I have been able to come up with.
(I)
Like Tweedledee and Tweedledum
Art and Science create a sum
Each with the other constitute
Each for the other substitute
(II)
Solid science is oversold
Appearance is as good as gold
I am the goose of the golden shell
With Art the inner gooey jell
Maybe with another year of work I might be able to add to this — or maybe throw it out and start over again.
Eugene WR Gallun

Jeez Eugene, I can barely keep up with the science never mind Shakespeare. 🙂

Eugene WR Gallun

(III) ??????????????
Art and Science a warning carry
A principled precautionary
The earth might burn and all might die
So “wolf” is always what i cry
?????????????
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun

Damn — Art and Science a message carry — much better
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun

Final
(III)
Art and Science a warning carry
A principled precautionary
The earth might burn and all will die
So “Wolf” is always what I cry
Eugene WR Gallun

Michael Mann seems to think the job of a scientist is to convince the public. No, Mikey, the job of a scientist is to convince other scientists, not folks unequipped to even have an opinion. Of course, this would be most difficult for the scientifically lacking. Like Mikey,for example.

ReallySkeptical

“Michael Mann seems to think the job of a scientist is to convince the public.”
He is of course correct.
If you are funded by the NSF, that is crucial part of each grant, under the banner “out reach”

MarkW

What’s really sad is the number of trolls who have no problem replacing science with government funded propaganda.

Crispin in Waterloo

The job of other scientists is to reproduce the work of their fellows to demonstrate the validity of their assertions. What is so wonderful about McIntyre and McKitrick is they were able to replicate Mann’s work exactly, something emphasized in their follow-up paper, by reproducing the defects and errors in the works of Dr Mann. Thus they demonstrated the claim that the MWP was ‘not there’ or was ‘cooler’ than now was in error. The world was warmer than now 800 years ago.
Mann next went on a jag to try and prove that the MWP was real but local or regional at best. This too has failed in the subsequent years, disproven by the numerous records from around the world, NH and SH.
The problem for Dr Mann is that he started with a conclusion and set about to ‘support it’ with clever fiddles of the data processing. He clearly is of the opinion that he is so clever no one else will be able to see his fiddles if he hides them well. I have met others with this same attitude. Turn inward and you lose perspective. It turns out that Constable Plod is still able to track down and arrest Mr Sharp.
The claims about his personal suffering are at least partly true, because he is definitely feeling the sharp end of the stick these past years. The comparison of his self-induced comeuppance with the horrors experienced by the good Reverend is a demonstration of an incapacity for genuine empathy.

“He clearly is of the opinion that he is so clever no one else will be able to see his fiddles”
I don’t think he’s even clever enough to see his own fiddles. Delusion can be a funny thing …

I Came I Saw I Left

“…the job of a scientist is to convince other scientists…”
uh, no. The job of a scientist is to follow scientific method. The most honorable scientists will be the ones who most fervently try to disprove their own theories. What other scientists think be damned.

Jimmy Haigh

Deluded is the word.

davideisenstadt

“Then they came for the fakers…the liars who claimed to have won Nobel prizes when they didnt…
and no one was there to speak for me”
TFTFY, Mikey.

richardscourtney

I thought nothing Michael Mann did could be worse than what he has done, but his adaptation of Niemöller’s words has proven my thought was wrong.
Richard

TheDoctor

He did it again:
When you thought it cannot get any morally lower …
The sad thing is, there are too many rationally challenged out there who take him serious and cannot see that he himself is one of the people who try to silence real science. It’s not just a text book example of Dunning-Kruger at work – he is a perp posing as victim!

tony mcleod

” text book example of Dunning-Kruger”
Wrong. Whether you like it or not Mann is an expert in his field, the amateurs here are the ones filled with misplaced confidence and certainty. This is DK central.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Dodgy Geezer

It’s a shame that his field is fraudulent science…. as the Mann Hockey stick proves…

John Endicott

If Mikey is an expert in his field, that’s just a testament as to what a sad shape his field is in

TheDoctor

You misquoted me:
“It’s not(!) just a text book example of Dunning-Kruger at work…”
BTW what field is he an expert in?
– Misrepresenting science?
– Hiding declines?
– Megalomania? (Hey, I am a citizen of the EU – Does he accept me as a fellow Noble-Prize laureate?)

richardscourtney

tony mcleod:
Don’t be silly
Mann is a bumptious ch@rlatan whose ‘work’ has been repeatedly rejected as being incompetent or fr@udulent, and I am still waiting for him to ‘put up’ on his threat to me; see this.
Richard

richardscourtney
Mike the Morlock

tony mcleod May 25, 2017 at 4:42 am
Wrong. Whether you like it or not Mann is an expert in his field,
You contradict yourself.
Dunning-Kruger is not in his field of study or practice.
Nor yours or mine.
But as to ethics and honesty that is open to debate for all.
As for an expert in ones field that is wild open. It is how one uses that expertise that is the issue.
The fact that Mr. Mann attempted to label opponents as having a medical condition so as to discredit them speaks volumes.
No one is questioning science tony, merely you and Mr Mann.
Credibility is a difficult attribute to gain, very easy to lose.
michael

tony mcleod

Embrace the hockey stick Richard, you and I are part of the root cause. There are hundreds that correlate.
http://blog.dssresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg

John Endicott

Tony, if you think you are a Part of the problem, why aren’t you solving your part of the problem instead of trolling here? If everyone who claims population is a “problem” would self-solve, there would be no population “problem”. 😉

commieBob

… the amateurs here are the ones filled with misplaced confidence and certainty …

Dr. Mann’s recent testimony before the recent house science hearing was absolutely gobsmacking. No scientist should express that much confidence and certainty. Any scientist who expresses that much confidence is not credible.
I can’t remember exactly but he compared the certainty about global warming theory to the theory about gravity. That is literally not credible … literally … I know what the word means.
In defence of the people who post here, there are many with advanced credentials. Pay attention and you will see who is who.
Science has a problem. It is deeply corrupt and unreliable. The latest salvo across its bow is a book called Rigor Mortis. It points out that the majority (perhaps the vast majority, depending how you count it) of medical research is worthless. It can’t be replicated, sometimes even by the original researchers.
The rules of the game guarantee that researchers are better off publishing junk than working hard to produce first rate science. That applies in all branches of science.
Even in science, the prognostications of experts are no better than the predictions generated by a dart-throwing chimp. link
Yes, Dr. Mann is an expert. No, that does not make him credible.

MarkW

To the left, an expert is anyone who agrees with them.
Little Mikey’s seminal work has been shredded by many, many people. The only thing he’s an expert in is making a fool of himself.

MarkW

What’s the saddest of all is that McClod actually believes his post is relevant to anything.
BTW, I notice that like most environmentalists, McClod actually believes that humans are the root cause of all problems.

richardscourtney

tony mcleod:
I don’t “embrace” the joyous news of the human race flourishing: I applaud it.
If you think population is a problem then reduce the problem by one in the only way that you are entitled to do. That would have the benefit of preventing you from disrupting WUWT threads with off-topic irrelevancies such as graphs of population growth.
Richard

Gary

Amatuers like Newton or Galileo? How about DaVinci or Coppernicus? A scientists job is to find the truth not to convince the public of it. Once your job turn’s to advocacy you leave the science your a lawyer.

Mann is an expert in his field
===============
study after study shows that expert opinion is more likely wrong than the opinion of the layman.
the problem is that experts over-estimate how much they know on a subject. The assume that anything they don’t know must not be important. Scientists 50 years ago were equally certain that there was nothing important that they did not know.
if true, if scientists are correct, then why has the public been paying scientists for the past 50 years? why are we paying scientists to study “settled science”? one might as well pay scientist to determine if water is wet.

Crispin in Waterloo

tony mcleod
I challenge your assertion that I am an amateur, that I have misplaced confidence and certainty.
Put up or shut up..

CD in Wisconsin

RE: tony mcleod’s world population growth chart @ May 25, 2017 at 5:33 am.
I seem to recall my World History instructor telling us back in my college days that WWII resulted in the deaths of some 50 million people worldwide. WWII was so devastating that the world’s population was still lower in 1950 than it was in 1940. So I was told.
If that is indeed true, then another great world war certainly would produce the desired reduction in population that Mr. Mcleod appears to be looking for. One can only guess if he is actually rooting for one.

PiperPaul

He’s an “expert” in his field because he has the media on his side and had the government on his side. You can get far with powerful allies like that; lots of guaranteed funding and continuous, unrelenting favorable news coverage.

tony mcleod
The scientific community is occupied by academics who are more often wrong, than right.
Otherwise, what would be the point of experiments?
Apparently Michael Mann doesn’t have the scientific integrity to admit his hockey stick experiment was wrong, in the face of considerable criticism.
Furthermore, science itself is rarely 100% correct, it is only correct by degrees, judged at a particular moment in time.
Science is secure in one thing only, its faith in uncertainty, without that there would be no science.

commieBob

ferdberple May 25, 2017 at 6:33 am
… the problem is that experts over-estimate how much they know on a subject.

Actually, most experts do know much more about their subjects than do other people. The trouble is that this gives them the illusion that they can predict things. “You should do ‘this’ because I am an expert”, is the prediction that ‘this’ will be a successful strategy. That prediction is probably wrong.
Experts are frustrated by idiots who argue with them when those idiots can’t get even the basic facts right. That’s fair. On the other hand, experts generally do not recognize their limits. Their mantra should be: “A dart-throwing monkey predicts better than I do.” Hubris, thy name is expert.

Chimp

CD in WI:
World population probably grew from 1940 to 1950, despite WWII, religious war during the partition of India and the Chinese civil war.
https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php
The postwar Western baby boom helped.

Michael Jankowski

tony McLeod, in addition to questioning the smoothness of the world population, the title refers to a “growth rate”…which is not plotted.
Your chart has errors of commission and omission. Double-whammy.

Bryan A

Mann may be outstanding in his field but so are most Dairy Cows

“tony mcleod May 25, 2017 at 4:42 am

” text book example of Dunning-Kruger”

Wrong. Whether you like it or not Mann is an expert in his field, the amateurs here are the ones filled with misplaced confidence and certainty. This is DK central.”

Once again, the clod demonstrates his absolute lack of skills on multiple levels.
1) mr. clod assumes to know more about a “soft” pseudo science, based on unstated reasons.
2) t clod fails to read the entire article in unbiased terms, instead he assumes a pro mannian bias from the start.
A) If manniacal was any sort of true expert in a field, he would not vehemently react to all criticisms.
– a) i.e. being a true expert in a field assumes manniacal is comfortable with the surety of his knowledge.
Instead manniacal reacts rabidly to the smallest criticisms, even from friends.
Nor does mannian mind bringing his reactionary verbal assaults into public places
Lastly, manniacal does not restrict his disagreement to specific scientific or mathematic concerns, but rapidly brings personal mann emotes and general character assaults against mann’s detractors.
Based on mann’s demeanor and vehement rabid responses, it is clear that mann is neither confident in his alleged research or in mann’s personal knowledge.
t. clod;
If you had bothered to read your wiki reference, you would have noticed a list of “related” topics:
“Cognitive dissonance
Grandiose delusions
Hanlon’s razor
Hubris
Impostor syndrome
Lake Wobegon effect
Narcissism
Not even wrong
Overconfidence effect
Self-deception
Self-efficacy
Self-serving bias
Superiority complex
Ultracrepidarianism”
When compared to many of the criticisms addressed towards mann, mann’s work, mann’s adherence to scientific process, etc. Most if not all of these related psychological problems are identified as clear mannian personal issues.
Evidence of weak psychological factors are directly related to an individual’s ability to remain mature and civil during in depth reviews.
Another factor where maturity should be demonstrated is an individual’s willingness to admit and then correct errors.
manniacal admits no errors, manniacal refuses to correct errors, manniacal refuses to acknowledge corrections proposed by experts more experienced or more knowledgeable in any field.

Menicholas

Funny how on a poisoned and dying planet, an ever expanding population is somehow living longer, fatter, happier and more cimfortsble and prosperous lives.
Nothing funny about the hateful um…folks…who cannot stand that reality, and stop at nothing to reverse it,
while in the meantime denying it.

Thomas Homer

Tony alludes to potential issues of a growing human population.
How can we be assured that such a large population will have enough food? We should encourage and applaud efforts that increase the base of the food chain.
Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all carbon based life forms.

Bryan A

You could take everyone alive today and place them ALL on the islands of Hawaii with room to spare leaving the remainder of the world unpopulated

4TimesAYear

“How can we be assured that such a large population will have enough food?”
We could start by restoring all those fertile acres in Iowa that are currently being sucked up by wind turbines. I’ve heard they take 3-5 acres each, but even one acre each adds up to an incredible amount of land being taken out of production. I’ve done searches on how many there are and can’t find a number, but one energy company is going to add 1,000 more…there goes at least another 1,000 acres of land for at least 20 years.

The “Dunning-Kruger effect” is just a pompous and superfluous name for the trivial observation that people tend to feel more certain about some things than they should. Do your opponent a favour – just call them “moron” and save them a trip to wikipedia.

Michael 2

“It’s not just a text book example of Dunning-Kruger at work”
Nearly everyone suffers from D-K when invoking it on others while not knowing what it is. It would be easier to just use plain words when insulting someone: “I insult you!” would suffice. Then we might engage a conversation in which we explore why you feel the need to publicly insult anyone.
D-K simply refers to a normalization phenomenon by which persons consider themselves to be normal when in fact they may be above or below normal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Tom in Florida

Looks like someone is worried about his paycheck. Perhaps Dr Mann should seek a private gig, I am sure there are many believers who would happily pay him and fund his propaganda.

PiperPaul

Well, he’d likely not survive in the private sector. Then again, there are PR, marketing and sales jobs out there.

Tom in Florida

Perhaps “Buy Here Pay Here” used car lots.

PiperPaul,
As an ex marketing bod, take it from me, Mann wouldn’t last a day in the job. Marketing is about understanding, research and analysis.
Need I say more?

michael hart

He’s not doing himself or his cause any favors by drawing such comparisons.

Mark - Helsinki

Holocaust exploitation for climate alarmism is quite common, Mosher did it here too.

Godwin’s law

Caligula Jones

Mann’s descent into unbelievable and undefendable hubris means that Godwin’s law is now meaningless.
In the words of Jules in Pulp Fiction: “ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same sport.”

hunter

Manniac indeed, word and kook as well.

tim

So having to endure a bit of valid scientific criticism can be equated to spending years in a concentration camp can it? Yeah right. Mikey the Martyr.

John

I would expect no less from a man that sees his fraudulent word crumbling around him.

SAMURAI

It is written, Mann shall not live by dread alone, but by every word that procceedth out of the mouth of….clods….

tony mcleod

“Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress…is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor”
Must be getting desparate Eric to concoct this sort of drivel.
The overwhelming, the vast majority agree with Mann.

richardscourtney

tony mcleod:
No, you are NOT “the vast majority”. Even his colleagues regard him with contempt.
Richard

tony mcleod

Really Richard? Which colleagues regard him with contempt?

John Endicott

Tony, you can find plenty of examples in the book: “A Disgrace To The Profession: The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science” . But then you already know that, as most trolls do know that which they won’t admit publicly.

JohnWho

“tony mcleod:
No, you are NOT “the vast majority”. ”
Perhaps tony is part of the “half-vast” majority?

TheDoctor

Excellent Point to demonstrate your understanding of rational reasoning:
The majority of Nazi-Pscientists disagreed with Einstein.

stevekeohane

Not overwhelmed here by his delusional fantasies.

John Endicott

Tony, where were the “overwhelming, the vast majority” when it came time to file third party amicus briefs in his defense in the case against steyn? not a single one of them showed up, yet numerous third party amicus briefs were filed on steyn’s side.

Bruce Cobb

Go back to your hidey-hole, you delusional, lying troll.

MarkW

As always, McClod has to invent support for his position.

Greg61

Mann used the bloody quote, Eric just pointed in out. If most agree with him, why is he complaining of persecution, you make no sense at all.

tony mcleod

Um, no he didn’t, have a closer look.

Mickey Reno

I just received my copy of Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession – The World’s Scientists in their Own Words on Michael E. Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science.” If you want to support Mark in his legal defense against Mann’s pernicious SLAPP lawsuit, you can buy a copy from the SteinOnline website.

Mickey Reno

I should also mention that Mann is also suing Dr. Tim Ball a Canadian court in a similar SLAPP type lawsuit (though SLAPP is not a law in Canada). Dr. Ball, do you have a legal support donation mechanism? I’d kick in a few bucks to help your defense against Mann.
Needless to say, if anyone is suppressing others, trying to deny people their own opinions on the shoddiness of Mann’s work, it’s Mann himself.

I Came I Saw I Left

“The overwhelming, the vast majority agree with Mann.”
And what’s your point? The vast majority like their mortgage paid and prestige.

tony mcleod
Are you referring to the 97%?
I’m no academic, but it only took me an hour of Googling to understand the fakiery of that claim.
I would post several credible links, but I doubt you would bother reading them, so I won’t bother posting them.

“tony mcleod May 25, 2017 at 4:30 am
“Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress…is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor”
Must be getting desparate{sic} Eric to concoct this sort of drivel.
The overwhelming, the vast majority agree with Mann.”

What exactly does Eric concoct?
• Mann’s public whining?
• Mann’s public blaming of others?
• Mann’s “everyone hates me” personal view of himself?
• Mann’s repeated insistence on using actual Holocaust horrors as basis for mann’s serial persecution complex?
Sure looks like manniacal concocted and is wallowing in his own problems.
Open scientific discussion would clear the air regarding cherry picked data,
bad mathematical formulae,
bad coding,
inappropriate statistics,
confirmation bias,
bias selected data inputs and bias assigned weightings, etc. etc.
Which is what open scientific discussion is supposed to accomplish; as opposed to the pal-review secret behind the scenes agreements ha allowed preferential treatment and overlooking bad scientific approaches.
Instead, insular refusals to openly discuss research, refusal to share all research in aid of independent experiment replication; To this date, there are zero independent replications of mann’s work. Every claimed replication required explicit mann assistance and selective use of program runs.
Which is to be expected when someone can even get the data groups aligned and oriented correctly.
pilt-down mann will be representative of the wrong way to conduct science for another hundred years.

tony mcleod

It’s Eric’s opinion is that “Michael Mann seems to think his personal distress…is comparable to the suffering of holocaust survivor” – evidenced by the ”seem to think” bit. Yes, that right, he made it up.
No biggie, Eric is entitled to his opinion.

Not Eric’s opinion.
mann’s opinion, words, actions and deeds.
Note mann’s emotional attacks coming from undefined nefarious “fossil fuel” interests. mann’s opinion is that of insecure paranoid afraid of his future.
Typical t. clod handwaving while stuck in la brea tar pits…

drednicolson

Ol’Tony, grasping at pedantic straws, as usual.

vukcevic

If such pronouncements were made by some uneducated bigot, one could assume that Dr. Mann is simply a nutter, but coming from someone who is an ‘educator’ at a well known University, it is simply unforgivable.
For his own sake Dr. Mann could do himself a lot of good by visiting one of the concentration camps and in the light of the experience think again.

Felflames

Actually “uneducated bigot” perfectly suits Mann, judging by past performances.

Crispin in Waterloo

You highlight the difference between schooling and education.

old construction worker

“…..Express His Personal Angst.” I could apply the same line of thinking to Mark Steyn

MarkW

You could, but you would be wrong.

John Bell

Mann is trying to claim victim status, an old trick, but it is not working this time.

Michael Jankowski

He’s done so many times before, claiming he is a “reluctant public figure.”

Tom Judd

Ok, I know I’m treading water (with my little fingers) at this site when I claim Michael Mann is correct. But I must do so. He is absolutely right. Don’t think so? Let me repeat the words for you:
“I will borrow and adapt—for our current time and place—the words of Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps:
….
….
Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a scientist.”

Dave Yaussy

+`1

bsl

I saw that too.
Michael Mann admits that he is not a scientist!

Mark B.

He also admits environmentalist are not scientists because the scientists are already gone.

Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.
==============
true. there is an epidemic of false positives in science. across the disciplines, peer reviewed papers are found to be irreducible or just plain wrong when someone tries to recreate the results.
the public is the loser in this, because we pay for the science, we trust peer review to ensure we get our money’s worth, but the system is failing to deliver value.
but of course the scientists argue that everything is OK, we should just keep on throwing good money after bad. why would scientists want to correct a broken system, when their paycheck depends on not correcting the system.

Samuel C Cogar

why would scientists want to correct a broken system, when their paycheck depends on not correcting the system.
Right you are, ferdberple, …… especially when one considers the fact that somewhere between 80% to 90+% of all currently employed scientists are entirely dependent upon government funding, in one way or the other, for their paychecks.
And if they even attempt to change the system there is a good possibility they will be “terminated”, ….. and there will be no non-government financed “science based” job opportunities for them to even apply for.

MarkW

Most peer review is little more than spell checking.

D. J. Hawkins

And it’s not meant to be very much more than that. Other than gross errors (hey look! a perpetual motion machine!) peer review isn’t meant to validate the research.

MarkW
I’m sure you have seen the hoax ‘THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT’, but Matt Ridley does a nice demolition job of the peer review system in his recent Times article.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/mocking-gender-studies/

AndyG55

peer-review is about “ok for publication”.
Do they want a paper put up for public scientific discussion. !
Trouble is when the publishers DON’T WANT certain truths discussed, or want to push a certain agenda.

Apparently Mann’s understanding of climate change is limited to the discovery that CO2 is a ghg. The fact that CO2 is a ghg just scratches the surface.
Delve deeper into the science and discover that thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. See why at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

And there will be people who can tell, that there are no GHGs at all. Like myself.

MarkW

Trying to refute bad science with worse science doesn’t get us anywhere.

TheDoctor

@MarkW
1+

@MarkW “Trying to refute bad science with worse science doesn’t get us anywhere.”
I am not sure of his definition of “GHG” since I have seen so many versions crop up. We really can’t do science without careful definitions. (for example, most of us are sloppy about the term “heat”)
Even so, I will say that there are the Warmers, the Luke-Warmers, and the Skeptics. The Skeptics include those who are not free to go into any detail here at this site since that would be too close to the “Sl@yer Nonsense”. One is not even supposed to link to one of those people. That is outlined in the site policy. All in all Mark, all that is too bad because both sides make some good arguments and I learn from people having reasoned debates. I missed the past “Sl@yer Wars” here but have read some reviews of battles.
All I can really say is that it appears by observation that the “climate sensitivity” of CO2 is either zero or so close to zero that you can not detect it. Notice that temperature rises before we see that CO2 goes up on all time scales. That one fact says a lot to me.

Crispin in Waterloo

“Apparently Mann’s understanding of climate change is limited to the discovery that CO2 is a ghg.”
And that water vapour is not. 🙂

MarkW

The claim is that the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is controlled by the amount of CO2.
More CO2 leads to more H2O, which results in even more warming.

MarkW – The claim that CO2 has a significant influence on climate is false. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no influence on the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. The ‘notch’ in the TOA (top-of-atmosphere) at the CO2 absorption band wavelength demonstrates that thermalization and Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy have occurred and (below about 10 km) essentially transferred the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules over to the lower energy bands of water vapor molecules. See my analysis (link above) for more.
Water vapor is increasing about 3 times as fast as it should for just feedback (water temperature increase).

Cris – EPA got WV wrong so perhaps Mann did also.

Keith J

Water vapor represents cooling of the surface via latent heat of vaporization. Condensation happens at altitude, bypassing some of the carbon dioxide enhanced insulation.

AndyG55

enhanced insulation???
CO2 is not and never has been an insulator.
It radiative properties mean it is a transmission conduit for radiant energy.

AndyG – True, CO2 is a “transmission conduit for radiant energy” but only when there is practically no WV around, like near the poles. Elsewhere, the short time between molecule contact (about 0.0002 micro seconds) compared to the ‘relaxation time’ of CO2 molecules (about 6 micro seconds) results in the energy absorbed by the CO2 being thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules). Part of the thermalized energy appears in the lower energy radiation bands of WV molecules. The rest of the thermalized radiation energy drives convection.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

This appalling misappropriation of the words of someone who suffered the unspeakable horrors of the Shoah is a disgrace showing no regard for any sense of propriety or willingness to moderate language when Mann’s own, narrow, interests are challenged by fact and science. We can clearly see who the truth denier is here and how close he is in his wild use of words to the mentality of those who burn books and contrary evidence.

Crispin in Waterloo

Moderately
In the case of the Hockey Stick paper, Mann definitely did not burn the contrary evidence, he archived it in the file CENSORED. and McIntyre thanked him for ‘providing it’ in his 2003 landmark paper deconstructing MBH98.
Dr Mann got a lot better at hiding the contrary evidence following that episode, and even sent an email to others reminding them to do the same. We all live and learn…

PiperPaul

I detect that this makes you more than Moderately Cross…

Not that we can blame Moderately Cross of East Anglia.
Michael Mann, a privileged, middle class leftist, safe in the bosom of mother America is free to voice his opinions, using the plight of unfortunate communities (Jewish or otherwise) to promote his singular view. Disgusting, despotic little oik.
Of the 20th Century’s seven most despotic regimes, China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Cuba, N. Korea and Spain, all but one (Spain) were socialist derived.
Given the choice which, fortunately, I have, the last people I would vote into power would be a socialist organisation.

richardscourtney

HorScot:
That was a good try at waving a ‘red herring’; but it fails.
This thread is about the behaviour of Michael Mann and not the deluded opinions of you or anybody else concerning any political ‘isms’.
Importantly, your attempted ‘red herring’ is especially offensive because this thread is specifically discussing Mann’s parody of the words of Martin Niemöller, and Martin Niemöller’s words were

First they came for the Socialists , and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

emphasis added: RSC
Richard

Chimp

Richard,
That’s the version from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, which is incorrect. Different variants and paraphrasings circulated, not written by Niemöller himself. In its original version, he referred to trade unions in general, but to specific political parties targeted by the N@zis, starting with Communists, then the Social Democrats, who were of course socialists.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm
In 1976, Niemöller replied to an interview question from New Left theorist Herbert Marcuse, asking about the origins of the statement. The Martin-Niemöller-Foundation (Stiftung) considers this the “classical” version:
“There were no minutes or copy of what I said, and it may be that I formulated it differently. But the idea was anyhow: The Communists, we still let that happen calmly; and the trade unions, we also let that happen; and we even let the Social Democrats happen. All of that was not our affair. The Church did not concern itself with politics at all at that time, and it shouldn’t have anything do with them either. In the Confessing Church we didn’t want to represent any political resistance per se, but we wanted to determine for the Church that that was not right, and that it should not become right in the Church, that’s why already in ’33, when we created the pastors’ emergency federation (Pfarrernotbund), we put as the 4th point in the founding charter: If an offensive is made against ministers and they are simply ousted as ministers, because they are of Jewish lineage (Judenstämmlinge) or something like that, then we can only say as a Church: No. And that was then the 4th point in the obligation, and that was probably the first contra-anti-Semitic pronouncement coming from the Protestant Church.”
German text:
http://martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/martin-niemoeller/originaltexte

richardscourtney

chimp:
Thanks for that.
As you say, the Social Democrats were socialists so you are clarifying but not disputing the point of my post.
The additional information you provide is both useful and helpful.
Again, thankyou.
Richard

Chimp

You’re welcome.
The National Socialists came for their political opponents, ie Communists, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, conservative Catholic parties and Lutheran resisters like Niemoeller, as well as trade unions and innocents like the disabled, Jews, Gypsies and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Holocaust Memorial Museum staff should shame Mann.

Dodgy Geezer

So… Mann is Pastor Niemöller. And Trump is Hitler.
I wonder who Himmler, Goebbels and Rohm are?

Harry Passfield

Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a scientist.

At last, some honesty from Mann!

richardscourtney

+ as many as I can manage

Matt Bergin

I noticed that as well. It made me laugh, luckily I wasn’t drinking at the time

JohnWho

I was just about to post that as well.
I wonder if that quote will be used by Mark Steyn?

Crispin in Waterloo

Oh…you guys! He is a scientist. His assertions are incorrect, that’s all. Being a scientist doesn’t mean one is a good or truthful scientist. Drunk drivers are still ‘drivers’.

Leo Smith

Being a scientist does mean one is a good and truthful scientist.
Its a bit like saying that Doctor Harold Shipman was still a doctor.

TheDoctor

Despite common believe – a scientist is not(!) defined to be someone wearing a white lab coat or owning a „Certificate of Attendance“ from some official indoctrination center.
A scientist is somebody who sticks strictly to the Scientific Method to avoid known fallacies, no matter whether or not he “owns” a degree or holding a Prize or having a job in academia. Having the privilege of high quality education and training helps a lot, but is not necessary. On the other hand most so called scientist are nothing more than cargo cultists.
MM does not apply even basic scientific standards to his work. So he is NOT a scientist.

AndyG55

“Drunk drivers are still ‘drivers’.”
But they shouldn’t be allowed to be !!

TheDoctor
Surely a scientist is simply one who asks questions?
Training merely shortens the time between which we ask the questions, then learn how to answer them, thereafter, a qualification is awarded.
A qualification doesn’t make one a scientist, it merely acknowledges one has accelerated one’s learning process.
I would go as far as to speculate that the scientific process is contrary to science, in that it prescribes a method by which a conclusion is reached.
By that measure, there can be no intuitive inventions, indeed, there can be no hypothesis to examine in science as, I suspect, most experiments are driven by an initial intuitive question, and the desire is to prove, or disprove it.

TheDoctor

@ HotScot
“I would go as far as to speculate that the scientific process is contrary to science, in that it prescribes a method by which a conclusion is reached.”
This is actually what I wanted to get across and why I consider most people labeled as scientists cargo cultist. They simply follow procedures they never comprehended and never questioned. While this can be a quite successful strategy in “normal” life, it’s a fast lane track to disaster in the field of science.
“The Scientific Method” is not and must not be a strict protocol automatically generating academically correct results. If this were the case, it would result exactly to what you described:
“I would go as far as to speculate that the scientific process is contrary to science, in that it prescribes a method by which a conclusion is reached. By that measure, there can be no intuitive inventions, indeed, there can be no hypothesis to examine in science as, I suspect, most experiments are driven by an initial intuitive question, and the desire is to prove, or disprove it.”
From my point of view it is basically a set of strict rules that keep honest researchers from fooling themselves and others by avoiding common fallacies:
– Don’t rely on authority.
– All observational data have errors, which must be taken into account.
– Don’t adjust observational data. If you have reason to believe there is an above average error adjust the error bar!
– Scientific reasoning is based on falsification of wrong claims. It’s logically impossible to prove anything right.
– Your claims and results must be reproducible by other researchers.
– Volunteer all(!) your data and exact method of analysis, so other researcher can double (triple …) check your work for honest mistakes

Regards HB

John Bell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer I think Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer can shed some light on much of the climate alarmism mentality.

BallBounces

It is apparent Mann thirsts for significance. He sees his life’s work in heroic, cosmic terms. In fact, it is quite unlikely that either the earth’s environment or human population has any particular need of Michael Mann.

Leo Smith

he’s a nebbish.

PiperPaul

Straight out of central casting for nebbishes.

J.H.

Michael Mann has no scientific arguments to offer, otherwise he would simply present his facts and data. But he hasn’t any…. So he resorts to hyperbole. He is indeed a clown… A climate clown.

fretslider

Does Mann ever have an original thought of his own?
A class act like Mann deserves a name: hirundinidae

Richard Ilfeld

“Why do people still listen to this clown?”
There is a serious answer to this question, which the community here, after generally rolling their eyes at Dr. Mann’s, is probably generally aware of.
“Climate Change” has, a serious side. We live, even with all of our modern conveniences and protections, in natural world that provides us with serious challenges from time to time. We progress by understanding these challenges and coordinating or compensating as necessary.
There is a large and valid science of climate change.
There is a tangentially related cult of CLIMATE CHANGE. The elements of cults are quite well understood; as is the psychology of those who become true believers. The willingness of cult followers to turn belief into action with unquestioning loyalty does much to explain the affinity between cults and politics. The politics of an almost evenly divided electorate where a small dedicated swing group can become difference in close races explains the outsized influence of secular, voting, cults in western style democracies. The messianic tendencies of cult leaders are part of the reinforcing feedback loop between the leaders and the followers.
Although cults often arise in a religious context, they are noit intrinsically religious, thus is is probably somewhat inaccurate to inveigh the oft-used comparison of Green Gaia worship to a region. It is lilely more illuminating to focus on the followers, who turn out to be quite fungible in moving from cult to cult, or adopting more than one if they are not exclusionary. Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” needs to be deprogrammed by the same tools used in inculcation, in an environment where immunity to reason & logic and a distrustful (and correct) view of opponents as potential deprogrammers reinforces group cohesion around even unattractive leaders.
How strong are cult beliefs? When the Millerites, gathered on the mountain to await the second coming, only to awake the next morning to find themselves in the same old world, they did not wholesale abandon their beliefs. Their “great disappointment” did not eliminate the sect.
One successful strategy is to engage with the fellow travelers, offering rewards for participation in society larger than those for being drawn into the black hole of the cult. If Dr. Mann must appear, report about him, but eliminate the first person. Shun the cult, engage the still persuadable.
He isn’t a clown to the true believer.

PiperPaul

The Klimate Kult would not have gotten so far were it not for their unquestioning enablers and relentless cheerleaders: (most of) the mainstream media in search of importance, sensationalism and compelling stories.

mikewaite

I cannot quite reconcile Tony Macleod’s view that M Mann is a great scientist with the fact that he has not written a textbook to educate such as myself in his pioneering statistical methods. Yes he has written books, but they seem to be mainly polemical or biographical essays .
At university I remember most of our chemistry lecturers taught with their own textbooks as the course notes – a captive audience of course, but also a sign to the outer scientific world of their status as scholars and researchers
On my bookshelf are books by Goody , Houghton , Salby , Henderson -Sellars which not only take you through the basics but also have problems where you pit your intelligence and hopefully increased knowledge against that of the author. Several of the most respected commenters here have also written eboks or hard copy texts that address the basic issues.
Why has Mann not done the same ?
Are his course notes for the students that he teaches available on the internet?. It is not uncommon amongst US academics I have noticed.

D. J. Hawkins

I don’t believe he actually teaches. He’s a grant grubber. Keener senses than any truffle-hunting pig.

Harry Passfield

Something else that no-one seems to have picked up on. Mann (I assume it is Mann’s quote) says:,blockquote>That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.
And so here we are, at a crossroads.Now, I can’t remember having heard such procrastination from the old egotist before. Is he now accepting that AGW (to him – Climate Change to anyone else) may not be such a bad thing after all? Is he now trying to ‘sell’ the option? And is this a crack in the dam?

D. J. Hawkins

No, he’s saying “enact the Paris Accords and get mild Climate Change or follow Trump and we’ll all die”.

Harry Passfield

Cocked up the blockquote.
Something else that no-one seems to have picked up on. Mann (I assume it is Mann’s quote) says:

That evidence now shows us that we face a stark choice, between a future with a little more climate change that we will still have to adapt to and cope with, and one with catastrophic climate change that will threaten the future of life as we know it.
And so here we are, at a crossroads.

Now, I can’t remember having heard such procrastination from the old egotist before. Is he now accepting that AGW (to him – Climate Change to anyone else) may not be such a bad thing after all? Is he now trying to ‘sell’ the option? And is this a crack in the dam?

Science is under assault by climate science.

Professor Mann has no worries. They never came for Lysenko, not even for his retirement entitlements.

Chimp

Sound familiar?
With an American colleague, later to be a famous child psychiatrist, I once attended a Marxist colloquium in the history of science at Oxford. I mentioned Lysenko, and was promptly banned forever and cast into outer darkness. But the facts remain.
Following Stalin’s death in 1953, Lysenko retained his position, with the support of the new leader Nikita Khrushchev. However, mainstream scientists re-emerged, and found new willingness within Soviet government leadership to tolerate criticism of Lysenko, the first opportunity since the late 1920s.
In 1962, three of the most prominent Soviet physicists, Yakov Borisovich Zel’dovich, Vitaly Ginzburg, and Pyotr Kapitsa, presented a case against Lysenko, proclaiming his work as pseudoscience. They also denounced Lysenko’s application of political power to silence opposition and eliminate his opponents within the scientific community. These denunciations occurred during a period of structural upheaval in Soviet government, during which the major institutions were purged of the strictly ideological and political machinations which had controlled the work of the Soviet Union’s scientific community for several decades under Stalin.
In 1964, physicist Andrei Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
“He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.”
The Soviet press was soon filled with anti-Lysenkoite articles and appeals for the restoration of scientific methods to all fields of biology and agricultural science. In 1965, Lysenko was removed from his post as director of the Institute of Genetics at the Academy of Sciences and restricted to an experimental farm in Moscow’s Lenin Hills (the Institute itself was soon dissolved). After Khrushchev’s dismissal in 1964, the president of the Academy of Sciences declared that Lysenko’s immunity to criticism had officially ended. An expert commission was sent to investigate records kept at Lysenko’s experimental farm. His secretive methods and ideas were revealed. A few months later, a devastating critique of Lysenko was made public. Consequently, Lysenko was immediately disgraced in the Soviet Union.
After Lysenko’s monopoly on biology and agronomy had ended, it took many years for these sciences to recover in Russia. Lysenko died in Moscow in 1976, and was ultimately interred in the Kuntsevo Cemetery, although the Soviet government refused to announce Lysenko’s death for two days after the event and gave his passing only a small note in Izvestia.

Mary Brown

Michael Mann: “If You Believe in Science You Must Now Make Your Voice Heard”
Dr Mann and I agree completely on this. But he doesn’t want my voice to be heard.
When laymen talk to me about this issue, I tell them that legislative progress has been slow, not because of “Big Oil and their paid liars”, but because of thousands of educated skeptics like me who are steadily undermining the catastrophic hype.
Our voices are being heard.

Indeed, sanity will one day prevail. Keep going fellow sceptics.

Clyde Spencer

Except when our “voices” are removed. A couple days ago I commented on an op-ed, correcting misstatements about Plate Tectonics, presumably attributed to Oreskes. When I checked back yesterday to see if there were any responses, the article was still there but there were NO comments. It was the only one in a string of articles on the page that was lacking comments or even the opportunity to make them. Actually, it may be good news if publishers are so afraid of ‘fact checking.’

Bill Illis

Michael Mann started the skeptic movement.
There wasn’t really a skeptical movement until people saw what was done in the Hockey Stick. That is when people said to themselves “wait a minute, what is really going on here?”.
He also taught climate science that propaganda was the way to get ahead in the field with what happened through the Hockey Stick.
Then he became the leader of the movement to suppress contrary research.
I mean, if he didn’t exist, lots of the problems we see now might never have existed either.

commieBob

Michael Mann started the skeptic movement.

I believed the CAGW propaganda until Mann came along.

1saveenergy

And me !!

AndyG55

Others have had a big hand in creating skeptics.
The guys involved in climategate woke people up to the FACT that data, has been adjusted.
Cook et. al showed people that data could be massively WARPED to support an agenda.
Every one of the clowns making outlandish “predictions” about things that just haven’t happened, have also had their bit to play. Wadhams, Shepherd, etc etc
And then the PAID climate trolls. they also deserve a vote of thanks, Mosh, etc etc.

AndyG55

And let’s not forget Gavin and the boys at NOAA. !!

AndyG55

I’m sure others could name names who have unintentionally helped the skeptic cause with their outward projection of idiocy.

Every sceptical comment is a small nail in the alarmist coffin. Keep going fellow sceptics.

commieBob

Martin Niemöller’s words apply to all of us, not just the victims of the holocaust. They are a warning that we must nip evil in the bud. We must not stand idly by while others are victimized. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” link
Mann’s use of those words just sounds sanctimonious. Pathetic.

Bruce Cobb

I read his speech up until this: “Now, let me regale you with a story about my own college experience.”
Oh. My. God. What a bloviating, egotistical blowhard. How does he even stand himself?

A tiny Michael Mann floats above you with ethereal wings of silk. He sprinkles fairy dust on you while you think happy thoughts and say, “I believe in science. I believe in science. I believe in science.”
Then you can fly.

PiperPaul

“Then you can fly”… right off the economic cliff with all the other Climate Change True Believer lemmings.

Of course. It’s science. They will fly right past the second star to the right and straight on to morning.
“All the world is made of faith and trust and pixie dust.” Michael Mann quoting JM Barrie

Walter Sobchak

Well, he nailed that one:
Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a scientist.

“Never before have we witnessed science under the kind of assault it is being subject to right now in this country.”
The guy is absolutely right! It’s just that he hasn’t quite yet worked out where the assault is coming from or that he is a major part of it.
As for the paraphrasing of Pastor Niemöller … millions of people died to get rid of those who persecuted him. Millions may still die before we get rid of Mann and his anti-humanity, anti-science cult.

Butch

…”Drain the Swamp” !!

Bruce Cobb

Mikey’s role as Chief Climate Clown and Climate Crybully suit him well.

Paul Penrose

Really? Michael Mann being *criticized* is equivalent to physical torture and starvation? He and his supporters like Tony McClod should be ashamed of themselves. The fact that they aren’t tells you a great deal about them, and their supposed science.