Another Manntastic Claim: “scientists live by a covenant”

Had a bit of insomnia tonight (from falling asleep early), and this popped up in my message stream on Facebook. I didn’t expect to post again so soon, but his deserved airing.

Michael Mann:

There’s a big asymmetry in the public conversation. Scientists live by a covenant to be truthful, to be skeptical in an honest way, stating the caveats and uncertainties, and yet we’re often in battle with climate change deniers who don’t play by those rules.

See Noble Cause Corruption:

Noble cause corruption is corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system, suggesting that people will use unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals, a result which appears to benefit the greater good. Where traditional corruption is defined by personal gain, noble cause corruptions forms when someone is convinced of their righteousness, and will do anything within their powers to achieve the desired result. An example of noble cause corruption is police misconduct “committed in the name of good ends” or neglect of due process through “a moral commitment to make the world a safer place to live.”

See also: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

See also “climategate”

From: Phil Jones. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004

Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future.”

Yes there is a “covenant” among climate scientists for certain, it’s just not the same covenant Dr. Mann thinks it is.

 

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Another Manntastic Claim: “scientists live by a covenant”

  1. Well, he lives still in his never changing “climate”; anyway his court case against Dr. Tim Ball is apparently in decline.

  2. The assertion that Michael Mann is a scientist would have to be the new gold standard for an oxymoron. It certainly makes military intelligence seem a fairly banal and honest descriptive term.

    “Mike Nature Trick” eh? Now that’s a covenant all right – with Satan himself.

    • Do we not sometimes wonder if perhaps Michael Mann is just stupid? Smart enough to test through but really lacking comprehension?

      • I don’t think he is that stupid, just self delusional. I think a lot if not most of the younger crop of ‘climate scientists’ * are actually driven by a narcissism and a desire to be seen as ‘heroes’ which utterly distorts their grip on reality such that a fiddle here and a tickle there seems, well reasonable speculation cos it might help save the world.

        We had a Federal Court judge in Oz tell a po faced lie a few years ago about a speeding infringement on the highway leading to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Denied he was driving, blamed a woman from the US who had borrowed his car. Trouble was she had passed away well before the incident. It was crazy. The fine was a few hundred $ at most and he ended up doing years behind bars for his lies and because of who he was. The point being that even the mighty and high achievers can tell utter lies for even quite petty reasons driven by ego and a brain fart.

        * I actually miss typed this first up as ‘slimate scientists’ which readily becomes ‘slimate clientists’. Isn’t that just a perfect description of Mann and co? well in my opinion it is. (settle down moderator, probably defamatory but honest opinion. :-) )

    • Mann has been at this for a long time. He gets paid for his position on the climate question so he must continue the current meme no matter what. The left has a record of modifying history to control the future (“1984”).

  3. That is perhaps the most extraordinary statement I have ever seen from a climate scientist!

    All us “Deniers” want is a bit of scepticism, combined with an acknowledgement that there is plenty we do not know..

    Yet I have never seen a single climate scientist admit that ANY paper or statement produced or made by another climate scientist is anything other than the perfect truth, or that our knowledge is anything less than sufficient to radically change our economies.

    Sadly I suspect Mann actually believes himself.

    • Michael Mann has a demonstrable mental disorder. Who else would lie to themselves and believe it so thoroughly?

      • OJ comes to mind, but there is a book called Elephant in the Brain…I think which touches on this subject.

        There was a study where they had people go into a room individually. Then someone would hold up a sign that would ask them to leave the room. Upon interviewing these people on why they left the room most people said a person was holding a sign that read to leave the room. BUT there was a group of people that had all different kinds of answers like I needed to run to another appointment, had to go to the bathroom….

      • Doug July 6, 2017 at 8:11 am

        … there was a group of people that had all different kinds of answers like I needed to run to another appointment, had to go to the bathroom….

        People will always have a reason why they did something. It could be made up. That’s called confabulation. Most of the time when we think we’re being reasonable, we’re just kidding ourselves … literally. link

    • “Yet I have never seen a single climate scientist admit that ANY paper or statement produced or made by another climate scientist is anything other than the perfect truth, or that our knowledge is anything less than sufficient to radically change our economies.”

      I don’t believe this is true. I have seen many climate scientists express doubts. However, empty barrels make the most noise. About ten or fifteen climate scientists are most often heard from in the public and these “scientists” rarely express doubts. When they do, it is usually, “we are being conservative.”

  4. I am a life-long scientist, and I teach a course on the scientific method and critical thinking. Workers such as Mann, who distort their data to support a predetermined conclusion, should be driven out of the field. Environmentalism, which includes much current “climate” thinking, has done major and perhaps permanent harm to the field of Science. It makes me very sad.

    • Geologist Down The Pub July 6, 2017 at 4:15 am

      Yes, you’re quite right. It’s going to take decades or longer for the reputation of science, the scientific method and proper scientists to recover from this monumental planet wide scam.

    • I think taking critical thinking courses should be MANDATORY in both public schools and universities, especially in science degrees.

      • Yes, students should be taught logic and the difference between syllogisms and propaganda and how to recognize fallacies. I met a chap who claimed he taught “critical thinking” at a school. Unfortunately, he was unable to recognize the many fallacies that AGW is based on. I concluded that he was probably teaching his students WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think, indoctrination instead of lecture.

      • kids need to know how to think before they are pushed into moloch’s maw .
        and it won’t happen until parents take their own responsibilities seriously and stop delivering their own offspring into the hands of cultists.

      • From http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/university-students-are-not-learning-analytical-thinking-skills-becoming-like-donald-trump/news-story/44d56cfe61f216ab81059a28511ec675

        Dr Sandra Egege said her review of US and Australian research showed students were not picking up critical thinking skills in their studies, so universities needed to teach them more explicitly.

        Dr Egege said university graduates had no better reasoning ability than high school graduates — particularly worrying given high schoolers were becoming less literate — and there was no difference across degree programs.

        “We are so focused on teaching students the content of a subject that we are not giving them the skills to think logically and analytically about that subject,” she said.

        “Students are in danger of thinking like (US President) Trump — they don’t think critically — they like to jump to conclusions based on fake news and opinion.

      • People take Critical Theory classes and think they are learning critical thinking. There’s just a little bit of a difference there…

      • For leftivists in academia, you think critically when you think the “correct” thoughts.

    • Noble cause corruption is an oxymoron. Corruption is just corruption and it is never “noble.”

      Corruption is; “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.” Fraud is; “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”

      One cannot be both noble and fraudulent at the same time on the same subject.

    • Geologist Down the Pub

      I share your concerns but see an even bigger danger. “Environmentalism” and its pseudo scientific preaching led hand in hand by ever more pervasive political correctness, is opening up something far more ominous: a deliberate movement aimed at re-introducing a mindset and social discourse where emotion and fact, belief and rational analysis – are treated as equals – as in pre-Renaissance and pre-Enlightenment days. Reality is that we today have one full generation – the so called 25-35 year old Millennials – who have heard not other than the CAGW/CACC dogma in one form or another since kinder garden, studiously shielded at school / university and by the various MSM from hearing the skeptic side of the story.

      My eldest and youngest sons are both engineers. The eldest is 42 [Gen X ] and the youngest 32 [Millennial]. Both got my consistently skeptical take on the CAGW/CACC dogma for 20+ years – today the youngest needs to be reminded he’s an engineer after all and that facts and “believing” are polar opposites, while the eldest has been clear in his understanding that ” the physics don’t work, where’s the empirical evidence and what’s left of the CAGW story when you control for the politics?” for a long time..

    • Dis you come across this in your teaching? Dorothy L Sayers on “The Lost Tools of Learning” .
      http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
      “…. if we are to produce a society of educated people, fitted to preserve their intellectual freedom amid the complex pressures of our modern society, we must turn back the wheel of progress some four or five hundred years, to the point at which education began to lose sight of its true object, towards the end of the Middle Ages.”
      The syllabus was divided into two parts: the Trivium and Quadrivium. The second part–the Quadrivium–consisted of “subjects,” and need not for the moment concern us. The interesting thing for us is the composition of the Trivium, which preceded the Quadrivium and was the preliminary discipline for it. It consisted of three parts: Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric, in that order…..etc”
      ….
      Very useful reading for all who teach in this century and were taught in the last century after WWII.
      A pleasant read for those on holiday in the Northern hemisphere

  5. I am trained in statistics and the one thing I learned long ago from a great University lecturer is that statistics can be abused as well as used. Mann is very good at the abuse and we need to call it out wherever we see it not just in climatology but in government where stats re used to justify the most incredible rubbish. Steve McKittrick did us a great favour in identifying the flaws in Mann’s work and Mann is now largely discredited but our politicians, most of whom are utterly scientifically and mathematically illiterate, still go along with all this nonsense, while passing laws that rightly prosecute businesses that behave badly for deceptive and misleading conduct. I would love to see our Consumer laws applied to the dodgy scientists who have cost us so much money and wasted resources for nothing that I can see.
    I just want us all to recognise that science is a process of testing knowledge and building on solid foundations whereas climate science is at best just another religio, based on the evidence I have seen.

    • Quilter
      It is polite to at least get names correct.
      You might be thinking of Ross McKittrick and Steve McIntyre.
      It is not good enough to mention their names when you blog.
      They did a large body of work.
      Please quote, with references where possible, the part of that work you are using to make your point.
      Thanks. Geoff.

      • And for those more thorough with data, please note that the correct spelling of McKitrick has not been picked up yet by bloggers here. Some hours have passed. Testing.
        Geoff

    • statistics, as a notable wag once said, is like a bikini. The stuff it covers is more important than the stuff it shows .

  6. Maybe a covenant of fraudsters…

    Penn State scientist threatens legal action over Sandusky comparison

    By ANDREW RESTUCCIA | 7/23/12 2:01 PM EDT
    Penn State University global warming researcher Michael Mann is lawyering up to counter attacks by conservatives who have referred to him as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.”

    Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”

    […]

    The National Review Online post quoted from a now-deleted line by CEI’s Rand Simberg, who wrote: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

    CEI later removed the line and added an editor’s note that said, “Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor.”

    […]

    Simberg, in an email to POLITICO, said his Sandusky comparison “was to the fact that the Penn State administration covered up Mann’s behavior in a similar manner, not in the behavior itself,” adding, “neither I or anyone was accusing [Mann] of child molestation.”

    Mann will have a difficult time winning any future lawsuit because he “has already made himself a public figure” and “neither I, nor Mark Steyn or anyone else have written anything actionable or false, as far as I know,” Simberg said.

    “I think he’s just blowing smoke in hopes of getting a cheap ‘apology.’ I guess if he does decide to come after me, I’ll crowd source a legal defense fund, or find someone to take it on pro bono. I suspect I’ll have no shortage of support,” Simberg said, stressing that he is speaking for himself and not CEI

    […]

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78852_Page2.html#ixzz21YALzcBe

    The Penn State whitewash was ludicrous…

    After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.

    There’s no evidence that Mann intended to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. OK. I’ll buy that. It can’t be proven that he intended to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. It’s entirely possible that he accidentally devised a method to suppress or falsify inconvenient data.

    This bit here was laughable…

    In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field. 

    The most benign possible interpretation of the “trick” is that they edited part of Briffa’s reconstruction because the tree ring chronology showed that the 1930s to early 1940′s were warmer than the late 1990′s. So, they just substituted the instrumental record for the tree ring chronology.

    I suppose that there is no evidence that Mann did this with intent to deceive… However, when he advised Phil Jones to employ that same method on Keith Briffa’s inconvenient reconstruction, he was intentionally acting to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. The fact that they called it “Mike’s nature trick” sure makes it seem like this sort of thing was SOP.

    Taking a set of data that shows that the 1930′s were warmer than the 1990′s and using another data set to reverse that relationship is not bringing “two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.” It’s a total bastardization of the data.

    To see an example of “Mike’s Nature Trick,” go here… Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia 

    Click this… EIV Temperature Reconstructions

    Open up any of the **cru_eiv_composite.csv or **had_eiv_composite.csv files. All of them splice the high frequency instrumental data into the low frequency proxy data. To Mann’s credit, unlike his previous “tricks,” he at least documents this one enough to sort it out.

    This statement from their PNAS paper is totally unsupported by proxy reconstructions… “Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years.”

    The anomalous nature of the “recent warmth” is entirely dependent on the “tricky” use of the instrumental data. He didn’t use any proxy data post-1855.

    This image from Mann’s 2008 paper falsely implies that all of the reconstructions are in general agreement regarding the claim that the “recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years”…

    By cluttering up the image with many reconstructions and plastering the instrumental record onto end of the graph, it’s impossible to see any details.

    Here are Mann (Had_EIV), Moberg and Ljungqvist without the clutter…

    Zoomed in on post-1800…

    And Mike’s Nature Trick…

    The Modern Warming appears anomalous because of the higher resolution of the instrumental record, its position at the tail-end of the time series and the negative deflection of the Little Ice Age trough (ca 1600 AD)…

    If the Modern Warming is directly compared to the Medieval Warm Period, it appears to be far less anomalous, despite ithe better resolution of the instrumental record…

    Particularly if you clutter the image with multiple reconstructions…

    The Modern Warming might be 0.2-0.4°C warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. This would be consistent with a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1.0°C per doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level (the Gorebots say the sensitivity is ~3°C). Although the difference between the MW and MWP is well within the margins of error of the proxy and instrumental reconstructions and could easily be explained by the higher resolution of the instrumental record.

    References:

    Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.
    A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.
    Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351, September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-459.2010.00399.x

    Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, M.K. Hughes, R.S. Bradley, S.K. Miller, S. Rutherford, and F. Ni. 2008.
    Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 36, September 9, 2008. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105

    Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
    Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data.
    Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.

    Instrumental Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU via Wood for Trees

    The NOAA OIG “found eight emails which… warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data.” Most of the 1,073 emails reviewed by NOAA’s OIG did not involve “NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data.”

    This is from the OIG’s actual report

    […]

    In our own review of all 1,073 CRU emails, we found eight emails which, in our judgment, warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data. As a result, we conducted interviews with the relevant NOAA scientists regarding these eight emails, and have summarized their responses and explanations in the enclosure.

    In addition to the foregoing, we also found two other emails that raised questions, one regarding a 2002 contract NOAA awarded to the CRU, and the second involving actions on the part of two NOAA scientists in 2007.

    […]

    As detailed in the enclosure, we recommend that NOAA examine the CRU contract issues implicated by the one email and provide the results to us.

    […]

    [T]he CRU emails referenced a specific IPCC-related FOIA request received and responded to by NOAA in June 2007 that led to our further examination of how those FOIA requests were handled. We determined that, at the time, NOAA did not conduct a proper search for responsive documents as required under FOIA, and, as a result, did not have a sufficient basis to inform the requesters that it had no responsive documents. Given that federal agencies are legally obligated to publicly disclose records under the terms of FOIA, we recommend that NOAA conduct a proper search for responsive records as required by the FOIA, and reassess its response to the four FOIA requests in question, as appropriate. Additionally, based on the issues we identified in NOAA’s handling of these particular FOIA requests, NOAA should consider whether these issues warrant an overall assessment of the sufficiency of its FOIA process.

    […] 

    The FOIA is particularly troublesome. NOAA claims that work they do related to the IPCC is not subject to FOIA and that they do not have to respond to FOIA requests related to IPCC-related work. NOAA informed the OIG that they made that determination based on legal counsel. The career attorneys, NOAA claims provided the advice, say that they were never asked for such advice and there is no record of NOAA receiving such advice…

    Thwarting FOIA 

    “The Co-Chair of the IPCC AR4 WG1, who was the only NOAA scientist informed of any of the aforementioned FOIA requests, told us that she did not conduct a ‘comprehensive search’ for and forward potentially responsive documents for agency processing. This was based, in part, on her understanding that her IPCC-related work product was the property of the IPCC, due to the confidentiality provisions contained in many of the documents. In addition, she reportedly received verbal guidance from her supervisor and a NOAA OGC attorney that the IPCC-related documents she had created and/or obtained while on “detail” assignment to the IPCC did not constitute NOAA records.” [Emphasis added]

    “We interviewed the two NOAA OGC attorneys whom the Co-Chair and her supervisor referenced during their interviews with us to determine what, if any, advice the attorneys provided to these individuals. Both attorneys specifically told us that they had not advised the Co-Chair or her supervisor on this matter at the time NOAA received the FOIA requests referenced herein. One attorney said that he never spoke to the Co-Chair about that issue, while the second attorney told us that he was consulted only after NOAA had already responded to the FOIA requesters that it had no responsive documents.” [Emphasis added]

    “Based on our interviews of the two NOAA OGC attorneys, we followed-up with the Co-Chair and her supervisor, both of whom again told us that their handling of the aforementioned FOIA requests was based on advice they had received from these two specific attorneys. We requested from the Co-Chair and her supervisor documentation of any discussions with the NOAA OGC attorneys on this matter, which they were unable to provide. As such, we were unable to reconcile the divergent accounts.” [Emphasis added]

    WUWT

    FOIA includes provisions as to what constitutes an “agency record.” Under FOIA, an agency must exert sufficient control over the requested documents to render them “agency records” such as would be subject to disclosure. To qualify as agency records, documents must be created or obtained by the agency and under its control at the time the FOIA request is made.23 The Co-Chair informed us that the IPCC process was governed by an implicit policy of confidentiality with respect to, for example, the pre-decisional correspondences of its members. We examined IPCC-related records in the possession of NOAA employees, some of which contained the directive “Do Not Cite or Quote,” and others of which had “Confidential. Do Not Cite or Quote.” However, none of the NOAA employees with whom we spoke who participated in the IPCC AR4 recalled explicit IPCC policies or procedures pertaining to the confidentiality of the material produced as part of the assessment process. Absent such an unambiguous directive, in our view, the IPCC did not demonstrate a clear intent to retain control over the records created or obtained by NOAA employees.24

    OIG Report, Page 18

    One of the “eight emails which… warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity”…

    CRU email #1140039406. This email, dated February 15,2006, documented exchanges between several climate scientists, including the Deputy Director of CRU, related to their contributions to chapter six ofthe IPCC AR4. In one such exchange, the Deputy Director of CRU warned his colleagues not to “let [the Co-Chair of AR4 WGl] (or [a researcher at Pennsylvania State University]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right” in terms of stating in the AR4 “conclusions beyond what we can securely justify.” 

    The CRU’s Keith Briffa was warning his colleagues to not allow NOAA’s Susan Solomon or Penn State’s Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann to coerce them into going along with unsupportable conclusions. This particular e-mail exchange dealt extensively with paleoclimate reconstructions. Briffa also urged his colleagues not to “attack” Anders Moberg, who had recently published a climate reconstruction which actually honored the data and used proper signal processing methods.

    Susan Solomon is the NOAA official who claimed that NOAA work related to the IPCC was not subject to FOIA.

    Michael Mann was the lead author of the thoroughly debunked original Hockey Stick.

    Keith Briffa was the lead author of one of the problematic reconstructions in which “Mike’s Nature Trick” was employed to “hide the decline.”

    • Nice reply David. I wonder which of the many approaches the alarmists on these pages will use to respond. It would be a massive effort to respond line by line. My guess is that it will either be an attempt at character assassination or one of those lame things about climate change being real and entirely caused by humans.

      Time will tell.

    • David…

      EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

      “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

      http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

      • This is a common thread throughout climate science. The anomalous (fill in the blank: warming, ice loss, sea level rise, etc.) is usually comparable to or less than the adjustments to the raw data. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong… It just puts their conclusions into proper context.

      • David Middleton:

        You say

        This is a common thread throughout climate science. The anomalous (fill in the blank: warming, ice loss, sea level rise, etc.) is usually comparable to or less than the adjustments to the raw data. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong… It just puts their conclusions into proper context.

        The various time series of global temperature anomaly are not wrong and they are not right: they are meaningless. For explanation of this please read this link.

        Richard

      • David Middleton
        This is a common thread throughout climate science. The anomalous (fill in the blank: warming, ice loss, sea level rise, etc.) is usually comparable to or less than the adjustments to the raw data.

        And this is a common thread through climate anti-science: fluffy bs based on feelings.

      • tony mcleod July 6, 2017 at 5:16 pm
        And this is a common thread through climate anti-science: fluffy bs based on feelings.

        Commentators like Tony M give me a laugh…. any sort of action by climate “scientists” is defensible in their eyes.
        Publishing graphs without error bars (which would show the changes they are talking about is within
        the bounds of error), not a problem, Tony will defend it.

        What do you think about the climate scientists who disagree Tony, should they be run out town?
        forced out of their jobs?
        that’s what jokers like Mann fall back to.. cos they can not win on the “science”..

        We were told all this was settled science.. how long ago now…
        did you see Mann (and those of his ilk) out there saying.. Science is never settled…

        What they have sown is coming back to get them
        It’s fun watching it all start to fall apart for them

  7. It’s understandable that most of the things scientists try don’t work. The sad thing is that they are desperate to publish. The other thing is that there’s no punishment for publishing garbage.

    The problem is particularly visible in drug research. Drug companies scan the published research looking for interesting results. If they find something promising, they try to replicate the original research and that’s when the wheels usually fall off.

    In other fields, attempts at replication aren’t likely. The result is that bad research enters the literature and other researchers, assuming it is good, try to build off it. They engage in significance chasing* and find a result with a reasonable p value. It gets published and the whole thing becomes a morass of garbage piled on garbage.

    I’m currently wading through Rigor Mortis taking notes. It’s about medical research but many of the things it uncovers also apply to climate science.

    Michael Mann’s holier than thou attitude is completely at odds with the truth on the ground. There is ample evidence that science, as it is currently practiced, is bad to the point of corruption.

    *The best example of how that works is a deliberately bad study on the benefits of dark chocolate. It sucked in a lot of people, me included. link

    the study was 100 percent authentic. My colleagues and I recruited actual human subjects in Germany. We ran an actual clinical trial, with subjects randomly assigned to different diet regimes. And the statistically significant benefits of chocolate that we reported are based on the actual data. It was, in fact, a fairly typical study for the field of diet research. Which is to say: It was terrible science. The results are meaningless, and the health claims that the media blasted out to millions of people around the world are utterly unfounded.

  8. Mikey’s favorite video (after successfully quashing the original one) says it all, really:

    Instead of Penn State, he deserves the state pen. Oops! Now I gotta find a good lawyer.

    • Speaking of lawyers, I wonder how M4GW did not find itself caught up with one of Mann’s defamation actions. Perhaps Mann was better advised than he has been in the actions against Ball and Steyn.

      • That could be Mark. At some stage the people footing Mann’s legal bills will ask themselves whether they want to continue. Not too many people like throwing good money after bad, unless of course it is somebody else’s money. It is very unlikely that Mann has any real control over his legal fate at all.

  9. Quote: Scientists live by a covenant to be truthful, to be skeptical in an honest way, stating the caveats and uncertainties …

    Mann was doing so well. It would have been interesting for him to present some examples of how he has lived by the covenant, been skeptical in an honest way, stated caveats and uncertainties.

    Anybody? Beuller? Anybody? Nick Stokes? Anybody?

  10. It’s him again with the puppy-dog I-am-being-persecuted eyes. Chief of the data fiddlers.

  11. Would you buy a second hand opinion from this guy?
    Unforunately yes, unless you know how harsh and aggressive he has been with people that just happens to disagree with him to a degree, not on the basic stuff at all.
    I can see why Anthony just couldn’t wait for his vacation to end before he posted this. To bad the youtube channel is blocked for comments or I would have linked to Watts expsoure of his Mr. Hyde persona.

  12. “Scientists live by a covenant” Yes, climate signitists do live by a covenant, it is to steal as much tax payer funded grant money as they can while lying to the very people whose money they are stealing.

  13. Indeed, Mann-y climate scientists are damaging the reputation- even the idea, of all science. What will happen when science is so damaged that most people don’t believe most things published, not just climate science?

    • Obviously bad science needs to be defunded in general, and when fraudulent like Piltdown Man, refunded and punished in the state pen.

      Personally, I think Penn State should have to refund the tuition for degrees from fakers’ departments and strip fraudsters’ pensions… I know I scoff at Penn State.

  14. Got the lot ‘asn’t he.
    Magical Thinking. Projection. Durning durings Krugerism

    and whoever it was that said about British ‘Civil Servants’ and how, they are neither of those two things.
    Then Donald stands up in Poland and declares “Western Civilisation is under threat”
    Too damn right mate. Too damn right.

    • Please, “too damned right” is the correct term. It’s a bit like saying “too obvious right” instead of “too obviously right” (which is correct).

      I apologise for being pedantic, but this usage of ‘damn’ is damned annoying, and damned increasing.

  15. Anthony, Anthony, Anthony. You cannot be rejuvenated if you keep doing this. As hard as it may seem, take your well deserved time off. We need you for the long run.

  16. …when someone is convinced of their righteousness, and will do anything within their powers to achieve the desired result.

    Sounds just like Climate Jihad

    • That is the definition of Zealotry. And, has been employed by irrationally charged politically motivated groups since the year 6.

  17. A Mann,
    A myth,
    A legendary liar….

    Yes, Dr. Mann is correct in saying science is supposed to work under a strict set of ethical and scientific rules, which Mann wholeheartedly rejected in pursuit of fame and fortune…

    Here is an excellent Forbes article detailing Mann’s total disregard for integrity in his data fabrication to create his now infamous “Hokey (sic) Stick” Graph:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/#1d6ef587449a

    Mann should have been fired and unemployable following his deplorable practices exposed during the Climategate Scandal, but alas, he’s still spreading lies and lectures “science deniers” on ethics.

    Oh, the irony…

    • He dares not to drop the charade which his career has morphed into, as it leaves him destined to be ruined as a member of Academia and a figure of history. He must continue to use his words to camouflage his actions and hope that sympathetic believers will rush to his defense.

  18. i read elsewhere hes refused to table data for the judge in his case..
    however i couldnt get to the linked page
    anyone heard similar on that???

    • Mann has been cited for contempt in Vancouver BC Court in his libel suit against Dr. Tim Ball. Apparently he thought he could avoid providing the information, computer codes, data, etc. Mann is about to lose the suit with major repercussions for him and the climate community. The information is available on a website that WUWT won’t allow me to link. Sorry

    • Yes, he consented to a court order and is now in breach of it. The sanctions which may follow, however, are sheer speculation. The contempt thing is almost certainly a furphy. The key question for the judge is whether there is a need for a trial. Generally all that a party needs to do to persuade the judge that there is a need for a trial is to assert that there is oral evidence which will prove their case. That’s how Mann’s lawyers have strung things out for so long.

      On the other hand, it will depend on the court orders Mann agreed to. I would be surprised but there may have been an order saying that the claim would be dismissed if the orders were breached. I have seen that happen when the judge gives an ultimatum effectively saying put up or shut up. It is pretty rare and would be quite a blunder from Mann’s lawyers.

      Litigation strategy is the kind of thing which makes me glad I’ve retired from the law.

  19. There would be less suspicion with the conclusions of climate science research if those who were making claims laid out the data used and methodology employed to gain an understanding from that raw information. I am not a scientist but often even to a layman the statements being made by people like Mr. Mann do not appear credible.

  20. The so called investigation by Penn State was little more than asking Mann if he was guilty. When Mann denied the charges they closed the investigation.

    • Same as Penn State did with its investigation of Jerry Sandusky, Then real law enforcement got involved.

  21. Liars are not stupid. Otherwise they quickly get caught. A good liar says “here is what a good person does, and I am doing it. Now in point of fact they are not doing it, but you surely don’t expect them to admit that.

  22. Mann wrote:
    “Scientists live by a covenant to be truthful, to be skeptical in an honest way, stating the caveats and uncertainties, and yet we’re often in battle with climate change deniers who don’t play by those rules.”

    Is this Mike’s latest Nature trick?

    • It sure is something Allan.

      Perhaps he meant to say “Scientists live by a covenant to be truthful, to be skeptical in an honest way, stating the caveats and uncertainties, but as I’m not a scientist I don’t play by those rules”.

      Or something.

    • In play- off hockey, Mann’s trademark goalie interference would get him high sticked, cross checked and boarded. And when the refs figure out he’s been cheating on his stick he’d be gone – game misconduct.

      Shame those rules don’t apply in climate “science” …

  23. Pinocchio has nothing on the mannish elf of certainty. Just look at those beady eyes and the gaping cake hole full of nonsense. Nature must have had a good giggle listening to his plaintiff cries of “science science” while he stirred up his mannic regression soup of statistical fakery.

    • If that is why Mann made the video he has made a serious blunder. It has provided a pre-written script for destroying what is left of his credibility during any cross examination.

  24. Mike ‘Indy’ Mann, Nobel Prize etc. etc. sets off in search of the lost Ark and the hokey schtick of Ra to make himself invincible (too late Mike, too late!).

    • Change is the norm. Simply using the phrase, “climate change”, thus, turns a natural process into a dire emergency, which is a grammatical misrepresentation. At least include another adjective in there, like “dire climate change”.

    • I’m doubtful that Mann could provide an answer. I’m still waiting for somebody to describe the climate 30 years ago at any point on the earth’s surface and compare it with the climate now at that same point.

  25. Sadly, I think that Mann sincerely believes everything he says. He is just deluded. Furthermore, he does not have a clue that his delusion appears as hypocrisy. He lies to himself, and then he projects these self lies in his words, which other people interpret as intentional lies to the public.

    I don’t think that he is intentionally lying to the public. I just think that he is lying to himself, because he is delusional and closed off to the realities. He might benefit from some sort of intervention or reality therapy.

    I could reach no other conclusion, as I was reading the block quote leading off this post:

    There’s a big asymmetry in the public conversation. Scientists live by a covenant to be truthful, to be skeptical in an honest way, stating the caveats and uncertainties, and yet we’re often in battle with climate change deniers who don’t play by those rules.

    He thinks that HE is being “truthful” ? — Yeah, by lying to himself.
    He thinks that HE is being “honest” ? — Again, of course he is, BECAUSE he is honestly conveying the lies to himself.
    He thinks that HE is stating the “uncertainties” ? — When has he EVER focused on the uncertainties? Maybe I missed those instances, which would mean that he must spend very little time “stating” these “uncertainties”.

    That quote just blows me away, therefore. It strikes me as the words of someone who is so far gone as to be lost.

  26. “There’s a big asymmetry in the public conversation. Scientists live by a covenant to be truthful, to be skeptical in an honest way, stating the caveats and uncertainties, and yet some of us “climate scientists” are often in battle with climate change deniers since we don’t play by those rules.”

    Fixed it for you, Mike.

  27. Don’t they have certain classifications of climate(s) in Science, is there any evidence that one of these classifications has been changed or crossed over anywhere due to “climate change / AGW”?

    He’s creating a religion out of science so many who speak his English will doubt the whole of it.

    • K, my first thought, how extraordinary that a “top” scientist would use a word like “covenant” (so freighted with religious meaning) to describe an obligation to people. Then it came to me- the old testament-type covenants were a promise from God. Mann sees himself and the other members of this boy band as gods! Making “covenants” to the lowly, suffering masses yearning to avoid catastrophe. “Be devoted to me, stop worshiping that golden calf deni@r and I’ll lead you out of this man-caused desert.” Problem is, people are not listening, maybe he should try a burning bush.

  28. Consider Isaac Newton’s Laws of Mechanics. Newton models observable reality far better than Mann. Yet Newton has not been described as settled, and indeed has unsettled by Albert Einstein. Who in turn has also been refuted. So why is Mann’s pet theory entitled to be accepted without question, when Newton’s and Einsein’s were not?

    • Such is the nature of postmodern science – We are scientists so believe what we say. We don’t have to prove anything.

    • IMO the jury is still out on Einstein, although at the moment, not looking good.

      Einstein did however falsify Newton after 219 years as “settled science”. And not just in details, but fundamentally. Space and time aren’t absolute, as Newton imagined, but relative. Gravity doesn’t act a distance instantaneously, but only at the speed of light.

  29. If that covenant was to do no harm, everyone involved with the IPCC’s pseudo science should have their ability to practice science revoked.

  30. What Michael Mann knows about science wouldn’t fill a thimble, and could easily fit on the head of a pin.

  31. MEM’s entire life through high school, undergraduate, graduate, post doc, assi. prof., asso. prof. and prof. has been an exercise in “corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system” by the use of “unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals” that benefits his teleological system called ‘Climate Science’.

  32. Had a bit of insomnia tonight (from falling asleep early), and this popped up in my message stream on Facebook.

    Be careful Anthony, waking up in the middle of the might to check Facebook is a sign of addiction ! ;)

  33. Who are these “climate change deniers” he is “often in battle with”?

    I’ve been on climate related sites and forums for more than a decade, and I don’t think I’ve seen even ONE person deny that the climate changes. Is he being UN-truthful or is there some caveat he’s not stating? No Mann declares his own hypocrisy more often and more passionately than this one.

    • The only people denying anything are those who can’t even acknowledge the controversy, blow off the constraints of first principles physics and ignore natural variability all for the purpose of supporting a political narrative.

      • Socialism has a long track record of attempting to camouflage its inherent violence and illogic with the trappings of science.

  34. I get the “in the trenches” fixation regarding Mann but the broader globalist/leftist nature of consensus climate corruption and what motivates it is simply more important then any single example.

    The larger political nature of the fraud and leadership collusion will decide the social debate. It’s myth thinking taking down climate party operatives in itself will be effect the total outcome. Hockey fraud and over focus rebuttal has a deminishing return to skeptics. Technical advocacy fraud has been proven time and again, the broader debate moves independently of it. Conclusion? Taking Mann down while satisfying to deep debate insiders may (likely) have marginal impact to the broader climate war results. No one could be more absurdly wrong then Al Gore and past predictions but the broader conflict rages on. Why? It’s politics not a real science debate to begin with and skeptics pretending otherwise feed the problem.

  35. Mann takes malevolent benevolence to new heights. He has convinced himself that ends justifies means and that he is unimpeachable because of his need to be seen as nearly alone in saving Earth. Dictators are often similarly afflicted. Everything and everybody is wrong except for what the dictator says is so and it is offered with much sincerity but with little verifiable evidence. He is so taken with his position that he does not see his own behavior as being malevolent.

    • And when the Earth is just fine and nothing bad happens (except the disintegration of the heart beat of civilization – our affordable and dependable energy systems) he and all his devotees will point and say – “look I saved you.”

  36. Michael Mann

    Covenant

    Images stir of black shrouded worshippers circling a black altar at midnight while muttering infernal prayers.

    Evidence: When has Michael Mann told the truth?

  37. Wow, Michael Mann TRYING to sound like Richard Feynman. If you only believed it. Without that, it’s not a good look on you, old boy. Yes, you people claiming to be scientists DO need to be supremely skeptical of your own work, your own pet theories. NO, you personally have shown no tendency to do this. Your treatment of McIntyre and McKittrick was shameful. Your willingness to share your experimental methods and data with auditors and would-be replicators is non-existent. Instead, you write books and whine about being a victim, in the vein of a good Democratic party flack.

    Mann also brought up two glaring items in his latest Congressional testimony, wherein A) he compared D E N I E R S to Lysenko. This is supremely ironic, in that Lysenko was granted wealth and long life by Stalin for lending scientific bona fides to Stalin’s pet theory (that collective farming would be better than individual farming), and thereby lent scientific sheen to misanthropic policies that ended up starving between 10 to 20 million people to death and led to the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands more in the gulags. And now, we have Mann and his buddies giving support to the end of life-enriching fossil fuels (and life-enriching CO2 emissions) with many of them (see George Mason U., RFK Jr., many others) agitating for prison terms for us. And also in Mann’s testimony, he ironically tried to discredit Roger Pielke’s (Jr.) brilliant IPCC supported extreme events testimony, by calling him a bully. Besides being a silly and stupid ad hom argument, what was Mann’s case for bullying? Roger sent an e-mail warning some of his 538 critics of possible legal action against libelous statements. He never sued anyone. But Mann is currently, actively suing many people, including Mark Steyn, Tim Ball, The National Review, etc. Talk about sophistry. Talk about hypocrisy. Goddammit but this man can bring it.

  38. “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”

    I cheerfully admit to being over my head about much of the sciency stuff here.

    But I was a civil servant responsible for fulfilling Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for many years, and if I ever saw such an admission from anyone, including my superiors, I would have availed myself of the “whistle blower” provisions in the law and dropped a dime on them.

    Counselling the destruction of official records is as bad as actually deleting them.

    That these guys were “exonerated” as opposed to being fired and/or jailed tells you everything you need to know about the veracity of the “investigation”.

  39. Projection and double think. The warmists have increased their use of appropriating skeptic arguments and pretending the arguments are their own. It’s like the kid that stole a bike and then claims everyone else stole a bike, but not him. You see it in comment sections discussing global warming, too. It’s the belief that if they use the same statements skeptics do, people are stupid enough to fall for this. They may be right. I don’t know. But comment sections are full of examples—pretending to be rational and using the arguments skeptics did as thier own. Suddenly, warmists speak exactly like skeptics. A rational person would realize that means the skeptics have the strongest position—no one copies the weak position.

  40. Stephen Schneider certainly didn’t see any covenant. He said climate scientists made up scary scenarios to draw attention.

  41. The thing about a guy like Mann is true of all hypocrites – pointing it out to them doesn’t do any good – by the very definition of their character, being a hypocrite doesn’t bother them, or they wouldn’t be one in the first place.

    This guy was EXTREMELY lucky Obama was in power when Climategate broke.

  42. To me (nobody special), the whole speech there is riddled with what I see as rather obvious con-artistry, which leaves me (again) rather sure we’re dealing with a large scale “psyop” (psychological operation), designed to exploit the general public’s susceptibility to “authority worship”.

    Scientists, for lack of a better word, live by a covenant … ”

    This sort of all encompassing “WE are the good guys” rhetoric (spoken as though getting a degree in a scientific realm is effectively impossible for unethical or corruptible people to achieve), is a “tell” to me, which is to say a sign that I might be listening to a con-artist, under any circumstances, but when potential corruption is the central question at hand, the “might be” becomes a “most likely”.

    “… (yada yada yada), and yet we’re often in battle with a group of individuals …”

    A mere “group of individuals” . . unlike “scientists” in this spiel . .

    “… I call climate change contrarians, or climate change deniers, because they are literally denying what the science has to say …”

    It’s all psyop double-talk there (to me), since virtually no one denies “climate change”, and “the science” can’t say squat . . The terms are being used in a “shorthand” sort of way, and it works wonderfully, because too many CAGW skeptics have allowed it to go unquestioned, or even joined in the brainwashing by adopting the nonsensical usages themselves.

    Wake up honest scientists, I suggest, and quit allowing shady lingo like that to go unchallenged, at any time, by any speaker . . or you will awaken to a “technocratic dictatorship” one day soon, which exploits that (somewhat flattering) talk talk to erect a virtual god, which cannot be challenged. (The “like Holocaust deniers” aspect is nothing more than a simple trick, I say, to keep you from recognizing all the Siants God erecting con-artistry for what it is . . )

  43. Scientists live by the same covenant as priests, politicians, and used-car salesmen. Self-worship is always an ugly thing to see.

  44. He has a lot of nerve to promise that scientists are uniquely objective, with the climate email leaks right there for anyone to read. Thanks AW for that little foil to contrast present statements with past behavior.

    But he has a lot more nerve to complain about “big asymmetry” when billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on “the cause,” and billions of dollars in expensive weather-dependent wind and solar projects are mandated, and trillions in “climate debt are claimed, and a price on carbon would promise a world wide tax bringing in billions.

    Despite the asymmetry, the smaller half just elected a president, a house, a senate, & a majority of govs, and the President is now in Poland announcing the Three Seas Initiative, to update the infrastructure and offer competing gas to Eastern Europe. Just not playing by the rules the climate scientists laid down.

  45. Anthony Watts
    There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.

    Really Anthony? Is that based on a ‘feeling’ you have? Or maybe it’s based on someone else’s ‘feelings’.
    It’s certainly not actually based on evidence is it?

  46. Mann and his so far unindicted coconspirator CACA enemies of humanity must be dragged before the bar of justice, or science is finished. Mankind will survive their assault on us.

    Mann is the very antithesis of a covenanter of truth. His hockey stick is a trick and pack of lies. He and his fellow ringleaders in mass murder of tens of millions and the theft of tens of trillions must be made to pay.

  47. Another crazy bit of pontificating from “Father Michael” Mann of the Church of Climate Righteousness. He’s almost a clown-like character who looks more like he’s from the State Pen and not Penn State.

    • If there were a God or even human justice, that’s where the data molester would be. With child molester Jerry Sandusky.

  48. While Mann should be fired for academic dishonesty and falsified data, his video posted is quite interesting from a psychological point of view. Often, when people criticize others, what they often unconsciously do is actually criticizing aspects of their own personality which they deny or do not like. Listen to his words, it is all really about him when speaking about the other side being deniers. He is a documented scientific fraud, University does not care if he brings in research grant money. I would never send my kid to Penn State. He is worthy of being a subject for psychology studies. Besides vid, he also acted like kid idiot when testifying to Congress recently amount other real scientists. He is a psychopathic liar.

    I hope the Canadian Courts who just found Mann in contempt of court by not releasing data for his own libel lawsuit also allow a large compensatory judgement against him for the unjustly accused defendants who spoke the truth about this scientific criminal who contributed to $ billions in taxpayer money being wasted on AGW which does not exist except for Mann (and Gavin Schmidt) made up data.
    https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/michael-mann-refuses-to-surrender-data-to-court-contempt.310965/
    https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/michael-manns-potential-contempt-of-court.177465/

  49. Man, he’s got one of those faces…..punchable.

    Also his eyes are too close together and you know what they say about that….You can’t trust people with close-set eyes (i.e. GW Bush).

  50. Isn’t it odd that the people we are most willing to trust are being honest in what they say are the the ones who have admitted they were wrong about something?

  51. Mann vs. Race Girl, a thought experiment:
    If I crash my dragster at 300 MPH to a Mann, will the momentum be conserved or kinetic energy dissipate as heat?

  52. Our big problem with Mann and the IPCC is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions

    • There are no good intentions involved here at all. Their solitary intent is to steal as much money as possible.

  53. I used to trust Scientist but sad to say because of ‘MM’ I has become a serious cynic of the money grubbers.
    As of this day I only trust… eeeerrrr wait a minute… Richard P. Feynman, well that about does it.

    There has yet to be any, I repeat, no one comes even close to his genius.

    Hawking was close (not that close really) but he is failing now. I saw him in a pop up ad Hawking ‘intelligence brain pills’. So sad for a man to go down so quickly and in this manner.

    Experts are idiots that need to be questioned.

    Have a good day and a better tomorrow! VW

Comments are closed.