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.
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.
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.
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?
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” …
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.
Could this be why Mikey made the video?
Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann – ‘Commits contempt of court’
https://www.longroom.com/discussion/566515/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann-commits-contempt-of-court-read-the-full-article
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!).
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
Someone needs to ask him “Where has the climate changed?”
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”.
making the expression “climate change” redundant
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.
This self delusion is the most dangerous !
The Russian writer Dostoevsky had this type as his ultimate villains!
Without going all Godwin here, I’d like to point out that Dostoevsky was onto something.
“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.
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.
Off topic: Before I forget it here’s the new CMIP6 paper set (it’s free)
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html
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.
This guy is a basketcase.
If that covenant was to do no harm, everyone involved with the IPCC’s pseudo science should have their ability to practice science revoked.
Keep it simple:
It’s about the money !
What Michael Mann knows about science wouldn’t fill a thimble, and could easily fit on the head of a pin.
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’.
I wish this covenant really existed so that we could enforce it on Mann.
Be careful Anthony, waking up in the middle of the might to check Facebook is a sign of addiction ! 😉
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.
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.
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.”
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?
http://i67.tinypic.com/2rohk00.jpg
His fat head and super-sized ego balance each other well.
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.