From the “maybe he’ll use that money to finally get around to settling his Mann vs. Steyn lawsuit” department. I guess if you are a “loud mouthed climate activist” that equates to good science today, at least that’s how I read this press release from AAAS.
Mann receives AAAS Award for public engagement with science
Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center, Penn State, will receive the 2018 American Association for the Advancement of Science Public Engagement with Science Award during the annual meeting in Austin, Texas, from Feb. 15 to 19.
CREDIT Patrick Mansell, Penn State
Mann receives his award for “tireless efforts to communicate the science of climate change to the media, public and policymakers.”
In the past year, Mann had 500 media interviews and appearances, and directly reached public audiences via social media. His op-eds and commentaries were published in dozens of outlets, including The Washington Post, The Guardian and Le Monde.
He has used a variety of media to communicate about the effects of climate change, including the 2017 publication of his third book, “The Madhouse Effect.” For this effort, he teamed up with Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Tom Toles to explore public perception of climate change. He also was a featured speaker during the 2017 March for Science in Washington, and has testified before Congress.
Mann also collaborated with author and illustrator Megan Herbert on a children’s book titled “The Tantrum that Saved the World” is currently in press.
In addition to outreach efforts, Mann continues to conduct and publish research. His areas of interest are in climate science, including climate change, sea level rise, human impact on climate change, climate modeling, and the carbon budget. He is the author of more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications.
In 2017, Mann was recognized with the Schneider Award from ClimateOne and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers’ James H. Shea Award. He was also inducted into the Green Industry Hall of Fame. He was elected a AAAS fellow in 2015.
He completed his doctorate. at Yale University in 1998.
###
The AAAS Award for Public Engagement with Science, established in 1987, recognizes scientists and engineers who make outstanding contributions to the “popularization of science.” The award conveys a monetary prize of $5,000, a commemorative plaque, and complimentary registration and travel to the AAAS Annual Meeting.
Shouldn’t that be the “AAASS Award”?
just an ASS that need to move from Penn State to the state pen.
For what it’s worth, the “mike” makin’ the above comment is not moi–I’m the zits n’ boogers “mike”. Also, I do not approve of the “other” mike’s comment, for what that might be worth. .
… beat me too it. I was gonna say, “AAAS award ? — is there a typo there?”
Maybe it should be the Joseph Goebbels Award.
No, the Joseph Goebbels Memorial Award. He’s been dead for a while but his putrid memory lives on …
The award should be for the polarization of science.
Perhaps polarization and politicization of science.
I lean towards just plain old BS!!!
Polarization of “SCIENCE”? It should be for eloquence in expressing leftist propaganda.
Polarbearization?
Nice to see that the weasel has ceased to claim that he is a Nobel Prize winner. As a PSU meteo grad, stories like this make me ill…
Got to laugh. How does comparing those who are sceptical about the conclusions of science (as all scientists should be) to Nazis and Holocaust Deniers win you a prize for “communicating about science”?
Next we will see Stalin get an award for services to Ukrainian agriculture and Maduro getting the Nobel prize for Economics?
I’m not laughing. Seems too likely.
The NYT still refuses to return the Pulitzer that it won for lying about the Soviet famine.
The NYT did not win the Pulitzer, Walter Duranty did.
…
I guess you never read this from the NYT: “The result was some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper. ”
…
That statement appeared here: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html
We have fake news and fake facts. Now we have fake engagement.
Mann sure engaged – he engaged with science – and science won.
The greatest conjurer in the history of science, Mann made the medieval warm period disappear for the Kyoto climate conference.
Shazam ! Mann made global warming.
500 interviews – one Mann swarming
Also one swarmy Mann
This seems to be what they do…..give each other awards
Latitude, I almost wrote a very similar comment.
Andrew
They need to to start presenting awards for those who were presented the most awards in a given year.
That would be so exciting.
Andrew
Well done Michael Mann. You have done a lot to publicise climate change and get it out into the public domain. You deserve this award for your hard work. The sceptic heads must be exploding over this – I expect they’ll up their ranting and raving against you even more because they cannot accept thecvakidity of AGW 🙂
… the validity of AGW.
…thecvakidity of AGW. You were right the first time.
It is apparently ok with you that Dr. Michael Mann purposely manipulated data to arrive at preconceived result to promote an nonscientific agenda? Wow.
If it’s OK with the AAAS it’s OK with me.
Climate change, carbon taxes/cap-and-trade, sustainability, etc., can’t be put over on a global scale without guys like Michael Mann helping to push these agendas.
Based on valid research conducted by the global climate change scientific community which the likes of Trump and Pruitt choose to ignore because they are clueless scientifically – the latter especially.
PSU
Sustainability Series
Mathematics for Sustainability: Fall 2017
Michael Mann Lecture, Sept.4, 2017
http://www.sites.psu.edu/math033fa17/2017/09/04/hockey-sticks-and-the-climate-wars-lets-play-the-game
Michael Mann on carbon taxes is all over the Internet.
Really, Ivan?
“If it’s OK with the AAAS it’s OK with me.”
It’s unusual for a troll to be so open in his admiration for lying.
Tom, it’s what he is paid to believe.
Penn State | Sustainability Institute
Information:
http://www.sustainability.psu.edu/sustainability-institute
ivankinsman, your Freudian slip is showing:
Yeah, but has he done anything to stop Global Warming? 🙂
Andrew
May he should get the Kinda Tried Really Hard award. 🙂
Andrew
His research has definitely supported organisations like the IPCC to persuade countries that AGW is a global threat. Sceptics hate him because he is the public face of climate change and knows what he is talking about.
Ivan. Don’t make me laugh as the little hockey stick Mann has shown himself to be a pathetic scientist. The climategate emails and his attack on Susan Crockford show that.
“His research has definitely supported organisations”
…and still the Global Warming Crisis continues. But keep going you lil engine that could. 🙂 A few more awards, and we’ll be living in paradise. 😉
Andrew
@Jan Frykestig: I don’t hate Mann, I pity him….
“Sceptics hate him because he is the public face of climate change and knows what he is talking about.”
Actually, sceptics despise him because he is a misogynist, a bully, a lying disgrace to the scientific profession and a complete and utter tw@ur momisugly.
0.2C is a global threat?
In what reality?
“The sceptic heads must be exploding over this”
Mine indeed exploded, that the so called “American Association for the Advancement of Science” promotes a man whose only work, the “hockey stick”, had to be retracted out of IPCC reports for being an artifact of invalid procedure so out of touch with the proven reality.
Are they THIS short of AGW priests ? Were ae the 97%, when you need them?
This is humiliation of thousand of scientists who do their job and try to communicate about it.
Someone said that this humiliation was actually the main purpose of USSR propaganda: a way to show WHO had the power.
“American Association for the Lyssenkosation of Science” now seems the proper name of those fellow.
Now, now … keep calm. Take your medicine like the doctor ordered. AAAS has made a very popular decision that will gratify millions of Americans that one of their top climate change scientists has been recognised for his ground-breaking resesrch.
Ivan, as usual you speak from ignorance since the Wegman and North reports agree that what Dr. Mann did was wrong and his paper fails in its conclusions.
They also agree that Bristlecone Pine tree rings should NOT be used in temperature reconstructions.
The “hockey stick” paper only covered the NORTHERN Hemisphere, which means its claims are not conclusive anyway.
From wikipedia:
“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.[18]
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,[19][20] 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.[21] Consequently, Lysenko was immediately disgraced in the Soviet Union.[22]
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,[23] although the Soviet government refused to announce Lysenko’s death for two days after the event[24] and gave his passing only a small note in Izvestia.[25]”
History will repeat.
Don’t knock it. The only climate model that comes close to tracking measured global temperatures is one that comes from Russia.
Ah, science by “popular decision”. That should settle it!
@Jan Frykestig
Invalid procedure.
Invalid result.
so bad, it isn’t not even endorsed anymore even by IPCC, andt the Mann now specialize in activism instead of science.
” ground-breaking resesrch” indeed.
……grafting temperature series is hard
Especially when you have to turn them upside down to get the warming you wanted.
I would guess that Ivan has not read Steyn’s “A disgrace to the profession”. It would appear that not all scientists agree with Mann’s beatification.
cvakidity: a form of propaganda that excludes or limits the use of “euphoria” & “common man” techniques; primary techniques include “the big lie”, an “appeal to prejudice, fear, and authority”, always along with specific “framing”.
So what sceptic scientist should have been nominated for their ground breaking work in proving that AGW is one big hoax dreamt up to enable a socialist takeover of a greening planet? Umm … Let me think … still thinking…
Ivan, brings up a feeble reply here because he is deflecting to a narrative that doesn’t support the HS paper at all.
It isn’t a groundbreaking since it has been long exposed as being junk by several researchers and by two Investigative reports.
Again it covered only the NORTHERN Hemisphere……… Come on Ivan, THINK!
By the way Ivan, even some of his own collaborators of the HS paper thinks he is bad.
I have the book and read what they say about him in THEIR OWN WORDS.
The same man who got ZERO support in his lawsuit against Steyn, who got a lot of support as shown here:
The drawn-out Mann lawsuit: Science is not taking a stand for Michael Mann
“First off, no scientific organization has filed amici briefs supporting Mann’s suit against the National Inquirer, the CEI or Mark Steyn:”
Quoting Mark Steyn,
“A few [months] ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:
I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.
“At this point, we don’t know,” she said.
Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:
“I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.”
Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/the-drawn-out-mann-lawsuit-science-is-not-taking-a-stand-for-michael-mann/
He is fast running out of friends…………………….
Ivan,
Don’t git too werked up… I didn’t bring up the cvakidity, as it is associated with AGW (and Mann), you did.
AND your story line is getting a little off track; the award is for the “Advancement of Public Engagement in Science” (APES). It has nothing to do with “ground-breaking resesrch”.
The three criteria associated with the APES award relate to the NUMBER of HARD TO REACH listeners that are subsequently engaged with a DIFFICULT MESSAGE. Its that simple. And if it wasn’t political, Anthony Watts, if nominated, would be a shoe in.
Here is what Richard W Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley and a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, had to say about Mann’s fraudulent Hockey stick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
In fact, it is now known that it wasn’t an artifact of poor mathematics, it was a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Medieval Warm Period with mendacious intent.
Then there was his fraudulent attempt to claim to be a Nobel prize winner, debunked by no less than the Nobel Prize Committee…
And as for the paper where he presented yet another Hokey Schtick where he used graphs of the Tiljander shales – upside down…
No surprise that the likes of you worship him and believe the Sun shines out of his back passage.
This is like a cofveve moment…
I’m still waiting for some science to back up AGW.
Models aren’t science.
This is some good irony, but the space is too small to explain the delicateness.
Let me add though, that doctor Michael E. Mann, distinguished professor at Penn State (and not state pen, as accurately noted by some), has done really hard work to smear scientists like say, Judith Curry, and lately Susan Crockford as co-author of a paper that’s basically a personal attack against her. To award people who smear scientists – note I’m not talking about Mann refuting what Curry or Crockford has said, but the use of defamatory language – is somewhat extraordinary. Maybe some day the awfulness of all this is revealed in the books of history.
. . . and right on cue you manage to show a perfect example of why sycophants always have their heads up someone’s AAAS
Denial, denial, denial. One day you will get it.
Ivan why don’t you run away little troll.
No way Mike. It’s good to have A debate in this and other issues. WUWT should not just become an echo chamber but have some genuine discussion. Don’t be so thin-skinned.
Ivan your previous comment was not debate at all but typical CAGW cultists crap.
A debate involves facts.
All you have ever done is whine that we don’t worship the Guardian as the sole purveyor of truth as you do.
I miss Griff.
Think of me as Griff II – only better…
Ego combined with absolutely no skill.
Yup, Griff II.
Indeed you work in shifts.
Ivankinsman: Ivan, you come to this website for reasons that in reality have little to do with science. Your visits here are religious witch hunts wherein you are ready to indict and condemn as religious heretics anyone who does not conform to the Holy Faith of CAGW. If you understood science, you would know why we do not do this in science unless one is operating on a religious level instead. When scientists are attacked as religious heretics as they are here with you, It is only natural that they respond as they do. It is unfortunate that heretics cannot be burned at the stake anymore as they were in the Middle Ages.
I don’t know for sure what is going on in your head, but I would guess that you have religions (or cults) and science muddled and confused in your mind because you really don’t appear to understand the difference between them. Griff had the same problem. If you did understand the difference, you would know that there really is no such thing as being heretical in science outside of the laws in science that it accepts. CAGW is not a law in science, it is just a theory. You are treating it as an unquestionable, infallible, righteous and virtuous religion or cult that cannot possibly be wrong, and therefore no dissent can be permitted. In contrast, debating, inquiry and questioning is vital to science to ensure it gets things right (which it doesn’t always do right away).
The Guardian, as I understand, does not allow dissenting viewpoints in the comments section of the pieces it posts on its website. They get deleted if they show up at all. That demonstrates that The Guardian is operating on what is really a religious level. Again, no dissent is permitted. As I write this, Anthony’s blog has over a third of a billion visits. If the CAGW theory was unquestionably and scientifically sound, WUWT would not have the huge popularity it enjoys. And Anthony tolerates pro-CAGW viewpoints in the comments section–they usually do not get deleted unless they are in violation of his rules.
The only climate-related posts we see on The Guardian’s website are ones from selectively cherry-picked authors who are part of the cult and and will dutifully defend and support the Holy CAGW Faith. That is the way cults operate. And don’t even try applying my argument here to Anthony’s blog. This website is NOT the one with the belief system, the CAGW cultists are. This blog is merely applying science to the CAGW theory.
And then of course there is Michael Mann who, as I understand it, has blocked a number of his fellow scientists from his Twitter account. More evidence of religious intolerance for scientific inquiry and debate. Mann stopped being a scientist the moment he started blocking people from Twitter. His behavior wherein he attacks scientists who disagree with him only serves to confirm this. Continuing to masquerade as a scientist only adds to the walking, talking tragedy that he represents. And the AAAS isn’t helping matters any.
Each time you visit this website for another round of witch hunting, it only serves to show us that religion and science are still hopelessly muddled and confused in your mind. Those who you more or less treat or identify as heretics here can only laugh or cry, as the case may be.
OK so please can you explain this to me. I am very open to being proven wrong if I am presented with some coherent valid arguments.
What puzzles me is the whole world now accepts that climate change is a reality AND an extreme threat to mankind. The only people who disagree are the small US sceptic community who in my opinion are totally unprepared to admit to ANY degree of CAGW – for the majority it simply does not exist. If we wantvto talk about religion, cults and belief systems then let’s say this could easily apply to them.
Time will tell which side of this debate is correct. I seem to be reviled by many commentators for simply trying to disprove the sceptic viewpoint, often providing sources to back up my assertions. Until it gets to the stage where the dissenting voice is finally muzzled, I think I owe it to myself to keep on posting.
If so, why are Hansen, Mann, and the rest of the CAGW “scientists” projecting New York City expressways will be underwater, the UK will not see snowy winters, grape harvests (and everything else – I think the list now is up past several hundred different species and things) will be catastrophically impacted?
Why are NO CAGW promoters acknowledging the guaranteed harm their (your!) proposed policies will have for hundreds of years; while just a few minutes ago on this forum, CAGW alarmist predicted that global warming threatens the human race?
Name ANY CAGW self-called “scientist” (on the IPCC or lower) who has has condemned the political claims, the publicity and the public claims and exaggerations of the public champions of CAGW’s political arena.
The goals of the CAGW effort and the publicity that is the center of the CAGW “studies” and academic centers and programs and laboratories and press releases and conferences are entirely political and cultural and economic. Yes, we can find individual “cautions” and caveats and restrictions even in the individual chapters of the IPCC reports. Those cautions and restrictions are ignored. deliberately ignored by the politicians and bankers pushing their specific agenda; When the US Secretary of State, DOD, President and National Security Advisor USE the political statements and propaganda of their politically-funded CAGW movement to declare that Global Warming is the most significant national security facing the United States, then you cannot claim CAGW has no “C”.
CAGW IS DEFINED by its own propaganda that publishes and promotes and exaggerates a 1/4 of one degree warming over 40 years into catastrophic limits in the next 80 years, and then denies that “Catastrophe” is a part and parcel and means of the CAGW method!
@ivankinsman: “….OK so please can you explain this to me. I am very open to being proven wrong if I am presented with some coherent valid arguments.
What puzzles me is the whole world now accepts that climate change is a reality AND an extreme threat to mankind……”.
1) Sorry Ivan, but you have things bass ackwards here. If you understood science, you wouldn’t be asking me for proof. Why? Because I am not the one with the belief system here, YOU ARE. You would know that the burden of proof is on you for that reason. YOU need to prove to ME that the climate is supposed to be stable and unchanging. Note: The Earth’s climate has been changing for millions and billions of years in its history. You need to show me that the Earth’s climate has NEVER been as warm as today (or warmer), and that the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to the greenhouse gas effect is significant enough to make those gases a driver of climate. In the absence of this Ivan, its still religion.
2) If you were a student of history Ivan, you would know that humanity has a long history of believing things that are wrong, things that end up being myths. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe humanity has become enlightened enough that this can no longer happen. Science isn’t a democracy Ivan, and it has a long history of fallibility where the majority in science end up being wrong. I submit to you Ivan that a large chunk of that humanity you talk about don’t know this, apparently including you. If you didn’t understand this Ivan, its still reglion.
@The other commenter: Don’t make me laugh. I’ve been listening to the predictions of catastrophe from the alarmists for a long time now. And you want me to believe that the ‘C’ doesn’t belong in CAGW? Pfffftttt.
@Bradley: I wasn’t talking about scientific papers. I was talking about pieces like this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.
Sounds pretty catastrophic to me.
@Bradley:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html.
Letter to humanity from alarmist scientists:
“…If the world doesn’t act soon, there be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery, they warn…..”.
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10315
“The current risk category of dangerous warming is extended to more categories, which are defined by us here as follows: >1.5 °C as dangerous; >3 °C as catastrophic; and >5 °C as unknown, implying beyond catastrophic, including existential threats….”.
The ‘C’ in CAGW theory comes from scientists as shown above. Where else would you expect scientific theories to come from? Whether they write it down in a paper is a ludicrous nit-picking detail which isn’t worth any more of my time and effort.
@Bradley: Judging from your behavior here, including the way you throw my words back at me (the Brooklyn Bridge reference), it appears that my comments at WUWT have succeeded in hitting a nerve with you. You no doubt won’t agree, but I actually consider the reaction I’m getting from you to be a compliment. Thanks.
I guess it’s true that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Rob, the C was initially promoted by your side, only after extreme ridicule was it dropped.
We still have alarmists going on and on about how CO2 puts all life at risk or the Earth turning into another Venus.
The IPCC was initially claiming that a 15C temperature increase was possible, along with rapid swamping of all coastal cities in less than a century. It was your own Michael Mann who once declared that streets in New York City would be underwater by now.
So it’s OK to hold press conferences where you talk about catastrophes, so long as you have no scientific backing for such opinions.
Nice double standard you got there.
Ivankinsman You actually believe that climate science is valid research????????????????? There has never been an accurate prediction yet from climate models and there never will be? You obviously dont understand how these models are tuned. They take recorded past temperatures and tune the models so that they will accurately predict the past. This is an ongoing exercise with every one of the 200 or so climate programs around the world. As far as predicting the future forget it. Especially 100 years from now. Pat Frank has proved that the error factor from modelling clouds alone is far far greater than any scale of accuracy that the models purport to show. Clouds are only 1 thing that the models can never get correct. Try ocean currents, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos, the effect of the sun, The models can even get the water cycle accurate enough. The day they can predict the weather one year from now is the day I will begin to start believing in climate models. Another thing. If it ever stops raining or snowing around the world then you can worry. Until then relax. Because mankind is indeed increasing the CO2 then for AGW to work there has to be a tipping point. That is because a constant increase of CO2 would crowd out any other gas in the atmosphere like what happened with Venus. Venus lost its water because there was no magnetic field to stop the solar wind from stripping it way. We have not seen a tipping point and we havent even seen any acceleration in any variable yet. There has to be an acceleration before the tipping point happens. The only question is DOES too much of CO2 in the atmosphere inevitably lead to a tipping point? The science is not settled on that but it seems that since there is an average of 50 times as much water vapour in the atmosphere as there is CO2 then it seems as if CO2 doesnt really matter. In any case climate models will not solve these big questions. Only more basic research into the water cycle and IR absorption into H2O and CO2 will finally get us the answer. Until then we should not waste our money on taxing carbon. In the last 30 years there has been an increase of 15% vegetation in the world. Planet earth needs more CO2 in the atmosphere not less.
“The models can even get the water cycle accurate enough.”
I meant to say can’t
I suppose he deserves a gold certificult for “Nobel Cause Corruption” and this is it Congrats. Mikie. You inspire us all. If you can do it then any sad nonentity snake oil salesman can do it.
“Fibber” Mann wins a prize for losing a lawsuit and still pushing the climate lie. Well done Michael. 🙂
Michael Mann wouldn’t make a scientists arsehole.
…don’t be nasty – but you’re probably correct 😉 – Mann is a post science modernist
If anything could inspire me to find ways to refute his assertions, it’s another trophy plaque on his trophy wall.
He’s the one who said in 2005 that river ice never gets growlers. It had to do with that famous painting of Washington cross the Delaware River. He said tht river ice only gets pancake ice, and showed a photo of the Hudson with disc ice, which is a formation that requires very specific temperature and current conditions to form.
But you see, in saying that “river ice never gets growlers” and realizing that the Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers both get growlers during spring ice break-up, I knew deep in my heart that he was so profoundly wrong, it was laughable.
Congratulations, Mikey! Make sure you hang that trophy straight up this time!
What is a growler?
I believe it’s when ice flows grind against each other.
Lol, I remember when he was portrayed as a “reluctant public figure.”
Portrayed? That’s what he called himself. Right after pushing over people to get to the microphone.
In a way, this is good. Mann’s hockey stick has been debunked both mathematically and historically. He got caught in a lie in testiminy in a televised congressiinal hearing (my favorite 17 second youtube snippet concerning the epithet denier applied to Judith Curry). A more odious ‘engager’ could not be found to exemplify warmunists.
Presumably the sage who nominated Prof. Mann for this award missed that bit of the hearing. Personally I found it rather disconcerting. Insult someone you disagree with… deny the insult… try to weasel out with a bit of semantics. Someone will remind me of the exact phrase used: I think he denied calling JC a “climate denier”, when his text read “someone who denies climate science”, which was apparently not the same thing.
Surely (I know, don’t call me Surely) a science communicator has to engage with the people they disagree with, not belittle them?
He’s a disgrace to my alma mater.
This is probably not the last example of AAAS embarrassing itself and it’s members, but it is certainly a prime one. I wonder if there will be any noisy resignations – there have certainly been some quiet ones in the past.
The issue, of course, is not that he didn’t communicate a lot, it was how he chose to communicate. Essentially, AAAS has gone on record with the following: ‘communicate your hatred for your fellow scientists and competent amateurs and we will reward you’. What a wonderful message to young scientists everywhere.
The issue also is, his “science” was wrong.
We know better where to aim budget cuts now – AAASholes.
Ah the broken hockey stick – fr@udulent pseudo-“science” at its very best.
That picture of Mann would make a good mug shot.
Just sayin’.
I wouldn’t want his mug on my coffee mug. It would ruin my whole day…
It certainly is a smugshot already.
Yes, reminicent of ‘smugglypuff’.
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Smugglypuff
Speaking of awards, this kind of reminds me of a certain Nobel PP won be a certain BH Obama for the same kind of behavior.
I’m also a loudmouth. When do I get the recognition I deserve?
ok, I recognize you…
Ok I guess. If “engage” means sue anyone that disagrees with you and never ever participate in a debate about the actual science. Sure way not.
Beedy eyed, rat-faced scum of the earth award, if you ask me.
Harsh, but fair!
I’m sorely tempted to rejoin AAAS just so I can quit in disgust.
In the past year, Mann had 500 media interviews and appearances, and directly reached public audiences via social media.
500 interviews in a year? LOL
This could be used as “The Ballad of Mann and Gore”: