Michael Mann gets award for climate activism

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.

This is Michael Mann, Distinguished University Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Geosciences, Penn State.
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.

Advertisements

255 thoughts on “Michael Mann gets award for climate activism

  1. 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…

  2. 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?

  3. 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 :)

      • 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

      • “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@.

    • “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.

      • @ivan
        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.

    • 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:

      McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

      Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

      That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?

      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.

    • 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 the [val]idity of AGW :)

      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

    • 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.

      • ” CAGW is not a law in science, it is just a theory.”
        ..
        You are wrong about that CD. There is no “C”‘ in the science of AGW. The “C” is a strawman argument promoted by this website, and others like it that reject the actual science of AGW.

      • You are wrong about that CD. There is no “C”‘ in the science of AGW. The “C” is a strawman argument promoted by this website, and others like it that reject the actual science of AGW.

        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?

      • Let me repeat it for you Mr. RACookPE1978: “There is no “C”‘ in the science of AGW.”

        If you disagree with this statement, please post a link to a scientific paper that talks about the “C.” You seem incapable of distinguishing between the scientific work of someone, and their opinion.

      • Let me repeat it for you Mr. RACookPE1978: “There is no “C”‘ in the science of AGW.”

        If you disagree with this statement, please post a link to a scientific paper that talks about the “C.” You seem incapable of distinguishing between the scientific work of someone, and their opinion.

        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!

      • Your inability to post a link to one paper about the “C” proves you are just waving your hands.
        ..
        Just one please.

      • @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.

      • CD, I asked RACook, now I’ll ask you: please post a link to a scientific paper that talks about the “C.”

      • CD your inability to show me a scientific paper discussing the “C” is evidence that the “C” is not part of the science of AGW. Can you please post a link to a scientific paper with “C” ?

      • @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.

      • A signed letter is opinion.
        The PNAS paper says …“we interpret the Paris Agreement in terms of three climate risk categories. ” ……..you call an “interpretation” of an agreement that is falling apart as “science.” Good. Now, are you interested in purchasing a bridge that links Brooklyn to Manhattan?

      • @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.

      • CD posts: ” a ludicrous nit-picking detail which isn’t worth any more of my time and effort.”

        Obviously, since you are expending both time and effort in continuing this discussion, it must not be a nit-picking detail.
        ..
        Can you please show me where in the theory of AGW the “C” is?

      • 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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”:

  10. There are no “Safe Spaces” in Science, and the Truth Doesn’t Care About Your Feelings
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/12/there-are-no-safe-spaces-in-science-and-the-truth-doesnt-care-about-your-feelings/

    Why Democrats Don’t Talk About Climate Change Anymore
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/why-democrats-dont-talk-about-climate-change-anymore/

    Harvard, Berkeley among top 10 worst schools for free speech: Report
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/12/harvard-berkeley-among-top-10-worst-schools-for-free-speech-report/

    Filed Under “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”; Selective Moral Outrage
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/12/filed-under-you-cant-make-this-stuff-up-selective-moral-outrage/

  11. There is some irony here in that he is receiving an award for communicating the “science” of climate change for a period in which the public concern for climate change has reached an all time low.

  12. So they admit that Mann is an Activist rather than a Scientist…. That doesn’t bode well for his defense against Mark Steyn’s counter lawsuit.

    • I suspect the award was made to boost his image and profile so appeals to authority could be attempted in his court case. I guess he’ll fly in a carbon free plane to collect the award.

  13. We do need to hand it to him though: his tireless efforts at spreading climate propaganda and lies, while simultaneously stoking his already dino-sized ego and self-promotion has been remarkable. If anyone deserves the Climate Liar Supreme Award, it’s him.

  14. This is from the Climategate emails {source http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf}

    December 4, 2007: email 1196872660 from Michael Mann to Phil Jones

    By the way, I am still looking into nominating you for an American Geophysical Union award; I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like me to investigate…

    Reply from Phil Jones

    As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.

    May 16, 2009: email 1242749575 from Michael Mann to Phil Jones

    On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem with of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor (of being awarded a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union)
    this year ?

    I’ve looked over the current list of American Geophysical Union Fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren’t as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.

    Anyway, I don’t want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you’d be willing to help organize, I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year.

    So, basically, it appears that Michael Mann nominates himself for awards.

    [Italics added to clarify what the writer quoted from Mann and Jones. .mod]

  15. Have things evolved (or devolved?) to the point that every area of discourse about every area of human endeavor is conducted in a way that pits reason against faith? Or has that been a part of the human condition beginning with the awakening of cognizance?

  16. Michael Mann wins the Joseph Goebbels Public Enlightenment and Propaganda award, in the Science Fiction category!

    It would be a ‘social justice’ coup if the air conditioning at the awards ceremony was turned down to 50 degrees F.

  17. “tireless efforts to communicate the science of climate change to the media, public and policymakers.”

    …Irregardless of how tired the public is of his drivel.

    He must deserve some sort of award considering the amount of cognitive dissonance he must face in the realization that few people of import believes a word he says. Go, Mann, go! You are now comedic entertainment for thinking people all over the world.

  18. Mann is the reason I became skeptical. Most statistically literate professionals have the same reaction when they see his “work”. In fact I recall many years again a room full of engineers howling with laughter at a description of some of the paelo practices.

  19. Aberrant Self Promotion is a clinically recognized pathology that has become common in the work place.
    “Clinicians see ASP as a heady mixture of subclinical narcissism, impulsivity and anti-social personality disorder. It’s about the selfish, callous and remorseless exploitation of other people while at the same time demanding respect and admiration. Those who show the characteristics of the syndrome are said to be exploitative, dominating and grandiose, superficial and manipulative, and consider themselves entitled”.
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-230-36976-4_3

    Mann O Mann, who does that remind you of????

  20. Michael Mann, in 2010 during a BBC interview, on the hockey stick graph:

    “I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html

    I don’t think so. He was more than thrilled by it. He still is. And it still gets him grants and prizes.
    What’s not to like?

  21. I don’t care for mr Mann’s ‘science’. If he were a medical practitioner I would call him a quack. Any ‘scientist’ who becomes an activist ceases to be a scientist.

    • Mann’s papers involving paleo-so-called-temperature reconstruction have no scientific content.

      Any paper he’s published on climate modeling is physically meaningless.

      I think every paper Mann has published, purporting to be science, has involved one or the other of those two subjects. That being true, then Mann has published no science at all; but is a demonstrated master of modern pseudoscience.

  22. No doubt we shall be hearing soon from Michael Mann along the lines “…. “it is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a recipient of a trade body’s PR award (free travel to conference, 5,000 bucks and all the food you can eat).

    Nah, I think I prefer Mann’s original statement to the libel court when he claimed to have won the Nobel prize. Just has more of a ring to it and leaving off the “Peace” bit implies he might have got it for actual science. After all surely no proper scientist would be interested in a political award handed out by a bunch of retired Norwegian lefties – would they?

    I note that the AAAS’s mission statement says that it seeks to “promote and defend the integrity of science”, so it is presumably OK with abolishing the medieval warming period in the interests of hard political activism. What next? – halving the speed of sound – well it would force all those jet planes to cruise slower unless of course the passengers were flying on urgent climate conference business when, of course, they could buy offset sonic certificates.

    Sadly the Nobel plaques continue to fall off the wall. As I reported in another post, Stott of the Met yesterday amended his cv to remove his own fake reference to being a “co-recipient” of a Nobel prize.

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

    • Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

      Don’t you ever get tired of posting pseudoscience drivel, Ivan?

      You have ignored the proven modeling failures as predicted/projected by the IPCC. I know since I posted about them, you ignore it. That effectively destroys your GUARDIAN article.

      Meanwhile why do you continue to ignore these realities?

      No Tropospheric hotspot
      Failed PER DECADE warming prediction/projections
      Models to year 2100 that lack forecast skills and not testable either.
      Failed the snow projections as stated by the IPCC
      Sea Level changes and “acidification” are not a concern.
      Ignores the POSITIVE CO2 effect on the planet.
      No increase in severe storms

      Others can add to this short list of AGW based failures.

      Your articles doesn’t address the well documented failures at all, just an attack on people who are not convinced by the shoddy IPCC based science claims.

      Why cling to such failures Ivan?

      • Ivankinsman.

        Once old man Trump and his toyboy Okie Pruitt have gone, the USA can get back on track again.

        But you see, we KNOW where that “track” leads to: Deliberate economic and national suicide at the success of unregulated environmental pollution and near-slavery in China, India, and African socialist states. Which is, after all, the actual goal of the international enviro- movement of international control of energy and its trillions of dollars of unearned money in carbon futures trading for the global bankers.

      • Ha ha ha,

        not here to talk about Trump at all which I never brought up.

        Ivan’s line,

        “You do talk a lot of drivel based on your own blinkered outlook.”

        Fails to address what I wrote:

        “No Tropospheric hotspot
        Failed PER DECADE warming prediction/projections
        Models to year 2100 that lack forecast skills and not testable either.
        Failed the snow projections as stated by the IPCC
        Sea Level changes and “acidification” are not a concern.
        Ignores the POSITIVE CO2 effect on the planet.
        No increase in severe storms”

        Ivan’s line,

        “At least die-hard sceptics like yourself are a dying breed.”

        Fails to address what I wrote:

        “You have ignored the proven modeling failures as predicted/projected by the IPCC. I know since I posted about them, you ignore it. That effectively destroys your GUARDIAN article.

        Meanwhile why do you continue to ignore these realities?

        No Tropospheric hotspot
        Failed PER DECADE warming prediction/projections
        Models to year 2100 that lack forecast skills and not testable either.
        Failed the snow projections as stated by the IPCC
        Sea Level changes and “acidification” are not a concern.
        Ignores the POSITIVE CO2 effect on the planet.
        No increase in severe storms”

        Your dishonest claim about Sea Level is rising is not disputed, it is the ACCELERATION claim that is not supportable.

        It is clear you have little to say, just run off at the mouth and ignore real debate is what you offer.

        Frankly you are terrible at this.

      • “Once old man Trump and his toyboy Okie Pruitt have gone”

        That will be seven years yet, and if I don’t miss my guess by that time the whole CAGW hoax will be dead, decently buried and patted down flat.

        Haven’t you noticed that the tide has turned, the AGW scare is quietly sliding into obscurity, the ‘Usual Suspects’ are questing back and forth looking for a replacement to scare the public into parting with their hard-earned money – plastic pollution appears to be the front-runner at the moment, what with plastic bottle surcharges and the EU postulating that a plastic tax might make up some of the black hole in its finances when Great Britain has departed, regained her sovereignty, rejoined the real world and gone on to bigger and better things outside the rapidly disintegrating proto-Fourth Reich.

        So AGW will gradually drift into the background as new semi-fictional monsters are created and blown up out of all proportion to slay to “protect” the public, be airbrushed from history and eventually no-one will actually admit to ever having believed with it all, just like what happened to the coming Ice Age scare of the 1960/70s.

      • Geez, Ivankinsman, you are so predictable. I could lay odds on what you’d say and how you’d say it in a response to a rebuttal, which is what you just did. You have no argument, so you retreat to deflection, sniping, and retort. You didn’t answer a direct question, showing plainly that you have no answer to it.
        You’re far too predictable, Ivan.

      • Ever notice that the sum total of ivan’s reading is the Guardian.
        Perhaps that’s who’s paying him to play troll.

      • Like most socialists ivan saves his greatest hatred for anyone who gets between him and a government handout.

    • Heh, “Drillbit” (do you know why he’s referred to as that, Ivan? Hint – it’s something to do with his day job) Dana Nuttyjelly in the Guardian…
      Can’t you find a more authoritative source to support your waffle, ‘the Beano’, for example?

      For what it’s worth, perhaps it’s worth checking the ranking of the Guardian’s site compared to another well-regarded British news site, that of the Telegraph.

      Here are the site rankings by visitor number for the Telegraph and the Guardian both Globally and in the USA.

      Hint – smaller numbers are better.

      https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/guardian.co.uk

      https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/telegraph.co.uk

      The Guardian doesn’t even come close, Global ranking 43,748 to 443, USA ranking 12,647 to 353.

      • That would be The Guardian that is kept afloat (just, and not for long with luck) by the ‘tax efficient’ sale of ‘Autotrader’ I assume.

      • As always, trolls determine quality based on nothing more than the ability to echo the party line when called upon.

    • Ivan–I posted this before, apparently worth repeating. Check out Logical Errrors.
      Their sequence of logic needs some logic. First when you pick an example for a logical deduction you do not use the example of which you are promoting. From their “logic” train in your link.

      “Step 3: Determine whether the argument is DEDUCTIVE, meaning that it starts out with a general statement and reaches a DEFINITIVE conclusion.” (CAPS MINE)

      I have looked in two dictionaries and find nothing about deduction being definitive. It is simply going from general to particular, which can be dangerous. This is an interesting part of the definition of DEDUCTIVE in the big Random House Dictionary. “The truth of the conclusion is verifiable only in terms of future experience and certainty is attainable only if all possible instances have been examined.” Nothing in there about consensus.

    • Ivan, you dug to the bottom of the barrel when you quoted the guardian.
      If you need candidates for the mere 5,000, start with people like Dr. Ball who just had Mann’s lawsuit dismisses. There are many more like Spencer – just look at the right side of this blog.

    • Do you think it is unreasonable when scientists query the basis claim of “more than 20 times faster than natural climate changes” because you compare very precise annual data from the past century with very unprecise and intermittent data from the past before that?

      If we had annual thermometer data for the past 1 million years, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now and WUWT wouldn’t even exist. It’s as simple as that.

      If the data was so precise in the past, why don’t we just keep on using it and throw our modern mechanical instruments away? Why don’t we just check the ice cores or tree rings for our daily weather forecast?

    • Weasel socialist non-science – meh.
      Providing a junk source link to support junk non-science is 97% not helping your ’cause’, my friend!

    • Wow, Ivan, my eyes have been opened. I was blind before, and now I see! Where do I sign up, and where do I go for the full frontal lobotomy? I BELIEEEEEEVE!

    • ‘…beating denial by inoculating people against misinformers’ tricks…’ – Lovely! Shouldn’t that be ‘by brainwashing people’ ?

  23. 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.

    500 media interviews and appearances; social media; op-eds and commentaries. When does this narcissistic attention wh*re find time to actually do any work?

  24. Pretty soon someone, somewhere, should issue an award to somebody for not screwing things up. I’m serious. I’m beginning to think it’s quite a feat for people of influence to live in this world without screwing people over or screwing everything up. Since so few people of recognition manage to actually do that an award should be in order. People, like Michael Mann, who can’t leave well enough alone, and instead screw everything up, are a dime a dozen. Why, oh why, does that deserve a reward. I’m actually very serious.

  25. Michael Mann, perfect role model for throwing tantrums. As a parent I don’t seem to recall any positive outcomes of my children’s tantrums.

  26. Whenever there is news of Michael mann, it reads as if it came from some parallel universe. This one would read differently in our universe. “Mann receives his award for ‘tireless efforts to propagandise the pseudo-science of ‘climate change’ to the media, public and policymakers”.”

  27. So the award is for all the work he has done in pimping his BS , not for any scientific practice or work.
    Thank god for that , given he as never done any scientific practice or work worth a dam , but it is fair to say he is a real BS artist .

  28. The guy is just a bully who has been promoted above his abilities.

    Yes, it’s a sad day for science, but he has authored worse ones.

  29. I think we should give him a Nobel prize for physics. Seminal work in friggin’ around with other peoples dodgy data and misguided misuse of a stats package . If I had written MBH 98 I would be black ashamed of myself -The worst “scientific paper I have ever read. But inspirational! If such crap has the legs it was given then there is hope for us all.

    • zazove,

      This guy must be a real threat to a lot of people’s world view. You don’t demonize mock someone like this for nothing.

      I think you spelled “mock” wrong, but I fixed it for you.

      • You’re confident you know when dozens of posts that illicit thousands of mocking, personal attacks ends and demonising begins?

      • From the guy who considers all criticism to be demonization.
        From the side that has advocated making disagreement a capital offense.

  30. Ivan,
    Contrary to your foolishness, up is up and down is down.
    Your contribution is progressive junk that is intended to litter & vandalizing discussion.

  31. I think the title really gives perspective to Mann’s chief role (above science) in this detour from critical thought. Once again the “cause” out weighs the common sense and a politically endowed scientist turned global savior is awarded for his distraction.

  32. “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.”

    Anthony, That’s an odd message to get from this press release. I see no indication that it says his activism shows his science is good or that activism in any way “equates to” good science. Maybe it’s best to leave interpretation up to readers.

  33. Kristi Silber,

    With respect, not sure where you are on the issue, but he’s being (rightfully) mocked for his (lack of) science communication skills. If you haven’t yet, maybe you should read some of his nasty, unscientific, ad hominem attacks against not only anyone who disagrees with him in general, but intelligent, accomplished climate scientists that disagree with him but are way above his pay grade.

      • Sorry but thinking people get peeved when a group of thieves want to destroy their lives. You may just be another sucker who’s been hoodwinked but we don’t know. You may be one of the socialist cabal.

    • I agree, Bob. Every single US scientific institution dedicated to preserving the integrity of science has utterly failed to do so.

  34. “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.”

    Well!?

    Shades of climategate!
    Given, manniacal’s history of trading awards and recommendations with his pals, there are likely plenty of emails and other communications tracking the real reason Manniacal gets an award.

    One thing is sure,
    Manniacal’s total lack of positive attitude,
    coupled with his extreme hatred of critics criticism and opposing views,
    absolute narcissistic egotism
    and very public virulent abuse of other scientists, apparently helped Manniacal earn his aaas award.

    However, that process allegedly works…

  35. Not renewing my AAAS membership this April. The leadership has been taken over by Leftist-activists for so long now, it seems there is no ability to return to integrity. Science is no longer honest to science.

    • I moved enough climate change in 9 years in Massachusetts. But Thank You for the offer. I live in Tucson Arizona. For. A. Reason.

      And tonight it is raining. Yippee. A nice cool rain. Snow in the mountains to go play in with my dog on Friday! But not to shovel.

  36. Who, within the AAAS, pushed the idea forward to award Mann that prize? Is it an insider deal? Was it one of his old cronys?

    • These sorts of nominations and then awards come out of small subcommittees of 3 or 4 AAAS senior directors. It only takes a few well place dindivuals a political agenda to hijack the whole process.

      Think of them like a well-placed computer virus, a root kit with complete access to calls within the OS kernel. Deeply embedded. Pernicious. Impossible to eliminate without a clean wipe and re-install from clean.

      • Nepotism plus conspiracy ‘lauded’ a Mann: worse than I thought. Will we ever learn how he spends the prize money? I doubt that he’ll give it to a charitable organisation, a beer binge with his mates seems much more likely.

    • Eugenie Scott is a bigshot at AAAS and a CAGW zealot. She is also a bigshot within CSI (formerly CSICOP), which publishes Skeptical Inquirer. CSI elevated Mann to a fellowship the other day. A couple of years ago a then-regular here described his attempt to get Scott, with whom he’d colabborated in the past in opposing anti-Darwinism in schools, off the alarmist bandwagon, but she wouldn’t budge.

      • It has been proven that a solar minima and maxima have no impact on climate change. Example: the UK has been experiencing very cold winters. Nothing to do with the sun. The gulf stream has been pushed south owing to Arctic sea ice melt which has meant that very cold winds have been sucked in from the East – Siberia.

      • ivankinsman

        Example: the UK has been experiencing very cold winters. Nothing to do with the sun. The gulf stream has been pushed south owing to Arctic sea ice melt which has meant that very cold winds have been sucked in from the East – Siberia.

        And exactly how do “you” establish that particular claim?

        What CHANGE in flow? When did this specific CHANGE loss of sea ice occur specifically? Which season? How long did it take for the specific change in flow from which specific part of the arctic to get far enough south to affect the specific current eddies and swirls that caused this specific cold weather spell across the UK? You made the claim. Back it up with measurements and timelines.

        The same kind of “wave your hand” classroom explanation that claims that adiabatic winds from one part of the Antarctic continent “blow” sea ice away from the shore and cause excessive freezing 700 kilometers further north and 3600 kilometers around an arc? Or freshwater melted from underneath the antarctic ice cap diluted sea water enough around the perimeter of Antarctica to cause enough excess sea ice extents to exceed the entire area of Greenland?

      • From an excellent BBC documentary on why Britain has been experiencing very cold winters. Infallible research evidence was presented succinctly and coherently.

        (Did you forget the link?) MOD

      • Ivan make a statement out of ignorance, since there are many many, published science papers supporting the Sun is driving the climate along with the Ocean waters influence of it.

        100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

        “Proven by thousands of temperature datasets, the earth’s climate fluctuated cyclically in the past, and there’s an overwhelming body of evidence showing a close correlation with solar activity and other powerful natural factors. If the IPCC had truly examined past temperature developments and compared them to solar data, they’d have seen there is something remarkable there.

        Yet in the IPCC AR5, Working Group 1 takes only a cursory look at solar activity and its possible impacts on climate in IPCC AR5 before simply dismissing the sun altogether. The Earth’s sole supplier of energy, the sun, and all its dynamism, in fact gets only a couple of pages in a 2200-page report, about 0.1%. That alone is a monumental scandal.

        What follows is a list of papers I found in just a few hours that the IPCC should have taken a much closer look at instead of just dismissing. The list of course is not complete.
        An excellent resource that really speeded things up was the site:

        Popular Technology.net

        http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.20IG62wM.dpbs

      • ivan says:
        “It has been proven that a solar minima and maxima have no impact on climate change.”

        It certainly has not.

        “Example: the UK has been experiencing very cold winters. Nothing to do with the sun.”

        Everything to do with the Sun at weekly scales and nothing to do with the global mean surface temperature.

        “The gulf stream has been pushed south owing to Arctic sea ice melt which has meant that very cold winds have been sucked in from the East – Siberia.”

        In fact the Gulf stream pushed further north to melt the sea ice, it’s called a warm AMO phase. What a hoot!

      • Rob Bradley

        ivankinsman’s claims are based on this scientific study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2554

        Well, here is the entire abstract of that article.

        Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

        I see no evidence of anything but speculation about possible causes that may be linked by suggestions to models of reconstructions about events over the past decades that indicate …..

        Today’s cold weather over the UK – IF it is caused by changes in the currents out in the Atlantic Ocean at all – MUST be linked to specific, exactly measured changes in those currents occurring to specific cold weather masses (storms and fronts) occurring before this specific weather happened.

        Long term changes in patterns of weather “may be” linked to longer-range causes and patterns. Or “may be” mere coincidences. But this year’s cold weather is a specific event. His claim is dead wrong.

      • PS You claim: ” But this year’s cold weather…. ” which is not what ivankinsman claimed. He said: “the UK has been experiencing very cold winters”

        Note ivan did not use the word “this” in is statement. Your strawman fails.

      • PS You claim: ” But this year’s cold weather…. ” which is not what ivankinsman claimed. He said: “the UK has been experiencing very cold winters”

        Note ivan did not use the word “this” in is statement. Your strawman fails.

        Guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is, eh? Specifically then, what cold winters in the UK? Your plural, his claim. Neither are backed up by any measurements linking differences in Arctic sea areas with UK cold winters.

      • Multiple off topic posts by trollop ivan. Each post is more bizarre than the one before.

        A ship crossing the Arctic is “climate” and evidence of “climate change”: Only if one ignores history and completely warps the definitions of climate and weather

        “ivankinsman February 15, 2018 at 7:33 am
        It has been proven that a solar minima and maxima have no impact on climate change. Example: the UK has been experiencing very cold winters. Nothing to do with the sun. The gulf stream has been pushed south owing to Arctic sea ice melt which has meant that very cold winds have been sucked in from the East – Siberia.”

        A) Modern science is almost in complete rejection of polar cycles, since they are dependent on Arctic ice vanishing forever.

        B) Exactly what/when a solar minimum/maximum constitutes is under intense study with new breakthroughs occurring regularly through don’t of effort by real scientists.

        0) Yet ivan claims polar minima have zero impact onL
        i) climate change
        ii) By definition, ivan implies that the nonexistent Arctic sea ice cycle is unaffected by solar maxima/minima; and that this has been proven…

        00) ivan, then makes claims using gross generalizations regarding weather; with ivan masquerading weather as climate with bizarre claims about the sun.

        000) N.B. how Ivan’s gulf stream claim eerily echoes manniacal’s weakening Gulf Stream claim.

        N.B. 2: NASA Gulf Stream archival pictures utilize a different sensor than the “Ocean Prediction Center’s” current satellite.
        The Gulf Stream, current in February 14, 2018:

        The Gulf Stream Circa May 8, 2000:

        The Gulf Stream circa April 8, 2005 highlights are chlorophyll based.

        The whole “weakening Gulf Stream” bizarre claim were climate model outputs, not actual measurements of the Gulf Stream.

        Ivan’s zero results:
        • No unusual changes to the Gulf Stream.
        • Weather is not climate, no matter how often ivan pretends it weather is climate and visa versa.
        • Science advances as solar cycles progress and scientists study the changes.
        • Science advances as polar cycles progress and scientists study the changes.

        Alarmists mired in imaginary beliefs regarding present and future Earth, utterly without benefit of the past, are not scientists.

      • It has been proven Ivan?
        Where exactly?
        Have you done proper regressions, examined all the data for the last few thousand years etc.?
        Or did you do like most alarmists do, cherry pick a couple of years, presume the answer and then declare yourself vindicated?

      • How exactly do you know a 1 hour documentary is well researched and documented?
        I know that a couple of charts is all that it takes to convince you, especially when they agree with what you are being paid to believe.
        However that standard requires a lot more data, most of which you wouldn’t be able to understand anyway.

    • Only a Warmunist climate troll numpty such as you would think that straw man arguments constitute a logical argument in any way, shape or form.

      • Agree with Bruce on this since you are making dishonest claims here,

        “If sea levels are not rising, the sea ice is not receding, CO2 is good for the planet ….”

        No one here dispute that Sea level is rising, the dispute lies in the RATE of rising.

        No one here disputes that a reduction of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred, it is that the reduction rate has flattened out to about zero the last 10 years or so.

        Additional CO2 is GOOD for the planet in many ways, which you irrationally continue to fight despite being shown hard science that it is true.

      • Your opinion ivan? So outright lies can be excused because they are just your opinion regarding what others have said.
        Sheesh, the Guardian needs to pay more to get a higher class of troll.

    • Nobody has said that sea levels aren’t rising.
      If you have to lie about other people’s positions, that’s the first indicator that you know your own position is indefensible.

  37. Man I get tired of seeing that self satisfied egotistical mug! A little turd that talks in the terms of war all the time when he doesn’t know squat about real war. I await the day a hypothetical tank rolls over him and buries him in his hypothetical trench.

  38. Rah, don’t be exercised by it. This is part of the end game for the climateers. As they shrink into smaller groups with post normal science and funding segueing into the true fantasy that it is, they start in a flurry handing out awards to the survivors. It began in Australia, where over half the world’s climate sciency types seem to live – home to the “Noah’s Arc Centre for Climateering Excellence”. Climategate and then the Dreaded Pause cleaved registered climate worriers in half, struck down by these events into the Climate Blues. They began giving out awards and appointments after these events for no apparent reason – the list is long but here are a few – someone should make a collection of all these awards, listing “Fake Nobel” by their names too.

    – Felonious Gleik made ethics commissioner for the AGU,
    – Ehrlich awarded the Royal Society’s medal for a lifelong career of being diametrically wrong
    – Admiral Turney of the Ship of Fools given an award ARC for getting his Ark stuck in summer sea ice in Antarctica on an expedition with children and their mothers, students and journalists looking for Global Warming on the continent. They cost the Antarctic Survey people over 3 million in damages and a lost research season, had to be rescued by two ice breakers that got stuck trying to rescue them…..

  39. “tireless efforts to communicate … ”

    That is unless you catch him fabricating nonsense on Twitter like I did and he immediately blocks you from posting any further tweets; then not so tireless.

  40. If these organizations are going to continue to delegitimize themselves and sanction members who oppose their unscientific misconduct, the time must come when their misconduct and lack of integrity with respect to science is recognized by no longer employing those persons who continue to support the organization and its misconduct. Perhaps the time has come to professionally disassociate from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and similarly compromised professional organizations and end critical professional and financial support for their corrupt practices. Perhaps it is time to replace those corrupt professional organizations with new organizations who can and do effectively promote the application of the scientific experimental principles with integrity. There are a growing number of us who are very reluctant going forward to consider job applicants as eligible when their credentials are from the typical elite colleges and universities or boast memberships in certain professional associations without having resigned from them in a protest against their corrupt policies. Going forward job applicants are going to need some very extraordinary reasons for us to set aside the our misgivings about their continued association with these corrupt institutions. We are going to be giving hiring preference to job applicants who have demonstrated professional integrity and an adherence to the scientific method. Of course, such tribalism is ordinarily undesirable, but it is very likely justified in the present circumstances given the way in which untold numbers of highly qualified individuals have been denied education, careers, and had careers in science destroyed by these corrupt organizations over recent decades of time. When an institution or organization fails to function with integrity and denies the membership the opportunity to reform the corrupt organization, it becomes time to abolish it and replace it with a new organization and members who will function with integrity. Perhaps the award to Michael Mann will result in a general recognition the corruption has become intolerable and the time has come to end it by terminating associations with the facilitators of that corruption.

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s