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.
Okay, then put the hockey stick back as the logo for the IPCC.
Jerry Brown should get the award for most creative use of climate science crap as the basis for infrastructure funding.
Was the award Peer reviewed?
There’s no cure for being a total Jack AAAS. This looks like a story from the Onion.
Here is a very good article that debunks the reasoning of climate sceptics, just as they debunk the reasoning and research of Michael Mann. It shows how fallacious the sceptic arguments are when you really break them down:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial
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?
You do talk a lot of drivel based on your own blinkered outlook. At least die-hard sceptics like yourself are a dying breed. Once old man Trump and his toyboy Okie Pruitt have gone, the USA can get back on track again.
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/13/satellite-observations-show-sea-levels-rising/
Ivankinsman.
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.
Best newspaper on environmental issues on this planet. Should be your bedtime reading weasel – you might just learn something useful.
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!
Welcome on board, Bruce. I am glad you have seen the light. Now you can spread the word. Gee – you might even see get to meet Michael Mann one day. That would really make your day.
Definitely irony impaired.
It really is funny how the troll actually believes that screaming you’re wrong, constitutes a refutation.
That Guardian article was neatly rebutted a week ago here, in this thread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/08/study-climate-skeptics-arguments-are-demonstrably-false/
However, it wasn’t reported in the Guardian, so it never occurred.
‘…beating denial by inoculating people against misinformers’ tricks…’ – Lovely! Shouldn’t that be ‘by brainwashing people’ ?
Award committees are a part of the swamp, just like Nobel Prize and Oscars.
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?
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.
500 interviews in a year? That’s double-speak plus logorrhoea. That Mann must be terminally ill.
And yet, he has weird little beady eyes.
[snip – over the top about Dr. Mann’s appearance, adds nothing to the discussion -mod]
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.
Well if the Kardashians can generate interest from a certain cohort, why not Mann?
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”.”
The 501(c)3 status of AAAS should be revoked!
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 .
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.
And, people, DNFTT.
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.
This guy must be a real threat to a lot of people’s world view. You don’t demonize someone like this for nothing.
zazove,
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.
The fact that we criticize him proves that he is right.
Nice circular world view you got there.
Zazove He deserves all the contempt he gets because of his narcissistic attitude towards anyone who disagrees with him.
Ivan,
Contrary to your foolishness, up is up and down is down.
Your contribution is progressive junk that is intended to litter & vandalizing discussion.
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.
“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.
Of course you don’t.
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.
Compare that to the viciousness on display here.
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.
That is disgusting .
The damage to institutions I esteemed in my youth has been unforgivable .
I agree, Bob. Every single US scientific institution dedicated to preserving the integrity of science has utterly failed to do so.
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…
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.