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.
Anyone want to put down the keyboard, grab a shovel, and help move some climate change?
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2018/02/14/record-snow-fall-havre-138-years-more-snow-coming/335065002/
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.
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.
In response, I wrote AAAS and cancelled my membership.
OK, here is a question for climate sceptic numpties. If sea levels are not rising, the sea ice is not receding, CO2 is good for the planet blah blah blah then how to you explain this first that seems to illustrate climactic conditions are not staying the same?
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/15/shipping-first-as-commercial-tanker-crosses-arctic-sea-route-in-winter/
Ivan The vessel was designed for icy conditions and just because it hasn’t happened in your lifetime means nothing.
Arctic warming is normal during a solar minimum. Which is why ships noted a large loss of Arctic sea ice 1815-1817.
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
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
Well, here is the entire abstract of that article.
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.
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
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:
http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/images/gulfstream/GScomp_GRtofs.png
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.
Fascinating how Rob doesn’t object to Ivan’s arm waving.
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.
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.
Just my view on Climate sceptic troll numpties Bruce. Looks like we will just have to accept our differences.
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.
MANNiac gets AAASShole award
Argued with the dude on real climate once. He tracked down my IP and threatened to dob me in to my employer. The guy is a rat.
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.
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…..
“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.
Some interesting reading justifying the MM award: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a
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.