Villanova University Presents 2019 Praxis Award in Professional Ethics to Climate Change Pioneer Michael E. Mann, PhD

1549991557015From Villanova University Media Room

VILLANOVA, Pa. —The Villanova University Ethics Program in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has named atmospheric scientist and well-known climate change advocate Michael E. Mann, PhD the recipient of the 2019 Praxis Award in Professional Ethics. This year’s award will be presented at 7 p.m., Thursday, April 11 in the Villanova Room, Connelly Center, followed by a lecture by Dr. Mann.

Since its inaugural year in 2007, the Praxis Award is given to a professional or academic who exemplifies the highest ethical ideals of their profession or who has contributed to professional ethics scholarship. Dr. Mann is considered a pioneer of climate change and has significantly contributed to the scientific understanding of temperature changes over the past thousand years. He is distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center.

Dr. Mann was a Lead Author on the Observed Climate Variability and Change chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Scientific Assessment Report in 2001—which was among the IPCC’s many efforts that earned it the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences’ Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002.

“The Ethics Program of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences recognizes Dr. Mann for his professional courage, his scientific work, his commitment to defend science against those who seek to politicize the findings of science, and his recognition that scientists do their work in the context of a global and independent reality,” said Mark Doorley, PhD, director of the Ethics Program. “We need science in order to navigate the challenges of that reality; and we need scientists to speak up, as Professor Mann has done—and continues to do—in the present moment.”

The Praxis Selection Committee reviews nominations annually, selecting a recipient who has accomplished one or more of the following achievements:

  • Excellence in fulfilling and embodying the ethical ideals of a profession;
  • Excellence in connecting professional work to a broader understanding of the common good;
  • Excellence in promoting and embodying ethical integrity in a professional field;
  • Excellence with respect to research in the field of professional ethics;
  • Excellence in terms of influence on the field of professional ethics through writing, teaching, consulting and/or professional leadership.  

The event is was free and open to the public.

Advertisements

172 thoughts on “Villanova University Presents 2019 Praxis Award in Professional Ethics to Climate Change Pioneer Michael E. Mann, PhD

      • “The left has always defined right and wrong based solely on whether they benefit from it.”
        Funny I’d say exactly the same about the right. You could certainly say it about those on the right who deny the climate is changing and the impact man is having on the change.

          • Thank you Eric for offering such a perfect example of skeptic dishonesty. You know very well there was nothing untoward going on with the science and yet you peddle this myth long debunked myth.

            “Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization “to hide the decline” in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This “decline” referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, ”

            And it seems they continue to…..

          • It has not occurred to you Simon, that if treerings are an unreliable proxy in the present they probably also were in the past? It apparently did to Phil Jones which is why he choose to “hide the decline”.

            And that is very much “in” not “out of” context.

          • Jaap Titulaer
            I am delighted you are a fan of Prof Muller. You will be familiar with what he now says about man’s influence on the warming? If not have a little read….

          • “Simon April 12, 2019 at 10:43 pm
            Thank you Eric for offering such a perfect example of skeptic dishonesty”

            Eric was absolutely honest.
            simple simon is dishonest, and is very misleading on Mike’s trick with a common ssimon trick of logical fallacy false strawman.

            Tell us ssimon, why did Manniacal graft modern temperatures onto his reconstruction so that he had a hockey blade going up?
            A total ethics failure for both of you!

          • One constant with Simon, there is no lie so decrepit, that he won’t keep pushing it.

            The statement regarding “hide the decline” has never been refuted. But you will never get simple to admit to that.

          • Poor Simple, Is there any logical fallacy he won’t hide behind.
            In his mind, if you agree with someone on one thing, that proves you agree with him on everything.

          • “Hidden any declines lately Simon?”

            Eric:
            As you well know the “decline” was in the deviation of north tree-rings from following instrumentally recorded temperatures during the modern period.
            And not in the GMST itself.

            “It has not occurred to you Simon, that if treerings are an unreliable proxy in the present they probably also were in the past? It apparently did to Phil Jones which is why he choose to “hide the decline”.”

            tty:
            And has it not occurred to you that if tree-ring temp proxy data is unreliable for the past then that also casts doubt on the MWP and LIA as well in regard to tree data.
            You do agree those two events occurred?
            If so you can’t have it both ways.

            https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/publication/222433927_On_the_'Divergence_Problem'_in_Northern_Forests_A_review_of_the_tree-ring_evidence_and_possible_causes/amp

          • Anthony Banton:

            The fact that there WAS an effort to hide the decline pretty much says it, doesn’t it?

          • Art
            Try reading the full sentence “You could certainly say it about those on the right who deny the climate is changing and the impact man is having on the change.”And yep there are loads here who deny man’s impact. I suspect you are one….

          • Simon: no one is denying that climate is changing. It always has & is. What skeptics contradict (or nuance), with lots of evidence, is to what measure the CO2 created by humans plays a role in it.

            As you know quite well, I’m sure.
            So stop using those silly talking points.

          • Simon

            I´m not right or left or up or down. So don´t put any labels on me.

            Because it´s obvious that you know the truth, would you be kind and show evidence of man´s impact in climate change?
            Models are not accepted as evidence. Or your vision of left or right. Or your vision of intelligence relating only in your political wiev.

            Ability to think is not dependent of political wiev, as you seem to assume.

            Throw the facts on the table, os shut up that nonsense.

          • Simon types;

            “… deny the climate is changing and the impact man is having on the change.”

            The real question here is does Simon actually read this word salad before he presses send?

            Simon seems to believe if you add enough conditions to his claim that you will eventually catch people out. The comment was that ‘no one seriously denies climate is changing’ so Simon has added more and more sub clauses.

            The problem is that what he is trying to say doesn’t actually make sense. He wants people who both deny change AND deny the effects of man on said changes. Think about this for a moment. Simon is basically double dipping on his original statement.

            Let us word him another way: – The Cake is a Lie and no one should slice it.

            Why are we even discussing the slicing? We have already established there is no cake. Adding the second clause adds nothing to the discussion and actually confuses the issue. If we need to consider slicing cake then maybe the cake ISN’T a lie. By dragging the conversation into slicing discussion we confuse the issue until the actually point of the original statement is so poorly understood that it can be manipulated for personal gain by whoever is actually still trying to attach importance to a topic everyone else has moved on from.

            Moving back to the ‘climate change deny blah blah’ the entire topic is actually much more complex that can be covered in one deliberately poorly worded sentence. For practical example I personally do NOT deny the climate is changing. I am completely sold on the idea. It is getting colder. That for starters screws up the system and this is before we get to the deeper questions like ‘is Greenhouse real?’, ‘why have the models consistently failed?’, ‘Do we all agree CO2 is plant food?’ and ‘compared to all the other things that are affecting the health, safety and happiness of my family at the moment, is ‘Climate Change’ even in my top 20?’

            See? Complex questions, and if you are trying to generalise a complex matrix of personal opinions down into simple ‘gotcha’ questions then your own argument is probably already extremely weak.

            Or, to cut to the chase, Simon is more than likely trying to hide the decline in Global Warmists.

        • It would be hard to find anyone right or left who denied that climate changes or that man might affect it. There is no empirical evidence that carbon dioxide effects such a change nor an explanation of its physical properties that would allow it.

        • Simon, the systematic manipulation, corruption, concealment, and destruction of climate data, goes way beyond the dubious interpretation of one dodgy email by people determined to exonerate those involved. You would have to be prejudiced in the extreme to refuse to accept that it is rife and manifest.

          If the data supported the narrative, there would be no need for this behaviour.

          But low-grade arrogant people like Mann have a political agenda and a lust for power/recognition, and so the big (ig)noble lie is perpetuated.

        • True Believers like you have the chain of causation exactly backwards: atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a function of temperature, not vice versa.g

        • I have never met a person who considers himself politically right of center that Denies Climate Change and neither has Simon. Disagreeing with a government funded hypothesis on the roll of CO2 to Climate warming and mans contribution is not denial of climate change so you premise is a dishonest one. Which makes you Simon, deserving of an ethics award.

          The CAGW hypothesis is to date unproven with substantial evidence that it is make believe. Much like imagining a liar is deserving of an ethics award the dishonest brokers on the left and their brainwashed acolytes imagine boogeymen under their bed. Look close Simon the boogeyman that has take up residence in your bedroom bears a strange resemblance to Michael Mann holding an ethics award.

        • Simon, please remember that “global warming” metamorphosed into “climate change” so that every set of data could be attributed to it. This is a perfect foil since we all understand that the climate on earth has been in a constant state of change for 4.3 Billion years. The adherents want us to now believe that the climate was relatively stable until man began causing changes.

        • “You could certainly say it about those on the right who deny the climate is changing and the impact man is having on the change.”

          Can you post a list of anyone who denies climate is changing?

          What, exactly, is the magnitude of human impact on climate?

          Granted that the climate has been warming since the Little Ice Age, when did natural factors cease?

          • “What, exactly, is the magnitude of human impact on climate?”
            Really? So unless we can put an exact number on the impact it’s not happening? Sorry but that is just plain foolish. Can you tell me exactly how many people have died from lung cancer from smoking? Using your logic, unless you can, the lung cancer thing is all a hoax.

          • In fact, we are discussing the actual magnitude, not either/or.

            Willingly, I concede to the notions of climate change and human influence, but I am unwilling to concede knowing the future to anyone. There should a test for prognosticators, forecasters, futurist, predictors,and visionaries. At the very least, they should have to disclose their past record for predicting the future.

          • Simple, it’s your side that has claimed that they can discern a human caused signal in the climate noise. If this claim is true, then you should be able to put numbers on the signal.
            Since even you admit that they can’t, this is just more evidence that the claim to have discerned such a signal is yet another lie.

        • Simon, the climate denier phrase is just another propaganda hit piece. There is no denial that the climate changes. The majority of the sceptics just see no hard evidence that a warmer planet is catastrophic. While we look at science, you look to emotional appeal of the gullible. What I do see is the left looking at this as a way to reach into every wallet on earth. What better tax is there than one that taxes the air we breathe?

        • Poor, poor Simon.
          His case is so weak that he has to resort to lying about what others are saying so that he can sound slightly less incompetent.
          There is a grand total of nobody who denies that the climate is changing. Lie #1.
          There is a grand total of nobody who claims that man is having no impact on climate. Lie #2.

          Your 0 for 2 you poor sod, perhaps you should quite before you fall even further behind.

        • Jees, I can find 100 comments on here where folks say us “deniers” DON’T doubt that the earth is warming. Just like it has many, many times over the Holocene. So you are full of crap on that one. But, if you have identified exactly why the temperature rose and fell periodically throughout the Holocene, and explained exactly why the last 50 years are completely outside the bounds of natural variability, please enlighten us Nazi’s.

        • Simon – have you ever posted anything that was actually true – or do you just attack progressively-constructed stereotype-caricatures in good fascist tradition?

          I’ll say this – you’re a good go-to example for illustrative purposes.

        • There are only two possibilities when Simon says things like this that are simply untrue – especially after being constantly corrected – he’s stupid or lying.

          Although one does not preclude the other – it could be both.

        • You have yet to prove that Man’s fraction of CO2 Emission have anything to do with it when the total effect of CO2 in the atmosphere as a COOLANT and as a radiative feed back is as low as NOISE. If you still feel strongly about this fact you should hold your breath so you would stop contributing to this phantom force.

    • The above editorial reads like Mann wrote most of it himself, but then that is not at all unlikely

  1. “highest ethical ideals of their profession ”
    Yep, he has met that criteria in spades.
    …it’s just that the profession of CAGW advocacy has different ethical ideals to every other profession.

    • Looking at his arrogant impression, which makes him look like “I´m above all”, tells the story.
      Camera must be set on the floor so that he can look down. He looks like short and fat guy who wants to show his superiority. He´s in the “who´s the boss” mood.

      I really hope to live the day when all this scam collapse.

  2. Villanova just spent their last ounce of credibility on this one.

    MM is an appalling individual. He is only a petty political propaganda tool for illicit ends.

    It’s time to defund and break up the Accademic-Government Alliance that has corrupted education (and Science)…turning them into thousands of very overpriced socialist re-education centers.

    Our Constitution cannot coexist long under this assault.

    • Since Climate Gate and the Hockey Stick, one can only wonder why he is held in high esteem in the GW community
      I think that MM is clinging to the wreckage of alarmist theories that give you the distinct impression you are being conned
      His attitude at various panels is that he doesn’t listen to other well qualified scientists.

    • Agreed DocSiders!

      I can not think of a more egregious ethics award to villainous infamous miscreants.

      besides not accomplishing spit since his original hokey stick graph with Mike’s trick to disguise or hide inconvenient data, Mannaical has spent most of his career attacking scientists because he is unable to debate their findings and data.

      In the last few years, Manniacal falsely denigrated Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Susan Crockford.
      Manniacal got caught trying to deny his direct smear of Dr. Curry when she pointed out that he had included the smear in his own submission before Congress.

      Manniacal is a co-author of a libellous disgusting attack on Dr. Crockford’s science, person and papers; “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

      Anyone with influence at Villanova should send them a letter protesting such a disgraceful action by the School.

      • This is a great example of the circular nature and irrelevance of such awards today.

        The awards have become just another public relations event to promote the school; and to that end, the honoree is chosen by how well known the recipient already is.

        It doesn’t hurt if said recipient also advances their ideological agenda.

      • M. Mann is a disgrace to modern science and public decency. Watch his performance at the senate hearings on climate where he sits and smirks( off camera) along with the odd guffaws as DR. Curry tries to speak. Yup a real piece of work.

  3. HAHAHAHAHHAAAA… HAHAHAHHAHAHAAA…

    This WAS a joke, right? I really cannot tell anymore.

  4. One day this will be viewed in the same way we now view the 1936 Time magazine’s man of the year: Adolf Hitler!

    • Hitler did some pretty spectacular things. His air force was far ahead of everyone else, his navy was above average, and his tanks were spectacular. The use of tactical submarines had never been used in war before, and the invention of the rocket jump started the space age.

      He was evil, but a visionary non-the-less.

      • Calling Hitler a visionary after seeing how he nearly destroyed the world is like aborting every baby for the next 50 years! And if my analogy escapes you, let me be blunt: Hitler was a lot of things, but visionary he was NOT! The man was the absolute personification of evil plus all the deadly sins! Had he even an inkling of vision, he would have gladly jumped off the Eiffel Tower!

        • You are right.

          But nobody knows where mann´s ethical award could guide this world. If left activists get power, it would be much larger massacre than Hitler could ever dream. And they are trying very hard to achieve that power. UN with ethical mann has opened the door. The movement is worldwide.

          It´s all very evil politics.

          • The left had a lot of power in the twenty century and what did they do just murder 200,000,000 people. Contrary to what you were taught Hitler was a man of the left, just because he was right of Stalin does not make him rightwing as to what ever the misused word means. Compared to Stalin, Hitler’s 12 to 16 million murders pale to Stalin’s 20 to 70 million, of course Mao puts them both to shame his trail of bodies was between 50 to 100 million. Let us hope the present crop of new lefts don’t get true power, I fear they will make Mao look like and amateur when it comes to murdering people.

        • Well now, I hafta personally thank Hitler for saving my life, …… at least 2 or 3 times for shur.

          If Hitler had not started WWII on September 1, 1939, …… then tens of thousands of American, British and French military personnel would not have been dying as a direct result of battlefield bacterial infections ….. and a petri dish containing a culture of the fungus Penicillium chrysogenum (penicillin) would probably have remained on a shelf in a laboratory for another 15 or 20 years, ….. which would have meant that hundreds of thousands of young children in the 1940’s and 50’s, ….. like myself, …..would surely have died from bacterial infections that sulfa drugs were ineffective at curing.

          So “YES”, …… I’m sure a “shot” of penicillin saved my life at least 2 or 3 times during my adolescent/teenage years.

          Penicillin – the fungus that made it possible to have more veterans for Veteran’s Day
          Read more @ http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/nov2003.html

          • I would give far more credit to the scientists who developed penicillin rather than the tyrant who stimulated the dire need! And aren’t you forgetting the millions upon millions of people killed in the conlict? Certainly there are inventions and songs and ideas and millions of other beneficial and perhaps revolutionary things snuffed out because of that war!

          • RockyRoad – April 13, 2019 at 1:15 pm

            “”

            But “DUH”, they wouldn’t have developed it in time to save my arse. And my arse is what I consider the most important.

            And aren’t you forgetting the millions upon millions of people killed in the conlict?

            So what, RockyRoad, it seems you have forgotten the millions of “new world” natives that were killed by white Europeans.

            So, RR, ….. it appears you only care when it is “your ox that is being gored”, right?

      • “His air force was far ahead of everyone else, his navy was above average, and his tanks were spectacular.”

        His Air force was not fit for purpose and lost him the war at Dunkirk and in the Battle of Britain. His navy was incapable of supporting his strategic plans after losses in the Norway campaign, and the success of his tanks was due to tactics not technical superiority. The submarines were no longer effective past 1943 and that could have been done sooner but for Ernest King and Arthur Harris. Robert Goddard Invented the liquid fuelled rocket and the resources diverted to the V weapons hastened defeat.

        Visionary he may have been but not a competent one.

        • – Yes indeed. Some examples of how advanced they were…

          – His #1 fighter, the Me-109, had 20 minutes of fuel over England and killed more German pilots in takeoff / landing accidents than it did enemy pilots. They fielded the first jet fighter, the Me-262, two years late after Hitler demanded it be used as a vengeance bomber instead; and the Me-262’s engines were good for eight hours total if the pilot did not rapidly increase the throttles and melt the turbines.

          – KM Bismarck, which he sent out a’commerce raiding, was effectively an updated WW1 battleship of the High Seas Fleet. It had no cruise turbines so its fuel use was excessive, and it only carried enough fuel for ~8 days at full throttle. Unknown to the sortie’s planners, all the German tankers in the North Atlantic that Bismarck was to have refuelled from (if it managed to escape the RN’s radar cruisers, which they also didn’t know about) were being captured or sunk when Bismarck sortied, thanks to the British reading their mail.

          During the happy times of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Russian armaments experts were invited to tour German tank factories – and they complained bitterly that they weren’t being shown the newest and best, like the Pact specified – they couldn’t believe the front-line German tanks were so poor. The Wehrmacht got a nasty surprise when they crossed the frontier and encountered T-34’s and KV-1’s; none of their guns could penetrate them, and once again they had to resort to superior tactics and their 88mm anti-aircraft guns. This was one of the few times a Hitler decree was ignored – he’d ordered all tanks to be up-gunned before Barbarossa (the Mk III’s with the 50mm, the Mk IV’s with the long 75) and the Bureau of Ordnance ignored him.

          And speaking of Russia, calling Hitler a visionary is laughable. Hitler decided to help Italy attacking Greece in the Spring, so Barbarossa jumped-off on 22 June instead of as soon in the Spring as the ground dried, and Hitler decided to divert the main effort to the Caucasus to grab the Russian oil fields – and as a result, the drive on Moscow started with snow in the air.

          To wrap it up, Hitler’s Three Biggest Mistakes, in order:

          1) The Final Solution to the Jewish Question. You’re in a world war, Mister Hitler, and every gun, bullet and wrench might be the one that tips the balance in your favour – so what’s the idea of murdering six million able-bodied labourers? Especially those little old Jewish men with chestfuls of medals awarded by the Kaiser in World War 1?

          2) Declaring the Slavs, Poles, Russians &c “untermenschen” and sending-in the Einsatzgruppen on the heels of the army to shoot them all. The Russians were heartily sick of Soviet Socialism, and in several places like the Ukraine, the Germans were greeted as liberators – for which Uncle Joe exacted a terrible vengeance after the war. If Hitler had declared the Poles, Slavs &c as “inferior but worthy members of the great pan-Aryan brotherhood” and restrained the army and SS from committing atrocities against them, he could’ve driven to Moscow in an open-topped car. Instead, the Russians pretty-soon figured out that they were better-off even under Stalin, than under Hitler.

          3) Declaring war on the U.S. If he hadn’t done that, the Americans (many of whom hated the British more than they hated Germans) would’ve focused their attention on the Pacific, and left Britain to its fate. But he declared war on America – and Roosevelt (who was nobody’s fool) knew the Germans were a much more present danger than the Japanese, and agreed with Churchill that Germany was the #1 priority.

          Visionary? – spare us…

      • No!

        Hitler’s air specialists spent over a decade reviewing the air forces of other countries. When Germany began to build planes for war, they were the world’s experts on the latest and greatest innovations.

        Germany started their use of submarines in WWI.
        * Improved communications technology leading up to WWII, allowed Germany to micromanage submarine tactics, assignments and attacks.
        * Britain responded by immediately returning to convoy tactics to blunt Hitler’s submarines.
        * When America finally relented and accepted convoy tactics, U-boat sinkings plummeted. As Destroyers and Air cover improved, U-boat success declined.
        * Mr. brilliant Hitler refused to accept Allied capabilities against his submarines and continued sending submarine crews to their deaths.

        Many inventions of the Germans during WWII are amazing.
        Mr. brilliant Hitler was so thrilled with his rockets of destruction that he lost focus on what he was trying to achieve. Hitler’s failed air assaults against England were guaranteed when Hitler focused on his doom weapons.

        Hitler refused to accept development of jet engines, weaponry, etc. because they took resources away from what Hitler was comfortable with. Only when equipment was successfully demonstrated to Hitler did he relent and allow production. Even then, Hitler demanded immense levels of immediate production without lessening other production lines.

        Right up to the end of WWII, Germany’s armies were dependent upon horses and walking. Units may have been mechanized, but often their supply chains were not.

        Hitler brilliant? I think not.
        Germany’s scientists and engineers were brilliant but misled and very misused.

  5. I thought April Fool’s Day was almost 2 weeks ago?

    Oh, right, those on the left have so many fools in their ranks, every day is a Fool’s Day for them…

  6. Michael Mann should be let go from his university as part of the university’s climate action plan. Given that the science is settled why would we need research? 🙂

    Mr Mann could train to be a solar panel snow remover.

  7. This actually says more about the University’s lack of morals and ethics then it says anything about Michael Mann.

  8. I guess the people at Villanova University never read the Climategate scandal emails where the “ethical” Michael Mann figured prominently.

    This is a transparent effort by some at Villanova to pump up the CAGW call to action. It hurts the CAGW cause to have the public think a leading light of the CAGW promotion like Mann is unethical so they try to change the narrative by proclaiming him ethical instead.

    Saying it doesn’t necessarily make it so, Villanova. Your ethics award is now as worthless as the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Villanova University is indulging in political propaganda with this award.

    Our institutions of higher learner are failing the nation with their radical swing to the political Left in every phase of their operations. They are no longer teaching people, they are indoctrinating them with political propaganda.

      • Indeed. Maybe I’m spotting where the bull is going No 2 more clearly now but there does seem to be a recent uptick in CAGW scaremongering (read as even more concerted PR campaign), in the absence of recent substantive data to support it. Boy, that table is sure taking a pounding.

  9. For some perspective on Penn State awardees:

    Jan. 17, 2000: The Philadelphia Sports Writers Association honors Jerry Sandusky with its Career Achievement Award.

    Just sayin’. Everyone gets their due.

  10. I graduated from Villanova – BSCE in 1971.
    At that time there was no Ethics Program, but then the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences wasn’t known for any cognitive skills anyway.

  11. Liberals give awards to liberals, news at 6!!!

    Increasingly if you hear that someone has won a Pulitzer, or some such, you can be sure it’s a perfect indicator that everything they say is garbage.

  12. Says a lot about the university’s concept of ‘ethical’, as in ‘what you can get away with’. Oh, wait! That’s our culture’s understanding of ethical behaviour both in business and politics. And all too often in personal relationships.

  13. “Excellence in connecting professional work to a broader understanding of the common good…”

    None of the other qualifiers pertain to Mr. Mann, as they contain the word ‘ethics’. The one above, however, does fit, if you believe in a climate crisis. Mr. Mann has played a huge role in deluding the public into believing the climate crisis myth. He has been extraordinarily unethical in the process; cherry picking data, misusing statistical methods, colluding to suppress science, ruthlessly attacking anyone who challenges him, and so on. Many here have called this a joke, but it is not funny. It is a travesty.

  14. Just confirms how far the sick and demented liberal climate alarmism campaign has sunken.

  15. “The Ethics Program of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences recognizes Dr. Mann for his professional courage, his scientific work, his commitment to defend science against those who seek to politicize the findings of science, and his recognition that scientists do their work in the context of a global and independent reality,” said Mark Doorley, PhD, director of the Ethics Program.

    Mark Doorley, you are an idiot.

    1. Mann is hardly courageous. There’s sufficient evidence to find him a bully.
    2. Mann is the one politicizing science, not his critics. Go read his books.
    3. What in the world is “the context of a global and independent reality”?

    • Gary,
      I think that has something to do with a thing called Intersectionality. I can’t help more than that. I watched an entire hour long video of Jordan Peterson trying to explain it. He’s very good but it is such an idiotic concept that, at the end of the hour, I could still only tell someone the name and not explain a single thing about it other than if something, like this, makes zero sense, it’s probably Intersectionality.

    • “Global” reality I can’t help you with. “Independent” reality means a reality which is independant of facts.

  16. Gag me with a spoon!

    (I’ve wait 40 years to use that one and today was the perfect day to let it loose.)

    • You get the feeling that it can’t be awarded posthumously, bumping up Mann over Idi Amin for example.

  17. This is rich! One of the largest intellectually dishonest (hockey stick anyone?) people ever!
    Villanova alumni, stop sending any money.

  18. In the interests of balance:

    The Hockey Stick Illusion: by Andrew Montford and published by Stacey International

    A Disgrace to the Profession: by Mark Steyn (Editor) Published by Stockade Books

  19. These awards are oddly seem to be the kiss of death to the recipient’s career. Gleick after his unlawful misrepresenting himself to the Heartland Institute board, forgery and likely wire fraud was given an award and was appointed Ethics director of the AGU! Since, ‘crickets’ in his field of hydrology and climate.

    Chris Turney, famous for his costly “Ship of Fools” debacle in Antarctica that got a ship stuck in ice and put women and children in danger and needing air rescue from a Chinese Icebreaker and a Antarctic research service vessel. His Uni had to pay several million in damages and the self styled ARC Centre of Excellence in Climate Science, U of NSW, up and awards him a medal! Except for tears he shed a year later over frozen Adelie chicks he thought had just died of climate change but were 400 year old birds (no carrion eaters on the continent), ‘crickets’ again.

    Population Bomb Ehrlich was silenced with an award from the Royal Society, #Me too Pachauri was demissioned to attend his sexual assault trial after he received his Nobel. Im sure many others could be listed.

    • “Gleick after his unlawful misrepresenting himself to the Heartland Institute board, forgery and likely wire fraud was given an award and was appointed Ethics director of the AGU!”

      Maybe that’s why the AGU feels free to lie to the people of the world by claiming that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to do things it wouldn’t ordinarily do.

      Thanks for that post, Gary. It gave me some good laughs with your recounting of some of the ridiculous history of climate science.

  20. Next up, the Queen of England will be knighting Sir Mann as he makes his whirlwind tour around the world where The Pope will elevate him to saint status. When he lands back in the states, the Academy Awards committee will bestow an Academy Award on Sir Saint Mann for watching an Inconvenient Truth 10,000 times since it was released. It’s a new category this year. He’s also expected to take first place in the all-academic George Costanza lookalike contest. It’s a little known fact that he has a bed under his desk just like his doppelganger hero. These awards are simply a snippet of what’s to come as he no doubt will eventually get absolutely everything he deserves.

    • Stop it! Stop it! It’s too early in the morning to laugh this hard! Good post, Joz. 🙂

  21. In “disappearing”the Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice Age he committed professional infamy.
    And he gets a special award.
    Euchh!

  22. They do say the victors are the ones who get to write the history and I feel history is going to be very unkind to these people.

    Mark Steyn may well be turning the irony meter to 11 on this one.

  23. Come on guys, credit where credit is due.
    No one has advanced the ethics of Mann made climate change more than Michael E Mann.
    He is an almost unique individual, His ethics are all his own , no one comes close to his individual achievement or scale of self promotion.
    His ideas are all his own, his interpretation of tree rings is all his own. No one throughout the history of science, has been able to convert tree rings into a hockey stick, an amazing “trick”. Ethically he is unique.

    • Ethically, he is bankrupt! Oh, but I err: he is so deep in the negative category he could enact Groundhog Day for a million years and still be in deficit territory!

  24. What the world needs now is awards for the top ten dumbest, most ironic and absurd awards.

    This one would put Mann in the running along with Obama, Arafat, Al Gore and the IPCC’s Peace Prize.

  25. “College of Liberal Arts and Sciences”?

    There is good science and bad science, but no such thing as liberal science.

  26. They fell for the ‘Im a nobel prize winner’ ruse.

    An ethics award for utterly unethical if not fraudulent chicanery.

    An other bung to avoid.

  27. I guess they didnt watch fellow warming believer ( but ethical ) richard muller ‘s you tube lecture wherein he says he wont even read a paper with mann’s name on it , and why .

  28. I just finished dinner as I read this..
    seriously upset my digestion

    what utter farce!!!!
    hard pressed to think of a LESS deserving individual re ethics

  29. So, I guess the way to be “ethical” is to misrepresent results, hide data, and to coerce others into suppressing a free exchange of ideas.

    Who knew?

  30. A “Professional Ethics” award for “Michael E. Mann”, surely you are yoking!

  31. I see that this university is the only Augustinian Catholic university in US and ranks about 50th in US. I had never heard of it and wondered how important it is in the scheme of things. Well apart from ranking let us have a look at its alumni. The only one I have heard of is Bradley Cooper – of course a renowned intellectual colossus.

    Why waste time even considering this – it is primarily motivated by publicity for the university to attract the “intellectually inspired, morally grounded, globally minded” young people it claims make up its members.

  32. The biggest ethical scoundrels are always given the most auspicious awards! Notice there isn’t a Nobel prize for science but if there were, Mann should get it every day! (It should be noted that Alfred Nobel was such a scoundrel that he dedicated the bulk of his estate to setting up the award to change the perception people had of him after he read an early obituary of his life that said “The merchant of death is dead”!) On second thought, I’m all in favor of Mann getting the award daily if people are reminded of the real, unflattering story of the award’s namesake!

  33. Well personally I think Michael Mann is a worthy recipient of an award for practising liberal arts via such institutions. Generally speaking I find liberal artistes quite ethical in not trying to hide what they’re up to as it’s fairly obvious to any reasonable intelligence from their utterings and predictions compared to science and the scientific method.

    Doomsday prophecies have a recurring emotional appeal it seems although you’d expect continually pushing out tipping points into the future would wear a bit thin at some stage.

    • Mann is anything but an artist! I see him more as Dr Strangelove! Mann’s vision of the future is anything but rosy!

  34. Shouldn’t posts like this carry a health warning?
    “The following article may cause loss of lunch”
    If that smug grin gets any wider it’s gonna take the top of his head off.

  35. The Monty Pythonian climate flying circus must go on !

    This guy and the universities and media that support him deserve a collective Master clown Nobel Prize.

  36. 90 to 95% of American Universities closed their collective minds decades ago. Villanova is just another 3rd rate school with a basketball team. In the next 5 to 7 years enrollment is going to drop nationwide and many schools will close. Best news ever.

  37. I predict that in 10 years time, if those who propose that the Sun is entering a Maunder-type or Little Ice Age type of activity which could result in crop losses and colder temperatures, then the warmist/alarmists might want to not show their faces in public. Any losses of lives from lack of correct infomation might boomerang on them, perhaps?

    • Got that covered Orville. Don’t you know that global warming makes it colder too? That’s why we have to call it “climate change” now.

  38. This reminds me a bit of a similar situation with respect to Carl Sagan. I am not saying that Sagan had ethical issues, but an inordinate number of committees give him one award after another from say 1980-1990s or so. The more daft his stances on things, the more awards he collected. Finally, when the AAPT gave him the Oersted Medal in 1990 there was a letter to the editor of the American Journ. of Physics complaining that somewhere there must be someone working in the field of physics besides Sagan to give an award to. Michael Mann seems to garner an inordinate number of accolades, especially from folks who don’t know him.

    Awards committees run with the herd just like all others. I note that the Oersted medal for the past three years has been given not to people who focus on physics or its teaching per se, but to those who write about the value of diversity, and expanding physics to a broader community of learners.

  39. Is there an award given for the biggest liar and fraud on the planet? Because Mann would be a shoo-in for that.

  40. Ethics redefined as doing anything and everything to support a political narrative no matter how far separated from reality. This is akin to awarding leadership of the UN committee on human rights to a war criminal, or giving an American president a Nobel Peace Prize simply for winning an election. Awards such as this often seen to be gifted out of sympathy, political agreement, or just plane malfeasance.

  41. “Hi. My name is Michael Mann. You may call me ‘Doctor,’ or better yet, ‘Nobel Prize Winner Michael Mann, PhD.’ If you publicly contest the Nobel Prize part, I will sue you. If you say unflattering things about me, I will sue you. If you critique my science I will attack you personally and then sic my mob of True Believers on you.”

    “Now ask me about my ethics.”

  42. Presenting an ethics award to Michael Mann is akin giving a medical research award to Jack the Ripper.

  43. The same Michael Mann who could not be bothered to supply his source data?
    The same Michael Mann who made a mash up of statistics to make his cherry picked results conform to his theory?
    The same Michael Mann who calls people “denier” when they want to debate, or question his results?
    The same Michael Mann who made the Medieval Warming Period disappear?
    The same Michael Mann who sues his critics in order to silence them?
    Michael Mann is a lot of things; but he is not a scientist, nor is he ethical.

    Villanova has just managed to besmirch their own reputation by endorsing Dr. Mann for anything.

  44. Simon, please remember that “global warming” metamorphosed into “climate change” so that every set of data could be attributed to it. This is a perfect foil since we all understand that the climate on earth has been in a constant state of change for 4.3 Billion years. The adherents want us to now believe that the climate was relatively stable until man began causing changes.

  45. The Villanova University Ethics Program in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is corrupt. This award proves it.

  46. Think of this award as “covering fire.” It’s a defensive move meant to protect an ally of the cause.

  47. Villanova University? . . . didn’t that school many decades ago have a good reputation “as a place of higher education”? Sic transit gloria.

  48. Well – in keeping with the established ethics of ‘climate science’ Mann DOES represent their standard.

    What a shame.

  49. Isn’t this the same person that was shown to be a lie in court a few months ago about his “climate claims”? Then I see an article “Climate Scientist Michael Mann Congratulates Identity Thief Peter Gleick for Receiving his Carl Sagan Award”?

    This HAS to be the Onion or a belated April Fool’s joke.

  50. Ethics and Mann in the same sentence? Tell me they got their dates wrong and still think this is April 1st!

  51. Not many people knew that Mann was awarded open to the public. Nevermore shall his science get politicized.

Comments are closed.