Manntastic behavior on Twitter – harassment of Dr. Judith Curry by @michaelemann As you may know, both testified in congressional hearings this week. Mann apparently can’t tolerate a second opinion.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. calls out this petty and childish behavior.
Dr. Curry responds:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The minor little problem is that Curry is right, and Mann was pulling facts from his nether regions, but that is just par for the course with either.
You only had to watch Crazy Bernie blather on last night to see the climate lies that echo through the left. Crazy Bernie quoted used AOC’s 12 year quote as if it were from God’s lips to AOC. AOC stated last week that she had pulled the 12 year quote from her own “nether regions” (love that line!) as hyperbole and that anyone who listened to it was an idiot.
Therefore Bernie is not only Crazy Bernie, he’s Idiot Bernie.
Someone on the left makes up a bunch of climate crap and everyone else fetes upon it. Amazing. The democrats and the left have me at a distinct disadvantage. I can’t argue stupid with people who live there lives in it.
Idiocracy sometimes sells when the customer base is available.
Well said!!
The movie “Idiocracy” fits the climate scam perfectly.
Shosin, you are so right. Leftists love to form multiple related organizations and then quote each other as validation of their views. And the climate change field is a prime example of this. With so many billions of tax dollars ($5 billion US dollars per year) in addition to the private money poured into promoting the hoax, it is not hard to buy off scientists. We are as greedy as anyone else. Plus, the left is great at appointing these whores to official government agencies like the NOAA and others, to give them credibility. The IPCC at the UN is mostly political scientists, and the pol scientists are the ones who edit and publish the reports. Many real scientists were angry after they found an edited version of their input which reached different conclusions in reports they contributed to. People thought they supported that nonsense. It is all so political.
Be Careful with the French words, you will confuse the Dem’s.
In politics, it’s formally called the “penumbra”, or as I have come to label it as the “twilight fringe.”
However, in science, you’re right, the missing facts are infilled with brown matter and energy.
#Mann-tASStic
Yes, he’s a trickster with a stinky hockeystick.
Mann must feel that his grant cash is being threatened. He hasn’t been getting a whole lot of media attention lately, has he? Out of sight, out of mind, and maybe out of cash….
I’m waiting for him to throw a Big Fat Loud Tantrum when he has been told that he can’t “have his way” any more.
Why does nobody spend money to Michael Mann to change his mind, so te hockeystick woud soon disappear from the scientffic agenda?
If memory serves, all those who testified at that hearing has to sign a “Truth in Testimony statement”.
With his blatant falsehoods at that hearing, is Mann in contempt of congress?
Someone needs to get the ball rolling on that, regardless.
Cheers,
Bob
As long as his falsehoods line up with what the majority on the committee wanted him to say, he will never be held in contempt.
In her response, Dr. Curry rates Dr. Mann’s testimony in Pinocchios. I wonder if he has the guts to sue her.
As much as I respect Dr. Curry, I fear that her rating scale for Mann is not adequate. I would suggest that she adopt to the Hiroshima-Pinocchios scale.
Steyn, Mark.
Contempt of Congress is meaningless.
Then how about perjury, SMC?
Regards,
Bob
Not applicable. This wasn’t testimony given in a court of law. Perjury is lying under oath in court, and in some cases, providing false or misleading personal information to a state or federal agency like the SSA.
That “Truth in Testimony” statement is the document equivalent of a pinkie swear.
“Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath.”
The testimony doesn’t have to be given in a court of law. Lying to Congress is punishable by 5 years in prison – A FELONY!
Perjury is lying under oath. It doesn’t have to be in court.
Don’t forget Mann’s attempted perjury in written documents that he’s submitted for various court cases. To wit, he has falsely claimed multiple times that he’s a shared winner of 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. IIRC he was never punished for that, either.
Whatever doubts I might have had about his integrity were cemented when I found out about this. It’s one thing for someone else to accidentally claim something like that about you, but it’s quite another thing for you to claim it yourself.
BT, the federal criminal law for not being truthful in unsworn congressional testimony is 18USC§1001, a ‘minor’ felony worth 1 year in prison per in incident.
According to SMC, a $1,000 fine and a year in jail is “meaningless.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192
If Congress, or the courts, actually enforced contempt of Congress, then it might be meaningful. As it is, contempt of Congress is not enforced, therefore, it’s meaningless.
This isn’t an issue of contempt of Congress. It’s an actual criminal offense covered under US Code. Lying to Congress is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
Stop trying to dissemble and deflect.
I’m not trying to “dissemble and deflect.” Contempt of Congress is meaningless without enforcement. And it doesn’t matter if it is a punishable felony under the USC. If it’s not going to be enforced, and it won’t be, then it is meaningless.
Your statement implies Contempt for Contempt of Congress.
Nah, just contempt for Congress.
Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with contempt of Congress. You are still deflecting!
This has to do with the DOJ, not Congress. The DOJ enforces criminal violations of the US Code, not Congress! And lying to Congress *is* a criminal violation of the US Code.
Fine, it has to do with the DOJ. Is it going to be enforced? … No. So, it’s meaningless.
No deflection, no dissembling, it won’t be enforced therefore, it’s meaningless.
Is lying to Congress going to be enforced? Dunno! I believe the statute of limitations on this is 7 years. In 7 years it proves out that the global warming is a hoax and has cost the US taxpayers untold billions of dollars it may very well be enforced. Mann may turn out to be the scapegoat for it all!
It ain’t gonna happen now. It ain’t gonna happen in the next 7 years.
Tim:
I think you are talking about something other than Contempt of Congress. To be specific, you said:
“’Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath.’”
First of all, this appears to have been quoted from some intermediate source, not the US Code itself. I don’t know what that source is, but for the sake of argument, I will assume that 1) you are faithfully quoting the intermediate source, and 2) the intermediate source is accurately paraphrasing the actual US Code. Yet that still does not resolve the matter, which, I believe, hinges on the phrase “to the feds”.
I’d have to see the context of the quote to be sure, but “feds” usually refers specifically to the FBI, though sometimes other federal domestic law enforcement agencies like DEA, ATF, ICE, or Homeland Security. In any event, “the feds” are ALWAYS some person of agency within the EXECUTIVE branch of the US government. The term NEVER applies to any member or body of the Legislative Branch.
Now, if you can somehow get Mann to lie to the FBI, you have a case under Section 1001, and it doesn’t matter what Congress has to say about it. But until then, we have, at best, the meaningless Contempt of Congress.
Regards,
Trevor
The fact that a very large number of politicians depend on payola from the eco-terrorists to stay in power indicates that if they were to refute Mann they would be out of a job.
Will it be put on his Permanent Record?
….What a piece of “sheist”….. (that is probably an insult to all the “sheist” in the real world…sorry bout dat….lol
I suggest that Mr. Mann knows far more about Social Media Crowdsourcing than he does about … science.
this….
If you’re taking flak, you must be over the target.
New MarkW
No, that was Mark W. Try to keep up.
Mann must know that he has no scientific grounds to support climate alarmism, so his only recourse is to defame and denigrate those who have full support from the physics and the data. position that Mann couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.
The most relevant hashtag would be:
#manntasticmanure
Michael Mannure: I like it…
This article concurs and beautifully expands your point.
Here is a cogent description of Mann’s behavior: “And if some do question it, how are they to be answered? Not by factual refutation, but by scornful dismissal. They must be smeared. They must be portrayed as deluded enemies of science, whose views warrant no attention.”
Although I feel badly for her, I hope Dr. Curry has a thick skin and ignores Mann’s outbursts.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/science_as_political_orthodoxy_140663.html
Quick, somebody give him an award… he’s had another #mannurism!
And attempt to enlist the remainder of the crowdsourced Lemmings to follow suit
#MANN-tASStic
#scientificmannslaughter
“Mann must know that he has no scientific grounds to support climate alarmism, so his only recourse is to defame and denigrate . . . ”
That’s really close, but I think you’re missing an important intermediary step in the logic. The climate alarmists can’t point to any purely objective scientific results that show that GHG emissions are significantly altering the climate, so instead they present their subjective opinions as being the evidence, either explicitly or implicitly through the use of models, which merely implement their theory of how the climate reacts to changes in GHG concentrations.
Thus, their appeal-to-authority argument of a “scientific consensus” (a literal oxymoron) and all that 97% blather is the central foundation of their public relations campaign to convince people that their view of the climate system is correct and needs to be acted on. Because of that, they cannot tolerate any respected scientist publicly disagreeing with them because that disagreement necessarily erodes the effectiveness of their public relations campaign. This is the reason why Mann feels the need to denigrate and defame those who disagree with him.
This tells you a lot about Mann’s insecurity about his own arguments. If I disagree with someone on the substance of any argument, I can still treat them with respect while presenting evidence and logical reasoning to try to persuade a neutral listener (and possibly even the person who I am responding to) that my arguments are correct. That Mann feels he has to personally attack those with whom he disagrees, instead of simply presenting the reasons for his disagreement, tells me that he does not think that his own reasons for such disagreement would persuade a neutral listener.
Hard to tell what to say. Nearly speechless. Dr. Curry with immaculate credentials and Mann like a snapping mongrel at her hamstrings. This is the move of a person devoid of proper platform to stand on. That side of the equation has no idea what to do in the face of data and facts but to whine like a small child.
Mann doesn’t have the stature to reach hamstring level ….ankle biter ? Maybe …. 😉
#ManntyPython
He’s always got his Mannties in a bunch.
Oh…no. Now I’m stuck with that….visual. Thanks loads.
Expecting honesty, humility, or respect from Michael Mann is just foolish. He will say and do anything necessary to bolster his own inflated ego and sustain the mann-made ‘Climate Change’ fraud. Both his paycheck and his perceived status depend on it.
Even the IPCC says there is no proven connection between what it claims is a warming and “extreme weather.” Why is this never pointed out to those who keep repeating the mythical connection? I am not a scientist, I just read stuff, like the IPCC report and this site, trying to understand. Am I that uncommon among our citizens or do those with agendas ha e no compunction about lying? I guess I know the answers to my own questions. Truly scary.
Jeff, your missing the point. These eco-terrorists are not interested in science. They are in a group think mob that cannot/will not take the time to study what they read. A severe lack of logic and common sense also helps them to understand and believe what they hear. Our education system has become so corrupted with these people that it will more than one generation to recover from this mess. Unfortunately we have a long way to go to get started. The first thing that has to happen is to get rid of the LPC and JT.
Just one more corroboration for the apt title of Mark Steyn’s book, “A Disgrace to the Profession”.
One giant leap backwards for all Mannunkind.
Man child ?
Aside from going extra-tropical, Sandy’s wind speeds had dropped below the hurricane threshold prior to it coming ashore.
As usual, Mann can’t even get the basic facts straight.
It could be argued that the standard definition of major hurricane landfall is imperfect. But it’s too late for that now. We can’t say which hurricanes of the 1930’s, for instance, would have been major ones on the Mann-better scale, so we can’t switch to it.
The standard is the standard because that’s the only way to show trends apples-to-apples. Well, aside from tossing out all our historic data.
Sandy doesn’t qualify.
When Sandy made landfall, it had hurricane force 1-minure-sustained winds, just not on land. They were Westerly winds south of the center and offshore, in a pattern typical of an intense advanced extratropical storm. Sandy did become an advanced extratropical storm, because the extratropical storm formed around the hurricane long before. And that is not extraordinary; it happened because Sandy headed into an area where the extratropical storm was about to form, so it formed around Sandy, and that’s how Sandy got it’s large official size
Michel Mann’s outward appearance is just as vile as the dark malevolent recesses of his soul.
I remember when Dr. Spencer and Joe Bastardi took Mann to woodshed over his claim for the reason of the looping track of Hurricane Harvey. Mann obviously hasn’t learned a thing!
Mann is a swine but has gotten away with this kind of behavior for too many years to have any decent sense of propriety. If he signed a Truth in Testimony statement then his feet should be held to the fire. He is attempting to blacken the name of a respected scientist and Congress has grounds to go after him.
Professor Pielke Jr. goes to the heart of the matter. By the ancient adage, silence means assent.
Alarmists have taken control of the climate policy debate, using exaggerations, fiction, and smears. Only the silence of climate scientists, leaders and those in the ranks, made this possible. The consequences are likely to be horrific.
It is the Noble Corruption of Climate Science (as in “noble cause”).
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/04/11/noble-corruption-of-climate-science/
Mann has built his entire career on the poorly constructed hockey stick study which depending on your level of cynicism was either incompetent research by a newly minted PhD, or fraudulent research by an opportunistic academic looking for fame. So of course he’s spent the years since then doubling down with belligerence to defend his reputation. I keep waiting for the larger climate research community to declare the emperor naked, and yet it keeps not happening. I can only conclude that all the federal money with catastrophic co2 strings attached are keeping the community quiet.
The guy’s reputation is a dumpster fire. He’s being rightfully eviscerated – https://twitter.com/hashtag/CurryCanards
Not really. His acolytes are jumping in.
Even if Mann’s and others’ CAGW/Climate Change theories, dependent on tree ring count proxy data, were correct, I’m certain that they could not reliably count the number of rings and consistantly get the correct answer!
Roger Pielke Jr.’s compilation of extreme weather data shows there has been a slight decline in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather since about 1950. He is derided by many for not being a climate scientist even though his data is drawn from government records and is not contradicted in any way by the IPCC Special Report on Extremes (IPCC SREX 2012). Near the end of Congressional testimony in March 2017, climate scientist Michael Mann did not refute Piekle’s claims, saying only that they were obsolete, even though Pielke had updated them for the hearings, and then changed the subject to attribution (i.e. how much of the severity of a particular extreme weather event can be attributed to global warming). Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s written testimony for March 2017 Congressional hearing on climate is here: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-RPielke-20170329.pdf
If you can’t out-think them…bully them. That has always been the way for left-wingers.
I believe the damage caused by the silence of the so called climate scientists will present large problems in the future when the masses finally realize the Fake News they have been warned about is actually from scientists and spread through complicit government and MSM.
you would hope/think so..however seeing the exposure of fkbk goog and the rest for privacy and all sorts of skulduggery and people just keep on using them when the climate conmen really do get proved to be liars and collusionists about the same as happened to cancklesclinton will occur
nothing.,
they’ll shrug and walk free. with their nice pensions etc to boot.
Went on twitter and I read from someone : “Yes, that make her [J. Curry] not believing in the science of AGW…”
https://twitter.com/GeraldKutney/status/1143935567933169666
“believing” in the “science of AGW” …
Is “science of AGW” something we have to believe in ?
If yes, this has nothing to do with science : it’s a totalitarian religious groupthink.
BTW, “science of AGW” is oxymoronic since there is nor objective observations neither reproductible experiments to support the AGW hypothesis.