“Is there not a single climate scientist out there who will call this out as improper?”

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:

Advertisements

143 thoughts on ““Is there not a single climate scientist out there who will call this out as improper?”

  1. 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.

      • 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.

    • 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 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?

  2. 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.

        • 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!

        • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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!

        • 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.

  3. ….What a piece of “sheist”….. (that is probably an insult to all the “sheist” in the real world…sorry bout dat….lol

  4. I suggest that Mr. Mann knows far more about Social Media Crowdsourcing than he does about … science.

  5. 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

    • 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

    • And attempt to enlist the remainder of the crowdsourced Lemmings to follow suit
      #MANN-tASStic

    • “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.

  6. 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 …. 😉

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Just one more corroboration for the apt title of Mark Steyn’s book, “A Disgrace to the Profession”.

  10. 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

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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/

  14. 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.

  15. 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!

  16. 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

  17. If you can’t out-think them…bully them. That has always been the way for left-wingers.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. When the time comes that Mann’s chicanery is being tested in front of a jury there will be a treasure trove of evidence out there on the web.

  21. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists are cowering in their offices afraid to say anything for fear of retribution.

  22. Have those climate scientists who were involved with the climategate gate emails been contact for an opportunity to rubbish Manns ‘facts’?

  23. Over on Judith Curry’s blog, John Prince said this on June 28, 2019 at 7:37 am:

    “Judith, don’t ever shy away from the facts. Congress is nothing but showboat politics. Per Roy Spencer’s remarks, Americans know politicians and journalists are far from the most powerful. When it comes time to argue in front of the most important thinkers in this country, the Supreme Court, then you will be taken more seriously.”

    My response to his comment made on Climate Etc. was as follows:

    The Supreme Court does not issue rulings on the validity of scientific theories, not directly anyway.

    Rather, the court rules on questions concerning whether or not a government agency properly followed its own processes and procedures in reaching a scientific conclusion.

    The court has ruled that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon GHG’s as pollutants. The court has also ruled that the EPA properly followed its own processes and procedures in publishing its CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding for carbon.

    A strong legal foundation is now in place which would allow the EPA to push the Clean Air Act to its absolute limits in regulating America’s carbon emissions — something which the EPA has so far chosen not to do.

    The public debate over the validity of today’s climate science will not go critical mass unless and until the federal government begins imposing real personal sacrifice in the name of fighting climate change.

    If and when that day comes, a truly consequential public debate which goes well beyond the political posturing and into the heart of the science will commence.

    Every Congressional testimony we have seen and heard so far on either side of the scientific questions should be considered a practice exercise for the truly robust public debate that will occur if and when the federal government actually gets serious about regulating carbon.

    • “The public debate over the validity of today’s climate science will not go critical mass unless and until the federal government begins imposing real personal sacrifice in the name of fighting climate change.”

      Wife, where did you put my Yellow Vest?

  24. “Is there not a single climate scientist out there who will call this out as improper?”

    Perhaps it is better to ask:

    If a climate scientists says anything contrary to the climate crisis paradigm, and there is no media who will listen, does the scientist say anything at all?

    There has never been a shortage of climate realists and those who will speak out against the Michael Mann’s of the world, but they are routinely ignored. Even in this short article there are three important contributors to the scientific debate who are condemning Mann’s testimony as false and his behaviour as horrible. There could be hundreds more, but who would ever know?

    There are at least two ways to get a consensus. One is to find that a large majority of the people agree. The other is simply not county those who disagree and proclaim a consensus, which is exactly what we have in climate science.

  25. One concept is that scientist’s retain their juvenile mammalian curiosity longer than the average. I will leave it to those knowing the subject, but do we (1) have too many who brought along the less valuable (avoiding the adage about cats getting killed) juvenile behaviors and (2) such leads to individuals with naive views that (3) allow such immaturity to be exploited? As the old song sings, maybe he (actually in the song she) is more to be pitied than censured, but (4) that doesn’t mean toleration.

  26. Penn State should not receive further climate grants until Dr. Mann is removed,

    Can’t the EPA do that?

    • Is that Steyn court case still going? Something about he should be in the State Pen rather than Penn State.

      • Robert B: Go to Steyn online. Still going while at the same time dead in the water. In our courts, sometimes a lawsuit is like Schroedinger’s cat- both dead and alive.

  27. I’ve written about the slimy tactics of the global warming thugs since 2005 or earlier. SSDD.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/#comment-2688573

    “The Left will be doing everything they can to shut down their voices. Their websites, their videos. Just watch.”

    Radical greens have adopted and perverted Alinsky tactics (See Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”) to promote their extreme-left agenda.

    The radical greens’ standard tactic is to never debate the scientific facts (when they do, they lose), falsely declare “the science is settled” in their favour (which is the opposite of the truth), and vilify anyone who opposes them.

    Radical greens are abusers, liars and fraudsters – their global warming extremism is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity. Pass it on.

    Regards, Allan

    RULES FOR RADICALS: A PRAGMATIC PRIMER FOR REALISTIC RADICALS
    is a 1971 book by community activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
    1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
    2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
    3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
    7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
    8. “Keep the pressure on.”
    9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
    10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
    11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
    12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
    13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

  28. I don’t like to use the word and, as a result, rarely use it but there are times when no other word will suffice.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Michael “Piltdown” Mann is an asshole.

    • Make that squared.

      Has this man ever conducted anything with integrity or honesty?

      I already posted a comment suggesting that the EPA not give any further grants to Penn State because of this man’s lack of integrity. Can’t the government refuse to conduct business with such an entity on that basis?

      No further grants until he is removed.

      I don’t want revenge. I want justice.

      Calling on the liberal social media mob to go after Dr. Curry is as slimy as it gets.

        • Thanks Allan. We need more of this kind of thinking instead of the griping. Griping gets us nowhere.

          For the first time in a long time, it was refreshing to actually see what the Republicans did in Oregon. In normal circumstances and faced with a PC issue the spine of the usual Republican is that of a jellyfish.

          Allan has come up with a good thought. Let’s have more of it. “I’m mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.”

          Allan, do you know whether we could cut climate grants to Penn State.

          • CMay – hit them where it hurts – billions, even trillions of dollars of damages have been caused by warmists.

            18 U.S. Code § 1964 – Civil remedies
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1964
            prev | next
            (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.
            (b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.
            (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.
            (d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States

          • You have convinced me Allan that this is possible. I like it for another reason and that it is usually the tactic of the progressives to run to the courts like the 9th circuit.

            The potential problem is the establishment Republicans who do everything they can to keep conservatives from gaining power. Wasn’t it Bush who gave us the CFL bulb? He was no conservative.

            What would we need something like Judicial Watch to see this through?

            I still see the soft establishment Republicans as the problem. I do not think they would push this they are too weak and gutless. If they cross the Democrats they won’t be invited to the cocktail parties in Washington.

  29. M. Man has gotten away with so much in silence from the Team. It has been almost entirely sceptics’ resistance to his roughshod methods or we would totally be snowed under by the worst operators in this meme- an inestimable debt to such as McIntyre, McKittrick, WUWT and a handful of others dedicated to keeping science as honest as possible, is owed by the entire world.

    Release of the U of Arizona emails of Hughes, a co-author of the Hockey Stick, reveals the lengths hokeymann would go if unchecked. Hughes was troubled about his lead author’s plan of additional trickery (er… calculations) to tie modern obs to the only proxy that supported the “add on” of recent obs: the stripbark pine which had been flagged as unsuitable as a proxy by dendro professionals some time ago.

    “I fear this would give a wonderful opportunity to those who would discredit the approach we used in MBH 1998 and 1999. They would almost certainly seize it to attack the use of the MBH99 reconstruction in the IPCC.”

    This reveals Hughes and apparently Bradley weren’t going to go that far in the data manipulation (not exactly creditable but at least some vestiges of integrity were evident). This from WUWT half a year ago and worth a re-read.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/10/climategate-continues-first-look-at-the-mann-hughes-emails/

  30. Wow. Mann makes some pretty mild comments and here we have a raft of seriously abusive and defamatory comments.

    The lack of self-awareness here is a little frightening.

    • He has earned it, and more. Seriously, he deserves jail time for what he has done. He’s a disgrace as a human being, if he is indeed human.

    • Mann makes some pretty mild comments??? … like: “this myth about there having been a supposed hurricane drought”. You may choose to call that a pretty mild comment. I prefer to call it a lie.

    • John Dutton – I don’t think the appropriate comparison is between Michael Mann and the lowest commentators on a blog post. We should be looking at Michael Mann in regards to behaviors appropriate for someone worthy of esteem within the scientific community. He accuses Judith Curry of promoting various falsehoods and fallacies. The mildness of that accusation depends on the Nature of what Judith said. If she promoted numerous whoppers, that is a mild accusation. If she only has offered differing but supported perspectives, than it likely rises to the level of a vicious attack. I’m looking for the smoking gun of the first outright falsehood.

      I don’t have experience in such, but it seems to me his blocking of Judith Curry from the critical hashtag #CurryCanards is unwarranted and unprofessional. This makes me think his criticisms were harsher than can be supported. Please, if you have the time and disagree, educate me as to how that is appropriate behavior on his part. Also, if Judith has ever blocked Dr. Mann, or others with any rumor of credibility I would appreciate any one letting me know that.

    • Mann has a long history of publicly denigrating/abusing colleagues and reasonable critics such as Judith Curry. He deserves everything he gets.

    • You jest like the trolls need to chime in there is enough trolling going on by MannFool. I don’t know why anyone gives the esteemed professor of my head is the size size on a planet the press. Ignore the pratt.

  31. Mann’s behaviour is a sure sign of arrogance knowing the amount of money that is behind the global warming hoax.

  32. Bwahahaha… Judith Curry is a joke. Nobody in the research community takes her even remotely seriously.

    • Sure. Uh huh. And just look at how many “in the research community” filed an amicus brief supporting Mann in the Steyn lawsuits.

      Curry is a joke Mann isn’t laughing at. He fears her and others so blusters rather than refutes.

      PS Quoting himself is not refuting.

      • At the University of Woolloomooloo, Bruce here teaches logical positivism, and is also in charge of the sheep dip.

    • Well we know that’s not true at all, Bruce.

      But if it were, how much more damning of a statement could one make about the “research community” than that?

      Either way, you’re clearly a fool and a troll.

      Wasn’t too long ago that you claimed Dr. Curry was “not particularly well-respected.” You’ve really turned-up the rhetoric on her now. Get real.

    • Bruce – where’s your data to support that claim about Dr. Curry? Climate science seems to be very selective in which data they accept and which data they ignore or discredit. Which as a researcher/environmental engineer – retired, I find very discomforting.

    • Mike,

      Pinning this on Mann will be equivalent to grabbing an eel while wearing boxing gloves. The media will guard him.

  33. Mann was spotted sneaking out the back door of the building after his testimony.
    (Initial reports that it was Jerry Brown were mistaken)
    While appearing to act nonchalant, reports are they he was asking everyone if they had one of those bright red cylinder gizmos filled with carbon dioxide handy.
    His pants were by then fully engulfed, having caught fire early in his testimony:

    https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1143579609218322432?s=20

  34. I firmly believe that Michael Mann’s actions, words, and reactions must be viewed in the context of one suffering from acute Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry, Version V. Narcissists have an irresistible impulse and urgent need to attack and retaliate against anything or anyone who criticizes them or their work, or even those who give the appearance of criticism. I saw this firsthand when Dr. Mann complained about a humorous reference to termites and their methane production in a National Weather Service Area Forecast Discussion issued by an operational forecaster, and demanded that this kind of activity cease. This obsessive attention to his/their message of CAGW and any criticism of it screams of a narcissist lashing out at any attempt, even a humorous one, to cast doubt or aspersions on his/their thoughts, which he “knows” to be correct, as narcissists are never wrong, don’tcha know. Everyone else is wrong, but not the narcissist. Our classically narcissistic supervisor (not Dr. Mann) even told a group of assembled employees that he (our supervisor himself) was right, and everybody else was wrong. Further, he said that if we wanted to know what was wrong with our office, we should all go look in the mirror. Narcissists work extremely hard to control the dialogue and the narrative, and of course try to dominate any verbal conversation. Narcissism is a devastating psychological disorder, and deeply damaging to success in the workplace, especially in a government and/or public service setting; they are moreover a major detriment to a positive and healthy family environment. Narcissists are very clever and defy diagnosis, as they can use various methods to keep their opposition off guard. Lying is part of that. But, given enough time, their symptoms are there to put the pieces of a diagnosis together. These remarks are not made out of hate or political motivations or even disagreement on a scientific issue; they are made after observing horrifyingly similar and destructive behavior in another setting. It’s very possible that Dr. Mann would be a psychiatrist’s delight.

  35. My father always said that “a wise man values even a fools thought”… somehow Mann’s comments don’t fit in that equation.

  36. In debates on any subject, when one reduces to this kind of response usually indicates they have lost.

  37. If there were any honest climate scientists left, they would be vocal in condemning the way Mann and those like him are discrediting the entire field and all who work in it.
    Unfortunately, the honest climate scientists were driven out of the field by Mann and those like him a long time ago.

  38. “..“Is there not a single climate scientist out there who will call this out as improper?”…”

    Er… doing that would mean that they would lose their jobs and become unemployable in their chosen profession. You should be asking:

    “Is there not a single climate scientist out there willing to give up their job, their home and their family to make a protest which will not be successful?”

    To which the answer is ‘No’…

  39. The USA Government has fabricated earlier scare scenarios similar in many ways to this global warming scare. One was a forecast that fizzed, that US citizens were about to suffer an epidemic of cancers caused by the increased use of man-made chemicals. The 1980s story is detailed in fine, referenced detail in the excellent book “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron.
    My main take from the Efron book concerned the ending of the scam. The end was marked by the public migration of several of the top alarmists, to the other side. Game, set, match.
    That is why this call for honest scientists to come forward to be counted is vital. If global warming and the cancer scare follow something of a similar path, then personalities swapping sides might be a critical signal that the end is nigh. I read it that way. Geoff

    • hmmm, but the cancer rates for usa are now 2 in 3…
      yes diagnostics are better than before but it does seem rather high
      ditto other 1st world nations..the food the chemicals ???

  40. By default, Michael Mann just indicted himself as purely a political animal and a shill for leftist (Democrat) political ideology. Give a man enough rope….

  41. Judging from his own words, he is now a political operative for the Democrats. Which explains his attack on a competent female whose very presence invalidates him.

  42. Mann is so much like the plastic/vinyl inflatable clown, bottom weighted gas bag shaped like a fat headed bowling pin that I had as a kid. He keeps popping back up when knocked over but when he finally blows a seam he will crumple like a flat beach ball. I will probably happen as fast as Humpty Dumpty’s fall.

    I’m not sure if Humpty Dumpty was so arrogant as to claim himself as “Distinguished” but he got his name/place in the history of fables. Perhaps Mann’s distinguishment will be similar.

  43. Isn’t it time someone applied superstatistical analysis (designed for complex nonequilibrium systems) to climate extreme events?

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.3832.pdf

    Silence on this suggests that it has been tried but the results obtained weren’t scary or alarmist enough.

  44. NYT or something is probably pulling-together another article portraying “reluctant activist” Mann as the victim yet again.

  45. The words of Mark Twain seem appropriate , ‘It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool rather than open it and remove any possible doubt ‘ Mr Mann should take note!

Comments are closed.