Michael Mann just stepped in it.

Dr. Mann runs his mouth again, and this time I think he’s made a huge mistake. Personally, with what knowledge I have of libel law, I think this is actionable under Canadian law as well as US law, and I hope that Steve McIntyre takes Dr. Mann to task legally.

Here is a screencap:

The original Tweet is here.


UPDATE 10/8/19 9:25AM

It seems Mann is a bit worried about potential libel litigation in this new Tweet:

Advertisements

144 thoughts on “Michael Mann just stepped in it.

  1. Maybe Mcintyre should file suit in DC courts – It might make a point the the judges

    • If he sues, Steve should use the same Canadian Court and judge that just suffered Mann’s suit against Dr. Ball.

      Frankly, Steve McIntyre is extremely well respected, even by alarmists.

      Manniacal is just trying for cheap shots for his religious fanatics. Not even Mann’s fellow alarmists respect or trust Mann.

        • He may be a useful idiot, but he is also a public person. McIntyre is not.

          It would be pretty difficult to sustain a claim that someone is a “professional liar”. That is a double claim: that one lies, and does it for a living.

          Climate science has more back-biting and calumniating that any other profession save perhaps being a “reporter” in Hollywood.

          Good luck Steve. If you need a fund, let us know. I’d like to see it prosecuted in Canada.

    • Ya think?? This lying, conniving, lardy little Fraudpants has cost this world FAR too much already, yet still he is allowed to roam free. Inexplicable.

    • You be right for , one of things that came out of leaked e-mails , was just how often Mann would bully people on his own side.
      Massive ego combined with a thin skin and poor abilities is always a toxic mix.
      Frankly I have long considered that he will be thrown under the bus by the others in attempt to save themselves

    • RE Mann-made Global Warming:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/mcintyre-a-reductio-ad-absurdum-of-tree-ring-chronologies-as-useful-temperature-proxies/#comment-2492128

      There is ample evidence on Steve McIntyre’s website climateaudit that MBH98 et al (“MBH98”) were false nonsense – you should not ask that it be repeated here. The is ample evidence that MBH98 was not only false, but fraudulent.

      If you still have doubts, read the Wegman report. The North report was weaker, but under questioning, North agreed with Wegman’s conclusions.

      Before Steve McIntyre’s skilled and diligent work, we already knew that MBH98 was false, because it eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historic record, and these periods are very well-recorded.

      Large portions of European populations died from cold, starvation and deprivation during the Little Ice Age. I am guessing from your name that these were your people; they certainly were mine. Let us show some respect for their suffering.

      Regards, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-congratulates-identity-thief-peter-gleick-for-receiving-his-carl-sagan-award/#comment-2447182

      Repeating for Phil:

      For more on the PUBLIC revelation of the Divergence Problem in 2006, see
      http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/

      Phil, Briffa is discussed by Steve McIntyre in his above 2006 post on ClimateAudit, but the true significance of the Divergence Problem, and the shifty way it was handled by Mann and others was not a matter of public knowledge until about 2006.

      We owe a great debt to Steve McIntyre for his highly competent and tenacious efforts to reveal this warmist chicanery.

      Mann’s early poor-quality tree-ring data eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to depict the straight shaft of the Hokey Stick, but his later tree-ring data would have showed modern cooling with the blade of the stick turning down (the so-called “Divergence Problem”), so Mann deleted the modern tree ring data and instead grafted on modern surface temperature data to show the very-scary global warming message that he wanted to portray. Mann became famous, moved to Penn State and a tenured position, etc.

      In summary, the Divergence Problem was “solved” thus:
      Pure tree-ring proxies showed a downturn in modern temperatures, so Mann grafted modern surface temperature records onto the tree ring data to show global warming. Presto! Problem solved!

      The IPCC loved Mann’s hokey stick and published it several times as an important piece of evidence in their “2001 TARpaper” – a steaming pile of deceptive warmist propaganda!

      Now it was time to stampede the sheep!

      References:

      https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/
      2001 TAR Fig SPM-10b and other figures

      https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

      “Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.” – John Christy

    • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/01/the-great-climate-change-debate-william-happer-v-david-karoly-part-a/#comment-2446405
      [excerpts]

      The Wegman Report fully supported McIntyre’s work and declared that the much-touted (by-the-IPCC) Mann hockey stick was broken.

      EXCERPTS FROM WEGMAN REPORT

      The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.

      WHILE THE WORK OF MICHAEL MANN AND COLLEAGUES PRESENTS WHAT APPEARS TO BE COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE, THE CRITICISMS OF MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK, AS WELL AS THOSE OF OTHER AUTHORS MENTIONED ARE INDEED VALID.

      • A dispassionate analysis of Michael Mann’s ‘back to 1400 CENSORED directory will show beyond any doubt that the MBH98 hockey stick failed its verification tests and was published anyway.

        Steve McIntyre has a copy of that directory. Mann slanders Steve at his peril.

        It doesn’t matter that the hockey stick was reproduced by other crock-ridden reconstructions. Corroboration by other means does not remove the fact that the MBH98 stick itself was known to be false before it was published.

        • Pat,

          That other studies have replicated Mann’s hockey stick means that they also replicated the temperature downturn in his proxy reconstruction after 1981, when global temperatures were on the rise. Hence, the other studies simply demonstrate that tree rings are useless thermometers.

  2. Can someone post links to the papers at issue? McIntyre, like anyone, can make a mistake but for the last 14 years his reading and deconstruction of papers in this field has been as rigorous as it can get. I hope Dr. Gomez Navarro has his big boy trousers on.

    • The comment by Juan Jose is a on MacIntyre’s Twitter feed. MacIntyre had commented on Alarmists cherry picking graphs for a report. Apparently, Juan Jose thought he was lying.

      • Thomas: Thanks. I guessed that much. But SM raises a specific but Juan Jose offers a vague rejection but is pretty definitive about it. I simply wanted to validate Steve’s point.

  3. Any hope held out for Dr. Mann on the integrity front has just been dashed.

    I feel confident now in calling him a complete idiot. And he should not care that I call him an idiot, since I am so unknown in professional circles that my commentary about him would have no harming effect on his reputation. And by the time he could prove that it might, I would be too old and feeble to continue disputing it, and so I could beg the judge to dismiss his case against me.

    Mods, feel free to delete this, if it smacks as too libelous. I wouldn’t want to threaten WUWT with a Mann lawsuit.

    • I wouldn’t worry about WUWT.

      Many years ago, there was a popular bumper sticker for those of us driving motor vehicles that could, at best, be described as “beaters”. It read, “Hit me, please, I need the money.”

    • Complete idiocy and lack of integrity are examples of defects you can accuse a public figure of suffering from without any fear of approaching an actionable threshold.

      Please try harder.

      • “Try harder”
        OK, challenged accepted!
        Michael Mann may be the very stupidest full-retard of a cretin to ever get handed a sheet of paper with the letters P, h, and D on it.
        He is very certainly among the front runners for the prize for the worst and most prolific liar to have ever disgraced public discourse.
        He is uniquely unattractive as well. In fact it has been noted that a single glimpse of his revolting visage is sufficient to dissuade a female from heterosexuality for the remainder of her life, and in fact if one wished to identify an uglier and more repulsive creature, one must peruse photographs of deformed hyenas and disfigured baboons.
        His attire appears to have been selected by a committee of blind, homeless, Pittsburg-area second hand store vendors.
        He has the manners of a French hotel clerk with crotch rash, and that is on his good days.
        And on top of everything else, he smells.
        I mean he smells bad.
        Really bad.
        Anyone who meets him in person finds themselves suddenly checking the bottoms of their shoes to see what they stepped in.
        He could dramatically improved his breathe by gargling with fermented goat piss.
        I mean, he literally smells like he had a rotten goat carrion pie for lunch and followed it up with a nice rancid monkey dung parfait.

        Now, if I wanted to be mean, I could also give a list of his faults.

        • So Brad, if that is not trying hard enough, let me know, and I will stop being so gentle.

        • Better, Nicholas, but you’re still praising him by faint damnation.

          Why would you want to be mean, by the way? You’re an outlier. Be proud. Don’t apologize for a single tenth of a sigma. One day, deviation will be standard and it will be those with central tendencies who loathe and cut and hang themselves for the mediocrity they didn’t ask for and can’t control. And rightly so. Until that day we bide our time—we flukes, we freaks, we aberrant data points.

      • “Complete idiocy and lack of integrity are examples of defects you can accuse a public figure of suffering from without any fear of approaching an actionable threshold.”

        In the U.S. Not in Canada. And even in the U.S., that “for hire” bit is actionable.

    • Dr. Mann sued Dr. Ball for defamation because Ball said Mann …

      belongs in the state pen, not Penn State

      Mann then delayed and delayed, thus avoiding rigorous questioning and production of discovery. The judge pitched Mann’s case out because of that inexcusable delay.

      IMHO, we are entitled to adverse inference. We can infer that Mann’s testimony and any produced discovery would have exposed him and his hockey stick as frauds.

      If there’s a lawyer in the house who can correct the above opinion, I’m all ears. Also, as far as I can tell, Mann has missed his opportunity to appeal. It seems to me that he’s come as close to admitting that he’s a fraud as you can get without actually saying the words.

      • He then failed to file an appeal in time for the case he lost, this after huffing and puffing that he was seriously going to appeal.

        He is a whack job!

        • “He is a wack job”
          Sunsetttommy, somehow I feel you are insulting other “wack jobs” with this comparison, but that is just my opinion. 🙂

      • I’m no lawyer, but I think you could justifiably hold an adverse inference. If Mann wished to dispel that adverse inference, all he would have to do would be to release the data that he used in the creation of the “Hockey Stick” graph. Then, other scientists could look into the data and verify whether the produced graph was accurate or not. The fact that he refuses to release the data is telling.

        • I’m no lawyer either, so I’ll confine my comments to science and how it works.

          Your comment is well-put and erudite. It’s also wrong.

          Releasing his data isn’t “all Mann would have to do” to dispel the adverse inference, because the adverse inference is not that his graph was inaccurate—being inaccurate is not a crime in science. If it were, 99% of science papers (and 100% of climate-science papers) would have to be retracted.

          Instead, I’d call it “all he HAD to do, 21 years ago, to dispel the adverse FACT that he’s not a real scientist—a fact that arises by definition from his refusal to disclose enabling details of his methodology—regardless of what those details would or wouldn’t prove once discovered.”

          Almost nobody understands this (which is what Mann is counting on to get away with it in the court of scientifically-illiterate public opinion, whose verdict is the only one that matters in the climate debate). Refusing to show your working, when you’re a scientist, doesn’t create the suspicion or inference that you are covering up misconduct—it CONSTITUTES misconduct.

          I don’t need access to Mann’s missing, mythical mystery-meat Methods section to know, to an absolute certainty, that his paper is unscientific grey literature.

          The mere fact that he’s withholding it MAKES it unscientific grey literature. Into Pachauri’s dustbin of crap it goes.

          Please make my day by becoming the first non-scientist ever to grasp what I’m saying here.

          In politics, there are those famous results:

          it != the crime
          it = the coverup

          I’m sure this isn’t new information for you. But science doesn’t work like politics. Science doesn’t work like anything that isn’t science. Science is special.

          In science,

          the coverup = the crime.

          Geddit?

          • Citation- show yr workings or how else validation that yr data’s really data? As someone said @Jo Nova, ‘Data badly taken is not data. It is only a number that fails to relate directly to the parametre measurement.’

          • I geddit! Always have.

            The other classic example of a non-scientist “getting away with it” was Jones’ “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

        • beth, exactly—as always.

          Newminster,

          do you geddit because you’re a scientist, though? That would be cheating 😉

          Can you also tell me the correct, MAD Magazine ‘Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions’ response to Phil Jones’ question?

          If you get that right too, AND you’re not a scientist, I’ll be thrilled to award you the inaugural 2019 E. B. Keyes, Jr, Shield for Excellence in the Field of Getting It.

    • You don’t have to bother calling Dr Mann anything, all you have to do is laugh, his own actions have condemned him.

    • I once told an insurance salesman, “I am 100% protected from lawsuits. I have no assets and no insurance. I will never be sued!” He had no comeback for that.

  4. Mr. Mann ought to watch this, instead of his reflection in the mirror:

    Climategate ‘hide the decline’ in depth explanation by Stephen McIntyre 1/3

  5. Priceless. The angry fraudster tweets more hate at McIntyre…and includes a sale-pitch for his book on Amazon.

  6. As I can’t insert a picture I’ll try and direct you to a Twitter feed that I think Anthony Watts should read:
    Michael Mann’s Twitter has a retweet from Gavin Schmidt with the line “My god these people are stupid” and a screenshot of Wattsupwiththat Twitter entry for “Alarmism exposed”.
    At the bottom is a reply by Bobd which states: “Climate denial has been exclusive to sociopaths and the gullible for some time. WUWT may be the former, but their following is mostly the latter”
    Of course ad hominem attacks are the final resort.

  7. He is now attacking this site.

    My God these people are stupid

    You wish, you beady eyed little fraud! LOL

  8. I’m not surprised. These people scatter around the insult “shill” with reckless abandon. Almost anyone who dares to correct them is a “shill” in their eyes. To Mann and his people, Shill = liar for hire. They construct this climate hysteria in a similar way to how all politically correct think: everything in PC politics must be an escalation. Because most kudos goes to he/him/ze? using the most inflammatory language.

    I think the issue stopping a defamation case could be the non-specific nature of the charge.

  9. That’s rich, coming from Fraudpants Mikey Mann, professional and pathological liar, molestor of climate data, and future occupant of the State Pen.

  10. You have to admit that the Mann has polish.

    He needs it, some to polish his fake nobel prize, some to polish McIntyres shoes and the rest to polish his baldy little head.

    • I’ve always preferred “Meltdown Mann”. It describes both what has happened to his “Hockey Stick” and his reaction to anyone who disagrees with him. Yet it still brings to mind what “Piltdown Man” really was, a fraud.

        • Personal preference.
          A doctored skull. A (statically) doctored tree ring.
          Both result in the same.
          Not “undoctored” facts.

  11. Really illustrates the problem. Mann has not been able to answer Mcintyre’s criticisms of his beloved Hockey Stick and rather than accept he is wrong, he lies, insults and lies again.

    What’s interesting us he doesn’t say McIntyre us wrong! He simply says he proves Mann’s work is false for money. It’s still wrong Michael, whatever Mcintyres motives.

    • There are “culturally approved” methods for responding to scientific communications that hold opposing arguments or offer opposing proofs. Slander is not one of them. Slander is only used when there is no solid science behind one’s arguments and assertions…and it is never useful.

      Any curious individual should wonder why a so called real scientist would “uncontrollably fly off the handle” about WUWT. I find it impossible to picture Richard Feynman responding in the immature fashion that Mikey Mann has.

      If Mann’s fraudulent Hockey Stick had not been proven wrong, it would be on the cover of every IPCC Publication. Instead, it is found nowhere in the annals of non-fiction anywhere.

      If Western Civilization survives the current onslaught from the Globalists/Socialists (that Mann believes he’s a significant contributor to…snicker…snort)…and Civilization ever returns to normal with adults in charge…Mann’s Hockey Stick will exist only in History Books in chapters relating to fraudulent politically motivated science.

      • Doc, fraudulent politically motivated pseudo-science.

        Mann did some early work on yttrium ceramics, prior to 1990, before entering climate science to its ruination. Since then, he’s done no science at all.

        The hockey-stick and all other current proxy air temperature reconstructions: pseudo-science.

        The air temperature record: an exercise in self-serving negligence.

        Global air temperature projections: physically meaningless.

        None of it is part of science.

    • Mann is following some advice for lawyers that I read somewhere.

      If the law is with you, pound the law.

      If the evidence is with you, pound the evidence.

      If neither is with you, pound the table.

      Mann is a table pounder par excellence. For some reason, he reminds me of our old buddy Nikita. link

      • If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.

        If not, pound the man.

        If he won’t go down, pound his known associates, former girlfriends, Mum, etc.

        He’ll roll over at some point, and that’s when you know you came out on top.

        It’s important to keep pounding though, now that you’re dominant. If he can walk away, then he hasn’t been given enough of a pounding.

    • “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
      — Socrates

      Mann has no answer to Mcintyre’s criticisms, so he resorts to slander. He has lost the debate.

  12. Having neither accurate scientific models nor data to rely on, Michael Mann can only “pound the table” to try and distract attention. Such deliberate attacking the person rather than the argument is the epitome of scientific failure and loss. When will he ever learn?

  13. Scientists that do not practice at least the minimal level of professional decorum should be politely “called out” by all scientists. Mann’s behavior is so obviously purely political and outside normal bounds of professional discourse that it does a disservice to all scientists who tolerate this behavior in complete silence.

    Remaining silent could have grave long term consequences. This fraud will fall apart if the climate cools significantly which is not very unlikely. Those scientists silently tolerating this horrible behavior should share in the disgrace and ostracism and possibly even criminal prosecution that will be due (for using government funds fraudulently…if a future power swing allows for the truth to come out in a “deep audit”).

    Plus, believers must know that this behavior works 180 degrees against persuasion…the persuasion that is required to bring those still skeptical “aboard”…the failure of which hurts an honest cause.

    No honest scientist believes the models have any significant degree of accuracy (predictive skill). Even the IPCC has stated this.

    Else…the Greatest shame in the history of bad science should befall them all. I will never forget.

  14. Maybe he’s promoting his book to pay his legal cost in the Ball and Styne (sp?) cases?
    Perhaps his backers have backed off? Left their pawn out there to fend for himself?
    (Probably to much to hope for.)

  15. I would imagine that Dr. Mann has blocked Mr. McIntyre from his Twitter feed … Is it not against Twitter rules to attack someone that can’t respond because they are blocked?

  16. A wise old cop told me once “A person (my addition: even a melvin), is never as dangerous and unpredictable as when a long term “getting away with something big” is evaporating, …. as the investigator’s cruisers pull up to the front window of his/her office. And, you are about to lose everything.

    • For reference, check out John Brennan’s latest comments on ‘they saw I’m going to be interviewed in this ‘non-investigation’. The big cheese is always interviewed last, John

  17. Much as I dislike Michael Mann and all that he stands for, this strikes me as just opinion, not libel.

    Of course, like most readers here, I’m not a lawyer. My opinion of Mann is unprintable for other reasons, but we’ve all seen what does and does not fly in court. No way is this actionable with any reasonable chance of success.

    • But others’ opinions about him, he has sued over over less. And sued out of malicious attempts to destroy them personally. (As long as he had financial backers to pay his bills.)

      Having said that, I can understand why Mcintyre would choose to let it pass.
      Mickey has been hoist on his own Stick already.
      To sue might not be worth the effort for him.

    • I’m not so sure about that (no cause for action). Mann’s accusation is that McIntire is paid to lie. That is a fact that is provable or disprovable and I suspect that Mann not only has no evidence, he knows its false. That’s libel, even if Steve is a prominent person.

      • My reading of it, is that the courts would want to see a “Macintyre did W to X at time Y in place Z, with the candlestick”. This falls a long way short of that.

        • I believe one has to show injury.

          As Steve McIntyre is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, calling him a gun-for-hire liar is a defamation that could negatively impact the reception of his published work.

          It seems possible that the Mann-affirming McIntyre-dismissive tweets are evidence of successful discredit, which may constitute evidence of injury.

  18. Good scientists don’t bother to sue people. Suing people is for slime buckets and pseudoscientists who have something to hide. I don’t think Mcintyre should sue. His work will speak for itself and any real scientist will see that without spending a fortune dragging some insignificant slime ball pseudoscientist through the muck. Where’s the data Mikey????

    • As a lawyer, I completely agree. Although Mann’s statement is false and defamatory, I can’t see how McIntyre has suffered any real economic damage as a result of its publication. I doubt that he has suffered any emotional damage either.

      Libel lawsuits should be saved for cases where the libel injures someone’s livelihood or causes serious humiliation in the eyes of the public. McIntyre should not lower himself to behaving as Mann does.

      • I’d disagree from the point of view of “the intangibles”. It’s also about reputation. Even if you only win $1.00, defending your reputation has value as well. One never knows what invitations, offers, grants etc. one misses because of the numbers of people who heard and believed “the slur”, but never heard the defense.

        Even if you only win the $1.00, the awarding of costs does send a financial phaser blast set on “stun” back at your false accuser. Paying for court costs, and someone else’s lawyer is expensive.

    • Natalie I’m grateful to you:

      “insignificant slime ball pseudoscientist ”

      Ker-CHING. Thanks. Outrageous, no?

  19. Michael Mann living up to the title of Mark Steyn’s book,
    “A Disgrace to the Profession”.
    Steve McIntyre should consider Mann’s vituperation as the highest of accolades.

  20. Wow.

    Got blocked quick.

    Post I had responded to referred to skeptic SM as not being qualified to give an opinion on climate, having an inadequate scientific degree.

    Then I pointed out this was a war of “statistics” in which Mann was uncredentialed.

    Then ZAP! — Blocked!

    Thin-skinned lot.

    (Never been blocked by anyone before, ’cause, never really ever use twitter … )

  21. I hope Mac has more interesting things to do with his time and money.
    I would not want to be in the same building with Mann.

  22. He may not have time for that guy.

    He is now also one of the leading and most informative researchers in politics with multiple groundbreaking discoveries and that work is too important to waste any time for mud fights with self made climate warriors.

  23. Well, I’ve been blocked by Mann. At least that’s what it says when I try to see the tweet. It’s weird, because I’ve never been on his feed. Is it possible he blocks everyone and you have to be white-listed by him? I don’t know, but I feel pretty honored to be in the “blocked by Mann” category.

    • IF you’ve been blocked, try another browser … sessions are tracked per the browser you’re logged in with.

      I use Slimjet, Firefox and MyPal (yes, yet another browser) to do these/this trick …

  24. When you have no case, attack the presenter. We all know that the entire cAGW narrative is a load of hot air, so the warmists must continually up the ante to maintain the big lie. Unbelievable that some people still believe the giant fantasy.

    As for Michael Mann, he knows his goose will be cooked when it is revealed the whole thing was a con job, so he and the others that are likely to lose their heads (literally) will be out in force to trumpet their message of BS in hope that idiotic leaders sign up for economic and civilizational suicide. There are not too many options left after the current Extinction Rebellion rubbish.

    I intend (on the days I am not at work) to not have a shower and hand out alternate information at their love-ins. As they claim to be non-violent, if they protest the information, perhaps I can persuade them (on punishment of being branded a bigot) to have some home truths revealed , ie, they have been conned.

  25. Mann claimed McIntyre’s peer-reviewed rebuttle to the Hockeystick paper was ‘pure scientific fraud’. In other words, anyone who points out the flaws and weaknesses in Mann’s work. The guy can’t take constructive criticism.

    This rebuttle ultimately led to withdrawal of the hockeystick from future IPCC reports, so many at the IPCC obviously didn’t think it was ‘pure scientific fraud’, so according to Mann they are all ‘pure scientific fraud’ as well.

    And also the reviewer who concluded ‘McIntyre’s criticism is valid’ or another hockeystick paper which Mann backed. That’s an awful lot of instances of people who think McIntyre isn’t ‘pure scientific fraud’.

    McIntrye’s background is auditing dodgy mining claims. Mann is the kind of person in the investment world who would trumpet his claims loudly, but eventually nobody would invest in his schemes because they bare no relation to reality; he wouldn’t last long in the real world. There are plenty of such dodgy promoters around, it’s just that Mann is unusual in that he doesn’t know he is one of them.

  26. I’m not saying Mann is a cretin, but arguing with him might be described as class warfare with an unarmed opponent.

    I’m not saying he’s uncouth, but at my kids’ school they renamed the Monday of a long weekend “Mannday”, since nobody has class.

    I’m not saying there’s a gaping defect in Mann’s personality, but it’s hard to forget the sight of farm animals, unsuspecting tourists and light beams being sucked into his cl________.

    I’m not saying Mann is an obnoxious boor, but Mickey Rooney would be unduly dignifying him if he reprised his cringe-worthy yellowface from Breakfast at Tiffany’s and said “ah Mr Mann, you put the ‘crass’ in crass!’

  27. Book sales dropping a bit low, Michael?

    It’ll be a classic one day. A prescribed text for psychologists.

  28. In the fullness of time, Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit will be used as type examples of the growing influence of the blog as a means of scientific communication. Historians would be hard pressed to find a better example.

    Geoff S

  29. To be, or not to be, that is the question:
    Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
    Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them:

  30. It is very obvious that any scientific training the Micky Mann ever had has completely evaporated from his consciousnesses as he is currently only acting as political advocate.
    It is also obvious that science is now not his strong point (was it ever?), as he twits away with heartfelt missives deriding anyone he feels is against him, usually just because people like Steven McIntyre had the temerity to analyzed and openly displayed evidence that M. Mann’s version of science is badly flawed. M. Mann has become someone who can no longer argue his corner scientifically because now it is obvious that science is beyond his mental abilities.

    It looks and sounds to me very much like Michael F. Mann is not only a loser but a bad loser.

  31. Michael Mann’s eyes are too close together. They make him look like a pig! So funny! He’s got one of those pudgy know-it-all faces you sometimes see on stupid people who think they are smart. He also looks a bit like a sex offender! Just saying!

  32. to paraphrase Disraeli[blockquote]Michael Mann appears to lack a single redeeming defect[/blockquote]

    • To do a blockquote here, you need to use the “greater-than”, “less-than” signs, not brackets.
      Here’s how you meant your comment to appear. (unless I screw it up!)

      Gras Albert
      to paraphrase Disraeli

      Michael Mann appears to lack a single redeeming defect

  33. He really should shave off that awful beard. It’s enough that he talks like one, he doesn’t need to make himself look like one.

  34. I wonder what Mike will teach his children and grandchildren about integrity and truth. Of course the problem comes when they want to lean what the world knows of their father/grandfather and the internet never forgets. I just hope that he will still be alive to explain to these young minds why he did it. And beg, at least, their forgiveness.

    • Thanks Mike.

      So the delightful Juan José Gómez-Navarro opens up by calling McIntyre a liar (he’ll go far on Climate Island that boy) only to be put firmly in his place by a series of calm, reasoned and historically & technically comprehensive tweets from Steve.

      I don’t remember ever having seem quite such a devastating putdown, with Juan José left with no option at the end of it but to slink off after posting a rather grudging thanks (but no apology).

      Meanwhile Fraudpants digs himself deeper into possible litigation with a further effort to fling more insults and to flog his book, which he somehow seems to believe will mitigate his original tweet.

      He really isn’t very bright, is he?

      • Devastating?

        Its a smack-down of epic, even biblical proportions.

        If this were a fight, you could slow the video down here to see exactly when Joe Palooka lost consciousness:

        “I see that you used the hosking.sim algorithm to generate pseudoproxies. You didn’t cite the paper which originally used this algorithm to generate paleoclimate pseudoproxies: McIntyre and McKitrick (GRL,2005). So I’m well aware of this method, including its limitations.”

  35. I live in hope that grown ups will actually return to run things. Differences of opinions are NOT lies. Lies are full untruths. Not half-truths, hypes or mistakes.

    This idea that someone is paid to lie is ridiculous in this matter. Yes, people do get paid to exaggerate and obfuscate.

    I once worked for a PR firm. In the morning I prepared material for a pro-smoking campaign paid for by tobacco companies. In the afternoon, I worked for a cancer charity. I didn’t last long as the sleaziness made me sick.

    But for someone like Mann to say that someone is PAID to LIE is pathetic (and probably provably wrong).

    It would mean someone actually BELIEVES his apocalyptic crap about climate change, but ignores it to cash a check.

    Anyone who reads WUWT knows that skeptics are not deniers (whatever they are anyway). We simply don’t see the numbers the same way as True Believers, which means we can’t make the same conclusions.

    Nothing to “lie” about at all.

  36. Man is such a disgrace to science that you could write a book about how incompetent he is…
    oh wait…
    Mark Steyn did.

  37. Bob,

    Perhaps so, as Steve hasn’t posted anything at Cimate Audit since mid-July and that was with respect to PAGES2K cherry picking back in 2014.

  38. I’m a former professional journalist who knows quite a bit about American libel law for a non-lawyer, but am not familiar with how Canadian law might differ. In an American court, I think McIntyre would have a good chance of winning a libel verdict, but that he’d have trouble collecting much by way of damages.

    If I were him, with respect to American law, I wouldn’t spend any of my own money in a lawsuit. I’d go to court in this country only if I could find an experienced libel lawyer who was willing to take the case on contingency. I really doubt he’d ever collect any money in a U.S. libel action, but Canadian law might be closer to British libel law and be more favorable to him.

  39. I am a lawyer. Mann’s delay in producing evidence was deemed a refusal by the court, hence the dismissal. A refusal to provide evidence when it is available leads to a jury instruction allowing the factfinders to draw an adverse inference from said refusal, i.e., that such evidence either does not exist or does not support the refuser’s position or in fact is contrary to the ref user’s position. In argument to the jury, a lawyer would call the refusal to provide available evidence a “consciousness of guilt” in a criminal case, or an admission against interest in a civil case, and in either case would fit within a jury instruction on how to judge credibility, obviously against the refuser. The failure to appeal would not likely be admissible unless his statement that he would appeal somehow was allowed in evidence. But the prior refusal to provide evidence very likely would be admissible in a subsequent case in which the issue of the credibility of his hockey stick claim is relevant—and in some circumstances he might even be prohibited from offering any evidence even if he had a change of heart and were inclined to do so. In short, from a legal perspective Mann’s credibility is non-existent.

      • Yep! I was reacting to all the “I’m not a lawyer, but . . .” comments. I am no fan of my profession generally, but it is good to be reminded now again that the law itself actually does include a lot of good sense despite common twisting by layers and judges.

  40. I double triple dare Mann to show up and produce his work for all to see .
    NEVER going to happen . It’s apparently intellectual property .
    I thought that’s what scientists do . Something called the scientific method .
    Essentially prove your working hypothesis . Not sure what should be secretive about tree rings and some plug in math models . Especially given the earth is supposed to end in like 10 years .
    I wonder why Del Mar is so worried about water levels when they are goners in 10 years .

    A world where liars thrive and MSM enables fraud . That is what is going to destroy our standard of living . Make a plan for that Del Mar .

Comments are closed.