Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
For years, Dr. Michael Mann has strutted across the climate stage with the air of an untouchable figure — a self-proclaimed champion of “science” who never missed an opportunity to brand his critics as “deniers,” drag them into court, or bask in the limelight of a sympathetic press.
But now, at long last, reality has tapped him on the shoulder. After less than a year as the University of Pennsylvania’s first Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action, Mann has been forced to resign. The reason? His own mouth.
According to The Daily Pennsylvanian, Mann stepped down after his partisan behavior clashed with Penn’s new policy of “institutional neutrality.” His resignation came on the heels of controversy surrounding his social media posts — including a since-deleted comment about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. That was enough to draw the attention of Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), who publicly pressed the university to act.
Recently, Mann reposted comments calling Charlie Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.”
“In a Sept. 29 announcement made on his personal website, Mann stated that his scientific advocacy work conflicts with Penn’s ‘established institutional neutrality policy.’ … Particularly at this moment in time, I don’t feel that I can forsake the public scholarship and advocacy that I am doing and have thus decided to step down from the VPC role.” — Michael Mann, quoted in the Daily Pennsylvanian
In other words, Mann wanted the perks of authority without the restraint of responsibility. When the university reminded him that administrators are supposed to represent everyone, not just his chosen cause, Mann packed up and left [the provost position, but he will stay on as professor at Penn.] Edited for clarity – Anthony
The great irony of Humpty’s, er, Mann’s Great fall
Mann’s entire career has been one long exercise in not practicing neutrality. From the infamous “hockey stick” graph that put him on the map, to his endless courtroom brawls against critics, Mann has thrived on confrontation.
- He branded anyone skeptical of his graph as a “denier.”
- He launched lawsuits against writers and scientists who dared to question him.
- He relentlessly blurred the line between advocacy and science, portraying every disagreement as an attack on Truth itself.
Now, the man who spent decades accusing others of undermining science has been undone by his own inability to separate activism from scholarship. The irony is delicious.
To understand why this happened, you have to know about Penn’s new “institutional neutrality” policy. Announced in late 2024, the policy was simple: university leaders won’t issue public statements on political or global events unless they directly impact Penn. That became Mann’s kryptonite.
That’s not censorship — it’s common sense. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas compete, not where administrators dictate political orthodoxy from above.
But for Mann, neutrality was never an option. As he admitted in his resignation:
“My commitment to climate advocacy at times feels in conflict with the nonpartisan role of serving as a University administrator.”
Translation: I refuse to stop being an activist, even if my job requires it.
This wasn’t Penn pushing him out — Provost John Jackson went out of his way to insist Mann wasn’t “fired” or “driven out.” But Mann’s resignation reveals exactly the problem: when you can’t keep your politics out of your professional role, you eventually run into walls.
This isn’t new. Mann has spent decades using his academic credentials as a shield for political crusading. Let’s review:
- The Hockey Stick Graph (1998): Mann’s claim to fame, a reconstruction of past climate temperatures that conveniently erased the Medieval Warm Period. Critics shredded the statistical methods, but Mann doubled down and cast all skepticism as denial.
- The “Denier” Label: Mann turned debate into heresy, branding dissenters as enemies of science itself. Instead of addressing criticism with transparency, he weaponized rhetoric.
- The Media Darling: Mann cultivated his role as the go-to scientist for alarmist headlines. His op-eds and TV spots were less about data and more about messaging.
The pattern is unmistakable: Mann has never been able to separate science from politics.
Mann’s courtroom crusades — and failures
No retrospective of Michael Mann is complete without revisiting his infamous courtroom battles. Mann often portrayed himself as the embattled defender of science, forced to sue critics to protect his reputation. In reality, the lawsuits revealed his thin skin and his appetite for censorship.
The most famous of these was his drawn-out battle with author and columnist Mark Steyn. Back in 2012, Steyn mocked Mann’s “hockey stick” graph and compared his tactics to those of a “fraudulent” Penn State figure. Rather than brush it off, Mann sued for defamation — a decision that trapped him in more than a decade of litigation.
The result? A debacle. After years of delays, appeals, and mounting legal costs, Mann’s case collapsed in embarrassment. The courts ultimately did not grant him the vindication he sought, and the spectacle only amplified Steyn’s critique: that Mann was more interested in silencing opponents than in defending science.
And this wasn’t his only legal misstep. Mann has a pattern of reaching for the courts as his first line of defense, whether against journalists, satirists, or fellow academics. These lawsuits rarely ended in clear victories — but they succeeded in painting Mann as combative, arrogant, and unwilling to tolerate dissent.
Now, with his resignation at Penn, Mann once again finds himself exiting not on a note of triumph but of failure.
The episode at Penn is just the latest example of Mann’s arrogance catching up with him. His ill-judged social media behavior — in this case, gloating or politicking over a death — was the spark. But the tinder pile was his broader refusal to acknowledge limits.
Universities can tolerate eccentric academics, but administrators are supposed to embody restraint. Mann never understood that distinction. His activism is his identity. And when forced to choose, he predictably chose himself.
For once, the consequences landed on his own desk.
Why this matters
Some might shrug and say, “So what? One professor lost an administrative title.” But this story matters for two reasons:
- It reveals the rot in climate science: Mann’s career exemplifies how climate science has been overtaken by advocacy. The data is secondary to the narrative. Neutrality is impossible when the goal is political transformation, not understanding nature.
- It shows that accountability still exists: Even in academia — a world that often shields its star activists — Mann’s antics finally crossed a line. Institutional neutrality was the one principle he couldn’t bulldoze.
In short, Mann’s fall from grace is a small but significant reminder that scientists-turned-activists don’t get a free pass forever.
My final thought
Let’s not forget that Michael Mann once tried to sue people for joking about him. He fought for years in the courts, claiming his reputation was irreparably harmed by comparisons to cartoon characters. And yet here we are: his downfall wasn’t the result of a clever critic or a devastating exposé. It was his own toxic behavior. You have to wonder what sort or pressure Penn administration put on him and how he reacted. I would have loved to be “a fly on the wall” in that meeting.
As Penn’s Provost gently put it, Mann simply found it “more and more difficult … to do the kind of public intellectual work he wants to do while also being a University administrator”. That’s a polite way of saying: he couldn’t keep his mouth shut.
For once, the system worked. And for those of us who’ve watched Mann’s antics over the decades, there’s only one thing left to say: it’s about time.
Attention:
Criticism of Charlie Kirk is strictly prohibited. Violators will be punished immediately.
We can all criticize anyone here.
(Just make sure you’re basing your criticism on facts.
You know, those pesky tidbits of verifiable information that render your statements legitimate and useful points of debate).
Give it a try sometime.
One day you will look in the mirror and comprehend how intellectually dishonest you are with yourself, and you may then thank me when that day happens for planting this seed of discomfort in your mind today. You’ll come out of the experience as a better person. Charlie Kirk welcomed criticism of his points all day long, it was a key feature of his TPUSA campus events. He did not wish to be permanently silenced, none of us want that for our own opponents, we want them to engage in the arena of ideas, defend their positions with sound arguments, and if those arguments are solid enough while exposing our arguments’ shortfalls, we can change our minds and be better from it. The man who silenced Charlie Kirk is himself a person who showed that criticism of his lifestyle is prohibited and violators will be punished. What part of that do you not understand?
I wasn’t mocking Charlie Kirk. I was mocking the overreaction to anyone who does. The fact that my comment triggered a whole defense essay proves the point: you can mock Mann all day, even cheer people who compare him to a child rapist (Mark Steyn), but Charlie Kirk is suddenly an untouchable, sacred cow.
You should check the policy at Salt Lake Community College
https://www.slcc.edu/policies/policies/people_and_workplace_culture/4.5.030.aspx
Calling Charlie Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.” isn’t a criticism. Its about as vile a defamation as is possible to make.
Among the febrile, Mann’s slander is a veritable invitation to murder. And not just justifying the assassination of Kirk, but extending the invitation toward Trump as well.
Redefining Mann’s villainy as criticism is completely irresponsible.
toward Trump and anyone else who follows him.
Indeed.
Indeed. Mann’s hypocrisy is further spotlighted by his comment. He whined when others made milder comments about him, but made the worst sort of slander imaginable against political opponents.
Mr. Frank, excellent comment.
Thank-you.
Come on dude.
Only a woke AGW believer is so rotten to use, completely unrelated, a recent
assassination victim to make a completely unrelated point.
You guys would go insane if someone would kill one of your vip morons and then abuse this topic for something completelyunrelated.You actually lost your shit when the irrelevant Kimmel occured to save him from his 80% viewership decline and you lose your shit when someone rejects your climate religion.
And you are just a prime example of how rotten your western left has become.
And in this case ,ignoring the tragedy, you are still completely off.
Kirk was going around, talking to everyone, straight into a lions den if necessary.
He even did a 1vs30 with leftie college students.
Mann on the other hand is attacking those who don’t go along with him talking down from his ivory tower.
Is super biased and selective.
Didn’t say a word about a totally demented Biden.
Not a word sbout Al Gore though he had 2 documentaries that are total BS .
But Trump adressess climate nonsense ones – and instantly comes the Mann.
And starts with a shameless lie – that the ice age scare is a myth,though hundreds of articles from the 70ies exist.
Even the IPCC denied the LIA, until it became untenable, due to reports coming in from all over the world.
.
None of the objective climate curves can be programmed to simulate the LIA, the MWP, the RWP
The LIA and MWP were regional warming events, not indicative of any global warming trend — all of which is irrelevant to the issue of modern day warming which is caused by Man-caused emissions of ~40 billion tonnes of CO2 annually — and is far more rapid than natural climate variation.
CO2 Science database of papers demonstrating the MWP was worldwide.
CO2 Science database of papers demonstrating the LIA was global.
Is this what you call ‘Science’, Frank? None of it is in the peer reviewed published literature. As long as you wallow in this nonsense, you’ll stay ignorant.
Every single item in the CO2 Science discussion list is referenced to the explicit peer-reviewed published paper(s).
You’d know that if you’d bothered to examine a selection.
As long as you wallow in willful ignorance, you’ll remain among the ignoranti.
I saw none — your definition of ‘peer review’ must have been crafted by your Denier buddies
“far more rapid than natural climate variation.”
An assertion without evidence.
Actually, it’s a counter factual assertion, since the proxy records include numerous instances of temperature both rising and falling faster than current temperatures are moving.
Within the last several thousand years, no such instances of a global temperature rise as steep as the modern day — 0.2-0.4 C/decade. Nowhere in the scientific literature will you find anything like that.
Your “0.2-0.4 C/decade” is 2-4 C per century. Which is >2-4 times faster than recent warming since 1900 (if one believes the historical air temperature record).
So, luridly false hyperbole in your part.
Secondly, suppose you find a global paleo-temperature record with annual resolution. There aren’t any.
So, no one has any idea of the rates of past global warming periods, such as those entering the Minoan, Roman or Medieval WPs.
Your demand is a data fake. Ignorance or disingenuous?
My Statement applies to natural climate changes prior to man caused warming that began about 1900. I thought you’d find excuses for not finding anything in the literature.
Your 0.2-0.4 C statement was a falsehood.
“man caused warming that began about 1900.”
No evidence.
“I thought you’d find excuses…”
Comparing annual resolution measurements with lower-resolution proxies is false science.
Assigning temperature numbers for physically indeterminate proxies is worse science.
Your entire position is a specious fabrication (like most of consensus climatology).
The problem is that proxy records typically do not have annual resolution. Ice cores are exception but they may more reflect local temps.
I thought you said you followed developments in climate science. This one is decades old. Have you been sleeping, Frank?
What, you mean the fraudulent attempt to cancel the MWP?
Not surprising you’d embrace that.
Funny how every region studies shows evidence of both the MWP and LIA.
There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 plays more than an immeasurably small role in the current warming.
The warming started long before CO2 levels started rising, even after CO2 levels started rising, there has been no correlation between the rate of CO2 increases and the rate of temperature increase. Nor is there any proxy that shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 10’s of millions of years.
There’s zero science that says what you claim (nor can you cite any). It’s nonsense.
Your claims show you’re ignorant of 125 years of climate research. And I suppose, proud of it.
Your claims show you embrace of 37 years of climate scareology. And, one supposes, proud of it.
What University textbook on Atmospheric Physics did you use in your studies, Mr Frank?
My papers are about physical error analysis. Except the one utilizing Henry’s Law.
You’d know that if you’d bothered to look at them before criticizing.
Something in which climate modelers are evidently untrained. As are you.
Ah, so you’ve never picked up a text on atmospheric physics or climate science. How do you expect to escape from your ignorance?
Well if they were regional they cant be reproduced in the GCMs so climate science is broken either way. How many times have the GCMs frozen the Thames or created a habitable Greenland?
Since models are never considered evidence, and since the behavior of the atmosphere doesn’t depend on whether models can project regional warming, your claims are wrong.
The entire AGW claim is grounded in climate models, and nowhere else.
Falsify the models, falsify the claim.
Your insistence that models are evidence shows how lousy a scientist you are, Frank.
You should know (but apparently don’t) that models are only mathematical representations of a scientific theory — they are not evidence confirming the validity of the theory. The evidence is DATA, taken from the physical world.
“Your insistence that models are evidence shows how lousy a scientist you are, Frank.”
Falsifiable physical models convert observables into evidence, Warren.
Absent climate models, the observed warming would not have AGW meaning. It would merely indicate a secular warming trend; presuming one trusted the record.
And that’s the whole point. Absent climate models, absent the claim of AGW. My original comment, which you badly misunderstood.
The problem for you is that climate models are not falsifiable. They cannot produce unique deductive predictions.
Climate models are heavily parameterized with what Christopher Essex calls ad hoc invariants. They are completely unable to predict future climate states.
The AGW claim is the construct of an artful pseudo-science.
It looks like science to the naive, the poorly trained, and the careless, but it isn’t science.
There are thousands of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, Mr Frank. And in a recent study by Cornell University, 99.9 % of peer reviewed research concludes AGW. Only you and a handful of other wingnuts continue to sell your snake oil of Denial. I await publication of your debunking of AGW in a major scientific journal, Mr Frank. So far, we’ve seen nothing from you but junk science re the climate.
“99.9 % of peer reviewed research”
Mere argument from authority.
Meaning you don’t know whether your authority is correct. Merely that you – a science know-nothing – agree with it.
I looked at your study. Two of the authors (Lynas and Perry) are AGW activists and the third, Benjamin Z. Houlton, is a biogeologist professionally invested in AGW. Hardly compelling authorities about climate.
Further, the studiers merely assessed 3000 randomly selected AGW-related articles. That means most of them were not about climate physics. They’d mostly be elaborations that assume the AGW narrative.
Even worse of their sample of 3000, only 19 were “Explicit endorsement [of AGW] with quantification,” i.e., included some calculations, while 2 were “Explicit rejection [of AGW] with quantification.”
So, that means (19/3000)x100 = 0.63% of the sample quantified their endorsement position. The other 99.8% were hand-wavers.
Of the 21 total that supported their positions with calculations, (19/21)x100 = 90.5% supported, and (221)x100 = 9.5% rejected.
Rather different from the official assertions, isn’t it.
100 years ago, you’d have argued in support of the ~99% of geologists who hotly adhered to solid Earth geology. They were wrong. And so, today, are Lynas, Perry, Houlton, and Beeton.
“junk science re the climate.”
You’re not fit to judge.
No matter how much you protest, Mr Frank, it’s you — who has never opened a text on atmospheric physics nor submitted your contradictory ideas about the climate to a peer reviewed journal — against the overwhelming consensus of thousands of experts in the field. Your explanations ring hollow, and you are an outlier. My advice is for you stick to your chosen area of study and leave climate science to real experts in the field.
“nor submitted your contradictory ideas about the climate to a peer reviewed journal”
A deliberate lie. Though expressed confusedly.
Your opinion is meritless. Warren.
You criticize from advocacy-blinded ignorance.
You arrogate where an intelligent person is modest.
You’re unable to mount an argument, produce a critical thought, reply with courtesy, consider evidence, or respond honestly.
All you’ve got is poorly-phrased hostility. The sort of cant one might expect of a mediocre high school sophomore after 10 years exposure to left-liberal pseudo-pedagogy.
You resemble a zombie apocalypse shambler reduced to mindless attacks and meaningless screeches.
Your only pertinent distinction from a cortically vacuumed apocalypster is that you stoop to shamefully deliberate character assassination – the despicable hallmark of a Progressive monster.
Are you Eric Weinstein’s brother?
Are you an Antifa-symp?
Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of how climate science actually works and your inability to reason.
The “behaviour of the atmosphere” isn’t climate change. Climate change is as a result of energy accumulating in the oceans. Its changing currents and changing large scale systems like ENSO. Its long term rainfall pattern changes.
Climate change is the accumulation of change and the GCMs cant model that change because they cant model feedbacks let alone how the underlying drivers change. They cant model the changes to clouds. They cant model changes to ice. They’re all effectively parameterised and tuned. They’re fits.
Another excellent take down of this new guy. Showing his science illiteracy wasn’t enough, eclang had to go here and defend Mann’s slur.
Good point about Kirk’s 1:30 event. Mann famously cannot do a one-on-one.
Mocking relies on sticking to the facts. All you have done is tell blatant lies. Saying that Mann treated data, the way that other guy treated kids, is not comparing Mann to a child rapist.
Again with the intellectual dishonesty? Are you literally unable to distinguish between what involves mocking, and the act of advocating that a person can never speak a word to anyone ever again? You can mock me, Charlie Kirk, Steyn, Watts, the entire WUWT audience as much as you wish, but it’s a whole different ballgame when folks say / imply / condone “good thing that guy was taken out, there’s more targets in need of elimination.”
Except Steyn didn’t. He compared the protection of Mann by u Penn to their protection of the pederast.
Keitho: Precisely so, and thanks for correcting this low-end troll.
You were over-reacting like the idiots in street demonstrations.
So you’re mocking UPenn for enforcing it’s house rules?? Dance around some more, you’re hours overdue on the name change now that you have exposed yourself.
Charlie Kirk had a bad habit of attacking anyone in a minority — blacks “Why is it that I feel unsafe when I see a black pilot on my plane? Or ” The US Civil Rights Act should never have been passed”, or LBTQ+ “God’s Perfect Laws prohibit them from existing (Or similar)”. Is it any wonder some people have trouble with Kirk once they read what he said?
A deliberate exclusion of context so as to convey an insulting misrepresentation of Charlie Kirk.
The first was a criticism of DEI as, ‘Didn’t Earn It.’
The second was in reference to the destruction of the family of black Americans.
Third, I looked up the quote re. LGBTQ+ and followed the Twitter link at Yahoo. The clip of Charlie Kirk saying that is cut to remove context. Which seems to be a warning about biblical literalism.
Attempted defamation, pure and simple. Good job lying Warren.
As Pat said, each of those has a context that puts the statements into perspective and means none of them are attacks on minorities.
Thanks for clarifying your ability to understand and reason.
And once again Warren repeats any lie that he has been instructed to believe.
Charlie never said that the Civil Rights Act should not have been passed. What he actually said was that it was a good idea that was poorly implemented. And he was completely right, as written the CRA resulted in a racial spoils system that has completely poisoned race relations. The damage will take at least a generation to repair.
Charlie Kirk’s own words could not be clearer:: “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
Post a link to Kirk’s full exposition, Warren.
We’ll see who’s clear.
That’s the full exposition. Kirk said what he meant.
Right. You can’t post the evidence. You’ve just the bare sentence – likely garnered from a slander shop.
If you think there is, you can always post it. Since you haven’t , you have nothing.
Warren believes the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. His words could not be clearer – copied directly from his post: “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
thats from Kirk, not me .
I copied and pasted from YOUR POST word for word, Warren. You posted those exact words.
Yes,as a quote from Kirk.
You said it, Warren. Exactly your words. Are you now claiming that context matters?
Context always matters. That’s why I posted the complete context.
What you posted not even close to the complete context. You are simply a liar, thank you for proving it.
End of discussion.
You are always free to post any context you think is missing from my post. The fact that you haven’t shows you have nothing to offer.
Post a link to the source of your quote, Warren. Then we’ll all have the complete context.
Including the context that illuminates you.
The context is that Kirk said the Civil Rights Act lead to DEI and DEI has lead to worse outcomes for society
Its discussed here on “The Charlie Kirk Show”
Yes, he said that — confirming what I think of him
Confirming your irrationality, Warren.
No, confirming Kirks’ bigotry.
Confirming your preference for discrimination. Treating people differently based on race or sex is the very definition of discrimination.
That’s why I support DEI. It helps to assure bigots don’t hold sway.
Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Kirk wasn’t a bigot. Kirk (and many others) correctly assesses that if you employ people to positions (eg air traffic controllers) based on their race or sex then you’re limiting your choice meaning the employment is no longer fully based on merit against the population and therefore the people employed aren’t the best for the job on average.
Where is your disagreement on this?
I disagree that DEI is discrimination. It is a remedy for the problem of discrimination
Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different people or groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, or religion, leading to unequal rights and opportunities.
DEI is the very definition of discrimination. Favouring one group over another IS discrimination.
Warren Beeton: “That’s why I support DEI.”
That explains Warren’s ignorant arrogance to a T.
He’s the perfect example of an eNGO DEI-hire.
The wonder of a passion-driven DEI-hire is they have absolutely no idea they’re utterly incompetent.
The complete explication of WarrenBeetonism.
Warren is yet another example of simplistic leftist binary thinking: If you oppose DEI, you are a racist (or worse). He is incapable of comprehending the possibility of opposing it for any other reason. It’s a typical begging the question fallacy (with a bit of hasty generalization thrown in for good measure): You are racist if you oppose DEI, therefore if you oppose DEI you are racist.
Not the first time or person around here I’ve encountered that same simplistic thinking and lack of logical reasoning.
I dont consider DEI opposers racist at all. I just think they are wrong.
DEI is wrong for multiple reasons. Helping individuals who need help irrespective of their race or sex is right.
The same is true of AGW partisans. Exhibit skepticism, get labeled a denier who sacrifices babies.
DEI is the employment version of Ibram X Kendi’s so-called anti-racism – the lowest barrel-scraping of stupid. Fight racism by practicing racism.
It’s so stupid that even progressive scholar nonpareil Norman Finkelstein rejected it as vacuous. (opens a video)
But Warren calls it good.
Re: AGW. Those that have no education in the field, yet claim they have discovered fundamental errors in the work of all experts in the field, are prime examples of Dunning Kruger.
My papers are about physical error analysis, Warren. Part of my professional expertise.
Something climate modelers know nothing about.
You know nothing about physical error analysis, either. And yet you see fit to criticize.
You’ve no education yet claim authority – self-labeled Dunning-Kruger by your own diagnostic criterion.
Own goal, Warren. Well done.
So you now say you don’t dispute the basic conclusions of Climate research, that ‘Earth is Warming, faster than at any time in millennia, and Human Activities –primarily the burning of fossil fuels –are the Cause? Because you haven’t cited any scientific paper you’ve produced that challenges this scientific consensus.
“So you now say you don’t dispute the basic conclusions of Climate research,that ‘Earth is Warming, faster than at any time in millennia,“
Let’s see you show where I have posted any such thing.
I’ve already posted responses to you pointing out that the historical temperature record cannot support your claim, and that paleo-temperature proxies are physically indeterminate.
Meaning your claim of “faster” has no scientific basis.
Is it you’ve forgotten? Or are you merely lying (again)?
“Human Activities –primarily the burning of fossil fuels –are the Cause?”
Zero evidence.
“Because you haven’t cited any scientific paper you’ve produced that challenges this scientific consensus.”
Another lie. Also previously linked here and here.
All peer reviewed, all published, all valid, all falsify the claim that AGW has been, is, or even can be, detected.
Resorting to lies means you’ve no case, Warren. You won’t let your vacuity bother you, though, will you.
Did you notice that Warren can’t even keep his own arguments consistent in the same thread?
Warren posts in the manner of a low-grade troll. Fishing for flame wars, either for personal diversion or to curry self-righteous fire.
Consistency, or factual truth, or topical coherence are unimportant to such a person. Mostly his posts are composed to just jerk people around.
Here on WUWT, people are too serious-minded to enter the mindless arguments Warren seeks.
My replies are for those who read but don’t post.
I’ve had run-ins with the guy before, and in the last one back in April 2024, he hurled a particular troll-style personal accusation against me (item #3) which he has no way of proving. I’d prepared a thorough debunking reply to him, including turning the tables on his “Is this you?” accusation there (further up in the interaction where he linked to the old error-riddled Desmogblog 2014 profile of me), by asking if he was the same “Warren Beeton” in the photo caption at the top of this Citizens Climate Lobby page. Alas, busy as I was with myriad other obligations, when I finally found time to get to posting that reply, the WUWT page had become closed to further comments
This is the “Troll Type Accusation” you accuse me of. Since it’s entirely factual –you don’t deny any of it — you are playing the ‘I’m a victim’ game, since you have nothing else to offer the world of science. (As you said, you are not a scientist)
“I stand by my reporting of your background,eg: 1. Associate’s Degree in Graphic Arts, Al Collins School of Graphic Design.
2 Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration, University of New Mexico. (ie, zero scientific education
3 contributing editor for The Heartland Institute‘s Environment & Climate News.
4 “neither a scientist nor a trained journalist,” (your own words)
Huh — you now double down today with the false accusation you hurled at me in the April 2024 WUWT comment section, and then add to it the false claim that I “don’t deny any of it.” What part of “ I’d prepared a thorough debunking reply to him .. [but] the WUWT page had become closed to further comments” in my prior comment here sailed over your head? Backstory for my reply today is that, unlike you, I have a life with other more pressing obligations, so back in April 2024, I was simply too late in wiping out what you only believed was true but could not prove was true or defend if your reputation depended on it. But I saved what I composed, in the blockquote here:
One more thing to add today: you do not deny your association with Citizens Climate Lobby – correct? You realize how the mere appearance of that might lead WUWT comment section readers to wonder if you are under some kind of direction by CCL to come in here and hurl troll-like comments – yes?
Looks like citing your background struck a nerve. Are you not proud of your non scientific resume? Or do you traffic with Heartland and WUWT because only Denier organizations are willing to entertain your junk science?
“Are you not proud of your non scientific resume?”
You clearly aren’t proud of your academic resume, as you’ve betrayed it at every turn.
One of the things I’ve encountered over the years when jousting with zealot climate alarmists is what I term “concept comprehension disability” – you’ve displayed it twice here now, acutely so in your above reply. First, what part of I have no working association with Heartland do you not understand?? I was never an editor at their newsletter, and I’ve never worked for them in any capacity. I’m an unpaid contributor of valuable material to them, no different than I am similarly with myriad other places, groups, and people. Meanwhile, the ‘nerve’ that has been clearly struck here is your own failure to support your position. You did not address a single point of my long reply above, you practically pretend like it does not exist. It is you who is not proud of your background, consisting of accusations you cannot prove, and your dear leaders which have no more climate science experience than I have, and it is you who seems to be ashamed of your association with CCL when you pretend that I and Dr Frank didn’t even mention it. I most certainly am proud of my ability as an ordinary citizen – under direction from no one – who has enough education and intellectual curiosity to dive into an angle of the climate issue which does not take a degree in climatology to explore: whether there is any merit to the accusation that ‘skeptic scientists colluded with industry officials in disinfo campaigns.’ You can undertake this exact same exploration. I stand squarely behind all that I offer on that angle. What do you stand behind? A direct accusation from a propaganda site against me that neither they nor you can prove is true, and implications about my supposedly ‘deficient’ education/work experience which instead fatally undercuts the credibility of your own side’s most prominent climate leaders.
Again, I feel really sorry for you when you thoroughly paint yourself ever further into an utterly indefensible corner. But you have a way to extricate yourself from this self-inflicted cancer you’ve given yourself: embrace critical thinking. Pose tough questions to yourself on the non-science aspects of the issue – Why would the co-founder (self-admitted 8 seconds into this interview) / original star blogger at Desmogblog feel compelled to commit an act of journalism stolen valor in order to advance his accusations? Why is it that the “ExxonKnew” movement feels compelled to continually rely on ‘industry docs’ that are literally worthless to prove any kind of ‘industry-orchestrated disinfo campaigns’ happened? Is the reason why Desmogblog – your sole source to use as an accusation against me – never disputes what I say about them, Gelbspan, and other accusers (other accusers!). . . . . . . . is because there is no way they can?
I’ll end by saying I appreciate this opportunity to live now rent-free in your mind concerning the aspects of the issue which both of us are fully able to examine – where I do and you refuse to do, likely because you won’t then be proud if you did of the way your dear leaders have let you down this entire time.
I note that you seem not too proud of your association with Heartland, but also not ashamed of your embrace of the scientific frauds that dwell at Heartland and other Denier groups (eg Dr Essex)
Its a wonder you’re so defensive when the facts of your background are exposed — you seem to fit right in with the Deniers.
“frauds … (eg Dr Essex)”
Lie-monger: Warren Beeton. You’ve lied repeatedly Warren.
You’ve asserted from utter ignorance. You’ve indulged puerile defamations. You show no critical capacity.
You lash out like an unsocialized toddler. You’ve produced nothing of substance.
You’ve failed. Your angry incoherence testifies to the vacuousness of your beliefs.
Pat Frank shows his true stripes by evading the scrutiny of peer review with respect to the fundamental conclusion of Climate Science == that the rapid rise in global temperatures since 1970 is entirely caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels== and instead makes his absurd claims on WUWT where he has a sympathetic audience of like minded Deniers, but no real climate scientists publishing their work in peer reviewed journals. Pat has chosen the easy way, because he has nothing to offer the world of real Climate Science.
“evading the scrutiny of peer review”
The reviewers of “Propagation” are listed right there on the webpage.
You didn’t bother to look, did you Warren. Each of them is a highly qualified scientist.
One can’t say you lied this time, because your declaration is so obviously based in ignorance. Lies are knowing untruths.
Foolish untruths, such as yours, typically follow from an arrogating ignorance, as you’ve shown throughout.
“that the rapid rise in global temperatures since 1970”
An unknowable submerged in measurement uncertainty.
“entirely caused by human activities”
Zero evidence. See above.
“primarily the burning of fossil fuels”
The cause of global greening since 1980.
“instead makes his absurd claims on WUWT”
Eight (8) peer-reviewed and published papers, so far. Number 9 is in preparation. You won’t like that one, either, Warren.
“the world of real Climate Science.”
No such thing.
Although, I do admit your mindless rants are a fine representative of consensus climatology bizarroworld.
Another of the hallmarks of leftist zealots trying to bolster assertions they have no hope of supporting is their enslavement to making false premise statements. A shell game distraction tactic. I don’t deny climate / deny climate change / deny that human activity may impact climate. It’s an embarrassing effort on your part to imply that I or any on this side do deny such things. It’s a hollow talking point that implodes on you. Your side denies climate change when you demand a static climate set at a level you arbitrarily chose from 150 years ago.
Meanwhile, what “association with Heartland??” Since your claim that I’m one of their newsletter editors has imploded, what’s left for you? It’s like asking if I am proud of my association with WUWT as a guest post contributor. There is no “association” here, I’m just a contributor, not one bit different than if you started contributing guest posts here making the argument for your side of the issue. If you did, would Greta Thunberg ask you if you are proud of your WUWT association? She’d look stupid if she did, It’s a weak tactic where all the readers here would will say about you, “Uh huh, I saw what you did there, sidestepping the bit about your association with CCL, and you cannot address anything the guy says against you, can you? Who’s the one being defensive, to the point of desperation to deflect the spotlight away?”
Keep digging this hole for yourself, it has its entertainment value …
Protestations to the contrary Mr cook, there is no peer reviewed scientific research that supports your POV. In contrast. ALL peer reviewed science supports the conclusion that earth has been warming rapidly since 1970 due to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels.
“there is no peer reviewed scientific research that supports your POV.”
Wrong again, Warren.
There’s more peer-reviewed science supporting Russell Cook than there is you.
In fact, there’s no science at all supporting your position. That’s because your side is purely a pal-reviewed narrative decorated with mathematics.
A narrative in which the conclusion is first decided and the excuse for it is manufactured later.
“ALL peer reviewed science” exists outside of the Venn diagram that includes consensus climatology.
“In fact, there’s no science at all supporting your position. ” Mr Frank, do you consider the IPCC Assessments to be Science? Or the thousands of peer reviewed papers that they summarize? Or what about the National Academy of Sciences reports, Frank? Or NASA? Or every major University’s atmospheric science textbooks? If you reject those sources of Science, Mr Frank, you are not only a Denier, but a wingnut with a uniquely dysfunctional mind. What, if any, defense can you possibly muster after such absurd statements?
“Mr Frank, do you consider the IPCC Assessments to be Science?”
The IPCC ARs include no physically valid uncertainty bounds to condition their presentations or statements. That negligence makes them a charade.
“Or the thousands of peer reviewed papers that they summarize?”
No physically valid uncertainty bounds. Pseudoscience.
“Or what about the National Academy of Sciences reports, Frank?”
No physically valid uncertainty bounds. Pseudoscience.
“Or NASA?”
No physically valid uncertainty bounds. Pseudoscience.
“Or every major University’s atmospheric science textbooks?”
None of the science in those textbooks supports your position. None of it.
There’s no physical theory of the climate, Warren. There is no physics able to resolve the effect on the climate of the average 0.035 W/m^2 annual increase in forcing. It’s invisible.
“If you reject those sources of Science,…”
Those that neglect uncertainty are not science. Those that are science cannot support your position.
Your problem Warren, is that you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. You show no knowledge of science, or of how it works.
You merely argue from authority; ignorantly, like a garden variety religious fanatic.
“Mr Frank, you are not only a Denier, but a wingnut with a uniquely dysfunctional mind.”
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Where is it wrong, Warren?
See, I’ve taken my position honestly. I wanted to know for myself. So, I did the work to find out.
You haven’t. You’ve instead blindly embraced an ideology. All you offer here are rants and insults. All you’ve ever shown are rants and insults. You’ve got nothing.
“What, if any, defense can you possibly muster after such absurd statements?”
It’s simple, Warren. No valid physical theory is in hand, no evidence-based deduction is possible.
At this point, I’d suggest caution with your snake oil. But you’ve imbibed so much as to already be toxicated; unable to think. Unreachable.
You’re dissembling again, Mr Frank:
1) The IPCC ARs are well accepted by thousands of active researchers around the world. Whereas you’ve never published your contradictory claim — that earth’s rapid warming since 1970 is caused by rising atmospheric CO2– in peer reviewed scientific journals of the caliber of Nature or Science, but only in pay to play mags which will accept most any junk science without competent scientific scrutiny.
2) You reject scientific reports by the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and the IPCC.
3) You reject the climate science found in graduate level University textbooks.
In short, Mr Frank, you claim you’ve found fundamental errors in the work of thousands of researching scientists, but haven’t produced anything of merit of your own in the field of climate science.
“You’re dissembling again, Mr Frank:”
Am I.
Prove it.
Find an AR6 graphic with physically valid uncertainty bounds.
I claim you can’t do it. I surmise you won’t even try. I predict you bluster insults in response.
“1) The IPCC ARs are well accepted by thousands of active researchers around the world”
Irrelevant and an argument from authority. The riposte of a know-nothing.
“Whereas you’ve never published your contradictory claim…”
You’re lying again, Warren.
“that earth’s rapid warming since 1970″
An unknowable. Also, incorrect use of the possessive.
“is caused by rising atmospheric CO2”
Zero evidence.
“peer reviewed scientific journals of the caliber of Nature or Science,”
Devolved to climate propaganda rags since 2000.
“pay to play mags which will accept most any junk science without competent scientific scrutiny.”
The brave words of an analytical Luddite. You fled the challenge of finding a mistake. Impotent heat is no critique.
“2) You reject scientific reports by the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and the IPCC.”
On the solid grounds that they’re not scientific.
They’re all blind to physically valid uncertainty bounds. The reports are physically meaningless.
In fact, all your heated blather here has been physically meaningless, Warren. It’s no wonder you’re so fond of those reports. They cater to ignorant partisans the way snake oil salesmen cater to a willing naif.
“3) You reject the climate science found in graduate level University textbooks.”
Wrong.
Recall my previous comment on this point: “None of the science in those textbooks supports your position. None of it.
“There’s no physical theory of the climate, Warren. There is no physics able to resolve the effect on the climate of the average 0.035 W/m^2 annual increase in forcing. It’s invisible.”
We can surmise on the evidence previously put before you, that your “3)” is still another lie. You never seem to tire of them.
“but haven’t produced anything of merit of your own”
How would you know, Warren? You haven’t looked at any of it. You’ve never mounted a coherent thought.
You appear to be hopelessly inept and toweringly arrogant, both.
“… in the field of climate science.”
AGW isn’t science. It’s not even about the climate.
It’s an academic critical theory. A narrative in which what is assumed should have been demonstrated.
They started with the conclusion and rationalized it backwards.
You now reject my claim that you do not accept university textbook climate science. Yet in another breath you reject the NAS and IPCC reports and then make the claim that “there’s no physical theory of the climate” . Since the physical theory is laid out in all three sources, and you previously admitted you never opened a University level textbook on climate science, you’ve now done a complete self own and shown you can’t even remember your previous lies.
“You now reject my claim that you do not accept university textbook climate science.”
You seem ever unable to accurately represent an argument, I told you that college science textbooks provide no support for your position.
I also told you why that is. Twice.
“Yet in another breath you reject the NAS and IPCC reports”
They include no physically valid uncertainty bounds. Their AGW claims are physically meaningless.
“then make the claim that “there’s no physical theory of the climate””
That’s a fact. There is no physical theory of the climate.
E.g., “While famous theoretical work has been done historically on climate, no precise testable physical theory for climate has ever emerged.”
“Since the physical theory is laid out in all three sources,…”
Report and page number. Specify or go away.
“you previously admitted you never opened a University level textbook on climate science,”
I’ve never admitted any such thing. You inferred it on the impulse of your prejudicial beliefs.
“you’ve now done a complete self own”
Funny coming from a guy who’s offered nothing but invective.
Where’s the mistake, Warren?
“shown you can’t even remember your previous lies”
Ironic, coming from a guy – you, Warren – who has lied repeatedly.
Including here, “you previously admitted.” Never did. To be charitable, maybe you’re delusional.
And again, any WUWT comment section readers who are following along way down here will once again say about you, “Uh huh, I saw what that guy did there, he’s still sidestepping his association with CCL like it never happened, and the dude literally still cannot address anything Russell said against him. You’d think the guy would know enough to bail out of here when it’s beyond obvious he can’t stand and deliver on his core accusation.”
Friend, my “P.O.V.” is elemental: skeptic scientists exist and your side refuses to debate them (and – speaking of Gavin’s Schmidt’s other fault – check out my latest GelbspanFiles post about that), and instead, your side tells anyone who will listen that such skeptics and people like myself are tainted in one way or another by industry money. My “P.O.V.” also tells me that I can’t just say the corruption accusation is baseless, I need to stand and deliver with evidence of how it all falls apart. That’s exactly what I do (including, ICYMI, an alleged ‘peer-reviewed’ paper about industry disinfo campaigns). Try as hard as you might, every effort you make to push the spotlight away from your own accusation failure and psychological projection about ‘questionable associations’ and ‘inadequate science qualifications’ only causes that spotlight to return back to you like a magnet. But you’re just one guy in the backwaters of a comment section. What happens when one of your dear leaders – use your imagination here – is put under that same spotlight where uncounted numbers of people might be seeing whether he can answer tough questions or not?
That’s quite a story, Russell. Warren certainly gets around, doesn’t he.
And, given your interaction with him, Warren evidently doesn’t change his ad hominem stripes while journeying.
His statement to you that, “I simply accept, understand, and support peer reviewed science…” is particularly ironic, because Warren has displayed no evidence of understanding any science.
Apart from being a ‘Conservative who gets it,’ Warren is apparently a Sustainability Commissioner in Prince William County, Virginia, helping to meet the County’s “Community Energy and Sustainability Master Plan (CESMP)” goals. Important stuff!
The Commission is a County budget item, so it’s possible Commissioner Warren derives an income from it.
That may explain some of his defensive heat.
But in any case, it is disappointing to find a mature adult male who both occupies a responsible position and nevertheless descends to puerile name-calling, as Warren is and does.
A summary of Warren’s career.
You’re an educated and accomplished guy, Warren.
So, there’s no excuse for your adherence to an artful pseudoscience, nor for your hand-waving dismissals of valid analysis. Or your lying.
Really Warren, you disgrace yourself. You should hold yourself to a higher standard.
The standard I respect is peer reviewed science. Your fakery, not so much.
“Your fakery”
You’re lying again, Warren.
You’re a trained engineer. You know about specifications. You know about parameterized engineering models.
You know that engineering model parameters are tuned to reproduce observables within the technical specification bounds, so as to predict equipment behavior within the field operational limits
Climate models are parameterized engineering models. They are tuned to match the recent past air temperature. They are then used to extrapolate air temperature far into the future, well beyond the parameter calibration bounds.
Engineering model runs extrapolated beyond the parameter calibration bounds produce unreliable results. Climate model runs extrapolated beyond their tuning bounds produce unreliable results, and for the identical reason as engineering models.
Further, none of the consensus modeling papers include physically valid uncertainty bounds on their projections. Climate modelers don’t even know what physically valid uncertainty bounds means.
You’re an engineer, Warren. Can you in good conscience subscribe to a climate modeling methodology that fundamentally violates the professional standards of good engineering?
Apart from which, where’s the mistake?
the mistake is your unscientific word salad which falsely claims that models can’t reliably project beyond the conditions used for calibration. Engineering models (or climate models) utility is that they can indeed reliably project the behavior of the system beyond the tested or observed conditions, subject to error Bar estimates. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, Frank., as you’ve already demonstrated multiple times. Stick to spectroscopy, a field you may know something about.
So, Warren, you’re willing to betray your professional integrity to retain your belief about AGW. Amazing, but not surprising.
“subject to error Bar estimates.”
Not so well-stated. One can’t know the physical error in an extrapolated model result, because the physically correct value is unknown.
Error is unknowable unless you do an additional experiment.
The same is true of climate models. The future climate is unknowable. So, model projection error is unknowable.
But one can propagate uncertainty to get a reliability estimate on the extrapolation.
Physically valid uncertainty bounds are never included in climate modeling papers. Their stated bounds are model precision, not physical uncertainty.
The Figure 4 graphic shows CMIP5 cloud-fraction calibration error. Mean CMIP5 cloud fraction error is (+/-)12.1% => (+/-)4W/m^2 uncertainty in tropospheric forcing.
Rising CO2 produces a ~0.035 W/m^2 annual increase in tropospheric forcing = (+/-)114x smaller than the lower limit of CMIP5 model resolution.
That’s all word-salad, is it?
What does your engineering mind conclude about the reliability of a model result (+/-)114x smaller than the lower limit of model resolution?
What level of integrity is it for an engineer to casually wave off an uncertainty estimate with no examination whatever? Challenger, anyone?
Your fakery knows no bounds, Frank. Besides claiming that AGW is not valid, in spite of a robust consensus of peer reviewed papers that show it’s happening, and that human activity is the cause, you continue to rant about how you’ve ‘proven’ that the Hockey Stick is invalid. And you now proclaim that models are useless beyond the domain of calibration. If you had worked for me, or any other research or engineering manager in my company, you’d have been frog marched out the door for gross incompetence.
“Besides claiming that AGW is not valid,…”
Wrong.
I’ve demonstrated that the models and data provide no support for the knowledge claims of the IPCC.
“in spite of a robust consensus of peer reviewed papers”
Papers that neglect physical uncertainty bounds are not robust. The consensus is a charade. Consensorati peer-review is better described as pal-review.
“that human activity is the cause,
Zero evidence.
“rant about how you’ve ‘proven’ that the Hockey Stick is invalid.”
Nonsense. I’ve never worked on the hockey stick. It was Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who proved the hockey stick is invalid (pdf).
Ross McKitrick wrote a retrospective here (pdf), and McIntyre/McKitrick published a short summary of stick failings in PNAS here.
More analyses for you to not read, but to bluster about dismissively.
“proclaim that models are useless beyond the domain of calibration.”
Not proclaimed; relayed the demonstration. And unreliable, not useless.
You can’t seem to correctly absorb and reprise confounding arguments. A reflexive dependence on self-serving straw men seems the likely culprit.
“frog marched out the door for gross incompetence”
So you regularly let products go out the door while claiming field performance outside the limits of your engineering assurance, did you?
You’d seem to be the one grossly incompetent. Given your present analytical laxity as a personal trait, I’d surmise your engineers did their job while ignoring your dangerously sloppy inputs.
Couldn’t allow a stickler for reliable specification interfering with sales, could you. Luckily for your customers, your engineers likely worked around you.
Hmmmm. One wonders why you spend your time on WUWT instead of writing and publishing research in your field. Could it be that only WUWT non experts are willing to praise you for your crackpot ideas that you can’t get published in real journals?
I spend time on WUWT to read the interesting posts, to comment, and to counter the dismissive scorn of charlatans such as you, Warren.
Many Ph.D.-level science professionals have provided positive responses.
In 2019, when propagation came out, an academic physicist from Germany wrote to thank me. He included that his university chancellor had told him that if he published work critical of AGW, he’d be fired.
That’s your side, Warren. Dishonest, tyrannical, and censorious.
Attitudes accurately reflected in your legacy here.
You’ve never once responded substantively. Always deflecting, always evasive, always pejorative, always demagogic, always unwilling to engage the topic.
You’ve here even stooped to betraying the integrity of engineering – your own chosen profession.
The shameless behavior of a doctrinaire cultist.
Climate models have been accurately projecting global surface temperature changes for over 40 years. Climate contrarians have not:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
McIntyre and McKitrick have been debunked by multiple replications and validations of Mann’s work in the peer reviewed literature.
“McIntyre and McKitrick have been debunked”
In your fever dreams.
On the other hand, “The famous reconstruction called “Hockey Stick” is among such unrealistic reconstructions.”
“replications and validations”
Replication of fraudulent garbage is no validation. The correct response is to suspect the replications of being manufactured.
“Replication of fraudulent garbage is no validation”.
Mr Frank, in what peer-reviewed scientific paper is it shown that the “Hockey Stick” is fraudulent?
Here: “[MBH98] contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.”
And here: “Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue.”
Here, for another. “Their CPS reconstruction screens proxies by calibration-period correlation, a procedure known to generate “hockey sticks” from red noise.”
Full rundown of hockey stick problems here.
The only alternative explanation for deliberate fraud is a towering mathematical and analytical incompetence that just happened to produce a result making climate modelers worldwide weep happy tears.
Your citations are a mix of articles and letters by McKitrick and McIntye, but notpeer reviewed journal papers, and none reveal the subsequent debunking of their work, as here: https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick-intermediate.htm
Three of the four links are to peer-reviewed Journal publications. You’d know that if you’d even taken a casual glance.
The fourth links Steve McIntyre’s list of the problems he’s discovered in the MBH corpus.
And all you’ve got in reply is a specious blog post that doesn’t address the problems fatal to the hockey stick.
You’ve been unable to provide a pertinent response to any of the critical points raised here.
You either prejudicially dismiss the critical analysis and change the subject, or merely pass over them in silence and change the subject.
You’ve lost Warren. The whole debate. You can’t defend your position. All you’ve got is a death-grip on belief.
The publications you cited were only letters or articles, not peer reviewed journal papers. As usual, you have no reliable sources, and can’t address the substance of the real science given to you. Remember, you’ve never made it in the world of peer reviewed climate science. You should focus on your field, not on a field in which you lack expertise
“not peer reviewed journal papers”
Mere inspection reveals all three are peer-reviewed journal papers, including the PNAS comment.
Meaning you didn’t even look at them. Or else you did look and are here lying about them.
So, you’re either incompetent or lying.
“As usual, you have no reliable sources,”
Another lie, Warren.
“can’t address the substance of the real science given to you.”
That’s rich. What science? You’ve provided none.
“Remember, you’ve never made it in the world of peer reviewed climate science.”
Wrong again, Warren. 8 peer-reviewed and published, and counting.
“You should focus on your field, not on a field in which you lack expertise”
Most of my papers are about physical error analysis. Something I know well, but about which consensus climatologists ever so obviously know nothing.
And, from the quality of your posts here, that diagnosis includes you.
You’ve lost Warren.
Don’t bother parlaying the Penn State Inquiry. It was fixed from the start.
I finally found this debunking of McKitrick and McIntyres claims at Deep Climate:
”The issues with McKitrick and McIntyres critique of Mann were treated comprehensively by Wahl and Ammann’s Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures (Climatic Change, 2007), a paper that was first in press and available online in early 2006. They found that variants of PCA applied to NOAMER tree-ring network had minimal impact on the final reconstruction, as long as the common climatological information in the proxy set was retained. In effect, “short-centered” PCA may have promoted “hockey stick” patterns in the proxy data to higher PCs, but these patterns were still present if all the PCs necessary to account for sufficient explained variance were retained. This paper, along with several others, was cited by the National Research Council’s comprehensive report on paleclimatology as demonstrating that the “MBH methodology does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature” (Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, p. 113).”
I’m not going to play dueling quotes with you.
DeepClimate is a blog critique, which looks pretty erudite.
Steve McIntyre’s criticism of Wahl & Amman 2007 is likewise, which also looks pretty erudite.
E.g., “As I’ve started parsing through WA in more detail, there are problems that, in many ways, are worse than MBH – if only, because the second time around is a bit of a farce.”
My major concern with all these so-called proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions is that there’s no physical theory that will convert a proxy metric – any proxy metric – to temperature.
The graphic below, Figure 11-1 from the NAS report with an ordinate showing 0.2 C resolution, is a complete fraud.
Historical LiG thermometers in meteorological stations cannot measure air temperatures to that accuracy.
But the NAS promotes the idea that proxies can do so across 1105 years. Hopeless charlatanry.
And the temperature-numbers are statistical constructs that are physically indeterminate – they have no distinct physical meaning.
So you and DeepClimate can argue the statistics and computational validity of proxy combinations all you like.
But proxy reconstructions themselves tell us nothing about air temperature. The entire argument is angels on pin-heads.
Your critique is nothing more than the non scientific rambling of a non expert who can’t understand Mann;s work, and so dreams up criticisms that have long go been debunked by countless scientists who have replicated the Hockey Stick and debunked the faux statistical treatment by McKitrick and McIntyre. The Hockey Stick is well accepted by thousands of peer reviewed published scientists — it’s no longer up for debate. But for non experts like you, it could still be a good subject for study.
“Your critique is nothing more than the non scientific rambling of a non expert…”
Projection Warren. You’ve described yourself and your profferings exactly.
Repetition of garbage does not validate garbage.
Statistics is not a substitute for physics.
Temperature numbers on proxy graphics are a statistical construct – fraudulently represented as physical variables.
In your previous incarnation as an engineer you may have understood that. In you present state as a climate nutcase, you’re unwilling to understand anything.
It is a claim that the models can reliably project, not a fact. Its actually a belief from those who rely on them to do their “science” which is the vast majority of climate scientists.
When you look into the GCMs and see how the models work and the hacks made to make them stable, you’d likely be more sceptical yourself.
I mentioned a frozen Thames and habitable Greenland before. The models simply aren’t capable of producing those regional effects. Their unforced control runs just cant do it and yet nature had no problem.
The GCMs aren’t modelling climate, they’re a very complicated way of projecting the same warming we’ve observed during their calibration. While the earth continues to warm, the models will approximately match the result but dont confuse their correlation with skill.
Climate models have been accurately projecting global surface temperature changes for over 40 years. Climate contrarians have not:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Climate models are tuned to reproduce a secular warming trend, So long as the trend continues, models that are tuned to it, will track along it.
It’s not hard to figure out, Warren.
None of the models produce a unique solution. Each one produces a spray of projections, depending on the ad hoc suite of parameters chosen to fit its output to the observed air temperature record.
Their projections are not predictions in any scientific or engineering sense. They’re merely extrapolated curve fits.
You’ve jettisoned your training to sustain your belief.
Climate models have been accurately projecting global surface temperature changes for over 40 years. Climate contrarians have not:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Repetition of know-nothing claims provides no improvement.
Not one of the model projections at your SkS website includes physically valid uncertainty bounds. Not one.
But lost as you are in the desert of pseudoscience, you no longer recognize or admit scientific rigor.
You’ll have to do better than make assertions without evidence or analysis, Frank.
“without evidence or analysis,”
You’re lying again, Warren.
I’ve provided you plenty of evidence and analysis. You’ve just closed your eyes and waived it off.
Here’s another for you: Negligence, Non-Science and Consensus Climatology.
Climate models from the time of Hansen, 40 years ago were simple things by today’s standards. Much too simple to support the claim they were physical representations of our Climate and yet they still managed to vaguely track warming.
If they weren’t accurately modelling the climate, how do you think they achieved that?
Your claim of ‘not accurately modeling the climate’ has no meaning since you don’t quantify what that means. And as far as YOUR understanding of how models work, why don’t you read up if you don’t understand? E.g., explanations in the IPCC reports, or for a more basic explanation, this; https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
“since you don’t quantify what that means”
Says the guy who has quantified nothing here, and whose entire contribution to the debate can be accurately summarized as ‘la-la-la-can’t-hear-you.’
Read it again
You want the reality? Chris Essex studied physics and math and did a postdoc at NCAR in the 1970’s. He built one of the first climate models for them.
He was joint Prof. of Physics and Applied Mathematics at U. Western Ontario.
Here he is (youtube video), on a Tom Nelson podcast interview (#45), talking about climate modeling, climate models, what computers do with large scale computations, and the state of the field.
It’s a bit more than an hour. Have a go. Look behind the curtain.
You must be kidding. If you’re enthralled by the likes of Tom Nelson and Dr Essex, then you can’t distinguish between junk science and real science by real scientists. That YouTube video is garbage.
“That YouTube video is garbage.”
Definitive proof that you’re a hopeless climate-nutter, Warren.
Brain-dead.
Functionally insane.
Dr Essex wrote models. He’s intimately familiar with how they work and their limitations. If you took the time to listen to that podcast, you’d get an idea for yourself. Instead you’d prefer to listen to people who tell you GCMs successfully project climate because that’s what you want to hear.
Look to see your own bias when you refuse to listen. Its glaringly obvious.
And many, if not most of us here at WUWT listen to both the “settled science” version of a claim and the sceptical view of that same claim and we make our own minds up on the merits of the arguments.
You cant do that if you dont listen to the actual sceptical point of view.
Essex is an applied mathematician and Denier who relies on YouTube instead of peer reviewed scientific journals to communicate his fraudulent junk science. It’s very appropriate that he teamed up with Ron Nelson, another science fraud. You guys really have a collection of idiots in your closet.
“who relies on YouTube instead of peer reviewed scientific journals to communicate his fraudulent junk science.”
You’re lying again, Warren, And this time, a particularly stupid lie.
“Ron Nelson,”
Tom Nelson; a better man than you.
When studying the political works of Noam Chomsky I discovered the tactics of the demagogue: tell the truth when it suits you, misconstrue otherwise, lie when you must.
Since then, I’ve found the same technique is StOP for AGW stalwarts.
That’s you in miniature, Warren. A particularly gnomish Homo sapiens var. demagogus.
A skilled demagogue knows something of what he distorts.
You rely far more often on ignorant lies than would a competent demagogue.
Whereas the AGW people are all scared to be truthful else they lose their livelihoods.
It’s the same thing as DEI taking over. DEI was always wrong but people were mercilessly attacked and cancelled when they spoke out so most didn’t.
The same goes the wrongness of gender affirming for kids. And worse, puberty blockers and surgery. It took very strong people to stand up to that abomination.
“Whereas the AGW people are all scared to be truthful else they lose their livelihoods”
Another one of your puerile claims, without evidence or substance.
Scientists publishing their work in peer reviewed scientific journals unanimously conclude AGW, that is, thousands of researching scientists working in every country of the world.
If you want to credibly claim to have discovered fundamental errors in the work of these scientists, you have to do more than write a blog— you have to get your analysis published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your embrace of fools like Essex and Nelson, like your unsupported claims on climate issues, are without meaning.
Essex wrote climate models and has first hand experience. He’s a physicist and mathematician. Do you see the irony of your statement?
“thousands of researching scientists working in every country of the world.”
Everyone of them evidently so poorly trained as to be unable to distinguish between precision and accuracy.
What sort of scientists never assess the physical reliability of their data or models?
Hint: Snake-oil scientists. Pseudo-scientists.
“fools like Essex”
Hopeless willful idiocy. Arrogance of the village ignoramus.
“who relies on YouTube instead of peer reviewed scientific journals”
You’re lying again, Warren. A lie more stupid than usual.
“his fraudulent junk science.”
Right. Fraudulent junk science, such as, C. Essex and A. Tsonis (2018) “Model falsifiability and climate slow modes“ Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 502, 554-562.
Suppose you read that paper and report back your critical demonstration of its fraudulence and junkiness.
“Ron Nelson,”
Tom Nelson; a better man than you.
“You guys really have a collection of idiots in your closet.”
The fact of the matter is that WUWT readers and authors put up with the bitter insults of AGW fanatics suffering the frustration of belief nullification.
You’re a pretty special case, Warren. You invariable recourse to insult and invective is suggestive of a lifelong bully.
Maybe a bad case of executivitis — accustomed to giving orders and pushing people around; frustrated and angry at the loss of schoolyard self-valorization.
Thanks, Tim. That certainly settles the issue.
We agree, Mann is a loathsome Mann.
I don’t refer to him as “Doctor”…..just Mikey
A lot of doctoral thesis have more to do with butt kissing then they do with science.
What a terrible person. Mann actually demonstrated that industrial era warming is rapid and caused by humans. Tsk tsk.
“Mann actually demonstrated…”
Too funny.
Mann hasn’t done any science since his work with lanthanide ceramics in 1989-90.
He did no such thing, and his Hockey Stick has been shredded as a fraud by people who know way more about statistics and proxies than you or Mann ever will.
As to being a terrible person, I agree. You are.
Mann’s work has been repeatedly replicated and validated by subsequent generations of scientists, publishing in peer review journals. You? Not so much.
Replication does not validate a fabricated falsehood.
Indeed, replication of a known falsehood casts doubt upon the verity of the replicands.
Steve McIntyre on the AR6 hockeystick: “The PAGES2019 is not a “random” selection of proxies, but winnowed through ex post criteria.
“As Rosanne d’Arrigo explained to the NAS panel many years ago: if you want to make cherry pie, you first have to pick cherries.”
This is standard for the many replications of Mann’s crockey stick. The winnowing involves picking out the tree ring series that happen to tick upwards in the 20th century, and calling them temperature proxies.
Never mind that nearby trees experience the same conditions but fail the same test.
Mr Frank, have you ever opened a University textbook on Atmospheric Physics, or even basic climate science? Or even Science?
Ph.D. in Chemistry, Stanford University.
Postdoc using physical inorganic methods, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Physical methods experimental chemist, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
Now, your turn, Warren.
By what training do you venture criticism?
Aha! So you admit you never opened a textbook on atmospheric physics or climate science. Did you think that you would magically learn climate science without any effort just as a Gasterenterologist with a bad case of Dunning Kruger might think he is also an expert in orthopaedic surgery?
Right. So, you tacitly admit you are unqualified to criticize. Why am I not surprised?
So, tell me: is physical error analysis limited to climate science? – whatever that is.
Here’s my paper on the reliability of air temperature projections.
Provide your critical review. Yours, Warren. Not anyone else’s.
I’m sure you’re quite good at measuring air temperature, Frank. Have you submitted your claimed debunking of climate science to a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Just to be sure your opening topic is closed:
*Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud.
*Hockey stick replications are tendentiously manufactured.
*Proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions are physically indeterminate.
That noted, you’re apparently too lazy to even click a link.
peer-reviewed: climate models
peer-reviewed: air temperature measurements
peer-reviewed: Cenozoic CO2
peer-reviewed: overall climate-science crockism
I’ve more, but that’s enough to show the bankruptcy of everything you believe.
You seem to ignore the fact that the results of Mann’s work have been confirmed multiple times in the peer reviewed scientific literature/
Re your links:
‘Climate Models’ — Any issue you have with climate models have no bearing on the validity of the theory behind climate science. As you should know (but don’t)- models are not evidence.
‘Air temperature measurements’- Your ability to get published in a pay-to-play journal like MDPI proves nothing other than you have some money to spend to bolster your invisible credibility.
“Mann’s work have been confirmed multiple times”
As already noted, replication of a fraud doesn’t lift the fraudulence. Manufactured replications are not confirmations.
You’d not know that because you’re evidently ignorant of science, or care because your interest is polemical talking points rather than factual truths.
“climate models have no bearing…”
The entire claim of AGW would not exist without climate models. No climate models, no grounds.
“on the validity of the theory behind climate science.”
There is no theory of climate. There is no field of “climate science.”
“models are not evidence.”
Models make the pretty graphics that convince the gullible, frighten the timid, and empower the demagogic. Such as you, Warren.
“Your ability to get published in a pay-to-play journal like MDPI…”
The argument of someone who hasn’t an argument.
Further, open access journals have become common. Elsevier, for example, has a 123-page list of its open access journals. Springer Nature open access. All of which require an Author Publication Charge.
All journals make money from their papers.
Using your logic, one could excoriate Nature as a rag publishing fashionable bait to bolster subscription income.
The editorial and review process at MDPI was journalistic standard.
You are clearly untrained, Warren. And yet you hazard a dismissive derision. Why isn’t that merely vacuous arrogance?
It isn’t – so, what’s your criticism?
Mann reposted comments calling Charlie Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.”
That is not criticism.
Is Mark Steyn comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky criticism?
While Steyn’s analogy may have been over the top, it concerned Mann’s torture and molesting of “data” and included reference to a Penn State administration whitewash in both Sandusky’s and Mann’s cases. It certainly was apt criticism.
Why are you deflecting?
Oh! You have nothing to counter with and do not wish to engage in adult level debate.
Saying that Mann treated data is similar to how Sandusky treated kids is criticism. It is not calling Mann a child molester.
Whataboutism.
The last defense of people who know they have been caught in a falsehood.
You again divert rather than address the point made.
You are only a pathetic flame warrior.
He didn’t.
My view as well.
“Violators will be punished immediately.”
Who gets to decide the punishment?
Who gets to effect the punishment?
“Criticism of Charlie Kirk is strictly prohibited. Violators will be punished immediately.”
Uh…no. Glorifying his murderer and implying his murder was somehow justified while representing a college or business?
“The Cause” seems to mean a lot to you. Does it man enough to support those who condone or make excuses for cold blooded murder?
We can find Kirk’s murder abhorrent, but also find his life’s work as mostly disgusting.
Warren, your response may reveal more about you than be indicative of Charlie Kirk.
Was Charlie Kirk another of your MAGA Gods?
Even worse: free-thinker.
And you – Antifa-symp?
This is the result of not understanding what he meant. You see the word “black” and think he’s criticising blacks. So when you argue “AGW because science”, its fairly obvious you dont have the first idea of what’s happening.
Considering every example you have come up with to prove what a bad person Kirk was, has been shown to be a complete lie. Not that you will care, all that matters is the result to you.
I see our newest troll can’t tell the difference between criticism and blatant lies.
Can any of them?
And going down the far-left media “Hitler Youth” meme. Truly delusional.. and disgusting.
All Charlie ever wanted to do was discuss reality in the attempt of overcoming academic brain-washing of students….
The person who shot him and those that cheered that shooting are was more like Hitler Youth.. trying to silence discussion and dissent.
It has been well observed for many years that inside every “progressive”, there is a totalitarian eager to emerge.
It’s more subtle than just brainwashing.
Higher education places great value on the ability to deal with abstractions. On the one hand, that’s a powerful tool. Our society would be less good without it.
On the other hand, many folks, like the Democrats generally, come to prefer their theories over the stark realities staring them in the face.
George Orwell said that “some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.” link
“many folks, … generally, come to prefer their theories over the stark realities staring them in the face”
A perfect description of the AGW grifters and their usefully benighted gallery.
How is it that every Michael Mann article features a new troll?
I’m going from memory, but it seems to me that every MM piece some previously unheard from troll pops up and defends him. Or multiple trolls.
David, has it occurred to you that Mann is the troll?
Would his ego permit him to post under a false name?
Good question but I suspect the answer is yes.
Can any of them?
I suppose that an effective troll knows exactly what she’s doing.
As to the left generally, the answer is; mostly not.
Calling Charlie Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler Youth” isn’t criticism. It’s ugly, dehumanizing, inflammatory rhetoric. It’s sad that you can’t tell the difference.
Saying “I disagree with his view on (insert your disagreement here)” is criticism. Charlie Kirk was a champion of criticism and civil disagreement.
Angry leftists calling people names isn’t criticism. It’s a sickness. It doesn’t persuade. It doesn’t encourage discourse and finding calm ways to deal with disagreements. Charlie Kirk’s mission was to have civil discourse about disagreements, a notion that seems foreign to people like Mann.
Dehumanizing people with name-calling invites people to escalate their anger—their own anger that belongs to them and no one else—into rage and violence. The more unstable among them will take action. There are far more unstable people on the left than on the right. It’s good to see that wiser councils are beginning to prevail to shut down inflammatory rhetoric from people like Michael Mann. It’s time they learned that their ever-escalating violent rhetoric is unacceptable and leads to bad things as we have seen in the last several months.
In chat and blogs, it is called a flame war.
The intent is to incite negative emotional responses, presumedly for the entertainment or ego inflation of the flame warrior.
In psychology it is called “othering” which is to refer to people in a way that leads to treating them as if they are not humans.
As Dick Burk points out, backbiting and calumny are not forms of criticism. They seek to demean, undermine and and devalue the “other”.
Before you can kill 100 million people, the socialists first need to dehumanize them.
“There are far more unstable people on the left than on the right.”
Speaking =of facts……Got any evidence that that is true?
You
So that’s a no then. This is why Trump (or anyone) jumping to conclusions before the motives of shooters is known, is so dangerous. Jon Stewart did a wonderful piece recently about this very topic.
Stewart, much like you, is just another unstable leftist who couldn’t care less about the truth, so long as his side wins.
HE seems to have the facts on his side
So again no honest debate from MarkW. Stewart if right. At the moment both sides run to blame the other when a shooting happens. That is so destructive.
Criticism is one thing, calumny and name-calling is another.
Charlie Kirk welcomed debate and abhorred censorship. Take a guess as to why he felt that way. Go on. You might realise something as unlikely as that may seem.
Mr. Doff: I surmise Mr. Eclang is paid NOT to realise that something.
FALSE criticisms are strictly forbidden, such as Kirk is a racist and a NAZI, etc.
Mann, in his resignation letter, incriminated himself.
There must have been a sigh of relief at the top of Penn that he left
.
How in hell, did he ever get hired?
Did a bunch of top Penn people have a lobotomy?
Was Penn afraid of becoming a Trump target?
As I understand it… Mann has NOT left… he merely lost a “title”.
Mann became a liability to the Penn elite, who fears Trump in the White House.
Mann still being a professor is a joke, that does not reflect well on Penn
The faculty should vote him out.
It’s not like Mann is actually being punished by losing a fancy title which really means little. It’s barely a slap on the wrist. And, what he said, days after a person is murdered, is disturbing, the sort of thing that could trigger other nut jobs to murder someone. It’s like calling “fire” in a theater. No doubt many less public figures didn’t like Kirk and they’re saying all sorts of stupid shit- but they aren’t going to be punished so it’s NOT prohibited.
Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether the moronic posts like yours are from stupid people, the “woke again” indoctrinated government worshippers or paid propagandist trolls.
I have not seen any “Criticism of Charlie Kirk”. All I have seen are defamatory ad hominem comments without evidence. Maybe such criticism exists. Where is it?
What Mann said about Kirk wasn’t criticism, it was slander.
I can make valid criticisms of what Kirk believed and said, such as I disagree with his religiosity and his broad and apparently uncritical support for Trump, but I would never associate him with NAZIS, which is one of the left’s favorite slanders against anyone that disagrees with them. They do that because they don’t like losing arguments.
Selling the myth that the National Socialistische Deutche Arbeitern Partei was right wing has been the left’s greatest propaganda coup: Socialist is in the name for a reason.
When it was noticed in my ninth grade social studies class that the primary NASDAP policies were nearly identical with the communists, Mr. Belander tried to worm out of it by claiming they went so far left they became right.
Normally don’t pay heed to down votes, but I’m gratified to see this troll get hammered here. Why do CliSci trolls attack a murder victim with such relish? You (Mann included) can’t just be the least bit polite and shut up in response to a political assassination that doesn’t even rub against your CliSci cult? Loathsome.
Using death to silence your critics has been a tactic of the left for well over 100 years.
Imagine claiming MLK was part of the KKK back in 1968. Imagine celebrating the death of MLK back in 1968. Imagine blaming MLK supporters for his death back in 1968. Anyone who takes 2 seconds to watch a video of Charlie Kirk knows his critics are liars. If you have to distort someone’s message to make your point, your point is wrong. The universities need to be purged of people like Michael Mann, who are activists masquerading as scientists.
I don’t feel that I can forsake the public scholarship and advocacy that I am doing and have thus decided to step down from the VPC role.
You need to look up Godwins Law too but lefties don’t do irony tossing around accusations of National Socialism.
“As Penn’s Provost gently put it, Mann simply found it “more and more difficult … to do the kind of public intellectual work he wants to do while also being a University administrator””.
How far we have fallen, to even think there is a career choice called “public intellectual worker” and that such a role could be filled by the candidate under consideration here in this article.
Mann has always found it difficult to do ANY real intellectual work, public or otherwise.
That may be why he is working outside his fields of academic preparation. That is, he apparently couldn’t find success as a geophysicist or mathematician, and found an employer who gave him a job title of climatologist.
About 5 steps down.
Congratulations on producing the funniest hockey stick graph in history.
You mean the one going from value=1 (being named first “Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action”) to value=0 (not being said Vice Provost) in less that a year? I agree completely, even considering the hockey stick blade is downward.
/sarc
The question remains.
Who has actually been paying his legal bills and why?
That chart refers to the bills Mark Steyn (and others?) racked up, which he has been ordered to pay. It doesn’t include his own legal bills which, as you say were likely paid by others. The others can’t be happy about the $1Million+ unexpected verdict.
If the “others” who paid Mann’s legal bills were the usual suspects activist ngo’s, foundations, etc, then the funding would have come from general government grants to them, which really means the taxpayers funded Mann’s legal bills.
From the above article:
“In other words, Mann wanted the perks of authority without the restraint of responsibility.”
In other words, Michael Mann was just acting like the demigod he thinks he is.
And it’s not like this should have come as a surprise to the University of Pennsylvania . . . he was known to have lied outright about receiving a Nobel Peace Prize (see details at https://heartland.org/opinion/michael-mann-falsely-claims-he-was-awarded-nobel-peace-prize , published Oct 2012) long before they appointed him to be their first “Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action”.
That title would make Roman emperor Caligula proud.
Mann, obviously, is the role model for St. Greta of Thunberg.
I’m not going to look up the clip but there’s video of him before Congress saying (If I’ve don’t have the quote exact, please show me the latitude the IPCC showed Mann.), “I’ve never called Dr. Curry a denier.” She quickly responded, “It’s in your written testimony!”.
I checked.
He did.
I seem to recall from Climategate that Mann encouraged Phil Jones to pad his H-Index by letting a few other “Jones’s” references slip in and remain uncorrected.
Was Mann under oath when he made that claim?
Mr. W: No, he just said it in a court pleading!
He was testifying before Congress at the time.
Regardless, I’m pretty sure you have to sign court pleadings and attest that everything in them is true.
Maybe he also said it in a court pleading but he was definitely before congress the time I’m referencing.
(I think there were 4 people on the panel.)
“Insritutional neutrality?” Just because UPenn is stating that university leaders cannot make PUBLIC statements, doesn’t mean that are running their programs neutrally. Far from it. Penn is alas just another poisoned Ivy.
There has been a minor shift towards the middle.
No more men in women’s locker rooms for example.
Penn’s professors are as lefty as ever.
I did say “minor.”
If they liked him personally they might have looked the other way?
Still has his academic post, however, doesn’t he?
Yes, he’s still at Penn doing climate work. The article makes it sound like he was totally canned by Penn.
Good point. I added a note in the body of text to clarify that. Thanks.
He does.
Someone is paying the school to have MM as a teacher.
Superstition and weird beliefs
There was a time when everyone believed that if a Manndrake (root) was pulled out of the ground it would scream. And anyone who heard a Manndrake scream would die.
We got past that mumbo jumbo
Did we?
Did we really?
All of us?
🙂
One of the Harry Potter showed the solution.
Ear muffs so don’t hear his screaming. (Or the media quoting his screams.)
After the demolition of UPenn President Liz Magill in 2023, it was unlikely that another Democrat Party activist (Mann) would be allowed to continue partisan political work at UPenn. And let’s be clear; political partisanship was the principal field of activity of Mann.No one can point to one, single contribution to science in his entire career. It was all about political takedown and attacking political opponents.
and self-aggrandization….
Aka ego
I like that he got kicked down a notch by the Nobel committee when he had clamed to be a prize winner and even used a Xerox copy to prove it.
He and Mr. “I am The Science”, Fauci, have damaged actual science’s reputation almost beyond repair.
Mann did some reasonable work on Lanthanide ceramics in 1989, 1990.
That has nothing to do with climatology, and it is hard to see how his background in geophysics contributed to that work. So, early in his career, he did some work that had no bearing on his current appointment.
Key word “reasonable.” Not ground breaking or exceptional or noteworthy. And “some.”
I should have clarified that Mann’s 1989-90 work on ceramics is the sum-total of his scientific output. He’s done none, since.
Oh man. The man in charge has canceled Mann.
Nope… unfortunately.
And let’s not forget that Mann defaulted on his court-ordered obligation to meet the considerable legal costs that Dr. Tim Ball (RIP) was forced to incur after Mann sued him and lost in a BC Canada jurisdiction.
This left Dr. Ball’s widow and family on the hook for Mann’s legally-ordered financial restitution.
What a despicable
human beingcreature Mann is.(Note, my conclusions about Mann’s character (ie lack thereof) are based on Mann’s ACTIONS, not his scientific malfeasance).
He is badly misnamed too – definitely not a ‘MAN‘ as we oldies understood that compliment to mean.
He didn’t just lose, he completely abandoned the field. The court ordered him to produce documents, and he refused. The court was forced to give a directed judgement.
One would not be far afield putting a picture of Mickey Mann under the heading of malignant narcissism! Modern academia seems to attract this, and other Cluster B personality disorders!
Mad Ed must go! Er, no can do….
Sack Ed Miliband, union boss urges Starmer
Keir Starmer must sack Ed Miliband over his approach to net zero, the boss of the Unite union has demanded…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/30/sack-ed-miliband-union-boss-urges-keir-starmer/
Ho hum.
It’s about time.
Once the Ivy’s were called to account in 2023 concerning antiSemitism, this result was inevitable. The heads of Penn, Harvard, and Columbia all lost their jobs. I suspect their successors might have learned something that Mann didn’t or can’t.
Hi Rud, how’s things? Quite topical in this Comment Section – is there any update on the Mann –> Steyn legal fees? I actually just subscribed to PACER again, but it can be difficult to navigate
Unfortunately, he didn’t “pack up and leave” nor did he “resign from Penn”. Mann still retains his position as Director of Center for Science at Penn and will still be able to do climate research there.
“will still be able to do climate research there”
You mean climate propaganda… I doubt he has ever been capable of actual research.
You beat me to it.
But first Penn State gave him that ridiculous title and salary. Clean house.
Nothing to do with Penn State, it’s UPenn.
I can’t help but think this was a way out for a celebrated no body. He has increasingly become an embarrassment to academia, science, the US and the research community world wide. I don’t know if he ever contributed anything useful to his field of research but it doesn’t seem so. Better to come down a notch or two because of policy differences than because you have been shown to be a failure.
Trump’s threatening of government grants if universities didn’t do a better job of at least pretending to be politically neutral deserves some credit.
Back in 1961, President Eisenhower said:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Much as I think Mann is a pseudo-scientist, I’ve serious reservations about UPenn’s actions. If Mann was posting from a personal account, he has a right to say what he likes.
Mann’s X profile presents his professional affiliations: “Scientist/Author; Pres. Distinguished Prof/Director Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media, U Penn; Nat Academy of Sciences; Royal Society; Tyler Prize” (my bold) which uses his status at UPenn to tout his claim of authority.
UPenn should require him to remove all professional affiliations from his X profile. After that, none of his personal comments are ascribable to the University.
Mann could even include a generalized disclaimer in his profile. He should be required to specify that his comments on X reflect his own personal views.
I cannot assent to the idea that personal speech may be disallowed or officially punished – apart from calls to violence and such-like.
On the other hand, if UPenn truly did have a ‘new policy of “institutional neutrality”‘ they’d shutter their cultural studies programs, all the *ism departments, and most of their Cultural Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology and English departments, and prune their Law School of everyone wanting to legislate intersectionality. Also And further afield.
Pat Frank, I understand your point but tend to disagree, based on the SCOTUS distinctions in NYT v Sullivan. There are some ‘private’ figures who are in fact so ‘public’ that they should not be given a ‘private pass’. Obama and Clinton certainly fit into that ‘shades of grey’ category.
Rud, it appears that the Court decided Sullivan in favor of the NY Times and freedom from suppression.
Mann is certainly a public figure, as are the Clintons or the Obamae.
But there’s no codicil to the 1st suspending the freedom of public figures or ex-notables to express their views as they like.
They may be irresponsible. They may be influential. But it remains a right for the influential to speak while stupid.
Were it not, half the professoriate would be vulnerable to civil action.
Nothing stops civil action.
Too many lawyers get rich with lawfare.
Agreed, and I go even further. What’s wrong with unfettered free speech? Nobody has to respond to a “call to violence”. Of course a Government “call to violence” may have consequences if disobeyed – incarceration or even execution for mutiny.
Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat – based on the facts. He can call me anything he likes – a paedophile, bicycle-seat sniffer, denier – whatever. I simply decline to be offended, upset, or annoyed. I really give precisely no value to any opinion he may have about me. Why should I?
As Winston Churchill said “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
If you see an expanding fire in a crowded theatre, should you keep it to yourself as you leave through the fire exit, leaving others to suffer a horrible death?
“ I really give precisely no value to any opinion he may have about me. Why should I?”
Right – consider the source.
If there were no restrictions on free speech, there would be no such thing as libel laws.
Do you really think people should be allowed to say whatever they want about others with no consequences?
Certainly, if he was posting anonymously, or amended his comments with a disclaimer about speaking as an administrator for UPenn, or provided a declaration that it was a personal opinion and did not represent the position of UPenn. Even so, should Mann become an embarrassment to the university, or, especially, impact the financials of the university, they will find ways to silence him and neutralize his relationship with the university. The university cannot let a single person damage the income that allows it to exist. The governing board will make him an offer he can’t refuse.
Whether or not to hire someone is an economic decision, based on whether or not that person brings more in revenue, then they cost in expenses.
When a person becomes a liability rather than an asset, they will be fired. No matter who they are or what they did/said.
That is how it should work in a sane world. I’m not sure, however, that all the players are sane.
“then they cost” lol, it is “than they cost”…
If that’s what it takes to keep you happy, go for it.
UPenn merely removed M.Mann from the position where his comments would conflict with university policy.
No loss in income.
No loss in employment.
No censorship on future posts.
Only a truly stupid person would ignore the recent actions by the university to suppress his influence.
Care to rephrase that?
The same restrictions apply to the private sector. Anyone who is associated with a company, has to be circumspect even in their personal communications. It’s one thing to say stupid things in a letter written to a friend, that’s private. However, when you post it on a social media site for the whole world to see, it becomes public. And if your actions cause reputational damage to your employer, you can expect to be fired.
That also applies to government bodies, and to contractors and consultants as well as direct employees.
We were told in the usual quarterly rah-rah meetings that we were seen by the general public as representing the organisation, and so needed to uphold the standards of the organisation in public.
Mann’s X profile include his academic standing. His posts were under that banner. That makes him answerable to UPenn for his X posts.
If he posted under his name alone, even Ph.D. appended, UPenn would have no call to discipline him.
I disagree. Both Mann and UPenn have been quite vocal about their connection. The association is already there, both in the public and academic minds.
Beyond that, UPenn can fire anyone for any reason, even no reason. It’s an employer’s right.
The only limitation on this is the employment contract. If that contract states that Mann can say whatever he likes, where ever he likes, then he has that right.
Of course Mann can’t give up his advocacy. Doing so would be an admission that he wasted decades on a non-cause which would collide with his massive oversized ego because advocacy was the only thing he did. He has painted himself in a corner he can’t get out of. Hoisted on his own petard, as they say here.
At last, Mann has no choice, he’s forced to reckon with karma…….
Dr Judith Curry, whose academic views on climate change are rather different to those of Dr Michael Mann, also resigned from a high academic post at her University.
Questions: Are our big universities failing to understand and represent views of their top scientists? Do the universities need to correct themselves, rather than having top scientists change? Where does proximity to the best known science now reside?
Geoff S
WUWT? 🙂
The more relevant question is what causes Dr Curry or Dr Happer to take fossil fuel money in return for propagating fraudulent science?
“propagating fraudulent science?”
Show us your analysis.
All the King’s Horses and all the King’s men, Couldn’t give a fig (or something)
Mann v Steyn and Mann v Ball court transcripts are prime examples of what an awful excuse of a human being Mann is. Being looked at in a strange way by someone in a supermarket was enough for Mann to be awarded damages (until his council was found in contempt of court).