• Manning up or monkeying around? – UPDATE

    This is going to be the first part in a series of posts about Michael Mann – he of the “hockey stick” graph – and his lawsuit against, amongst others, National Review’s Mark Steyn and the Competitive Institute’s Rand Simberg.  This is about two posts.  Simberg said that Mann could be compared to multiple child rapist Jerry Sandusky (from the same University), in that “except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”  Steyn followed it up with a slightly less damning comment: “”If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s ‘the Jerry Sandusky of climate change,’ he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his ‘investigation’ by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”

    At the outset I should say that I think global warming is real, manmade, and a problem.  I also hate, hate seeing accusations of scientific dishonesty made lightly.

    That said, with this little tantrum, Mann has arranged humiliation for himself and a public discredit to climate science, at a time when public understanding of the same is not what it might be.

    I will go into this more deeply later, but for now, I will focus on this line from the court complaint (which you may read here):

    It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics.  It is quite another to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.

    There are three problems with this line.

    1.  Being a Nobel prize recipient does not make you immune to even the harshest and the nastiest comments.  Mann might care to remember the fate of James Watson – a far greater scientist than Mann will ever be – when he made some unfortunate comments about the genetic basis of IQ.  (For the record, I regard the intellectual pogrom against Watson as a disgrace; yes, the old boy may have a few funny ideas, but his contribution to humanity is almost without equal).

    2.  The phrase “Nobel prize recipient” is quite deceitful.  Most people when they hear “Nobel Prize winner” are quite impressed, for good reason.  This is the pantheon of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc.  However, this line refers to the Nobel peace prize, and the peace prize is a joke, and a sick joke at that.  This prize goes to people who have done nothing, like Gore and Obama, and utter crooks like Arafat and Kissinger.  If Mann was as important as he thinks himself to be, that prize would be in a real subject, like physics.

    3.  The final and most important problem with Mann’s comment is that it’s a lie.  He is not a Nobel prize winner.  He was never awarded the peace prize.  So saith the Nobel prize committee.  He received a “certificate of recognition” when the IPCC, a group of 2000 people, was awarded this mickey-mouse badge, and that certificate comes from the IPCC, not from the Nobel committee.  To say you have been awarded the Nobel prize when you have not, is not a difference of opinion, it is not a misunderstanding, it is a naked lie.

    It’s also a very weird lie.  I can understand pretending that you’ve received a real honour, but this is pretending to receive a piece of worthless junk.  I’m still trying to find out whom I need to call to get the EU to send the damn thing back.

    Mark the effect.  In a legal complaint alleging defamation, Mann has lied.  He complains that his reputation is being attacked, and has provided evidence that that reputation is at least partly fraudulent.  If he doesn’t get that his case is now dead then he’s deluded.  Because now the charge of fraud is accurate.

    According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, claiming to have a qualification that you don’t, is fraud, plain and simple:

    when researchers lie about their credentials, such conduct constitutes scientific misconduct.

    Penn State, where Mann works, has something similar to say.

    So this whole fiasco is working out to be another Dimmock case.  To state the facts simply, in his insufferable film, Al Gore decided that the scientific consensus was not sexy enough.  For example, having a sea level rise of one to two feet over a hundred years isn’t sexy, twenty feet was a bit more so.  This plus other eight inaccuracies listed in the court record have made this case something of a cause celebre in the denialist circles; Mann’s case will end up the same.  People will always remember his fakery, and this will make it harder than ever to discuss climate science rationally.

    So, well done Michael Mann.  Thank you very much.  This is exactly what we need right now.  I’ll close with a personal anecdote.  Before all this came to light, I was on Mann’s facebook page, and tried to warn him that he might be surprised to see how fierce Steyn can fight in the legal arena; this is not a man given to backing down easily, I said.  I was promptly banned and blocked.  I have heard plenty of similar stories from others.  If Mann could ever be bothered to listen to others, he might not be poised to deal climate science its biggest PR defeat in years.

    Now, granted, being an arrogant, close-minded cock absolutely does not mean Mann is a bad scientist.  Stay tuned for my views on his science…


    [UPDATE]  Welcome, all Mark Steyn readers!  Please feel free to pull up a chair, and please stick around.  I think you might be surprised at what someone who is ” a believer in anthropogenic global warming” can add to this.  Thanks to Steyn for the hat-tip, but I’m not on “on the same side as Dr Mann in the climate-change argument”; I’m on a side that doesn’t get anywhere near as much attention as it should.  Stay tuned…

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • andy123

      I wish you had a slightly different preface. “Climate change is real, there is a human contribution, and we need to deal with it. ” Other than that your comments on Mann are right on the Money. Penn State could of course really do an honest job in its investigation, but too much money is at stake. That sounds similar to the Sandusky case.

    • I’ve posted warnings similar to yours on my Facebook page, as well as a very lightly teasing comment on Michael E. Mann’s page, but I got banned from his page for my efforts. I found that a better thing to do than attempt, futilely, to comment on Mann’s page is to share a post from his page on my own page, with my own preface. This has the unfortunate effect of pushing my re-shared post into the newsfeeds of friends who may not care about it, but if the post is re-shared with the public, anyone looking at Mann’s original post can read re-sharers’ prefaces by clicking the icon on Mann’s original post, to bring up a list of others who have shared the link. In this way, there’s always a way to make a reply, agreeing or disagreeing, to whatever he may say. I’ll just add that the outcome of his shutting out your good advice and mine has been much more fun than the outcome of his listening respectfully would have been.

    • SidVishess

      As a layman observer in all this, I daresay that the most effective defense to an ultra-narcissist such as Mann is mockery. Enough of it and his already enlarged head should reach critical mass in no time.

    • Ron Clark

      It is difficult to understand how one as supposedly grounded in academic inquiry as Mann purports to be cannot comprehend what a suicidal path he has chosen to follow. Were this ridiculous case to actually go to trial, the entire East Anglia “hide the decline” e-mail scandal (in which Mann directly participated, if not created) will be re-opened and publicly scrutinized to a degree that will force many scientists associated with that panel to completely disassociate themselves from it lest they risk permanent damage to their own careers. Incredibly, Mann’s insecurity and narcissism seems fully adequate to set in motion a chain of events very likely to bring the whole ‘climate change hysteria’ house of cards crashing down just as surely as evidence of the Medieval Warming Period should have in the first place. Perhaps a good career move at this point would be for Mann to pull out all those 1974 Time magazine covers proclaiming the Coming of the New Ice Age and How to Survive it, then totally re-brand himself.

    • Tom

      I was blocked from Mann’s page as well, which is at this point, I suppose, a badge of honor. My question for all climate scientists is what is the proper temp of the earth anyway? Even if its warming, who’s to say that isn’t the ‘right’ temp. The town I live in in Florida was destroy by a hurricane in 1559, so I’m amused when, after every big storm makes landfall, I hear the howls of “It’s global warming, get used to it!” The temp of the earth is always in flux, so let her be.

      • ThePrussian

        This is actually a really good question, one I will try to answer in more detail later on. For the moment, please see my other posts on the subject.

    • jay d

      I don’t understand the negative reference to Dr. Kissinger. Really. Not picking an argument but thought he was instrumental in opening China etc. I once read a book by him on history which was well written. Otherwise, I’m in the dark. You called him a crook. Why?

    • jonathan frodsham

      Yes I am here because of Mark. The CAGW people are just a bunch of self serving scaremongers. The public has had enough of their BS. They were beaten by mainly retired scientists, blogging on the net, who did it for free. This idea of the that billions of $ come from big oil/coal is just a lie. It was done on a shoe string budget. The truth ALWAYS wins.

      • Carl

        It’s amazing they think petro dollars are required to make people suspicious of the UN’s science department. As Steyn is fond of saying, where do I go to vote those guys out? I’m sure Ban Ki-moon is a great guy and all, but I don’t really trust him or anyone else associated with the UN with the world’s future.

    • jonathan frodsham

      Wow that was fast, I posted on Manns page 10 min ago, and now I am blocked, gee all I said was I had read his book, and said it was rubbish. Typical of them, block the debate, they have been doing that for years. But its is not working anymore, they are getting desperate.

    • Pingback: Mann overboard | The Prussian()

    • Pingback: F-Bombing the Mann | The Prussian()

    • Pingback: What is Mann that thou art mindful of him? | The Prussian()

    • I accept the science behind AGW, but am profoundly leery of the politics. I don’t want to unplug my life, go live in a tree, and turn the world over to a priesthood of hypocritical greenies.

    • Hoss

      Intellectual honesty from a believer in catastrophic…

      How refreshing. Bravo.

      If anyone is a real scientist, the tactics of a Mann should have you buying Steyn gear to hopefully wash the stink of Mann off of your profession. Unfortunately, I don’t trust that there are many real scientists left as the profession has been politicized like so many others.

      For the record, I just don’t believe when govt funded scientists tell me that xyz means the govt needs more taxes. And lo and behold, this will keep the govt funding flowing to those same scientists.