A separate attempt by American Traditions Institute, a conservative think tank headed by members of other conservative groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Group and Cooler Heads Coalition, was equally unsuccessful.
One Sandusky reference came in a July National Review blog post by Mark Steyn, who repeated another blogger's comments comparing Mann to the disgraced football coach: "He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."
Kazman, CEI's counsel, said the organization removed "a sentence or two" relating to the Penn State sex abuse scandal shortly after it published a post.
Lawyers for the National Review in New York City were not immediately available for comment Tuesday afternoon.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
81 Comments
Add CommentScience went mainstream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLitigations, corruption, fraud, politically motivated research, politically correct studies, post-modern thinking...
Thing are really going down hill. Another day someone accused me of doing "white-man science".
"1984" is now, 2+2 =5!
While on the West Coast (Oregon) a few years ago I was commenting on the meteorological differences between the East & West Coasts; Pacific air mass vs continental air mass, cold air vs warm, orographic lifting, large day/night temperature swings, etc. Someone offered the comment "that's just book-learnin', you might need that for school but it doesn't mean anything in the real world". I was only describing weather events. Think we're going to get anywhere with climatology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore the scientific ignrorati come down in their slobbering hordes to regurgitate their fossil fuel talking points. Allow me to present to you twelve different paleoclimate reconstruction using different proxies, methodologies and by different researchers all showing the Hockey Stick:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Those are the facts folks. Get used to it.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that the National Review Online and the CEI lied about Dr. Mann's research. So the "defense of truth" argument is a non-starter.
Fact: Dr. Mann's results have been reproduced by different researchers, using different methodologies and proxies a dozen different times. The only data manipulation going on here is that being committed by the like of Wegman, Mcitntyre and Watts.
As was reported in the article, seven organization, including the National Science Foundation, investigated Mann's research and found no evidence of fraud. I believe the National Academy of Science went so far as to examine his research article that originated the "hockey stick" graph and found it was accurate. So, Shoshin, what is your name and what scientific background do you bring to this discussion? I am Denis DuBay, and I've conducted air pollution research and taught earth and environmental science for over 25 years. And I'm tired or reading rude and ignorant comments from anonymous folks. Man up, who are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't mind that you could care less what my name is, and I'm hardly surprised. But I still want to know your name, and your background in science. Is that too much to ask? We need to know that in order to determine how much to value your comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSandusky should sue. Mann is in fact the John Wayne Gacy of Climate Science. That data was molested, tortured, and is buried in Mann's crawlspace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am constantly reminded that all the protestations of data manipulation, constitutional infringement and political machinations are totally irrelevant. What we choose to think about human collective contribution to climate change will have zero effect on the actuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat IS relevant is the reality (or not) of climate change and it's implications.
For this, we will have the excruciating luxury of observing first-hand what WILL happen, for it will not take too long to be evident.
At that time, I hope we will summon, right or wrong, the authors of all feckless arguments to a court of criminal judgement for their just rewards.
On those that were proven correct, we should heap accolades and rewards; for those whom time shows the lie, perhaps a sojourn spent in residence staked to a African ant-hill in would be appropriate. The clan of Uber-clueless bloggers could be charged as accomplices.
Shoshin Says: he hockey stick is nothing more than a statistical piece of junk that be created from any set of random data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: This is a lie and you are knowingly repeating this lie. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the Hockey Stick has been reproduced by a dozen different researchers, using different proxies and methodologies.
Why are you repeating a long debunked lie for?
I think this is a most unfortunate development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMann was the recipient of a number of emails from Phil Jones in which the latter clearly stated his intention to manipulate data and even destroy datasets. I think Mann would have a hard time explaining why he did not blow the whistle on Jones.
All Mann will do is embarrass himself.
OK, Steve, time to pony up on your assertions. What data sets were manipulated? Be specific. What papers were based upon it?? Name them. Cite primary sources only. I want the ORIGINAL E-mails. Not E-mails quoted from but the originals. Can you do that? If not why not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the article you are commenting on?
Yes, yes, all that verification of Michael Mann's hockey-stick has been done..... but where is the temperature rise as predicted? With a 16-year plateau in temperatures, you'd think that even the most ardent supporters of Mann would be wondering about the facts, science, and similar nonsense they usually don't pay heed to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a little surprised that Scientific American, as many hits on its reputation as it's had for liberal bias, has decided to get into this at all. If I were the head of S.A., I'd have quit engaging in any potential political discussions about 10-15 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a reason for the current data releases on fraudulent scientific papers being astoundingly high... grant money and politics has driven good science over the cliff. Er... that reminds me... tell me again why Mann so desperately has hidden his data????
Any good programmer can take any set of data and produce a hockey stick. You should have thought of that FACT prior to demonstrating your scientific ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou and dubay.denis can go back to playing with your credentials now.
Mann's problems are not just scientific. The illegally obtained emails referenced in the article were dumped because Mann and his associates would not comply with FOIA requests. What the emails showed was a systematic effort by Mann and his associates to suppress publication of scholarly articles that conflicted with his findings. I think that tells you all you need to know about Mann's scientific credentials.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Aardron,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny anonymous fool can make baseless accusations against scientist whose results they do not like. What I want is the details of the accusation. What SPECIFIC papers are fraudulent? What SPECIFIC data set? Name them. You clowns need to stop waving your hands around and screaming fraud like good dupes and put up the evidence.
Hi Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst let me clear up one point.
I do not need convincing that we are risking catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Basic physics combined with what we know about weather systems and feedback effects says so and a growing body of evidence points in that direction.
My comment was aimed purely at Michael Mann's chances of prevailing in litigation.
So here are two examples:
Excerpt of email from Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999.
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
"Ray" seems to be Ray Bradley. See:
"Malcolm" is probably Malcolm Hughes. See:
Mike is Michael Mann
Numerous attempts by Jones' supporters to explain this away lack credibility. My background is in mathematics and physics. I am well aware of mathematical tricks but I have never heard a legitimate use of the words "trick" and "hide" juxtaposed with data. I do not think a court will accept the explanations Jones' supporters have proffered and that will put Mann in an awkward position.
Even the Guardian's George Monbiot, hardly a climate denier, found it hard to swallow.
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, 3 February 2005:
Excerpt:
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
Threatening to delete datasets! How is Mann going to explain that one?
I don’t think Mann is a crook. I do think Jones is and I'm afraid Mann will be tainted by association.
" I want the ORIGINAL E-mails. Not E-mails quoted from but the originals. Can you do that? If not why not?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent raises an interesting point. As mentioned in the article, several previous attempts at obtaining Dr. Mann's email correspondence have been rebuffed.
However, that landscape changes substantially with Dr. Mann's decision to litigate. The "lack of standing" argument that proved successful against Virginia's Attorney General evaporates when it's defense attorneys that come calling.
Discovery should be fascinating.
FooBear wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>>" I want the ORIGINAL E-mails. Not E-mails quoted from but the originals. Can you do that? If not why not?">>
When the "climategate" story broke all the stolen emails were put online. I downloaded the lot. The quotes I gave are taken from that cache.
None of this is relevant though. I am not arguing about Mann's science. I am simply pointing out why I think he is unlikely to prevail in court.
@19. stevenlmeyer, the following quotes appear to add more context to the email exchanges:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
"Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don’t have some of the series he wants, also partly as we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he’ll distort and misuse them. Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we’ve used in the [Reviews of Geophysics] plots available from the CRU web page."
"[D]on’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites — you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
Hi marclevesque
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not me you need to convince. Michael Mann will need to convince a jury. He is going to be cross-examined on these and other emails in great detail. Taken as a whole they look rather damning.
Or, at any rate, a smart lawyer can make them look rather damning which, from the point of view of litigation, is the same thing.
So, for the umpteenth time, I am not arguing about Mann's honesty. I am simply pointing out why he may find it difficult to prevail in court.
On the other hand, if he is going to do it, I wish him all the best.
Sorry, had I reread your comment more closely before writing I would have been more careful with my comment's introduction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just meant to add to the general understanding about what was going on with the emails.
Shoshin is a troll or an ignoramus. You made your point. Ignore this idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what people have to do to try to curb the conservatives' massive political attacks on science, journalism, & reality for that matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is about time these so-called 'thinktanks' got a taste of their own medicine. It is unfortunate that scientists need to defend their work beyond the peer-review. But if that is what it takes to prevent people with no scientific backgrounds from spouting nonsense about their research, then so be it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe blog post insulting Prof Mann goes as far as calling the 'culture' at Penn State as 'rotten and corrupt', and equates the scientists there with the football team- I fail to see any connection here. As an alumnus from a fellow Big Ten university, I am enraged at these accusations, and even if Prof Mann does not win in the lawsuit, it should perplex these loudmouths enough so that they plan on including more facts and thoughts the next time they put their pens to the paper.
Go Science!
Mann's data is cherry picked and limited to something like 12 Yamal trees. If he included data from all thirty some trees that he sampled the hockey stick disappears. Why did he prune his data so much? A judge will ask that question and he better have an answer that makes sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat and his hockey stick has never been found any place else. Furthermore, for his hockey stick to be correct, the MWP needs to be wiped from history, another project that the Alarmists are busily working on.
Face it. Mann got carried away and has too big of an ego to admit that he was wrong. As to the idiot who keeps bragging about his academic credentials, if you use that same egomaniacial approach to your research, I'm sure that end up in the same cell as your hero.
"..created from any set of random data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you can re-create a hockey stick using Mann's algorithm and 'random' data. All you have to do is pre-select the 'random' data that look like hockey sticks. This was demonstrated by Wegman, was it not? Wegman clearly demonstrated that if you produce thousands of sets of random data, and select the 1% that most resemble a hockey stick, Mann's algorithm produces output that resembles a hockey stick.
Astonishing.
It all reminds me of an Abbott And Costello skit. Alarmists always overstate small facts and engage in rhetoric and hyperbole. They will find a judge (or jury) reluctant to give any weight to such "evidence".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople should relax, make a bowl of popcorn, watch the coming comedy routine, as it happens. It's going to be full of laughs, until Mann discerns how disastrous his decisions are. Then the lampooning will never end, but the lawsuit will.
Mann is such an easy target... I hope he stays around forever. GK
Mann's claims at exoneration follow the same lax and corrupted academic standards that allow the lie of CAGW to suck funding from other far more deserving research efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMann was never fully investigated let alone exonerated, and further even claims that he was exonerated by groups that never investigated him.
He's going to be wearing this one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/michael-mann-never-fully-investigated-thus-never-exonerated/
GK, when we last left off, you were going to explain how you could increase a mean value without increasing the numbers above the mean. Here, let's make this simple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 2 3 4 5
The mean is 3.
Now, please demonstrate how you can increase the mean value without increasing either the frequency or variance of the values above it.
Shoshin, are you backing away from your 'random data' claim?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, right after you explain how a small linear set of numbers relates to Mann's lawsuit or any other issue of this thread (or any other).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be a trend here, of changing the subject whenever things get embarrassing defeatist. Sorry, I don't see any link to the homogeneous issue. GK
Easy. "Hide" the 1 and the 2. Now, the mean is 4. See how it works?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""(like Denis Dubay, whom I look up to as a freshman to the famous researcher that he is)"""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should note that this is a figure of speech, and that I am not actually a freshman.
GK,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, I'll explain how my comment relates to yours on this topic.
I'll assume you remember our previous conversation; else, you would have denied it and I would have been forced to look it up.
Implicit in the fact that you are commenting at all is the premise that what you are writing is worth reading. I am countering that with the observation that you aren't very good at math. The heart of this topic is whether or not Mann did his math correctly. Since you aren't any good at math in general, and understanding eigenvectors and principle components analysis used in Mann's study requires a fairly high skill in math, what you have to say on the matter is not worth reading.
ReidR,
Let's refer back to Trent's comment at #13. What has been hidden by Mann? Please be explicit.
Good. I hope Dr. Mann wins. I have seen more than enough voodoo science and ignorance from the terminally "uninformed".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA scratch always is truthful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am confused by SA's headline - does SA assert there is a proper method of falsifying data and/or conclusions as opposed to "improper manipulation" e.g. lying?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet a real, honest, job in the private sector if you can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. So firefighters don't have "real, honest jobs"? How about teachers? Policemen/women?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment displays a breathtaking ignorance and blatant right-wing propaganda. Please leave and never come back.
People who go on about creating "hockey-sticks" from random data in their attempts to discredit Dr. Mann are doing nothing more than revealing their own incompetence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, you can generate a "hockey stick" from random data -- if you run enough trials and then "cherry pick" the results.
But even then, a competent analyst could distinguish that "random noise" hockey stick from a genuine tree-ring temperature hockey stick in about 5 seconds simply by looking at the full output of the SVD algorithm (used by Dr. Mann).
All you need to do is compare the singular-value associated with that noise hockey-stick PC with the singular value associated with a genuine Mann hockey stick PC. Slam dunk easy -- the difference will be almost like night and day.
The bottom line is: random-noise "hockey sticks" (when you get them) are always extremely small. Much smaller than a Mann hockey-stick. Just look at the singular-value magnitudes produced by the SVD algorithm!
The "scholarly articles" that Mann supposedly wanted to suppress contained errors that he'd ding his undergraduate students for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn example: Google up "Soon Baliunas 2003". Download and read the methodology description in that paper. If you have a college-freshman understanding of basic Earth science and statistics, you should be able to flag at least a couple of whopper "show stopper" blunders.
So no one should work at colleges, universities, or public schools anymore? Those are not "honest jobs?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when Mann again stalls when asked to hand over emails & data as he has in the past, will his diehard supporters here still support him? Of course they will. Mann will drop this suit immediately after the first discovery motion is filed. I am chortling with glee at the prospect of him facing hard questions from the defence. He will not do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/
Wow, not only are you wrong, but you're a douche-bag too. The only statistical junk here are your clearly ignorant comments. Where did you publish the research you didn't look up or do. This is how stupid people like you are. You didn't get that the word "trick" also means and was used as "technique". Yes, words have multiple meanings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWay to provide no facts or evidence unlike an actual scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, and that would make you the Charles Manson of stupid. Try not to be a total douche-bag because you are too stupid to provide facts and evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImaginary futures based on imaginary facts are always perfect for the deluded bias of those using them. Sadly, for the right wing frauds, the past indicates that there will be emails from these science denier groups that has them stating their fraud is it was in the Dover PA case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""Carlyle: You are trying to reason with an autistic child (his own admission), who does not have the skill sets of an adult. Just ignore his strange noises, and he will soon be distracted by something shiny. Tip to the wise. GK"""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight, that does it, liar. I'm reporting you.
Everything that you said was a lie. Psychological evaluations have shown that my original diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome was based on misinterpreted ADHD, and I am not a child. You are an irrational crackpot and a troll, and I am reporting you as such.
So now Mann has been shown to be less than truthful about his "Nobel Prize". Apparently he took an official looking certificate and photoshopped his own name onto it so it looks like he was a named contributor. THEN, he believed his own Photoshop so much that he went around bragging about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis guy has some SERIOUS issues. A few trees here or there looks pretty minor compared to falsely claiming to have won a Nobel Prize.
Nice link, Trent. Thank you for sharing. When 12 different studies show the same trend it is compelling evidence that the rising temperature trend is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin, you haven't responded, are you backing down from your 'random data' claim?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You are trying to reason with an autistic child.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is coming from someone who doesn't know how to calculate a mean.
Steve McIntyre and many other statisticians have beat that issue to death. The Hockey Stick is garbage. The question is why do you feel the need to cling to a discredited piece of fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because Mann and his minions gets the same answer repeating the same flawed calculations using the same flawed data set doesn't mean that he's right.
If you can't handle questions you have no place in science. Go hang out on some right wing religious nut job website where everyone agrees with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept that I am a one-with-nature socialist agnostic, and you are clearly a greedy reactionary fundie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour arguments are blatant, repetitive lies that have been debunked repeatedly, and yet you still cling to them. WHY DO YOU KEEP STICKING WITH THEM DESPITE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY?????
Just one question. How can you be one with nature and an agnostic? That position is illogical and inconsistent. *POP* Oops. Sorry... didn't mean to burst your bubble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, back to Mann: How can you trust someone's research when they lie about getting the Nobel Prize?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny takers on whitewashing that one?
Not really. I just accept that humans are just another animal, and I have seen that the hypothesis of a superior being is untestable. You seem to blindly accept the superior-being hogwash, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think that anyone would pretend to have a Nobel as anything more than a prank, then you need to hang out with scientists more. Also, you probably need a tinfoil hat to keep the government from reading your conspiracy-filled mind. I make and sell tinfoil hats as a hobby; I can offer you the best deals in the United States.
You are an idiot. Mann claimed to have won the Nobel in his CV. I guess in your world, lying and fraud are just good clean fun. Sorry, but you are so ignorant and offensive that you aren't worth responding to anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you are an antiscientific ignoramus and troll. I will report you, and I will not respond to further trolling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-scientist-sues-for-defamation#comment-55
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA clear indication that "Shoshin" does not understand the material well enough to engage in a productive discussion.
Statisticians who should know better, but are blinded by ideology/hatred, can make all kinds of really stupid mistakes.
McIntyre committed multiple errors in his "audit" of Mann's work:
1) When he generated his "random noise", he used tree-ring data as a model/template. A nice idea, but he screwed it up in one important way. If you are going to use real data as a model for artificial noise, you need to remove the signal from the real data first! Otherwise, your synthetic "random noise" will be contaminated with signal statistics. McIntyre failed to remove the long-term global-warming signal from the tree-ring data before he used it as a model for his artificial random noise; as a result, his "random noise" was contaminated with the "hockey stick" global-warming signal. Noise that is contaminated with signal is useless for evaluating the "noise only" behavior of an algorithm.
2) He failed to check his noise singular values against Mann's "tree-ring" singular values. A comparison of the singular values would have made it very easy to tell which data set was genuine "tree-ring data" and which was "random noise data". No competent analyst would overlook this.
3) And finally, the SVD is not the only "data reduction" technique that can be applied here; skip the disputed SVD step entirely, and you will still get the same "hockey stick".
Any one of these problems alone invalid McIntyre's claim -- the three problems, taken together, completely bury him.
Mann should have stopped as soon as he realized his muddlematics caused the well documented MWP and LIA to suddenly disappear, when it clearly shows up in other reconstructions and is included in the historical written record. He should have included a few MORE tree samples instead, he pared them to essentially one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMiddle schoolers are taught to perform a reality check on any long mathematically calculated result. I understand Mann was absent sick when when this was taught, but this simple check is essential for his students.
Mann has since admitted the MWP/LIA was indeed a significant event, but still holds fast to his manipulated hockey stick. Consequences will soon follow, whether he successfully "hides the decline" or not. GK
Karst, your arguments have already been rebutted. Please leave now and stop trolling on SciAm. I am reporting you as a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am being reported, I thought perhaps those who value honest attempts at reconstruction, might find this more interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHockey Stick Was Refuted Before Its Fabrication – Study Ignored – IPCC And Mann Took World On 10-Year Joyride
Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt found a Japanese tree-ring temperature reconstruction from 1995, one that should have been heeded by the IPCC and Michael Mann before they took the world on a 10-year joyride in the stolen car of “climate science”.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/17/hockey-stick-was-refuted-before-its-fabrication-study-ignored-ipcc-and-mann-took-world-on-a-10-year-joyride/
If nothing else, the study should have been instructional(for Mann), when two Japanese scientists even took it a step further. They carried out a detailed frequency analysis of their data and found characteristic cycles with periods in the range of several decades and centuries. Among others, they discovered a period of 187 years, which coincides with the known Suess/de Vries solar activity cycle. In a similar manner the 70 and 89-year Gleissberg-cycle was identified. In their results the authors saw a clear sign that the climate of the last 2000 years in southern Japan was predominantly influenced by solar activity fluctuations.
There is nothing better for a scientist, then to confirm proxy calculations with reality. Too bad Mann has never experienced this satisfaction. GK
Karst, you are rolling out the same arguments that have already been refuted repeatedly. I will report you again and continue to report you as you post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like Briffa just threw Mann under the bus.
Briffa recrunched his tree ring data and guess what?
Hockey stick disappears and the Medieval Warm Period re-appears.
Looks like some one finally decided to come clean. Mann is so screwed.
Now the world knows who's been lying, and it ain't me.
I expect your apology.
Mann threw himself into a hole when he embraced the idea of one tree rules them all. His downfall will always be... in a word... YAD061.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout that one cherry-picked tree, there would be no hockey stick chart. This is not science, and his blind defense of this pseudo-science, is his headstone.
Biffra recognizes the danger of an open hole and was just filling it in, while Mann, was at the bottom... busy digging the hole deeper. R.I.P. Mr. Mann. GK
I expect you and G. Karst to leave, troll. You are just embarrassing yourselves by repeating the same old arguments in the hope that doing so will make them true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo lets do the math:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have a pillar of the Alarmist community who:
1. Lied about being receiving a Nobel Prize.
2. Used those lies to further his career by putting those lies on his resume and quoting them whenever possible.
3. He undoubtedly enriched himself by attracting additional research funds by using those lies.
4. In unjustly enriching himself, he effectively stole research $$ from others who play by the rules.
5. He attempted to repeatedly bully, intimidate and silence people who questioned his results.
6. Now his co-conspirators are coming clean because they know that they will be called to testify.
Sounds kind of like Lance Armstrong doesn't it?
Do you really think that a scientist could get away with pretending to have received a Nobel? I don't think so. Scientists check up on things like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour arguments are baseless, and you are clearly just trolling here for your own perverse amusement.
"Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.
Lundestad goes on to say that, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”
Not much more to say on this issue. The Lance Armstrong of the IPCC is a fraud. Using Alarmist standards of care, peer review and due diligence, I could just make my own yellow jersey and put on my resume that I won the Tour de France.
You are still trolling for your own amusement, and still erroneously assuming that a scientist could get away with seriously pretending to have won a Nobel Prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to your other posts: Mann’s hockey stick disappears – and CRU’s Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPosted on October 28, 2012by Anthony Watts
Shock, awe. Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick. Here’s figure 5 that tells the story:
You may have noticed that a post I made a few days ago in mild response to one of the above abusive illitarati, was deleted. Little wonder there are few like yourself who bother with this site any more.
The thing that I find amusing in this website is that the general scientific knowledge and level of discourse among the Alarmists has dropped off in the past couple of years. Trent1492 was always good for a computer generated slew of Alarmist talking points and though I disagree with him at least he did a good job of documenting how far the rot had permeated the system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther Johnny-come-lately's on this site are not even clever, humorous or insightful in their defense of their Alarmist religion. Even when struck full square in the face with evidence of lies and deception by their Godheads the cling to the rope of faith.
These people are Deniers in the truest sense of the word. They also probably believe that Lance Armstrong never doped.
It would be an interesting psychological study of Mann and Armstrong. The parallels are uncanny and disturbing.
To the Buffoons who think That Mann did not claim to have won the Nobel Prize: This was copied from his Facebook Page:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So now to maintain your Buffoon-charade, the Nobel Committee must be lying because they categorically deny (see my post #73 above) that Mann was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Now, if he lies about the Nobel prize, do you really think a few Yamal trees would stop him? I can hardly wait to see what a judge has to say about this one.
Prediction: This will not go to court. Mann will be crucified in examinations. Even Lance Armstrong knew when the jig was up. The question is whether Mann is more arrogant and ignorant than Lance Armstrong.
And he may be.
To the tiny-minded buffoon (Wallace & Grommit ref) who continues to trot out the same tired arguments that have been repeatedly refuted: Will you ever stop? Everyone hates you, and we all know what you are, troll. You're not convincing anyone, and you're just making us normal, rational people angry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question now is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat will the EPA do when called in during discovery in Mann's lawsuit? Will they give a full and complete account under oath of how they "reviewed" Mann's data or will they issue a statement and throw him under the bus like Briffa just did?
My guess is that the EPA will vote with it's wheels.
And one more question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes lying about your academic awards and using those lies to promote fund raising constitute academic fraud and therefore dismissal from the University? If not why not?
I'll open the floor to comments. Please keep them on topic.
Technically, it is academic fraud, but it isn't really unethical, especially because anti-scientists like you have been denying funding to science departments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill you please go away? We all hate you.
It just keeps getting better. Now Mann has claimed that trees all over Northern Europe must have stopped growing as the tree ring data does not agree with his computer models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis fellow researchers puked a little bit (well some more than a little bit) at that one. One in particular stated that Mann knows nothing of dendrochronology as he made such a statement without any empirical evidence.
So now we have Mann sounding like something from a Woody Allen movie.
So let's check the track record:
1: Hockey Stick created buy cutting and pasting data.
2: Nobel Prize claimed by cutting and pasting his own name onto a certificate.
3: Data claimed to have been cut by Nature in order to fit his computer models.
He best not run with scissors.