Mann brings personal insecurity to a new level. He is amazingly thin-skinned, taking umbrage at any perceived slight, yet his tweets are non-stop rants against “deniers”, “denialists”, “anti-science” scientists, and similar insults against anyone having even a small difference of opinion.
I think he is like that because he knows he is a charlatan who did not earn his high position in the climate world. He did it mainly on the basis of MBH98&99, which produced his repeatedly debunked hockey stick chart.
The guy knows he gets no respect from either side. All he did was fabricate useful propaganda for the rent-seeking IPCC. ....
Another Porky from Mann, Williams and Fontaine
Jean S has spotted a highly amusing entry in Mann’s CV. The entry yields yet another porky in Mann’s pleadings.
The Muir Russell panel had conceded that the WMO 1999 diagram and related IPCC 2001 diagrams (the two most discussed hide-the-decline diagrams) were “misleading”. CEI reported this in their original Memorandum in December 2012
For example, the Independent Climate Change Email Review (“ICCER”), convened by UEA, declined to make any “statement regarding the correctness of any of these analyses in representing global temperature trends” or to “address any possible deficiencies of the method” employed by UEA researchers and Mann. [52- MR, 49] It did, however, conclude that some renditions of the “hockey stick” diagram were “misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.”[53 - MR at 60] These two manipulations, it explained, related to the attempts mentioned in the Climategate emails to “hide the decline” through “Mike’s [i.e., Mann’s] Nature trick.” [54 -MR at 60]
Muir Russell had provided the following statement, referring to both the IPCC 2001 spaghetti diagram (in which the Briffa reconstruction was truncated) and the WMO 1999 diagram where the Briffa reconstruction was both truncated and spliced with the instrumental record):
In relation to “hide the decline”, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.
CEI’s characterization of the Muir Russell findings seems entirely reasonable to me. (And, unlike Mann’s memorandum, they backed up their references with precise page numbers.)
Nonetheless, in Mann’s current Reply Memorandum (using identical wording to the January 2013 memorandum), Mann accused CEI of trying to “obfuscate”, claiming that the “misleading” comment had “absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him”, that the “misleading” comment was directed only to the WMO 1999 graphic, in which Mann had no involvement:
In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 16-17; NRO Mem. at 35. This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.
CEI had raised both the WMO 1999 and IPCC 2001 diagrams, but Mann ignored the finding in relation to the IPCC 2001 diagram (where he could not dispute his association) and fired back only on the WMO 1999, claiming with faux outrage that Mann had had nothing to do with the WMO 1999 and was merely an attempt to “obfuscate” – a somewhat ironic accusation given the massive misrepresentation of the inquiries by Mann and his lawyers.
Now Climategate emails (especially CG2) showed that Jones had corresponded with Mann in the preparation of the WMO cover and that Mann had signed off on both Jones’ splicing of proxy and instrumental records and Jones’ truncation of the Briffa reconstruction. So Mann’s outrage seemed pretty stretched.
But Jean S has found something even more damning. In Mann’s own CV, Mann lists himself as a coauthor of the WMO 1999 diagram :) :
Mann’s claim that the WMO diagram “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann” stands exposed as yet another porky by Mann and his lawyers.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/
..........
BallBounces
Posted Sep 10, 2014 at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Reply
I have rubbed shoulders with one or two top-tier academics. The thing you notice is their carefulness with regards to what they attest, the precision with which they communicate, and their attitude of epistemic caution. They simply will not state more than what they believe the evidence supports. They are reluctant to pronounce on areas outside of their expertise. And they are careful and precise in what they do express.
If these are the marks of a top-tier academic, Mann doesn’t even come close. Perhaps this is one reason many in his field seem ready to distance themselves from him. Judith Curry strikes me as much closer to top-tier (if not in fact top-tier) than Michael Mann.
In the spat between Mann and Steyn, under-under-undergraduate Steyn comes across as infinitely more careful and precise than the supposed top-tier academic Mann.
...............
NikFromNYC
Posted Sep 11, 2014 at 5:20 AM | Permalink | Reply
They also show intense discipline about trying to imagine every way they may be wrong about a given finding, and they teach their students this outlook in a high pressure environment where those who don’t excel are kicked out of the program, similar to Navy SEALSs training. That aspect alone tipped me off to the corruption of climate “science” since their proud attitude was the opposite of this. I found it jaw dropping. What I found hard though was convincing laypeople about this difference. They believed Al Gore instead of me, every time, early on. I took few liberal arts courses though so I didn’t understand the gravity of contemporary indoctrination with belief in authority and the debasement of reason. When I was a guest for a day in one of my product design student coworkers though, moral and rational relativism was being piled on very heavily, mumbo jumbo mostly, but pulling old school rationality into the mix to dilute it.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
.................
dbstealey says:
September 11, 2014 at 1:19 am
Mann brings personal insecurity to a new level. He is amazingly thin-skinned, taking umbrage at any perceived slight, yet his tweets are non-stop rants against “deniers”, “denialists”, “anti-science” scientists, and similar insults against anyone having even a small difference of opinion.
I think he is like that because he knows he is a charlatan who did not earn his high position in the climate world. He did it mainly on the basis of MBH98&99, which produced his repeatedly debunked hockey stick chart.
The guy knows he gets no respect from either side. All he did was fabricate useful propaganda for the rent-seeking IPCC. His trial is being turned into a sideshow by the inimitable Mark Steyn, who appears to be having loads of fun with it.
This movie is just getting started, and it’s getting better with every court filing.
.................. |
