Lewandowsky and Mann on Stifling Debate (1 Viewer)

[longview]

Looking through wayback machine archives of Mann's Penn State website, here's the statement from the oldest Mann CV I can find:



Don't really see that as him saying he was a Nobel winner, just a part of the IPCC's selection. None of the above is "a lie", at the very least.

Does anyone have any other examples, or is this the only "lie" Mann has every made?

Thanks for looking that up!

2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Michael Mann was never awarded a Nobel Peace prize, CO or otherwise.
He did contribute to the IPCC report, and was issued a certificate from the IPCC for his contributions
along with several hundred other Scientist.
Again Dr. Michael Mann was never awarded or shared a Nobel Prize.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Looking through wayback machine archives of Mann's Penn State website, here's the statement from the oldest Mann CV I can find:



Don't really see that as him saying he was a Nobel winner, just a part of the IPCC's selection. None of the above is "a lie", at the very least.

Does anyone have any other examples, or is this the only "lie" Mann has every made?

Because he edited it after being caught.

 

[Jack Hays]

Looking through wayback machine archives of Mann's Penn State website, here's the statement from the oldest Mann CV I can find:



Don't really see that as him saying he was a Nobel winner, just a part of the IPCC's selection. None of the above is "a lie", at the very least.

Does anyone have any other examples, or is this the only "lie" Mann has every made?

[h=1]The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus[/h]This statement was issued today from the IPCC, which appears to be inspired by the recent claims of Dr. Michael Mann in the lawsuit against NRO that we discussed here and here. The colored bold text in the paragraph below is my emphasis, otherwise it is presented as it was released. A source link to…

November 2, 2012 in IPCC, Michael E. Mann, Satire.

 

[Jack Hays]

Looking through wayback machine archives of Mann's Penn State website, here's the statement from the oldest Mann CV I can find:



Don't really see that as him saying he was a Nobel winner, just a part of the IPCC's selection. None of the above is "a lie", at the very least.

Does anyone have any other examples, or is this the only "lie" Mann has every made?

Here's PSU cleaning up the mess.


Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating ...

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/.../michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claim...


Oct 28, 2012 - Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

 

[Threegoofs]

When one is losing an argument, shouting and whining about semantics is common.

The bottom line is he was a significant contributor to an enterprise that won the prize.

 

[Deuce]

The warmists' drift toward authoritarian climate coercion is now widespread. We've seen the drive to criminalize dissent, then taxes on babies, and then a call for war powers to dictate climate action. Now comes guidance on how to manipulate debate out of existence, a la Brave New World or 1984. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A new paper, Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism, has appeared in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, whose URL psychopen may be interpreted in more than one way.The authors are award-winning charlatan Stephan Lewandowsky and widely-respected fraud Michael Mann, with Nicholas Brown and Harris Friedman on board to give the venture some credibility. (If it achieves nothing else, the exercise will go down as a model for how pseudoscientists might fruitfully work with experts from outside the pseudoscience world.)
Alas, the article itself is basically a vehicle for Lewandowsky to increase his self-fertilisation index while regurgitating the familiar prejudices. It adds precisely zero to the climate conversation—something of a personal best for Steve, who’s better known for subtracting from it. As such we doubt this particular piece will be retracted. That it will be universally detracted, however, is on the cards.The article climaxes with a patronizing list of guidelines for members of the public on how to communicate with academics. This is followed by a less-patronizing version for academics in case they ever wish to communicate in the other direction for some reason.The authors put the central problem thus:How can scientists facilitate debate but resist denial?
In other words: How do we host a big debate without risking the Negative team showing up? . . . .LEWANDOWSKY AND MANN IN PSYCHO PEN

Posted on 21 Aug 16 by SCEPTICUS • 30 Comments

Which part of Mann's paper involves "stifling debate?"

 

[Renae]

Sadly, the immediate resort to ad hominem has become the default reaction of too many warmists.

Do you really expect any rela discussion from that guy? His schtick is snarky trolling threads as if he matters. Just ignore him and he'll go away.

 

[Renae]

Can you source me to where Mann made that claim?

You mean the one he was forced by a COURT OF LAW to retract?

 

[Jack Hays]

Which part of Mann's paper involves "stifling debate?"

It's right there in the OP.

How can scientists facilitate debate but resist denial?
In other words: How do we host a big debate without risking the Negative team showing up?In order to achieve this delicate balancing act, which has eluded science’s worst minds for days, the authors apparently turned to the world of blog censorship. From there they lift a number of constructs that will be all too familiar to victims of online climate deletionism. Phrases like constructive criticism and legitimate grievances (which can be put up with) are opposed to bad faith criticism and trolling (which can’t, because scientists are cowards). Further research is urgently indicated to determine what, if anything, these nebulous idioms mean; in the meantime we’ll just have to guess.One gets the feeling—how to put it nicely?—that the authors didn’t think this through particularly well. Their Conclusions, for instance, begin with the inadvertent admission thatScience is debate.I’ll be sure to remember this equation next time someone says “there’s no real debate in the climate literature” or climatologists “are no longer debating.” Algebra just got fun!In terms of own-goals there’s an embarrassment of riches here.Michael Mann on FOI, 2007:
I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. … I have been talking w/ folks in the States about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.

 

[Leafsdude]

When one is losing an argument, shouting and whining about semantics is common.

The bottom line is he was a significant contributor to an enterprise that won the prize.

Indeed. The difference in the relevant statement between his current CV and the one from 2011 is minimal. He still rightfully claims he was involved in the activities that resulted in the IPCC being awarded the Nobel Prize. I'd hardly call what he wrote originally as "fraud". At best it was an exaggeration. It's also pretty typical that his mea culpa is taken as "humiliating", as opposed to suggesting intellectual honesty.

It's fitting that no one seems to be able to offer any other event that supposedly suggests him as a fraudster, however. Says quite a lot to me.

I'm also quite sad at seeing the posting of links to sites like WUWT, which stiffle descent from the website consensus instead of embrace it (look up the case of youtuber Potholer54/Peter Hadfield for an example). Ironic as it is, it shows the complete lack of self-awareness and skepticism by the self-declared "skeptics".

You mean the one he was forced by a COURT OF LAW to retract?

Do you have a source of this court order?

All I see says that Mann changed his CV on his own after the IPCC clarified their position on the status of individual claims on the awarding of the Nobel.

 

[Renae]

Indeed. The difference in the relevant statement between his current CV and the one from 2011 is minimal. He still rightfully claims he was involved in the activities that resulted in the IPCC being awarded the Nobel Prize. I'd hardly call what he wrote originally as "fraud". At best it was an exaggeration. It's also pretty typical that his mea culpa is taken as "humiliating", as opposed to suggesting intellectual honesty.

It's fitting that no one seems to be able to offer any other event that supposedly suggests him as a fraudster, however. Says quite a lot to me.

I'm also quite sad at seeing the posting of links to sites like WUWT, which stiffle descent from the website consensus instead of embrace it (look up the case of youtuber Potholer54/Peter Hadfield for an example). Ironic as it is, it shows the complete lack of self-awareness and skepticism by the self-declared "skeptics".



Do you have a source of this court order?

All I see says that Mann changed his CV on his own after the IPCC clarified their position on the status of individual claims on the awarding of the Nobel.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08...al-brief-on-the-michael-mann-defamation-case/

 

[Leafsdude]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08...al-brief-on-the-michael-mann-defamation-case/

View attachment 67207144

I don't give much credence to WUWT. They have a bad tendency to misrepresent and flat-out lie. Repeatedly.

So, as I said originally, do you have a source for the court order (as opposed to a link to a news article by a disreputable website)?

 

[Renae]

I don't give much credence to WUWT. They have a bad tendency to misrepresent and flat-out lie. Repeatedly.

So, as I said originally, do you have a source for the court order (as opposed to a link to a news article by a disreputable website)?

You can go do a tad research yourself, Mann was forced to resubmit after he was called out for a lie. The Lie being that he claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner in a court document, he is not. The IPCC, the Nobel Prize committee both stomped on him.

But you're free to continue slamming WUWT for lies when you haven't any idea about Mann being smacked down about his Nobel Prize.

 

[Leafsdude]

You can go do a tad research yourself, Mann was forced to resubmit after he was called out for a lie.

1) Sounds more like a misrepresentation/misunderstanding than a "lie".

2) The claim he was "forced", whether by a court or otherwise, seems unsubstantiated. Based on everything I've seen (and not seen), he appears to have changed it himself after being corrected.

But you're free to continue slamming WUWT for lies when you haven't any idea about Mann being smacked down about his Nobel Prize.

That's a non-sequitur if I've ever heard one...

Of course, the difference between WUWT and Mann is, when Mann is corrected for a misrepresentation (or "lie", if you want to call it that), he corrects it. WUWT doesn't have that kind of intellectual honesty (or any intellectual honesty, really).

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Michael Mann caught telling a ‘porky’ to the court (again) in legal filings[/h]After being caught out claiming he was a “Nobel Prize recipient” in his original complaint (then having to retract it), it seems Mann and his lawyers just don’t have the good sense to know when to stop. In this case Mann has been “hoisted by his own petard”. His very own words condemn him. Again.…

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Evidence that Dr Michael Mann misled a court[/h]Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This memorandum sets out evidence of falsehood with intent to mislead a court by Dr Michael E. Mann in a case in the District of Columbia against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review. First, it will be demonstrated that Dr Michael Mann, the plaintiff and appellee…

 

[Tim the plumber]

[h=1]Michael Mann caught telling a ‘porky’ to the court (again) in legal filings[/h]After being caught out claiming he was a “Nobel Prize recipient” in his original complaint (then having to retract it), it seems Mann and his lawyers just don’t have the good sense to know when to stop. In this case Mann has been “hoisted by his own petard”. His very own words condemn him. Again.…

Fabulous. How anybody can see this fraudster as any sort of scientist is beyond me. The basis of science is to make sure that what you say is what you mean. Not to exaggerate or almost say what you mean etc...

 

[longview]

Since many here ascribe some level extraordinary virtue to Michale Mann, Perhaps it would be a good time
to see how he is doing on his predictions.

In 20 years he thinks we will cross the 2 C threshold.
The last year was 2015, which the GISS places at .87 C.
So 2.00 C - .87 C = 1.13 C / 2 decades = .565 C per decade, a rate more than twice the decadial rate observed so far,
but for 2 decades straight.

 

[Threegoofs]

Since many here ascribe some level extraordinary virtue to Michale Mann, Perhaps it would be a good time
to see how he is doing on his predictions.

In 20 years he thinks we will cross the 2 C threshold.
The last year was 2015, which the GISS places at .87 C.
So 2.00 C - .87 C = 1.13 C / 2 decades = .565 C per decade, a rate more than twice the decadial rate observed so far,
but for 2 decades straight.

Right.

You know that the expectation is that warming will accelerate, right?

Or haven't you gotten to read the IPCC past the first chapter in 2003?

 

[longview]

Right.

You know that the expectation is that warming will accelerate, right?

Or haven't you gotten to read the IPCC past the first chapter in 2003?

Have we seen any evidence of the warming accelerating?
If anything the per decade rate has slowed since the rapid warming observed before 2000.
According to the GISS the recent warming 1978 to 2015 was .8 C/3.7 decades or .21 C per decade,
yet the most recent warming sans El Nino 2001 to 2014 was only .2 C over 1.3 decades or .15 C per decade.

 

[Threegoofs]

Have we seen any evidence of the warming accelerating?
If anything the per decade rate has slowed since the rapid warming observed before 2000.
According to the GISS the recent warming 1978 to 2015 was .8 C/3.7 decades or .21 C per decade,
yet the most recent warming sans El Nino 2001 to 2014 was only .2 C over 1.3 decades or .15 C per decade.

Yes, I guess when you take out the temperatures you don't like, you get no warming.

But according to GISS, temps look like this.

 

[Quaestio]

Fabulous. How anybody can see this fraudster as any sort of scientist is beyond me. The basis of science is to make sure that what you say is what you mean. Not to exaggerate or almost say what you mean etc...

You are of course referring to Lord Christopher Monckton? I agree. "How anybody can see this fraudster as any sort of scientist is beyond me."

 

[longview]

Yes, I guess when you take out the temperatures you don't like, you get no warming.

But according to GISS, temps look like this.

And so can you show a numerical or graphical acceleration in the warming since 1978?

 

[Threegoofs]

And so can you show a numerical or graphical acceleration in the warming since 1978?

Why 1978?

Oh, right.

Because it probably gives you an answer you want.

 

[longview]

Why 1978?

Oh, right.

Because it probably gives you an answer you want.

1978 was the year cited in a Nature article as the starting basis for the model warming.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

I know you can figure out what 2 decades before 1998 was!