Climate scientist Michael Mann’s perception of reality may be formed more by what he desires to see than what he actually sees. For example:
1.) Despite reams of proxy data and historical records showing that the Earth’s temperature behaved sinusoidally over the last 1000 years, Mann only sees a hockey stick behavior.
2) Despite the Nobel Prize Committee specifically stating that IPCC lead authors were not the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, Michael Mann saw himself as a Nobel Prize winner.
3. Despite the fact that the Oxburgh report never exonerated Michael Mann, Michael Mann insists it did.
4. Despite the fact that most climate science skeptics get very little or no funding from Big Oil, Michael Mann insists that they get funded generously.
5. Despite Mann’s insistence climate science is settled, never has it been more in dispute.
And on it goes.
Now Mann’s longtime nemesis, Steve McIntyre, writes in his latest post that also the Muir Russell inquiry did not exonerate him, thus contradicting Mann’s claim that it had. What is now appearing is a pattern of Mann possibly confusing reality with his own personal desires of how he wishes things to be.
Yesterday McInytre wrote (my emphasis):
…Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.”
Read complete post here.
Again, if Steve McIntyre’s assertions are accurate, and I have little doubt they are, it appears Michael Mann tends to believe and cling to things that he desires to see, and not what is plainly real. This is troubling because Dr. Mann is not alone in struggling with the growing gap between what one wishes to see and what reality plainly is. Today we are witnessing the same exasperation and desperation throughout much of the established climate science community in its dealing with the unexpected 17-year temperature plateau. Many scientists just refuse to see it and insist the temperature is still rising rapidly – elsewhere…somewhere. It’s there, they insist – even if we can’t see it!
Another example are the severe winters and record ice we’ve been seeing. Some insist these are actually signs of warming! Naturally for an objective outside observer, it all looks a bit nutty.
Climate science finds itself in dire psychological circumstances. Therefore, as reality continues unfolding, we should not be surprised if climate science suddenly finds itself having a nervous breakdown. That’s what happens to anyone when reality becomes too much to take.