Michael Making-It-All-Up Mann? Climate Audit: Also Mann’s Claim Of Exoneration By Muir Russell Is Invalid

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.

UPDATE Also read:
* rigor-mortis.
* bishop-hill/doctor-mann-i-presume.html
* wuwt.com/caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/

 

20 responses to “Michael Making-It-All-Up Mann? Climate Audit: Also Mann’s Claim Of Exoneration By Muir Russell Is Invalid”

  1. Mindert Eiting

    Well, Pierre, when I was young, age about 17, I have worked for one year in a lunatics asylum. I can assure you that people who have lost all contact with reality and live in a paranoid private world, never get a nervous breakdown when exposed to reality.

  2. Jazznick

    “Again, if Steve McIntyre’s assertions are accurate, and I have little doubt that they are not”

    I think you are assuming Steve’s assertions are accurate, therefore the ‘not’ isn’t required in your sentence above.
    ========================================================
    John O’Sullivan is getting even more excited about Mann’s potential court case collapse against Tim Ball and it’s relevance to the Steyn case.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html

  3. Ian L. McQueen

    I think that the following says the opposite of what you intended: “if Steve McIntyre’s assertions are accurate, and I have little doubt that they are not”. The final “not” should be removed ASAP!!

    Ian

  4. Recovering Lutheran

    Climate science is not science. It is a cult-like faith usually at odds with the facts.

    And when the facts conflict with the faith, the facts must be disposed of.

    1. D.M.

      You may be interested to see what the entry qualifications are to obtain a BSc Climate Science at the University of East Anglia, one of the main world organisations involved in “climate research” and whose staff are mentioned in the “climategate” emails.

      “Applicants are asked to have at least one science based A2-level or equivalent. Acceptable science subjects include: Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science / Studies, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Physics.”
      So you don’t need to have a physics qualification, the most fundamental qualification to start to understand anything about climate systems. Perhaps this explains why so many “climate scientists” spout scientific nonsense.

      Here is the qualifications link; http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/bsc-climate-science#requirements

      Here is the course contents: http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/bsc-climate-science

      Note that they learn about “climate change”, so that must be a settled subject which we know everything about!

  5. Frederick Colbourne

    Again, if Steve McIntyre’s assertions are accurate, and I have little doubt that they are not, it appears Michael Mann tends to believe and cling to things that he desires to see, and not what is plainly real. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/22/michael-making-it-all-up-mann-climate-audit-also-manns-claim-of-exoneration-by-muir-russell-is-invalid/#sthash.EIExkvTK.dpuf

  6. Frederick Colbourne

    Sorry about the previous post. I hit the wrong key.

    The following includes the word “not” which gives a meaning opposite to what the author intended.

    Again, if Steve McIntyre’s assertions are accurate, and I have little doubt that they are not, it appears Michael Mann tends to believe and cling to things that he desires to see, and not what is plainly real.

    Try “and I have little doubt that they are accurate, “

  7. BobW in NC

    The tragedy resulting from the “denials” of Mann et al is the impact they are having on the public’s perception of exactly what good science is.

    Today more than ever, scientists must show themselves to be imbued with honesty, integrity, and—yes—the humility of someone admitting, “I was wrong.” Recall Richard Feynman’s call for “utter honesty.”

  8. bruce

    Mr Mann is not delusional, far from it, he knows exactly what he is doing.

    He is testing how much he can deceive without being caught.

    There is another word for his behavior.

  9. stan stendera

    You are going to have to change your 129 Climate Scandals to 130.

  10. Roger 'tallbloke' Tattersall

    “John Sullivan’s portrayal of the suit with Tim Ball seems to have some accuracy issues. ”

    Nicely understated. :-)

  11. DennisA

    “Another example are the severe winters and record ice we’ve been seeing. Some insist these are actually signs of warming!”

    It’s all part of the psychology. In 2004, Tyndall Working Document 58, by Bray and Shackley, these statements were made:

    “To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

    Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

    Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

    We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

    The full title of their paper was: “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change”

    The quotes, with many more, are shown in “Global Warming – The Social Construction Of A Quasi-Reality”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/social_construction.html

    Original Paper at http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v84152h64m5r36t5/ GLOBAL WARMING: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A QUASI-REALITY? Journal Energy & Environment

    1. DirkH

      Ah, Tyndall are givers! Cultural marxism shifted from the Frankfurt School to the UK! Throw the scientific method overboard, who needs that as long as the EU pays!

  12. Buddy

    5. Despite Mann’s insistence climate science is settled, never has it been more in dispute.

    Pierre, you need to take off you rose colored glasses. 95% or more of climate scientists know that global warming is primarily caused by man. You better click your ruby red slippers together again if you want to get back to Kansas.

    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.

    Pierre, instead of just ONE “hockey player”….there are no MANY resarch studies that show the SAME HOCKEY STICK. Rumor has it they are going to start another hockey league there are so many studies that SHOW THE VERY SAME THING.

    And so it goes on:) Deniers continuing to deny science, and scientists doing actual scientific research.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Notice how Buddy’s idea of being conservative is dropping the “consensus”number to “95% or more”rather than the usual 97%. The real numbers, Buddy, are much closer to 50-50. The higher number is produced by at least three rounds of Cherry Picking. It’s produced the same way one produces seedless grapes. When the title of Climate Scientist is only awarded to members of the “consensus” the outcome is obvious. It’s like saying 95% of the members of the Screen Actors Guild believe in movies.

      As for the Hockey Stick, any woodsman/logger will tell you that tree rings as thermometers is ridiculous. Rainfall, the history of the surrounding trees, fires, and the habits of the local wildlife, have far more impact than small changes in the local average temperature during a limited growing season.

    2. DirkH

      Buddy
      23. Februar 2014 at 13:22 | Permalink | Reply
      “Pierre, you need to take off you rose colored glasses. 95% or more of climate scientists know that global warming is primarily caused by man.”

      Well, they get paid for “knowing” that.
      NASA alone earns 1.2 billion USD taxpayer money per year for climate alarmism.
      http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/12/nasa-abdalatis-response-to-50-esteemed-professionals-is-managerial-negligence-an-embarrassment/#comment-92515
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf

      Do you think NASA alone would make 1.2 billion USD a year for climate science if they didn’t pretend we’re all going to hell in a handcart?
      NASA is corrupt and the entire worldwide climate scientific complex is corrupt.