Things Get Hot for Michael Mann

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks again Monte. Was it so difficult for him to be honest with the data? :confused:

Surely this would be embarrassing for the IPCC.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes, Mann was technically incorrect about his personally receiving a Nobel Prize. But he was more than simply one of 2000 other scientists who worked on the IPCC. He arguably did more than Al Gore who did get a personal award. So that is what I meant when I said Mann was not very far from the truth. Being very far from the truth would be if I claimed to have received a Nobel Prize.

Like many who excel in their fields, they sometimes have an inflated ego. (Any current presidents come to mind?)

It is funny how when someone wants to discredit global warming theory they often say it is all invented by Mann. But in this issue of receiving a Nobel Prize, they say he was just one of 2000 working together. Pick your narrative and stick to it.
Click to expand...
This just serves to highlight Mann’s problem with integrity, something that should matter to scientists. Close is not good enough, correlation isn’t good enough for causation.

The irony of all this is his false hockey stick graph may have been want gave Gore and the IPCC their awards.
 
Michael Mann = Fake Nobel Prize.

QUOTE:

Both National Review and the Environmental Policy Examiner contacted the Nobel committee to see if it recognizes Mann as a prize winner.

Here’s what it told the Environmental Policy Examiner:


  1. 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 . . ,
Michael Mann has been a longstanding hero of the alarmists.

google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=HXViWZjyGqm_jwSw_YjYDQ&q=well+this+is+embarrassing&oq=well+this+is+embar&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.1.0l5.1761.7845.0.8720.19.19.0.12.12.0.318.2784.0j17j1j1.19.0…0…1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-hp…0.19.1245.3…41j46i131k1j0i131k1j0i10k1.1vicrWLi3sI#imgrc=R9iv86-nSugMZM:
 
Cathoholic said:
Michael Mann = Fake Nobel Prize.

QUOTE:

Both National Review and the Environmental Policy Examiner contacted the Nobel committee to see if it recognizes Mann as a prize winner.

Here’s what it told the Environmental Policy Examiner:


  1. 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 . . ,
Click to expand...
Why are you still repeating this? It was already posted and no one is contesting any of the facts in this list, including Mann himself, who has corrected his claim.
 
Cathoholic:
Michael Mann = Fake Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle:
Why are you still repeating this?
Click to expand...
To make it crystal clear, that Michael Mann who DID CLAIM to receive a Nobel Prize (repeatedly) . . . did NOT RECEIVE a Nobel Prize.

And if this fact wasn’t prevaricated upon by you here LeafByNiggle, I would NOT have repeated this truth (of the apparently fradulent claims of Michael Mann).

LeafByNiggle (on Michael Mann’s apparently phony claims about being a Nobel Prize recipient):
You know he is not far from correct . . . .
Click to expand...
It IS far from correct.
 
Cathoholic said:
To make it crystal clear, that Michael Mann who DID CLAIM to receive a Nobel Prize (repeatedly) . . . did NOT RECEIVE a Nobel Prize.

And if this fact wasn’t prevaricated upon by you here LeafByNiggle, I would NOT have repeated this truth (of the apparently fradulent claims of Michael Mann).

LeafByNiggle (on Michael Mann’s apparently phony claims about being a Nobel Prize recipient):

It IS far from correct.
Click to expand...
No, it is merely incorrect. It is not “far from correct.” Being in a leadership position in an organization the did win a Nobel Prize is not the same thing as being awarded a Noble Prize, but most people would think it was pretty close. That is why I said he was “not far from the truth”. A more honest and complete way to describe the situation would be to say “Mann claimed to have won a Nobel Prize, but we didn’t. It was awarded to the organization he led.” Why are they so reluctant to add that last clarifying sentence?
 
No Nobel Prize for Michael Man LeafByNiggle.

He claimed he did win a Nobel Prize LeafByNiggle.

He did NOT claim, “Well it was “close” because I held a leadership position in such and such.”

No Nobel Prize for Michael Mann (despite him claiming he DID win one).
I want the readers of this thread to go back and re-read the posts here DEFENDING Mann’s deception.

I want you to remember this vividly the next time you are in a discussion with a global warming alarmist. Remember well, how even this . . . .gets defended in their minds.
 
Cathoholic said:
Because of Mann’s false claim. (Stolen valor is not “reward-worthy”)
Click to expand...
Truth is not to be withheld as a reward. Truth is truth. Mann’s group did win a Nobel Prize. We only hurt ourselves by denying it. Besides, since you think the whole climate change thing is a hoax or a fraud, why would you think being recognized for developing that theory is a reward? It would seem to be its own punishment (in your view, anyway).

And by the way, what is your explanation for how the Nobel committee was so fooled by something that you apparently can see quite well? What do you have that they don’t?
 
Nobody is denying the group.

Quit rationalizing his dishonesty.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You know he is not far from correct, since the whole team he was on won a Nobel Prize, so in a sense they all won it, just like when two or three people share in a Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...
When my son’s team wins, he says ‘we won’
Not ‘I won’
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Things Get Hot for Michael Mann

americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html
Click to expand...
Dear Monte,

Please note that O’Sullivan appears to be “making stuff up.” There never has been any missing data. And so, obviously, it is absurd to argue that these “missing data” have been relevant to any recent court decisions.

Especially when working with biased and poorly sourced reports, it always pays to check out what the other side is saying. There is further information on O’Sullivan available at the link.

As ever, Jesse
 
lao_tzu said:
… it always pays to check out what the other side is saying.
Click to expand...
Here’s Mann’s attorney’s response.

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer
 
lao_tzu said:
Here’s Mann’s attorney’s response.

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer
Click to expand...
The lawyer is deflecting with a strawman, avoiding the real issue.

Primarily this court case is about transparency. Mann is now required to release supporting documentation he kept private.

If he declines to release the documentation, it proves nothing but weighs against his integrity. It appears like he is hiding malfeasance since there is no logical reason for him to hide his work, especially since he claims it would bolster his court case.

If he releases the documentation, it will be examined by his critics and may undermine his court case.

This court case is about Mann’s character and integrity.
 
Theo520 said:
The lawyer is deflecting with a strawman, avoiding the real issue.

Primarily this court case is about transparency. Mann is now required to release supporting documentation he kept private.
Click to expand...
Dear Theo,

Following O’Sullivan’s account of the court case, there is no possibility one will not be misinformed. He’s not even a lawyer. Again, the information he reports as missing is not missing. There is no supporting documentation that has been kept private. There is no supporting documentation that requires releasing.

As ever, Jesse
 
lao_tzu said:
Dear Monte,

Please note that O’Sullivan appears to be “making stuff up.” There never has been any missing data. And so, obviously, it is absurd to argue that these “missing data” have been relevant to any recent court decisions.

Especially when working with biased and poorly sourced reports, it always pays to check out what the other side is saying. There is further information on O’Sullivan available at the link.

As ever, Jesse
Click to expand...
The kindest word is “fudged”, as in the data were fudged.

Good article:

zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-?page=1

One of the comments uses the word “fudged”. Some of the other comments are not so kind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top