Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims  on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below).

But not only has Mann opened up a can of worms in the DC courts, he’s also rendered himself liable to full misconduct investigations by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and PSU for academic misrepresentation. No wonder that as of yesterday (Saturday October 27 2o12) the university began the task of ridding itself of  their crestfallen ‘hockey sticker’s’ fake claims. In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile controversy it seems the penny has finally dropped at the scandal-ridden university that what was once disregarded as mere peccadillos actually bring unwelcome legal consequences. No one is buying any of the apologists’ assertions that the affidavit slip up was a trifling one off  “mistake.” Retrieval of third party archives of PSU web pages proves Mann has plied his fraudulent claims for years.  So how many more times will Mann’s climate cronies seek absolution for His Phoniness?

It won’t surprise legal analysts if the removal of these bogus claims is swiftly followed by equally shaming corrections, if not complete withdrawal, of the current botched defamation suit.  Also liable to collapse is Mann’s other libel claim dragging on since last year against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. In that related Vancouver action Mann also made the very same perjurious Nobel Prize claim.  Heaven forbid, even Wikipedia is hurriedly re-writing their biography of the climate con artist within 24 hours of Tom Richard obtaining confirmation from the Nobel Committee that Mann had lied in his sworn affidavit filed last week in the District of Columbia Court. (See image)

WIKI editors in weekend rush to re-write Mann's entry

WIKI editors in weekend rush to re-write Mann’s entry

Let’s not forget that much, if not all, of Mann’s lawsuit is an appeal to the DC court for it to uphold the rightness and sanctity of Mann’s beatified authority on all matters environmental. Therefore, lawyers for Steyn, Rand Simberg and their respective publishers, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, defendants in the case, may reasonably and fairly assert that for the past five years Mann has unscrupulously touted these false claims to unjustly further his personal, financial and political ambitions. With his saintly mantle shattered he can expect an onslaught of accusations of related scientific misconduct. PSU’s own policy statement suggests Mann has certainly breached their code of conduct:

“Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the University community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.” [1]

Expect all eyes to be on PSU’s hierarchy to see whether they dodge their own internal disciplinary policies. After the humiliation of the Jerry Sandusky scandal PSU will get no wriggle room to save a second bad boy.  Likewise, the NSF has a detailed history of handling cases where individuals have falsified their degrees, memberships, prizes and other accomplishments. An AAAS report tells us, “Federal agencies finding scientific misconduct have subjected researchers to a variety sanctions from a letter of reprimand to debarment from receiving federal funding for a number of years.”  [2]

We shall  have to wait to see whether 2013 brings a new U.S. administration mindful to send a signal about the apparent slide in standards within American academia.

[1] From Penn State’s University Faculty Senate Policy 49-20 (accessed online: http://advising.psu.edu/integrit.htm)

[2] Parrish, D., ‘The Scientific Misconduct Definition and Falsification of Credentials,’ AAAS Professional Ethics Report, Volume IX, Number 4, (1996).

About these ads

79 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

79 responses to “Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

  1. Pingback: Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. Some kind of nitpicking! Beyond question IPCC is consisting of human individuals. On this view Michael E.Mann shares Nobel peace price with lead authors and all the other staff of the IPCC!
    Look on Journal Examiner writing about the same issue and please check the update below!
    Michael E. Mann has shows an official acknowledgement for his contribution to Nobel peace prize of IPCC.
    Examiner claimed Mann has faked the document by attaching his name.
    But in an update journal concedes that’s false!!
    I think it´s better to debate climate change in a fair style!
    Best regards
    Jens Christian Heuer
    http://weatherplanets.wordpress.com/

    • johnosullivan

      Jens,
      Clearly you are not conversant with legal requirements when filing sworn affidavits in lawsuits. Mann has committed perjury and it is not nitpicking, it is a crime. If you had bothered to read Mann’s legal argument in his court papers you would know he claims Steyn and others libeled him because they ought to have known Mann was beyond reproach because he was a Nobel Prize winner. His unjustly assumed “authority” is what he has swore under oath as evidence to compel the court to convict Steyn and co of libel. Perjury is a gross abuse and in some jurisdictions is so frowned upon that perpetrators can face jail for life. Take off our biased tinted spectacles and stop being an apologist for climate criminals that falsify the facts and hide evidence that would prove whether they faked their science.

      • Rattus Fuscipes

        And you would certainly know about legal requirements when filing sworn affidavits in lawsuits.

        Skolnick’s evidence shows that O’Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

        that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
        that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
        that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
        that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O’Sullivan’s actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
        that he is a member of the American Bar Association.

        http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan

      • johnosullivan

        Rattus,
        You’ve been duped by Skolnick. Check your facts more carefully. Skolnick has an undisputed record as a proven liar. Such repeated offenses led to him being fired from his job as an assistant editor at JAMLA. His Canadian affidavits against me are replete with numerous lies and such perjury may well come back to bite him hard once Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s vexatious libel suit in British Columbia.

        Among Skolnick’s ‘skills’ includes his resorting to relying on faked web site evidence and citing his own quotes to disingenuously create the impression others (including me) said something when they haven’t. I have always stated that most of my professional career has been as a lecturer and teacher working in the British education system. At no time did I state I obtained my law degree from the University of Cork – a bare-faced lie as is Skolnick’s assertion that I misrepresented myself as a licensed attorney. In fact, I have successfully collaborated with others who are, and been paid for my services. I was most certainly paid for my work via “a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm” – that being the offices of Tim Ball’s libel attorney’s, Pearlman Lindholm. Also, I was registered with the ABA as well as the New York State County Lawyers Association.

        As a writer, my articles on legal matters and climate science are widely re-distributed. They have appeared online at Forbes, National Review etc. I have a written agreement with Tim Ball concerning the lawsuit filed against him by Michael Mann and I will not disclose further information that may prejudice any further legal action we may take subsequent to the completion of the current case.

    • Here is Nobel’s response to the query:
      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 as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.
      “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

    • Otter

      Wow, Jens, if that’s the case, WHY did mann himself retract his FALSE claim?

      • DOH!

        He is too busy licking Mann’s boots to notice after all his face is near the floor and the computer monitor is on the desk.

        I have little patience with people who continue to worship the man.

    • Jens, I too, to use your words, ” . . . think it´s better to debate climate change in a fair style!” Now we just need to convince the alarmists to do the same.

  3. Colin

    Thanks John for clarifying this.

    It actually bears an uncanny relevance to my own situation.

    As a citizen of the EU, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with other EU neighbours in 2012.

    After the initial shock, I’ve been pondering whether or not to add ‘Nobel Laureate’ to my CV. But on second thoughts I’ve decided against.

    It would be pretty hard to take though; going to bed one night thinking you’re a Nobel laureate only to waken up the next morning to find you’re not. But I suppose, for some people, it’s an easy mistake to make.

    • johnosullivan

      Colin, well said. I was feeling the same way myself. But like the other 500+ million EU inhabitants, or 7.3% of the world’s population, we will just have to content ourselves by resorting to creating our own home made ‘helper’s’ certificate in the fashion of Michael Mann.

  4. Isn’t it interesting that those who prize their ability to spin words are now attempting to change history by changing a few words. Yet, the internet never forgets. A word once spun, stays spun and cannot be unspun.

    Had the change occurred within hours or days of first posting, it would justly have been written off as a simple error of misstatement. After years of multiple posting, including in a law suit, the word sticks! The attempt to change the word only compound the initial act. as proof of knowledge of the initial false claim that he “shared” rather than only “contributed”.

    The spinners try to believe that reality is controlled by their words. If so, all you have to do is change the words and reality is changed. This principle is at the core of post modern philosophy and post normal science. Meanwhile, reality is indifferent to the words. It simply is what it is. Thereby turning the confabulations of the pretenders of post modern philosophy and post normal science into nothing but high sounding but meaningless jabberwocky.

  5. Steve Koch

    Mann claiming that he won the Nobel Prize is a combination of hubris, delusion, mendacity, and stupidity. Going beyond the idiocy of claiming that he won a Nobel Prize, why did Mann think that would mean that what he says about climate science is unassailable? How can any “scientist” be so authoritarian? BTW, did he notice that the IPCC got a peace prize, not a science prize? Winning a Nobel Peace prize says nothing about the quality of the science but is a sure indicator that the recipient’s politics are leftist.

    This will not end well for Mann, Steyn will use his rapier wit to relentlessly skewer Mann. Mann will be even more of a laughingstock than he is now, if that is possible.

    What is mind boggling is that the vast majority of climate scientists have not condemned Mann. The corruption in climate science must be deep and pervasive, how are we going to get climate science back on track, how will they ever be able to reestablish their credibility?

  6. Will Penn State wake up to the developing train wreck that Dr. Mann is?

  7. I have posted this at WUWT blog and still in moderation after 30 minutes.I am wondering if it is going to be deleted like my other one on this exciting topic a few days ago?

    “sunsettommy says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 28, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/#comment-1412

    bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!”

  8. @johnosullivan
    Examiner has the same story about Michael E. Mann claiming like You
    (“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.”) he has faked the document by attaching his name.
    In an update the journal concedes that’s false!!
    Link: http://www.examiner.com/article/professor-mann-claims-to-win-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not
    Best regards
    Jens Christian Heuer
    http://weatherplanets.wordpress.com/

    • johnosullivan

      Jens,
      You’re obfuscating the facts. Nowhere in my article(s) have I ever stated Mann “did not receive any personal certificate.” You are making that up. It was the Nobel Committee that (incorrectly) stated Mann faked that IPCC certificate Mann shows proudly at his office window at PSU! It’s all in plain English above.

      • Otter

        Plain English is not normally used by warmists. They prefer to torture words to mean things they don’t. mann is a case in point, and jens just meekly goes along.

      • The certificate is signed by the head of the IPCC, not the Nobel committee. Mann was not recognized by the Nobel Committee. When have people who have interpretted other peoples’ data ever won a Nobel Prize. Besides – it’s a Peace Prize – not a scientific prize.

      • Gary Pearse

        John, I think someone should go and see if the certificate is still in his office window! That, too, would be a scoop.

      • johnosullivan

        Gary, thanks. That’s not a bad idea. Although because it was given to Mann by the IPCC it doesn’t make it a fake. It just means all it is really is a glorified ‘thank you’ note.

    • Yawn,

      It appears that you are going to IGNORE the relevant facts in your delusional pursuit to support a Man who can’t be factually honest.

      You are lucky this is not a forum where I can tear your baloney apart easily.

  9. Steve Mennie

    Oh my…This sounds like the ladies quilt making club in the church basement tutting and congratulating each other for their superiority in all things moral. Which is fine, I suppose. But on a blog whose proprietor prides himself on avoiding ad hominem attacks and never hesitates to point out to commenters when they are perceived to be indulging in this activity and further castigates those who wander from the ‘science’ this attack on Michael Mann is quite revealing.

    The IPCC wins a nobel…( Actually, when one looks at just whom the nobel committee decides is worthy of their attention its surprising that anyone would still value winning one…but I digress.) Michael Mann plays an important role in the IPCC report and as a contributor to the report can legitimately be considered to have ‘shared’ in the award.

    Technically though, he is not a nobel laureate. This is clear. But I see no damage done by his reference to contributing to a nobel winning report which, I would assume, underline his legitimacy as a working climate scientist no?

    And once again – as in ‘Climategate’ – focus is on the person and his ‘large ego’ and ‘questionable’ behaviour rather than on the science.

    The hockey stick graph has been reproduced several times with different proxie and all the hand wringing about it has become less than irrelevant.

    If you could prove beyond a (reasonable) doubt that Michael Mann was the most criminally depraved person on the face of the planet, please tell how this would help explain away all of the observed (not just modelled) evidence for AGW.

    • Steve, it’s not skeptic’s responsibility to explain your imagination. The fact is that there is zero peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere. Most damning of all is the fact that there is zero evidence that the alarmist “scientists” have made any attempt to experimentally test the proposition. Faking results is, unfortunately, standard practice amongst alarmists. Mann’s Hockey stick is only the most obvious example thereof. There are many more.

    • johnosullivan

      Mr Mennie.
      On your first point: You’re missing the crucial legal issue of why it was so reprehensible for Mann to attempt to deceive the court into believing he is a Nobel laureate. (He’s not). Go read his affidavit because it specifically comprises a list of arguments from authority whereby, the “authority” on all things climate is inferred to be a Nobel laureate, i.e. Mann himself. By unlawfully assuming the identity of “Nobel laureate” he then demands that the court take this “Nobel laureate’s” word that Mann’s science “must” be top class (that’s called deception with intent to gain undue advantage). Because his ‘Statement of Truth’ is a sworn legal document and in it he cannot knowingly use any false statements, under penalty of perjury, Mann’s “little” Peace Prize deception rises to the level of criminality.

      The evidential inference is therefore that Mann lied about his assumed Nobel Prize to unlawfully deceive the court by claiming the highest level of authority (Nobel laureate) that he does not have.(n.b. most people are also unaware that the ‘Peace Prize’ is not any kind of science prize at all!). Thus, if Mann is so readily caught lying and deceiving about that – what else has he lied about? On the balance of probability a reasonable juror may then be inclined to believe Mann also lies when he declares his (hidden) hockey stick data isn’t deliberately rigged (fraudulent).

      On your second point: you are factually incorrect to assert “The hockey stick graph has been reproduced several times with different proxie and all the hand wringing about it has become less than irrelevant.” In fact, no third party analysts have been allowed any open access to Mann’s hidden r-squared cross-validation results for the ‘hockey stick’ graph. Mann’s lawyer has persisted for over a year in declining to give the court access to it in Mann’s ongoing libel trial against Tim Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

      But it is already a matter of public record that Mann’s hockey stick reconstruction method was made by lining up his proxy tree ring data with measured temperatures in the 20th century to calibrate the scale. In the process he used a statistic called the r-squared correlation coefficient. We also know, from evidence in the public domain, that Mann found that over most of the reconstruction there was essentially no match (ie the r2 data was telling Mann his graph was junk).

      We know Mann did, indeed, perform this important due diligence test because he let on that he got r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match. We also see it in the code he eventually was forced to publish. We then say Mann thereafter lied when he proudly boasted to journalists that his graph had passed the tests. He got away with that hubris for a while because he very carefully didn’t publish most of the r-squared numbers themselves. These unpublished r2 numbers are what Tim Ball wants to see examined in open court and what Steve McIntyre and others have repeatedly asked Mann to release. Instead Mann was had his PSU employers spend upwards of a million dollars to pull every trick in the book in the U.S. to stop courts granting open public access to it. But that won’t work in Canada under different judicial rules.

      In fact, the r2 numbers are what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment in the Climategate emails was about. As such, because Mann won’t release the r2 data, he is now on the brink of losing his case against Ball on a technicality for deliberately not complying with court rules. We say Mann chooses not to comply because if he did release the r2 numbers we believe they will show that after Mann performed his original r2 tests they showed his procedure was bad (ie it created hockey sticks whatever numbers were fed in, and he knew it). McIntyre has actually demonstrated that Mann’s methods simply churn out graphs like hockey sticks.

      If Mann hides this proof that we say shows he acted with intent to deceive then he is both guilty of scientific and criminal fraud, in that he then went on to fame and fortune based on his deception. Therefore, he belongs in the state pen,not Penn State!

      • alpinemonkey

        “Therefore, he belongs in the state pen, not Penn State!”
        Hahahahaha!!! Brilliant! And on the other hand, as a swedish citizen, I´m glad that we´re not the ones dealing out this stupid prize. It´s norwegians, the swedish equivalent of Canadians ;-)… who repeatedly, year after year, proves what a buch of politicallly correct dimwhits and tossers they are.

    • ”If you could prove beyond a (reasonable) doubt that Michael Mann was the most criminally depraved person on the face of the planet, please tell how this would help explain away all of the observed (not just modelled) evidence for AGW.”

      I dont understand, Mann was and is one of the foremost purveyors of Material that gives credence to the AGW proposition, and yet you are suggesting that if he has a propensity to present information in a way that might suggest that certain facts are not what they might seem, we should still accept his theories ????

  10. The roof leaks at the top. The whole IPCC is corrupt. Panchurian is the ring leader.

  11. Mark G

    I love Mann’s half-baked excuse on his FB page that others who also contributed to the IPCC also promote their ‘award’ of the Nobel Peace Prize. Sure they have, and they’re also guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation…it doesn’t make it right…and they haven’t accused others of defamation in a court of law, so his misrepresentation becomes highly relevant, beyond mere egotistical puffery.

    Maybe he can rescue his reputation by persuading some periodical, that has published one of his articles, to enter his piece into the next Pulitzer Prize competition? That way, he can disingenuously claim to have been ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer Prize…like another fraudster in the Mann camp me thinks?

  12. Pethefin

    Hopefully someone takes a deeper look at this Nobel trickery since this is what tabloid science is made of: misleading the public with false credentials and politicized interpretation of scientifc studies. A number of members of the AGW-science club have mislead the public to belive that the IPCC was awarded Nobel Peace Prize for their science. That is incorrect since the peace prized has nothing to do with science and all about politics since the Norwegian committee consist of politicians, not scientists, and therefore can not evaluate eventual science connected to the prize awarded work for promotion of peace. It is truly pathetic and discraceful that scientists who are unanble to achieve scientific discovery worthy of a true Nobel Prize within natural sciences use the fully unscientic Nobel Peace Prize to disguise themselves as “Nobel Prize winning scientists” with help from activist journalists. I don’t think that this was/is done by mistake, rather this was and is done on purpose, otherwise the tabloid scientists & activist journalists are even more incompetent that what I imagined. That the media has not called them out on this Nobel celebrity-trickery is a perfect example of the profound lack of quality and ethics in journalism today of which this was one of the first:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-10-12-1979965791_x.htm

    Just consider the utter foolishes of the statement from a scientist named Piers Forster: “It’s every scientist’s dream to win a Nobel Prize, so this is great for myself and the hundreds that worked on their reports over the years”. Yet nobody reacted to this Nobel-trick that was later adopter by other tabloid scientists. I doubt they would have reacted even if the prize would have been the Nobel Prize in Literature.

    This kind of “journalism” is what keeps tabloid science alive.

  13. Mark G

    P.S. Mann’s characterization of himself as a ‘lead’ author (among many other ‘lead’ authors, of course) also smacks of desperation to me.

    You’re either awarded or not awarded the prize…desperately trying to infer you made more of a contribution than others doesn’t change the facts…authors, lead or otherwise, were not awarded the prize…aside from Al Gore.

    Michael Mann was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize…which he HAS claimed. Per Steve Mennie’s note of his current claims as a contributor…previous claims, most notably in court documents, clearly highlight his previous false claims to have been ‘awarded.’

    There’s a reason for such modifications and back-tracking. If it were down to mere semantics, why modify such claims?

  14. The coup de grace cannot be far off.

    Mike McQueary stewed in his guilty knowledge for years, until he finally became the whistleblower who blew the top off of the PSU Sandusky cover-up of criminal activity. Imagine how many associates in PSU’s “climate” department are stewing in their own guilty knowledge of shady dealings in Mann’s office.

    A whistleblower will finish off Mann, once and for all. He cannot be a pleasant person to work for or with. There is a colleague, grad student, lab monitor, or computer network guy who has access to Mann’s tightly held secrets.

    If we would all focus efforts on encouraging a whistleblower to come forth with Mann’s dirty laundry, our long nightmare of Global Warming Alarmist strong-arming could end in a flash.

  15. Mark G

    John, just picked up your astute comment:

    “Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the University community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.”

    If Penn State wishes to restore its reputation, shouldn’t they embark upon an investigation into alleged false claims by one of their members?

    Is there sufficient cause to undertake an investigation? What clearer proof is needed? Mann was never awarded or co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yet has made such claims on numerous occasions.

    A patently false claim, followed up by blatant efforts to modify such claims.

    Can his original claims clear all three barriers…falsification, misrepresentation and deception? I don’t think so, but my faith in Penn State’s investigative standards is also slim-to-none.

    But it ain’t no typo, that much I’m sure of.

    • johnosullivan

      Mark,
      As you also identify – this is no triviality because both Mann and his employers have duped untold numbers of people into believing the lie that he won the Nobel Prize. The very fact Mann has the temerity to take his counterfeit Nobel claim to court in a sworn affidavit raises this above mere academic fraud into criminality. Mann has committed the crime of perjury on this issue both last year in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Canada and last week in the District of Columbia Court. Both his libel suits should be thrown out and costs awarded to Dr Ball. Also, he should be sanctioned by his employers, Penn State University and the NSF. The US federal govt should also sanction Penn State for their duplicity in this by banning them from applying for any further federal funding for at least 5 years. No ifs or buts.

  16. Mark G

    Last comment for the time being..hopefully (unless I see some other whoppers!)

    Reading Mann’s legal complaint against Steyn (my emphasis added):

    “In 2007, Dr.Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH.”

    Well, he didn’t share the prize, that’s clear.

    Nor was he afforded the dominant position his ego-driven blurb implies (more accurate to say that Dr. Mann was one of the 2000+ contributors to the IPCC report that culminated in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC, shared with Al Gore).

    Also, where’s the evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize wholly, partially or minimally, was given because of the ‘Hockey Stick Graph’? As implied in the above boast.

    Awarded? Co-awarded? Shared? Then ‘contributed’, but also a ‘lead’ author? Not misleading or fraudulent, because other IPCC contributors have also claimed to have being ‘awarded’ the NPP?

    This is a moving feast of fraudulent and egotistical falsehoods and puerile excuses, IMO. I pray that both the court and his employers highlight this hypocrisy and fraud.

  17. Steve Mennie

    Okay…I’ve contributed to this enough…With all this blustering certainty regarding Mann’s guilt, is there anyone here willing to put some money on his losing these court battles? What a petulant and adolescent display of character assasination.

    • johnosullivan

      Steve,
      I accept your wager. I am willing to place a stake of $100 to be held by an agreed third party – if you are also prepared to do likewise. My wager is that Michael Mann does not defeat Tim Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court. If I’m right I get your $100, if I’m wrong you get mine. How about that?

  18. mat

    I think by claiming he was co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Mann is highlighting the fact that he wrote most (if not all) of the fraudulent IPCC report with its famous hokey schtick.

    • johnosullivan

      Mat,
      Good point! In effect, by Mann’s own reasoning, if his science is such a major part of the Nobel (Peace!) Prize then if he loses his court actions then we may reasonably infer the science of his “co-winners” is just as unreliable as his.

  19. Mark G

    Is anyone amused as I am over Mann’s attempt on his FB page to marginalize his perjury?

    He now suggests that HE, not PSU, revised his bio and CV on the PSU site. So why did HE make such changes if these allegations of perjury were mere nit-picking?

    To Steve Mennie’s complaint of a ‘petulant and adolescent display’, I wonder if Steve has read recent posts on Mann’s FB page attempting to impugn the character of John, Kent and Mark Steyn?

    There’s a certain irony in his assault on John…the disgraced journalist who made the affidavits referenced in Mann’s post is also guilty of embellishing his credentials. Andrew Skolnick has never been nominated by the Pulitzer Prize Committee but proudly boasts of being nominated in the affidavits…like Mann, he hastily rewrote his bio.

    Suggesting others have also claimed to have been ‘awarded’ the NPP is as weak an argument as they come. Other scientists have engaged in fraud…that doesn’t make it acceptable.

    The suggestion that this latest development is mere nit-picking is a bogus argument. Firstly, he has perjured himself which is highly relevant in a court of law. Secondly, his claim revolved around damage to reputation…which, for an academic, is highly correlated with awards and accolades.

  20. Mark G

    P.S. The difference between this blog and Mann’s FB page is that John publishes dissenting comments. Mann views every dissenter as a troll. What does that say about the integrity of Dr. Mann?…genuine scientists welcome discussion and debate.

  21. Pingback: On the eve of a momentous environmental debate, a key scientific player falls from grace|Downing Post & News

  22. Pingback: On the eve of a momentous environmental debate, a key scientific player falls from grace | Tea Party Cheer

  23. Pingback: On Eve of Nov. 5 Fossil Fuels Debate, Penn State Global Warming Prof Outed for Falsely Claiming to be Nobel Recipient | Restoring Liberty

  24. Keith AB

    I must say schadenfreude is a very pleasant emotion. I am looking forward to the spin MM’s supporters try but really at the end of it all he is just a cheezy bullshitter as he and we know.

  25. Keith, I suspect the spin has already been telegraphed on Michael “Robust Debate” Mann’s FB page (aka ‘if you disagree with me, you’re a troll and your dissenting comments get deleted”‘).

    Namely:

    1. “Mere nitpicking?”…actually, it’s not. If you have the gall to state in court affidavits that you were ‘awarded’ a Nobel Peace Prize when you patently weren’t, you deserve to be pulled over the coals in any legal proceeding. Especially if you talk of ‘damage to reputation’ or the defamation of a Nobel prize awardee. Your reputation is driven, in no small part, by these fraudulent claims to a Nobel Prize. And it’s telling that you have chosen to amend your bio/resume, despite this alleged ‘nit-picking’.

    2. Other IPCC contributors are also guilty of the same sin? Yes, a small minority undoubtedly are. But that doesn’t make it acceptable, Dr. Mann. And, more importantly, those other scientists with equally disingenuous claims aren’t suing someone else. Puffery of credentials isn’t new (c.f. Andrew Skolnick and a “Pulitzer Prize’ nomination, in your case against Tim Ball), but you have chosen to place your ‘credentials’ and ‘reputation’ center-stage by virtue of your legal complaint.

    3. “It’s all about the science…this Nobel Prize stuff is a red herring?”. Nope, the research and accolades arising from it are both ‘fair game’ when you accuse others of defamation. Mann has alleged that both his research AND reputation have been unfairly defamed. Your defendants are ready to address the fraudulent claims of the ‘science’…bolstered by the clear duplicity in your ‘reputation’ claims.

    4. “Park your ego at the door, please”. Dr. Mann appears to be the quintessential poster-child for the Striesland effect. One wonders whether his lawsuits are driven by a desire for self-promotion more than a clear pursuit of the truth? His reticence to provide requested data in the Tim Ball trial certainly suggests the former.

  26. Michael E Mann may be a bit of a litigation-happy egocentric but, if so, it is the behaviour of those chuck about words like “disgraced… climatologist” so easily that have made him behave like this.

    Meanwhile, I am very disappointed to see so many “sceptics” squandering so many opportunities to re-evaluate the ideological prejudice that may be preventing them from interpreting actaul data correctly:
    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/02/what-fake-skeptics-do/

    • johnosullivan

      Martin, please explain what my ‘idealogical prejudice’ would be? I’m intrigued. I just can’t think of any good reason why I should be alarmed by a rise in global temperature from 288K to 288.7K since 1880. Where’s the ‘catastrophe’? Those ‘scientists’ like Mann who predict climate apocalypse based on those facts certainly are a disgrace by my reckoning.

      • John, I am trying hard not to make any unwarrnted inferences from your mis-spelling of the word “ideological”. However, your attempt to make recent warming seem insignificant by reference to Kelvin cannot be explained away as mere “carelessness”… I think you need to read the piece to which I referred because, irrespective of why you are doing so, you are making all the same mistakes – and more… The only disgraceful thing here is therefore the way in which some people seem to be so willing to make their scientific illiteracy so tranparent… Ideological prejudice is thus the only rational explanation for the rejection of science by people who clearly have limited understanding of relevant facts.

        Since the Industrial Revolution, widespread access to cheap and abundant energy has enabled a sevenfold increase in the global human population. Therefore, even if the burning of increasingly-hard-to-find fossil fuels was not the primary problem, we would still have an energy crisis. Accepting this does not make me anti-progress, anti-Western or anti-human; it just means I am not allowing my adherence to political or economic dogma — such as the belief that perpetual growth in the consumption and/or pollution of environmental resources is indefinitely sustainable on a finite planet — prevent me from appreciating the significance of things like the Laws of conservation of Mass and Energy.

        You cannot pick and choose which bits of science you will and won’t accept; picking a fight with history and science is a bad idea and, therefore, denial is not a river in Egypt.

  27. John O'Sullivan

    Martin,
    You are just as entitled as I am to draw your own conclusions from the fact that temperatures have risen by 0.7 degree in the last 130 years. Some of us would call that very stable while others, perhaps you included, would like to infer it represents an impending catastrophe.

    I do not buy into the Malthusian limits to growth nonsense because in 250 years it still remains little more than another form of self-loathing alarmism. There are thousands of highly qualified scientists upon whom I rely for my interpretations. For example, I prefer to rely on the 1,800 peer reviewed papers that prove abiogenic theory is more credible than the ‘fossil fuel’ theory. As such I don’t accept the peak oil meme either. Our reserves of hydrocarbons are currently estimated to be double what they were only 20 years ago. Plus man’s ingenuity to create more efficient forms of technology confounds all those who make the glib claim that our planet’s resources are ‘limited.’ I see nothing limited about our planet’s greatest resource: the human mind.

    • I am not surprised by your attempts to dismiss my arguments as Malthusian but, they are, in fact, much more complex than that.

      Irrespective of how fossil fuels are formed, the fact remains we are well on the way to burning 300 million years worth of them a million times faster than they accumulated. This will be a great shame because, even if the lunatic fringe of the green movement allows humanity to solve its long-term energy supply needs, there are so many much more useful things we could do with fossil fuels than simply burn them…

      I really do think you need to read the piece on Climatecrocks but, in order to benefit from doing so, you must first of all be willing to accept that environmentalists are not your enemy.
      http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/nature-is-not-your-enemy/

      • johnosullivan

        Martin, I read the piece from climatercrocks.com. What it tells me is that alarmists are arguing over a fraction of one degree of actual warming in a century and basing their doomsaying ‘projections’ on junk GIGO IPCC models that stopped making ‘predictions’ 20 years ago. Please show me where the ‘catastrophic’ global warming is. I see no problem in burning hydrocarbons (btw the term ‘petroleum’ means rock oil for a reason). You see, I find very credible the 1,900 peer reviewed papers that say abiogenic oil is a more plausible theory than ‘fossil’ fuel theory. Therefore I don’t feel at all concerned about alarmist claims of ‘peak oil.’ This is especially true since known reserves of hydrocarbons have doubled in the last 20 years. Also, I don’t know why you should assume I’m not an environmentalist simply because I am opposed to science fraud.

      • John, I note you say you are opposed to “science fraud”… This appears to be yet another oblique reference to your underlying faith in a “climate scientists are lying to us to perpetuate their research funding” mantra.

        Whereas you appear to take great delight in dismissing basic principles of physics (such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) or basic aspects to reality (such as that the Earth’s resources are not infinite), your belief that scientists are lying to us presupposes the existence of a conspriracy so large it would make that invoked to claim the moon landings were faked look small by comparison.

        Furthermore, whereas there is no precedent for your supposed scientific conspiracy, big multi-national businesses have a long track-record of misrepresenting science (i.e. perpetuating fear uncertainty and doubt) in order to prevent or delay sensible regulation of the things they sell. It therefore never ceases to amaze me that so many continue to be fooled by them. However, before you take the facile step of telling me it is equally likely that I am wrong, please read this:
        http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/the-problem-with-inverting-reality/

  28. John O'Sullivan

    Martin,
    Please be assured that I am no friend of any corporation. I have special contempt for the way multi-nationals such as BP, Shell, Exxon and others have funded the climate cult. ‘Big Oil’ is instrumental in funding the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the center of the Climategate scandal.

    Unlike you I am open minded to the possibility that white collar crime pervades the sciences as much as it does big business and international banking. Moreover, both large corporations and individuals (including climate scientists) have become increasingly financially invested in the junk technology that is the ‘renewables’ sector. As such they are less than motivated to be the first to agree when the science underpinning their investment has been refuted.

    Moreover, I am now convinced beyond doubt that climatists Dr Michael Mann and Dr Andrew Weaver are criminally involved in a conspiracy. I assert this because of the incontrovertible evidence from the British Columbia Supreme Court where Dr. Tim Ball has prevailed with his defense against Mann and Weaver’s vexatious lawsuits attacking this principled whistleblower. The courts are now about to dismiss the Mann and Weaver lawsuits because neither plaintiff would comply with court requirements to show their hidden metadata in open court. As Dr. Ball’s attorney will be announcing shortly, such failure has justly warranted the correct application by the court of the negative inference doctrine such that by their refusal to comply, both men are proven in law to have committed fraud.

    I know it hurts your sensibilities to concede these facts but you also need to look carefully at the robustly peer-reviewed science of Principia Scientific International (PSI). You will learn that in no way does it violate basic principles of physics (such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Quite the contrary, it is the ‘science’ of the GHE that crassly claims cold can make warm hotter still- a clearly unphysical notion woven into GHE junk science.

    I read your science-free blog post. Its the usual hand-waving vapid green appeal with the dishonest mischaracterization that skeptics ‘deny’ climate changes. Climate is ALWAYS changing. Why do you deny this FACT? It has done so for 4.5 billion years. What you are in denial about is that the changes seen in the last century are totally within the bounds of natural variation and display no human signal, let alone a ‘catastrophic’ one. Wise up, please!

    • I agree with you that Big Oil was probably behind the criminal hacking and misrepresentation of CRU emails that scientifically-illiterate fools like James Delingpole were duped into presenting to the World as proof of a scientific conspiracy. However, the vast majority of the World’s media realised they had been duped by people trying to prevent progress being made at the UN talks when the stunt was repeated in 2011.

      My blog is what it says it is (i.e. about the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems), but that does not mean I am any less of an Earth Scientist. As such, I do not deny any aspect of Earth history; but neither do I attempt to re-write science or history for ideological reasons: I know it has been tough but we humans have had to come to accept that the Earth is not flat; and that it is not at the centre of the Universe. However, given all the “science-free” (i.e. historical) evidence I cited, I think it is time you accepted that human activity can – and does – affect the Earth’s climate.

      I know it is hard for you to accept but – no matter how many of your labels you try to pin on me, none will stick because – I simply do not conform to your stereotypical view of people you no doubt call ‘environmental alarmists’.

      I wish you – and all those (like the legislature in North Carolina) that seek to make anthropogenic climate disruption illegal – all the luck in the World. However, one day soon I think you are going to have to accept that the energy imbalance created by the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is having ALL of the consequences that were predicted.

      • Craig King

        If one accepts that the Universe is a “sphere of infinite radius” as Einstein says, just exactly where would the Earth be if not at its centre? Perhaps you mean the galaxy when you say Universe but you wouldn’t be that sloppy would you?

      • johnosullivan

        Martin,

        You are in denial. Big Oil has long funded the CRU so why would they hack into servers they ostensibly bought and paid for? Also, as for the “vast majority of the World’s media” they are corporate-funded and thus not to be trusted, by your own reasoning right? Your thought processes are obviously disjointed if you cannot connect these simple dots: just follow the money. The US government alone has poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. I also understand that Exxon-Mobil Corp paid $23 million to skeptics. That is less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008. So your argument that money is a corruptive factor seems to be better applied to alarmists not skeptics.

        Moreover, there is little sense in you seeking to establish your argument premised on politics and psychology concerning environmental problems when the very cornerstone of the science (the greenhouse gas ‘theory’) is discredited. The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.If you had any higher science level training in physics and thermodynamics you would better understand the science of Principia Scientific International (PSI). principia-scientific.org

        Those 200+ at PSI better trained in ‘hard’ science disciplines have proven that the GHE crassly uses a flat earth model – why is that we wondered? We soon found out when we crunched the numbers. Climatologists – untrained in the hard sciences – had incorrectly used a simplistic and flawed averaging technique when formulating their supposed earth energy budget in the 80’s. As such we showed the GHE alleged to exist on our planet is simply a product of poor math in those climate models that turn earth into a flat disk rather than a sphere. We now know climatologists prefer to use this dodge of flat earth modeling, even in this age of supercomputers, because it gives them the outcome they want: alarmist GIGO. As per Tim Ball’s legal win against IPCC’s chief climate modeler. Andrew Weaver, the charlatans have to keep their models secret or be proven as crooks.

        You have been duped and need to understand that climatologists only concocted their ‘theory’ post 1980 based on the above mentioned flat earth model. In fact if you knew your science history you would see that The GHE theory was accepted among scientists as being refuted prior to 1950 because, as the American Meteorological Society stated in 1951:

        “The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action. Ordinarily the variation was slow, because a great reserve of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Arrhenius and Chamberlin saw in this a cause of climatic changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.” [1]

        For that reason it is irrelevant how much CO2 humans emit. This also explains why, despite the 40 percent increase in recent times in atmospheric levels of CO2 global temps have stubbornly refused to rise for 16 years and have actually been falling this century. This suggests there is no correlation at all. So again, please show me where the ‘catastrophe’ is?

        [1]Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.
        Read more here: http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/us-national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-three/

  29. Reading your ‘About’ page, John, I begin to appreciate the size of the emotional investment you have made in trying to disprove what you call a “theory”. you inversion of reality is so complex – and so complete – I feel that spending much more time on this website would be a very poor investment of my time.

    Suffice it to say that, as with your attempt to make recent warming seem insignificant by use of Kelvins, your attempt to claim global warming has stopped, does you no credit whatsoever: The recent hiatus in land surface warming is completely irrelevant because most of the extra energy trapped by GHGs is being absorbed by the oceans. Consistent with warmer oceans and atmosphere, this is why each decade since the 1970s has been warmer than its predecessor; why we continue to see many more records for warmth than cold being broken; and why we are witnessing an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather of all kinds; with consequential record-breaking sums of money being paid out on insurance claims of all kinds: Fire damage in SE Australia looks like the latest case in point.

    • johnosullivan

      Martin,
      It is a shame, but no surprise, that you now resort to trying to characterize me as some kind of emotionally disturbed individual. Clearly, you are discomforted when confronted by the cold facts that discredit your entrenched beliefs. This is all too common a tactic by alarmists when their claims are exposed.

      I’ve repeatedly asked for you to show scientific evidence substantiating your belief in impending ‘catastrophic’ warming but you have failed. On the contrary, you now admit there is a “hiatus” in warming. But you then immediately contradict yourself by saying our non-warming climate is causing “many more records for warmth than cold being broken” and “an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather of all kinds.” You say this is causing “record-breaking sums of money being paid out on insurance claims of all kinds.”

      But I note you conspicuously avoid mention of death rates which we all know have fallen remarkably in recent decades despite your supposed “climate chaos.” Human existence is enhanced and enriched, not impoverished, by our industrial progress. Surely, if you were concerned about human suffering you’d be basing your reasoning on stats that assess loss of life rather rather than be so focused on material wealth? This is why I smell hypocrisy in your posts. You condemn corporations yet you all too quickly take a corporate rather than a humanistic view.

      The inescapable truth is that the temperature instrument record proves a mere 0.7 degrees in the global temperature anomaly since 1880. In that time humanity has seen a dramatic fall in famine, disease and poverty. This is why scientists trained to higher degree levels in thermodynamics and the ‘hard’ sciences dismiss alarmist claims about a fraction of a degree temp rise (with a margin of error as great as the supposed temp rise). As such this makes your hand waving assertions about “record breaking weather” redundant in the broader context of the trivial temperature anomaly since 1880.

      As I proved to you, the consensus view of scientists, at least till the 1950’s, was that the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ was refuted. You provide no evidence to dispute that. You then seem to WISH FOR a catastrophic rise in temperatures on the unsubstantiated supposition that ‘missing’ greenhouse gas energy has somehow been hidden in the oceans. Why would a rational human being want to see a climate catastrophe?

      Your claims about decadal temperature rises are not premised on raw data but on the homogenized manipulations by climatologists who were proven to be very poor handlers of data as per the findings of the UK Government’s official investigation into Climategate led by Lord Oxburgh in 2010. Oxburgh’s recommendation was that government climatologists should seek external assistance from trained statisticians to better crunch the numbers. If they had done so in the first place we could have spared taxpayers billions in wasted research in junk science.

      This is why it is your “inversion of reality” that is so fascinating to ponder.

  30. Pete Walker

    Here is what Wikipedia actually says:
    The IPCC presented Mann with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC.[38] The IPCC officially states that the certificates were issued “to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.”[38][39] In his 2012 book Mann noted an IPCC meeting in 2009 celebrating the prize, where Working Group 1 co-chair Susan Solomon highlighted the personal sacrifice that he and Benjamin D. Santer had made in the name of the IPCC.[40]

    • johnosullivan

      Pete,
      Sadly, what Wikipedia and the IPCC says is not what the Nobel Committee says. The venerable institution has gone on record to state that Michael Mann is not a recipient. If he and the IPCC insist he is, then by that same reasoning myself and all the other 800 million EU citizens may likewise claim we also have won the Nobel Peace Prize when it was awarded to the EU in 2012.

  31. Explain to them the lists and read the actual words aloud.
    However, never humiliate them in criminal court when you
    are probably going to right their mistakes.

  32. Pingback: On the eve of a momentous environmental debate, a key scientific player falls from grace | Tea Party Cheer

  33. Kat

    I find it funny that Mann is so proud to be included in a prize that was created by Alfred Nobel. Who was an industrialist, inventor and armaments manufacture. Aren’t those all the things that Mann and his ilk detest and are trying so hard to destroy? Just a little observation.

    nobel peace prize
    Web definitions
    The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the five Nobel Prizes created by the Swedish industrialist, inventor, and armaments manufacturer Alfred Nobel, along with the prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature. …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_prize

    • johnosullivan

      Kat, yes, the irony of it all shows Mann to be one of many hypocrites who have no qualms in living with such contradictions.

  34. John,
    Below is how Mr. Mann is cerditing himself today November 27, 2013. In a story in a story titled “Something Is Rotten at the New York Times (Op-Ed)”

    Michael Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University and was recognized in 2007, with other IPCC authors, for contributing to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work as a lead author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report. This article is adapted from one that appeared on the Huffington Post. Mann contributed this article to LiveScience’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

  35. Pingback: This Takes the Prize — Editor of New Prestige OA Journal Boycotts Prestige Subscription Journals | The Scholarly Kitchen

  36. Mann’s perjury is trivial relative to some of the nearly fraudulent claims that get published blaming global warming for extinctions and ecological disruption. I have formally requested BAMS to retract the paper Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 81, 443?451by Parmesan, C., et al. (2000) because it kept information about thriving populations “off the books” in order to blame global warming and extreme weather. The case is clear cut, but the BAMS editors are dragging their feet. I am hoping more people can complain to BAMS about publishing bad science.

    Read Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style

    http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom—part-3–extreme-weather.html

  37. Pingback: ‘Hockey-stavens’ opfinder Michael Mann undersøges for videnskabelig uredelighed | Hodjanernes Blog

  38. Pingback: Waiting for Global Warming - Page 9 - Pelican Parts Technical BBS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s