"However, the reported [hurricane] genesis locations are expanding eastward with time along with the greater rate of SST warming in the eastern portion of the tropical Atlantic."
"The lead author of that paper was Michael Mann, and his co-authors were Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland and Peter Webster — three of the four hostile reviewers he had directed the GRL editors to review our paper."
Mann, Fauci, they are both cut from the same cloth, and have both done tremendous damage to our country and to science, while profiting handsomely. I just read that Mann isn't paying for his high-priced lawyers. Who is?
The current defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn is showing Mann at his petulant worst. Steyn’s opening speech is terrific. Of course, in keeping with the tradition of great journalism in Climate Change reporting. Silence pervades the media outlets.
I'm new to all this but from the posts I have seen on Twitter by Michael Mann, it is clear that he is a troubled person who has become horribly consumed by his beliefs. By extension, one can surmise that his collaborators are of the same ilk.
How much of the entire enterprise of Climate Change Catastrophism can be traced back to the feverish activity of a single individual, Prof Michael E Mann? Back around 2003 or so, Statistics Prof George Wegman of George Mason U did an evaluation of Mann’s Hockey Stick as part of Congressional testimony and found it to be utterly fraudulent, confirming the earlier work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Wegman also did a statistical analysis that the bulk of Mainstream Climate Science was dominated by the incestuous behavior of a small group of Catastrophists, led by Mann along with Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt and a few others. As suggested by Roger’s piece, they are the people who dominate “peer review” of Climate-related studies submitted for publication. Wegman, I recall, referred to it as “Pal Review.” What would Wegman’s analysis show now, 20 years later? More of the same, I’ll bet.
Steyn's book on Mann ask a large number of scientists their opinions of his (Mann's) work. Its title is "A Disgrace to the Profession". Sadly, the profession itself has become something of a grifters' paradise, aided and abetted by that other monument to professional integrity - journalism.
You buried the lede, Prof Pielke. It looks like manipulation of the peer review process was an academic speeding ticket, compared to the "murder" charge of stealing the work product you & McIntyre put together.
Michael Mann Is Back, And He’s Bringing The Heat, But Not The Good Kind With Al Pacino
January 5, 2023 jasonspiess The Crude Life 0
The Crude Life
The Crude Life
Michael Mann Is Back, And He's Bringing The Heat, But Not The Good Kind With Al Pacino
Play Episode
Mute/Unmute Episode
Rewind 10 Seconds
1x
Fast Forward 30 seconds
00:00 / 24:57
SUBSCRIBE SHARE
Amazon
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Pandora
Podcast Republic
RSSRadio
Radio Public
Stitcher
YouTube
iHeartRadio
RSS FEED
SHARE
LINK
EMBED
Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 24:57 | Recorded on January 5, 2023
Subscribe: Amazon | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Pandora | Podcast Republic | RSSRadio | Radio Public | Stitcher | YouTube | iHeartRadio
The Crude Life’s resident poet and professional content curator Stephen Heins joined Jason Spiess to discuss several recent ESG news items, including the return of Michael Mann on MSNBC.
Michael Mann is considered by many a climatologist and geophysicist, who has become well known for his research on climate change, particularly on the “hockey stick chart” which showed a dramatic rise in global temperature in the 20th century.
Mann’s research has been highly influential in the 1990’s and 2000’s, and his work has been cited thousands of times in the scientific literature.
Mann’s research began in 1998, when he and his colleagues published a paper in Nature which presented the first version of the “hockey stick chart”. This chart showed a long-term cooling trend in the global temperature from the year 1000 to 1900, followed by a sharp upward spike in the 20th century.
This chart was quickly embraced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and became an iconic symbol of the scientific consensus on climate change. Unfortunately, Mann’s science and method was flawed, inexact and outright erroneous.
The hockey stick chart was quickly subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism, particularly from climate skeptics. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper which attempted to refute Mann’s findings, claiming that his methods were flawed and his conclusions inaccurate. The paper was heavily criticized by Mann and his colleagues and the scientific community at large, but it sparked a contentious debate about the validity of Mann’s research.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences released a report which largely vindicated Mann and his colleagues, stating that their research was “likely to be correct”.
The report also criticized McIntyre and McKitrick for their “unfair” and “inaccurate” criticisms of Mann’s work.
However, the controversy over the hockey stick chart and Mann’s methods has continued, with some critics arguing that the hockey stick chart is still inaccurate and that Mann’s methods are still flawed.
In recent years, Mann has continued to be a vocal advocate for climate change action and the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. He has been heavily involved in public outreach, giving lectures and interviews, and has even written a book on the subject. He has also continued to publish research on climate change, and he has been awarded numerous prizes and honors for his work.
Mann’s research and advocacy has been under increased scrutiny by scientists ever since the acceptance of this theory by the IPCC.
Specifically, Mann’s hockey stick chart has been the subject of much debate and criticism, with most experts citing the fact his methods are flawed and his conclusions inaccurate. Despite this, Mann’s work remains a large part of the climate change contributions happening to the public’s scientific understanding of climate change, and his advocacy is raising awareness for the need of urgent action.
Both Heins and Spiess disagree with Mann’s theory and discuss a 30-year scientific body of work as their evidence.
Follow, subscribe and read Stephen Heins on Substack by clicking here
Award winning interviewer and broadcast journalist Jason Spiess and Content Correspondents engage with the industry’s best thinkers, writers, politicians, business leaders, scientists, entertainers, community leaders, cafe owners and other newsmakers in one-on-one interviews and round table discussions.
The Crude Life has been broadcasting on radio stations since 2012 and posts all updates and interviews on The Crude Life Social Media Network.
Everyday your story is being told by someone. Who is telling your story? Who are you telling your story to?
#thecrudelife promotes a culture of inclusion and respect through interviews, content creation, live events and partnerships that educate, enrich, and empower people to create a positive social environment for all, regardless of age, race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or intellectual ability.
That you Roger, for informing us about another rampant case of Mannian gate-keeping.
Apparently someone is running a network where heretic climate science papers sent to various journals are circulated without permission from the authors, the purpose being to prevent the papers from being published. Apparently someone is very afraid of science.
We've had skeptics, denialists, heretics, doubt-makers.
For a climate science so much intertwined with statistics, to be called a 'confusionist' looks like acknowledging the importance of confounding (confusion in French) factors in not so straightforward cause-effect relationships.
History gives us many examples where errors in science were not corrected for many years because dissenting voices were suppressed by the power structures in place. Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo died under house arrest because Catholic Church prelates thought the heliocentric model of the solar system would somehow challenge faith. Lysenko told Stalin what Stalin wanted to hear about agriculture so realistic biologists were sent to the Gulag. It's worth thinking about where Michael Mann, Joe Romm and similar character assassins get the power to suppress dissenting voices like Willie Soon, Sallie Balienas, Judith Curry, Tim Ball and yes, Roger Pielke Jr. We did not elect these guys as the gatekeepers they have become. I suspect it lies in the power of the purse. Those who control the purse strings for climate research $$$ are hearing what they want to hear from Mann et al so such are rewarded with research grants. University administrators all too often are remote from the details of the science, they simply ask "Where's your funding?" and reward the well-funded with appointments and acclaim. Journal editors fall in line out of groupthink. Eisenhower was right to warn about a "military-industrial" complex but he did not imagine the "political-academic" complex now controlling the narrative about climate science.
"Transparency and sunlight are good for science, and the politics within and around science."
So true! And remember: Silence ,when you hear a falsehood is commonly deemed assent. So speak up! (respectfully).
Mann's behavior as documented in the Climategate emails, and the Ball & Stein lawsuits makes him the poster child for most of what is wrong with peer review. Or as the late Pat Michaels frequently said "pal review". (I miss his wit & humor)
btw I can't find your deposition using the link supplied in the footnotes.
"However, the reported [hurricane] genesis locations are expanding eastward with time along with the greater rate of SST warming in the eastern portion of the tropical Atlantic."
"The lead author of that paper was Michael Mann, and his co-authors were Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland and Peter Webster — three of the four hostile reviewers he had directed the GRL editors to review our paper."
Wow! Just, wow.
Mann, Fauci, they are both cut from the same cloth, and have both done tremendous damage to our country and to science, while profiting handsomely. I just read that Mann isn't paying for his high-priced lawyers. Who is?
And San Francisco is still not under 20' of water.
The current defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn is showing Mann at his petulant worst. Steyn’s opening speech is terrific. Of course, in keeping with the tradition of great journalism in Climate Change reporting. Silence pervades the media outlets.
I'm new to all this but from the posts I have seen on Twitter by Michael Mann, it is clear that he is a troubled person who has become horribly consumed by his beliefs. By extension, one can surmise that his collaborators are of the same ilk.
How much of the entire enterprise of Climate Change Catastrophism can be traced back to the feverish activity of a single individual, Prof Michael E Mann? Back around 2003 or so, Statistics Prof George Wegman of George Mason U did an evaluation of Mann’s Hockey Stick as part of Congressional testimony and found it to be utterly fraudulent, confirming the earlier work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Wegman also did a statistical analysis that the bulk of Mainstream Climate Science was dominated by the incestuous behavior of a small group of Catastrophists, led by Mann along with Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt and a few others. As suggested by Roger’s piece, they are the people who dominate “peer review” of Climate-related studies submitted for publication. Wegman, I recall, referred to it as “Pal Review.” What would Wegman’s analysis show now, 20 years later? More of the same, I’ll bet.
Steyn's book on Mann ask a large number of scientists their opinions of his (Mann's) work. Its title is "A Disgrace to the Profession". Sadly, the profession itself has become something of a grifters' paradise, aided and abetted by that other monument to professional integrity - journalism.
Mann Overboard...
Mann of War...
Manfred Mann’s Earth Band...
Pathetic. Truly.
You buried the lede, Prof Pielke. It looks like manipulation of the peer review process was an academic speeding ticket, compared to the "murder" charge of stealing the work product you & McIntyre put together.
These goons are just gangsters without guns.
Michael Mann Is Back, And He’s Bringing The Heat, But Not The Good Kind With Al Pacino
January 5, 2023 jasonspiess The Crude Life 0
The Crude Life
The Crude Life
Michael Mann Is Back, And He's Bringing The Heat, But Not The Good Kind With Al Pacino
Play Episode
Mute/Unmute Episode
Rewind 10 Seconds
1x
Fast Forward 30 seconds
00:00 / 24:57
SUBSCRIBE SHARE
Amazon
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Pandora
Podcast Republic
RSSRadio
Radio Public
Stitcher
YouTube
iHeartRadio
RSS FEED
SHARE
LINK
EMBED
Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 24:57 | Recorded on January 5, 2023
Subscribe: Amazon | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Pandora | Podcast Republic | RSSRadio | Radio Public | Stitcher | YouTube | iHeartRadio
The Crude Life’s resident poet and professional content curator Stephen Heins joined Jason Spiess to discuss several recent ESG news items, including the return of Michael Mann on MSNBC.
Michael Mann is considered by many a climatologist and geophysicist, who has become well known for his research on climate change, particularly on the “hockey stick chart” which showed a dramatic rise in global temperature in the 20th century.
Mann’s research has been highly influential in the 1990’s and 2000’s, and his work has been cited thousands of times in the scientific literature.
Mann’s research began in 1998, when he and his colleagues published a paper in Nature which presented the first version of the “hockey stick chart”. This chart showed a long-term cooling trend in the global temperature from the year 1000 to 1900, followed by a sharp upward spike in the 20th century.
This chart was quickly embraced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and became an iconic symbol of the scientific consensus on climate change. Unfortunately, Mann’s science and method was flawed, inexact and outright erroneous.
The hockey stick chart was quickly subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism, particularly from climate skeptics. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper which attempted to refute Mann’s findings, claiming that his methods were flawed and his conclusions inaccurate. The paper was heavily criticized by Mann and his colleagues and the scientific community at large, but it sparked a contentious debate about the validity of Mann’s research.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences released a report which largely vindicated Mann and his colleagues, stating that their research was “likely to be correct”.
The report also criticized McIntyre and McKitrick for their “unfair” and “inaccurate” criticisms of Mann’s work.
However, the controversy over the hockey stick chart and Mann’s methods has continued, with some critics arguing that the hockey stick chart is still inaccurate and that Mann’s methods are still flawed.
In recent years, Mann has continued to be a vocal advocate for climate change action and the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. He has been heavily involved in public outreach, giving lectures and interviews, and has even written a book on the subject. He has also continued to publish research on climate change, and he has been awarded numerous prizes and honors for his work.
Mann’s research and advocacy has been under increased scrutiny by scientists ever since the acceptance of this theory by the IPCC.
Specifically, Mann’s hockey stick chart has been the subject of much debate and criticism, with most experts citing the fact his methods are flawed and his conclusions inaccurate. Despite this, Mann’s work remains a large part of the climate change contributions happening to the public’s scientific understanding of climate change, and his advocacy is raising awareness for the need of urgent action.
Both Heins and Spiess disagree with Mann’s theory and discuss a 30-year scientific body of work as their evidence.
Follow, subscribe and read Stephen Heins on Substack by clicking here
Submit your Article Ideas to The Crude Life! Email studio@thecrudelife.com
About The Crude Life
Award winning interviewer and broadcast journalist Jason Spiess and Content Correspondents engage with the industry’s best thinkers, writers, politicians, business leaders, scientists, entertainers, community leaders, cafe owners and other newsmakers in one-on-one interviews and round table discussions.
The Crude Life has been broadcasting on radio stations since 2012 and posts all updates and interviews on The Crude Life Social Media Network.
Everyday your story is being told by someone. Who is telling your story? Who are you telling your story to?
#thecrudelife promotes a culture of inclusion and respect through interviews, content creation, live events and partnerships that educate, enrich, and empower people to create a positive social environment for all, regardless of age, race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or intellectual ability.
Good thing you have tenure. These folks could have done far worse to you than sideling your publications.
That you Roger, for informing us about another rampant case of Mannian gate-keeping.
Apparently someone is running a network where heretic climate science papers sent to various journals are circulated without permission from the authors, the purpose being to prevent the papers from being published. Apparently someone is very afraid of science.
We've had skeptics, denialists, heretics, doubt-makers.
For a climate science so much intertwined with statistics, to be called a 'confusionist' looks like acknowledging the importance of confounding (confusion in French) factors in not so straightforward cause-effect relationships.
Roger, you could take pride in this.
History gives us many examples where errors in science were not corrected for many years because dissenting voices were suppressed by the power structures in place. Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo died under house arrest because Catholic Church prelates thought the heliocentric model of the solar system would somehow challenge faith. Lysenko told Stalin what Stalin wanted to hear about agriculture so realistic biologists were sent to the Gulag. It's worth thinking about where Michael Mann, Joe Romm and similar character assassins get the power to suppress dissenting voices like Willie Soon, Sallie Balienas, Judith Curry, Tim Ball and yes, Roger Pielke Jr. We did not elect these guys as the gatekeepers they have become. I suspect it lies in the power of the purse. Those who control the purse strings for climate research $$$ are hearing what they want to hear from Mann et al so such are rewarded with research grants. University administrators all too often are remote from the details of the science, they simply ask "Where's your funding?" and reward the well-funded with appointments and acclaim. Journal editors fall in line out of groupthink. Eisenhower was right to warn about a "military-industrial" complex but he did not imagine the "political-academic" complex now controlling the narrative about climate science.
Nice, if cringe-worthy, post!
"Transparency and sunlight are good for science, and the politics within and around science."
So true! And remember: Silence ,when you hear a falsehood is commonly deemed assent. So speak up! (respectfully).
Mann's behavior as documented in the Climategate emails, and the Ball & Stein lawsuits makes him the poster child for most of what is wrong with peer review. Or as the late Pat Michaels frequently said "pal review". (I miss his wit & humor)
btw I can't find your deposition using the link supplied in the footnotes.
First time seeing the term “climate confusionist” 😅
Hope you keep confusing us!!