Bishop Hill Where's Mashey?
Nov 7, 2010 Climate: Mann Michael Mann in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
I’ve been the subject of attacks by climate change deniers for more than a decade now, because of the prominent role that the “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction has played in the public discourse on climate change. This doesn’t mean that I’m numb to the outrageous attacks against me and other climate scientists. But I’m not surprised by anything anymore. There is nothing, it would seem, that the climate change denial industry isn’t willing to do in their attempts to thwart policy action to combat human-caused climate change. While the attacks have been tough to deal with at times, I’ve had a huge amount of support from my colleagues, other scientists, and ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork just to thank me for my contributions.
Michael Mann in Britannica Blog
I’ve been the subject of attacks by climate-change deniers for more than a decade now, because of the prominent role that the “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction has played in the public discourse on climate change. This doesn’t mean that I’m numb to the outrageous attacks against me and other climate scientists. But I’m not surprised by anything anymore. There is nothing, it would seem, that that the climate-change denial industry isn’t willing to do in their attempts to thwart policy action to combat human-caused climate change. While the attacks have been tough to deal with at times, I’ve had a huge amount of support from my colleagues, other scientists, and ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork just to thank me for my contributions.
H/T Shub in the comments.
Reader Comments (31)
"(...) ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork (...)"
Less than totally complimentary to the "ordinary citizens" who have thanked Mann for his "contribution"...
No doubt, in climatology, some forms of copy-and-paste are more equal than others.
Two small points:
1) There is a difference between the two pieces - one has a duplicated 'that' in the phrase "...it would seem, that that the climate-change..."
2) The attributions are the wrong way around, really the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists had the duplicated 'that' not the Britannica Blog
(might as well give credit for editing skills where due)
I wonder if Mann will point out that this duplication was essentially caused by big oil funded climate change deniers - who more or less forced him to copy and paste text all over the place?
And it turns out that Mashey's wife Angela Hey is associated with a green technology funding organization. Could it be that Mashey's interest in plagiarism had an ulterior motive?
Oh pleeeeease. I think he protests too much. Surely the science should stand by itself, with no special pleading required? The fact that Mann is worried really leads me to believe he has something to hide and is getting his retaliation in first.
It must have been a strange interview - where Mann recites stock paragraphs complete with hyperlinks.
I'm not even sure how you vocalise a hyperlink. Do you make some kind of hand gesture at the same time as talking - just like quotation marks?
Jack Hughes
Vocalising hyperlinks. Something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4qii8S3gw
All of this ranting prompts one question: is he delusional, or lying, or both? Surely he must know by now that the most coherent attacks on his work are by private individuals such as McIntyre and McKitrick, and not by any kind of "denial industry". So this would appear to be a deliberate smear. But given that he has built his career on drawing conclusions that are the ones he wants to see, rather than those that logic and science lead him to, it may be that he really believes in this mysterious denial industry, even though he knows that big oil funds alarmists far more than it does sceptics. Strange dude.
Delusional.
“Campaign to discredit” Mann?
Hey, he did this all by himself a few years ago, with his phony “hockey stick”.
All the whining and moaning about campaigns to discredit him won’t change the facts: the “hockey stick” was comprehensively discredited and falsified by McIntyre and McKitrick and the M+M findings were confirmed under oath by the Wegman committee as well as the NAS panel.
Why do guys that get caught cheating keep trying to change history to make themselves look innocent? Is it foolish pride, hurt feelings, self-pity or just unmitigated arrogance?
Max
I Googled one of Mann's odd and unique phrases from the BAS "interview" and it came up with 14 other unique sources or publications using exactly the same phrase.
That's strong evidence that Mann (in complicity with the publications) keeps submitting the same boilerplate "answers" in email and is not actually conversing with the interviewers.
Keep slinging it (copy & paste is easy) and hope some will stick.
I think Mann left an autoresponder running and starting playing drums with M4GW.
Hi Andy - yes it's an uncanny resemblance between Mann and the drummer in the Minnesotans' recent hit.
But remember that correlation is not causation :)
Garry,
re: the 14 repeats, could you share which phrase?
ferguson - I think Garry posted details in the comments to the other BAS/Mann thread.
When one is convinced on purely theoretical grounds that AGW is happening, surely it would be extremely tempting to believe one has teased a confirming signal out of the available data--no matter how noisy--and to assemble additional noisy data (i.e., garbage) that confirms the first set. And then, perhaps, to shop for statistical techniques that enhance the putative signal, which one simply knows is there.
Nor Is it unusual for someone's anger to really be misdirected inward anger upon finding one has led one's self down the garden path. Similarly, the cunning behaviour one attributes to others may often be nothing but a projection of one's own.
None of this need be deliberate; it could all be unconscious. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
andyscrase
I think Mann left an autoresponder running and starting playing drums with M4GW.
Your use of "autoresponder" brought back memories of the "The Psychologist is In" program a couple of us at grad school wrote years ago. We had a PDP-8 we could play with so we wrote a program that played "psychologist". You could type in a statement like "I feel sad" and it would respond "Why do you feel sad?". And pretty soon we had people spilling their guts to the computer. What we did was simply come up with a list of stock questions which were triggered by key words or phrases. It worked remarkably well.
I am wondering if Harry got a new job writing such a program for Mann -- what I mean is it spits out canned answers to predetermined input questions. It would be as you call it an "autoresponder". Since we had a similar program running 40 years ago, surely Harry with his talent could have cooked up such a code.
That leads me to wonder if there really is a Mike Mann? Is he possibly the figment of some computer's warped imagination -- a parody of the humans that created it?
Maybe we should be look at the past -- Is Mike really a reincarnation of HAL? The attitude of both is remarkably similar.
Google: +mann +"gaming the system to allow through substandard"
It was just a quick and dirty search, and I did not go any further than that.
In the past similar tests were run by others against Mann's prolific Letters To The Editor campaign over the summer, and it was found that those contained duplicate texts to multiple local (small) U.S. newspapers.
One can speculate that Mann might be using a diligent PR agency or very dedicated grad students (or both) to launch these multiple public relations efforts. At one time I read that Mann had been on "hundreds" of interviews after November 2009, but that number seemed high and I've not been able to verify the assertion.
Look at the latest Realclimate article by Gavin Schmidt, where he begins,
This, as opposed to the 'morons', a.k.a the less-than-intelligent science journalists who go looking for something else
But you look at Mann's 'outreach activities' - which we can be sure is how he's classifying his media activities under - there is hardly any science at all. It is always picked clean of the science and loaded up with conspiracy, politics and innuendo - all held together by the ever-the-same all-important *narrative*. That is all he ever seems to do - narrative.
"Climate scientists are being attacked by a vicious, highly organized, fossil-fuel funded disinformation campaign, to delay policy action." - he is been handing out this boilerplate for about a decade.
Can anyone provide an interview or a popular science article by Mann where he explains in clear language, what the tree-ring business is? I'm sure it's out there. Because, as Gavin Schmidt says in his Realclimate post:
Indeed with Mann, it doesn't even stop here. As would have been noted by many here, Mann, Jones, Gavin and many other consensus scientists have pushed and pushed the "merchants of doubt' book, its idea, its construct, of how to think about skeptics and deniers, at every given opportunity. What is this, if not narrative?
Why does Mann venture outside his area of specialization in life - the science - into narrative building, even when, clearly, the questions addressed to him are about the science and data handling?
And secondly, these guys, Mann included, are not even good at it. For years and years - they've been pushing the same narrative, in the same form. The intellectual laziness and lack of sophistication is surprising - these are obviously bright people. Why can't they set their minds to it - to figure out their opposition, to seek evidence to bolster their narrative or modify it?
It is perhaps simple - narrative building is not their forte - yet they indulge in it and propagandize it at every turn - all the while when pontificating to others not to do it. They cannot even see the poor quality of their own 'narrative work', because, get this - the outrageous tissue of lies that forms the excuse for it - as scientists, they are way too 'clear-headed' to construct good narratives!
Based on this, one can surely say: Yes. Please have some mercy on us, and drop the 'fossil-fuel-conspiracy' narrative, please. It is not good, a botched-up job no doubt, from all the 'clear-headedness', it does not ring true and it is old. Stop your narratives and go back to the science.
Say what you want against Mr Mann, and there's plenty to choose from, but he's unflaggingly consistent.
Have any of you any idea, of just how many hours Mike has spent in front of the mirror, with the hair brush to his lips as he rehearses the prepared script?
Truly, climatology's gain has been stage and screen's loss.
Dunno, if there are any Academy Awards for pantomime, but, if so, he still has a promising second career in the wings.
@Don Pablo
You know Joseph Weizenbaum?
Shub, the problem with climatology as practiced by Schmidt, Mann, Jones, Bradley et al, is that the idea of falsification has be driven from the field. Nothing in their work can be found to be wrong - so all normal science has ceased for fear of finding a 'mistake'.
In normal science (as opposed to climatology) new research constantly tests older research. Sometimes retractions are published, most of the time the newer explanations simply drown out the older theories and methods in the literature. This normal hypothesis/test cycle has been killed in climatology through overly aggressive activism, and overly fertile imaginations.
Shub - "Why can't they set their minds to it - to figure out their opposition, to seek evidence to bolster their narrative or modify it?". Like others here I have pondered on the naivete with which warmistas fight their corner. I've come to the tentative conclusion that the the simplest answer - that their minds have a forensic bypass - may be the right one, since it is consistent both with their perverse scientific conclusions and with the naivete of the rhetoric with which they defend them. Their scientific beliefs survive repeated disconfirmation because they themselves don't understand disconfirmation. Their education and training have not prepared them to distinguish clearly between science and opinion, nor for the sudden irruption into their cloistered lives of the Scientific Method.
Mann's stance reminds me of childish dogmatism. Children often insist that their Dad's car, or local football team, or Mum's pizza is the best there is, without any direct experience of the alternatives. I remember when I first developed a taste for Sherlock Holmes stories, insisting that his arch-enemy pronounced his name with the emphasis on the second syllable (Mo-rye-arty) for no other reason than that was how I had read it. It took years for anyone to convince me otherwise...
Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius!"
the problem with climatology as practiced by Schmidt, Mann, Jones, Bradley et al, is that the idea of falsification has be driven from the field.
Great wisdom being distilled here, thanks to the fact that "the Mann doth protest too much"...
ZT - here are the facts
(a) I am John Mashey's wife
(b) John Mashey is entirely self-supported to date
(c) Re "my association with a green funding organization" - by this I assume you mean that I rode in the California Climate Ride or possibly that I am a mentor for Cleantech Open. My reasons for doing the ride were (a) fitness (b) a Facebook invitation from ocean rower Roz Savage to join Team Roz which I thought would be fun (c) to learn about cleantech issues (d) the ride supported 1Sky, Green America and Rails to Trails - before signing up for the ride I had only heard of the last non-profit. My reasons for helping with Cleantech Open were to learn more about new businesses, because I believe that businesses that traditional energy sources are getting scarcer and that there is great potential for cleantech businesses to stimulate the economy and create new jobs.
(d) John Mashey's motivation is to defend science - when California passed AB.32 we volunteered for our town Climate Protection Committee. John became very interested in the subject and bought many, many books and reports on the subject, as well as reading blogs. At this stage he is entirely self-supported from his savings, and has invested hours of personal time. His detailed analysis comes in part from his ancestors - Swiss who detailed their history meticulously. In doing his research he was very concerned to separate truth from fiction in climate science. In doing this multi-year research he found some things were true and others were false. So he set out to fight for truth.
I can assure you that John has taken up his "cause" to put an end to bad science and shoddy scholarship.
Dear Angela Hey
Thanks for your comment.
This is from John Mashey.
Although Mashey is rambling in the above comment, the basic message is quite simple.
"Cuccinelli's credentials are to be questioned because his father was a fossil-fuel industry maven and Cuccinelli's JD supervision must have been poor at GMU"
How does this qualify for "putting an end fo bad science" and "shoddy scholarship"?
Indeed, this type of an approach from Mashey - discredits what he is saying.
I hope you take this in the right sense - all bloggers/commenters fight for what they think is the 'truth' and 'their cause'.
Cuccinelli's office has officially spent $1000 in the previous suit, Hogan Lovells has pocketed $350,000 from the U of Va, paid for by 'private donors'. One is to assume, I suppose, that this kind of money must have come from big wind, big corn, big rapeseed, big photovoltaic etc, going by Mashey's logic, since these industries stand to gain by Dr Mann's research?
Isnt it time John got a job though, because it does sound like he has been on gardening leave for years?
Also I dont see that his "research" has much to do with science, He just seems intent on pretty murky conspiracy theories and digging up any mud he thinks he can about Wegman's past. He sounds like a bit of a stalker really.
Let me explain the issues raised by Cuccinelli's father being a gas lobbyist.
RFE/RL (7-9-10) explains:
In Western Europe, Moscow has operated by making lucrative arrangements with foreign energy companies that become de facto lobbyists for the Kremlin within their own countries.
http://www.rferl.org/content/Why_The_Russia_Spy_Story_Really_Matters/2095515.html
Cuccinelli's brief to the EPA cites an article from Novosti Press that attacks climate scientists for fudging data from Russian weather stations. Novosti translated and slightly edited this article from a Kommersant article. Novosti is Russia's official press agency.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/10/attorney-general-cuccinelli-ties-his.html
Kommersant is owned by an official connected with Putin and Gazprom, Russia's gas conglomerate.
Alisher Usmanov is the official's name.
Kommersant attacks Kremlin targets. This past week they were directed to attack the Russian foreign intelligence service for incompetence.
The point is, Kommersant is a very powerful propaganda mouthpiece for the Russian Petrostate or they would not be allowed to attack the foreign intelligence service.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/11/coneheads-return-why-is-kommersant.html
In America, we listen to our scientific and envoronmental agencies, not the Russian propaganda.
Cuccinelli seems to think we will be impressed in court by what he cites in his legal brief from some newspaper owned by the Russian Gazprom gangster Usmanov..
Cuccinelli's father was a career gas lobbyist with the American Gas Association. Now, he is an official at other marketing companies with "European" clients.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/09/attorney-general-cuccinellis-daddy-and.html
I don't know who these "European" clients are, but that is because Cuccinelli never answers this question. Gazprom has many companies that are not gas--media, internet, other natural resources.
I am concerned that the elder Cuccinelli is formally providing professional services but really providing "European" clients with the services of our attorney genera.
Conspiracy theories about our "crafty" scientists are often spread by the Russians, and eventually they have to back down. Here is an example of how the Russians throw their propagandists (and intelligence agencies) under the bus.
"The head of the Foreign Intelligence Service [KGB General Yevgeni Primakov] made a number of really sensational announcements. He mentioned the well-known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing the U.S. scientists’ 'crafty' plot against mankind were fabricated in KGB offices."---Izvestia, March 19, 1992
The Legend of Pine Ridge post contains speculatively, an explanation for why Cuccinelli, the attorney, could have mistaken the Hadley Center for the CRU.
Secondly, the fact that Cuccinelli stupidly refers to this article to talk about the CRU, takes the sting out of the conspiracy angle, no?
Dear Angela,
Thank you for confirming your belief that "there is great potential for cleantech businesses" thereby providing a clue as to the origin of your husband's enthusiastic support for AGW causes, if not science.
I might respectfully suggest that his ancestry is immaterial to the present discussion, though I bow to your infinitely superior knowledge of this particular subject.
ZT