Mann redefines “conspiracy” and other nonsense of the lambs

/ March 4, 2013

[03/5/2013 12:40 AM PDT Please note UPDATE below]

Michael <even when he’s wrong, he’s right> Mann, “creator” [h/t Joelle Gergis] of the iconic “hockey stick”, has in recent days ventured below and beyond a “tipping point” into almost surreal delusion, as noted by Brendan Shollenberg in a guest post today at WUWT:

Snickers abound when Mann talks about “credibility,” but no words exist for the reaction this post [pdf captured yesterday, here -hro] should garner. Specifically, Michael Mann refers to a recent posting from (the long missed) Steve McIntyre, saying:

…it seems remarkable that Mr. McIntyre couldn’t figure this out, and instead chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory involving not just me, but multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc.

Alas, it seems we shall have to add “conspiracy” to the ever-growing list of words that must be redefined in the name of “climatic licence”

Mann rarely misses an opportunity to promote himself – even to the extent of increasing his carbon footprint – by flying to Victoria, BC, in order enlighten the (presumably!) uninformed of the worthiness of his “cause”.

According to one observer, at a lecture he gave today, nothing will deter Mann – or his fellow activist Andrew Weaver – from whatever it takes to “defend a worthy cause”:

There’s more adulation where this came from. If you tweet (either actively or passively) you can find it at https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%23MannatUVic&src=hash. And if you don’t, here’s a pdf of the nonsense of the lambs … as of my last look.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

UPDATE The adulation continued into his evening lecture. His topic was “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (follow the twitter link above if you’re curious!). I just had a conversation with a friend who attended. The lecture hall accommodates somewhat over 300, but there were approx. 200, give or take a few, in attendance.

My friend’s summary: It was boring, and there was very little one could say after Mann had declared that his science was irrefutable. And yes, he did use the same outdated graph – criticism of which had sent him into an incoherent rage, on Mar. 3.

Update continues in my comment below where you will find more observations from the twitterati – and that Mann’s Nobel Peace Prize myth has resurfaced … and that he appears to have jumped aboard the sustainability bandwagon. Quelle surprise, eh?!

Related posts

3 thoughts on “Mann redefines “conspiracy” and other nonsense of the lambs”

  1. One of the tweeters had posted a pic of the audience, and my friend’s report confirms the impression I got from this pic that (apart from his tweeting fans, of course – including Andrew Weaver) the audience was not exactly enthralled.

    After telling his audience that “the math is as terrifying as Bill McKibben described it”, Mann proceeded to advise (in a non-policy prescriptive way, of course) “Don’t put all your marbles in the adaptation basket – problem is rate of change. Ecosystems can’t keep up.”

    Several tweeters noted that Mann had declared that there are “3 possible responses to climate change: mitigation, adaptation and suffering – it’s up to us to decide in what proportion”

    But speaking of Ecosystems that can’t keep up – and responses to climate change …

    Mann will be adding to his carbon footprint by flying to Milwaukee in order to be a “Principal Speaker” on March 6 at the 2013 Sustainability Summit and Exposition. He will evidently be addressing a plenary session, at which his topic will be:

    SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES: GLOBAL AND INDIVIDUAL

    And where did that expertise come from, I wonder?!

    Ooops … Looks someone forgot to update the program notes [backup pdf]:

    [Mann] shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

    And be sure to follow the link from that page to An interview with Michael Mann: “There’s reason to be optimistic”

    Here’s an interesting echo:

    [Interviewer] We’ve had a year of extreme weather all around the world, Hurricane Sandy and so on and so on. What’s your analysis of where we’re at now in terms of climate change?

    [Mann] The scientific evidence is in. There is no serious debate any more, not just about whether climate change is real or it’s due to us, but whether we are seeing the impacts of climate change. The impacts are in fact playing out in increasingly damaging ways, whether it’s Hurricane Sandy which was the largest storm, hurricane (and then hybrid system) that we’ve ever seen, and the lowest central pressure north of Cape Hatteras in the US.

    It led to record-breaking flooding in New York City, in part because there was a foot of sea level rise already built into the coastal storm surge, and that foot of sea level rise is in substantial part due to warming oceans. We saw record-breaking drought and wildfires in the western US, which had a hugely damaging impact on our crops, on grain production in the US and food prices. I think we’ve now got to the point where people can see climate change happening with their own eyes, and it becomes increasingly less credible when you hear cable news commentators claim that it’s an elaborate hoax, that it’s not real. [emphasis added -hro]

    Oh, and here’s another:

    The fact is, we are now in a position where we have to trade off risks. John Holdren, the Presidential Science Advisor has a good way of framing it: “we will engage in some combination of mitigation, adaptation, and suffering”. The discussion now is really about how much of each of those we’re willing to tolerate, and the relative emphasis we have to put on each of those options. [emphasis added -hro]

    Hmmm … I hope he gave credit to Holdren during his lecture when he used his “framing”. And I wonder if he happened to mention that Holdren is also a co-author of the notoriously failed predictor Paul Ehrlich (and his wife). As this excerpt from a 2009 article by Steven W. Mosher notes, their 1973 book:

    President Obama’s Bizarre “Science Czar”: Dr. John R Holdren, Professional Alarmist

    Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. In it, [they] argued:

    “Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature. Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please — and they please to make each new generation larger than the last — yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

    Their solution, if you can believe it, was to make everyone poor. They argued that the West should be “de-developed,” by which they meant that countries like the U.S. should have their economies deliberately dismantled and their wealth redistributed to the poor at home and abroad.

    [Mosher concluded]

    What Obama’s new Science Czar really is, is a professional doomsayer along the lines of his mentor, Paul Ehrlich. He has prophesied one end-of-the-world scenario after another to advance his scientific career. He has been, one must admit, rather spectacularly successful at this, and now has the ear of the U.S. President. But he has been consistently wrong on the facts. And the fear mongering that he habitually engages in gives science, and scientists, a bad name.

    Reply

  2. Weaver just can’t contain his sycophantic glee at being able to bask in the Mannian Glow.

    Going to have to get Weaver some knee pads if he keeps this up.

    Reply

Leave a comment