This is going to be the first part in a series of posts about Michael Mann – he of the “hockey stick” graph – and his lawsuit against, amongst others, National Review’s Mark Steyn and the Competitive Institute’s Rand Simberg. \u00a0This is about two posts. \u00a0Simberg said that Mann could be compared to multiple child rapist Jerry Sandusky (from the same University), in that “except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.\u201d \u00a0Steyn followed it up with a slightly less damning comment: “”If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s ‘the Jerry Sandusky of climate change,’ he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his ‘investigation’ by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”<\/p>\n
At the outset I should say that I think global warming is real, manmade, and a problem. \u00a0I also hate,\u00a0hate<\/em> seeing accusations of scientific dishonesty made lightly.<\/p>\n That said, with this little tantrum, Mann has arranged humiliation for himself and a public discredit to climate science, at a time when public understanding of the same is not what it might be.<\/p>\n I will go into this more deeply later, but for now, I will focus on this line from the court complaint (which you may read here<\/a>):<\/p>\n It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. \u00a0It is quite another to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are three problems with this line.<\/p>\n 1. \u00a0Being a Nobel prize recipient does not make you immune to even the harshest and the nastiest comments. \u00a0Mann might care to remember the fate of James Watson<\/a> – a far greater scientist than Mann will ever be – when he made some unfortunate comments about the genetic basis of IQ. \u00a0(For the record, I regard the intellectual pogrom against Watson as a disgrace; yes, the old boy may have a few funny ideas, but his contribution to humanity is almost without equal).<\/p>\n 2. \u00a0The phrase “Nobel prize recipient” is quite deceitful. \u00a0Most people when they hear “Nobel Prize winner” are quite impressed, for good reason. \u00a0This is the pantheon of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc. \u00a0However,\u00a0this line refers to the Nobel peace prize, and the peace prize is a\u00a0joke<\/em>, and a sick joke at that. \u00a0This prize goes to people who have done nothing, like Gore and Obama, and utter crooks like Arafat and Kissinger. \u00a0If Mann was as important as he thinks himself to be, that prize would be in a real subject, like physics.<\/p>\n 3. \u00a0The final and most important problem with Mann’s comment is that it’s a lie. \u00a0He is not a Nobel prize winner. \u00a0He was never awarded the peace prize. \u00a0So saith the Nobel prize committee. \u00a0He received a “certificate of recognition” when the IPCC, a group of 2000 people, was awarded this mickey-mouse badge, and that certificate comes from the IPCC, not from the Nobel committee. \u00a0To say you have been awarded the Nobel prize when you have not, is not a difference of opinion, it is not a misunderstanding, it is a naked lie.<\/p>\n It’s also a very weird lie. \u00a0I can understand pretending that you’ve received a real honour, but this is pretending to receive a piece of worthless junk. \u00a0I’m still trying to find out whom I need to call to get the EU to send the damn thing back.<\/p>\n Mark the effect. \u00a0In a legal complaint alleging defamation, Mann has lied. \u00a0He complains that his reputation is being attacked, and has provided evidence that that reputation is at least partly fraudulent. \u00a0If he doesn’t get that his case is now dead then he’s deluded. \u00a0Because now the charge of fraud is accurate.<\/p>\n According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences<\/a>, claiming to have a qualification that you don’t, is fraud, plain and simple:<\/p>\n when researchers lie about their credentials, such conduct constitutes scientific misconduct.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Penn State, where Mann works, has something similar to say.<\/p>\n