Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

Written by John O'Sullivan.

redactDisgraced 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 Penn State [PSU] websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below).

screengrab

screengrab

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 of Examiner.com 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)

grabber

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).

Source

 

Comments  

 
anne
# anne 10-28-2012 11:48
drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/carbon-dioxide-does-not-cause-global-warming/ Thought I would link these just to remind us all of what this farce has cost us all. drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-economic-disaster-of-wind-turbines/ Mann and Gore et al will be in the history books for the infamous destruction of our economy and landscape.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Farce-Not
# Farce-Not 11-02-2012 12:22
Hardly. Idiots that keep denying the anthropogenic causes of global warming will be swept into the rising seas.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Farce-Not
# Farce-Not 11-02-2012 12:23
Global warming means climate extremes, including cold weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

You're conjecture just shows how ignorant you are.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
proletariatof1
# proletariatof1 11-02-2012 14:36
Actually Global Warming means global(as in all over the globe) warming(as in getting warmer).

I do believe Climate Change is the new term you are looking for that "means climate extremes, including cold weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc."

Just goes to show that ignorance doesn't pick sides.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 11-03-2012 13:16
Actually, if you wish to be totally accurate, Climate Change is the result of Global Warming (the cause).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 11-03-2012 17:38
So changes in the Climate before man made co2 was of any consequence was what exactly?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
matty
# matty 11-02-2012 14:06
LMAO!! DAILY MAIL!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Jerrymat
# Jerrymat 10-28-2012 19:28
I think we all have know university professors who had a much inflated opinion of themselves. In undergraduate school, at least, we learned to support their own feelings of self-worth so that we could get good grades in their class.

If you were in Mann's Introduction to Climatology Nonsense would you mark his assertion of winning a Nobel, true or false? (be careful - it is a big point question!)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
uzurbrain
# uzurbrain 10-28-2012 21:07
Would any scientist that embellishes his CV or Bio have any concerns about embellishing a scientific study? So what does that make any of his studies worth?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 11-03-2012 13:45
uzurbrain (there is an oxymoron for you), what exactly did Mann embellish? As stated above in his CV "He shared the Nobel peace prize with other authors of the IPCC in 2007"

The IPCC has, themselves, awarded Michael mann an award for "contributions to the IPCC in gaining the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007".

Even the un-Lord Christopher Monckton has tried to claim that he received the award.

The desperation that sCeptics show by trying to make something out of what is obviously a simple misunderstanding shows how morally bankrupt you are. You have so little evidence to support your arguments, that all you can try and do is to make mountains out of mole hills. And this is an exceedingly small mole hill.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
The Master
# The Master 11-03-2012 17:56
Mann, either willfully, or through error did embellish his infamous "hockey stick",since debunked by statisticians in PEER REVIEWED papers. Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal, just published a paper demonstrating climate has actually slightly been cooling since Roman times, aside from warm period in the Middle Ages. I doubt, Drewski, you have any form of scientific training. Science is math, physics, fluids, thermodynamics, not Green Occutard propaganda. Get a life.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 11-04-2012 03:57
Mann's hockey stick has not been discredited by the National Academy of Sciences (our nations highest scientific authority) and by the 11 new latter reconstructions done by independent teams of researchers. Besides, his original hockey stick is so outdated now and new data is always coming to light so, of course, adjustments need to be made. What is so fascinating is that sCeptics continue to have an unhealthy fixation on 12-year old graph which was but a single strand in a fabric that has been created by decades of empirically-based studies across a score of disciplines from scientists in every corner of the world.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Me
# Me 11-04-2012 05:02
Yeah, time will be the telling thar Coolwhip! :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 11-04-2012 08:37
Yes actuallly ji has. Quote:
2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html Quote:
3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-29-2012 16:18
I have found that there is an inverse relationship when it comes to the amount of noise a party makes over their own credentials, to the quality of what they have to offer.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Farce-Not
# Farce-Not 11-02-2012 12:26
Probably one of the most disgusting, misrepresented news articles I've ever read. You people are getting mighty desperate to prove a failing point.

Yes, let's do the "wait and see" approach as the global climate continues to disintegrate, and your claims continue to reach a screeching crescendo of utter idiocy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 11-02-2012 13:25
What a sad, paranoid person you are. The only one screeching here happens to be you as your comments on this page show so readily.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
matty
# matty 11-02-2012 14:08
"What a sad, paranoid person you are"

This is quite telling. No, good sir, the real paranoid types are the ones screeching that AGW is a "Marxist Liberal envori-Nazi agenda to take my precious moneys".
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 11-02-2012 14:17
As I stated previously, the only one screeching here was Farce-Not, unless you are hear to screech along with him. We do realize how you trolls love to cling to one another.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Mind Wide Open
# Mind Wide Open 11-02-2012 14:53
Just like flies to poo you mean...AGW can only be linked to temp data going back 150-200 years most. Thats what you call cherry picking your data and is a pin prick in geological terms in regards to temp data. Climate sceintists dare not go back any further because their lies become quite evident.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
The Master
# The Master 11-03-2012 01:20
The climate is NOT disintegrating; temperatures have been flat for the last 16 years. There is NO rise in sea levels. The amount of ice cover in Antarctica is at record levels. "Idiocy" is making FALSE claims for ego or to get money via grants and / or carbon credit indulgences. THAT is what is disgusting.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 11-04-2012 04:00
Says who? And if you say the Met, then you are wrong as they have disavowed the faked graph that was purported to have come from their offices.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 11-04-2012 06:10
Yep! Drewski is right, for once.

Met cherrypickers accused another cherrypicker of cherrypicking cherries that were not approved by the professional cherrypickers! :lol:

"The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade."

That's right folks, you must pick the RIGHT cherries to be an alarmist! Synchronized head nodding and hand waving. The Master was out of step with the fascists, comrade! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh