Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown
Disgraced 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).
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)
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).
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.

Comments
You're conjecture just shows how ignorant you are.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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".
Met cherrypickers accused another cherrypicker of cherrypicking cherries that were not approved by the professional cherrypickers!
"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!