A Call to Support Michael Mann

Read time: 2 mins

I've been a great ally of my latest Point of Inquiry guest Michael Mann, and even called him a climate hero. I've blurbed his new book, saying the following:

“Although not initially of his own choosing, Michael Mann has been the most important, resilient, and outspoken warrior in the climate battle–responding to threats and persecution with courage and resolve every step of the way. Anyone who cares about the climate issue must read his fascinating–and enraging–story.”

My feeling is that climate scientists in general–but Mann most of all–have been unfairly attacked for ideological reasons. This has gone far beyond arguments over ideas, and has grown to involve lawsuits, congressional inquiries, and so on.

Mann has risen to the challenge in the face of this, and become a powerful science communicator, as he demonstrates in his new book and on the show. But it hasn't been easy, and my sympathies go out to him and also to his family.http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif

As Mann explains in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, he was a geek who started out programming computers to play the tic-tac-toe scenario from the movie War Games. He later got into climate science because it was intellectually interesting and stimulating, following his mind.

There shouldn't be a personal penalty for that.

It is with all of this in mind that I want to draw your attention to a recent letter from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, calling for support for Mann (see also here). I encourage you to to head over there and, if you believe in the cause, to make a donation. Check it out–and you should also buy Mann's book, if you haven't already.

Finally, see here for a statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in support of Mann.

(This post originally appeared at The Intersection.)

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


Great Stuff!


You do not need to resort to the favourite climate sceptic trick of quoting people out of context to make these documents look utterly damning. A project to develop an alternative curriculum for school children has the goal of “dissuading teachers from teaching science”, funding is set aside for climate sceptic commentators - “at the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found” - the non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change is sponsored to “undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports”, and the aim to “keep opposing voices out” of influential media titles is explicitly stated. (Update: Heartland has insisted these quotes from the strategy document have been faked. However, several of those climate bloggers originally handed the documents insist the organisation has provided them with no evidence that they have been faked.)”

How is his work in any way relavant to teaching the corpus of climatre science conclusions and research areas to it?


Perhaps more to the point, when combined with the point above showing only peudo-skeptics are funded for the program, how can his search applet bulding be scrutinized to ensure that he the databases he includes don’t skew towards this crowd? 

We can only hope that like many SBIRs it dies, though he is on his 4th yr of funding. And they have built themselves the perfect cover – any rejection of funding would immediately be blasted as “political” even though Google Scholar and many intrawebs/VPNs already do all of what it says its going to do.


> “Denier-gate” scandal uncovers the flaw…

Eh, what’s this doing in this thread?

Let’s give the good example. And moderators, you may want to enforce on-topicness.

> …flooding the boards with his junk.  (No other reason.)

No reason to imitate him… vote him down (until the moderators get their act together, wink wink)

But you only see the voted down comments if you’re logged in.  If you’re not logged in.. they are all visible.

Perhaps Desmogblog could ensure those who are not logged get to see the voted results only.  Also they should lock out voting and posting after one week.  (So we don’t get edited in the future.)

The real purpose to posting first is the visibility to those not logged in.

Bredan?  You reading this?

Yes, let’s make this message board as one-sided as possible. That way we can be sure the message is getting out there!

Oh, please!

It’s as simple as that.

I understand that you have invested time and effort to follow the lines at WUWT. If you are dogged down with the WUWT ideology, no matter what arguments you read, you cannot admit that another view is actually valid.

But you are a waste of our time.  And yes.  I think the reason you are hear is to spread garbage.

You’ll also note that I have tried support conservatives who are significantly more constructive than you are on these very forums.

On other forums I will attack liberal propaganda too.

But you are a complete and total waste of time.

Chas, at least you get to comment on this board virtually uncensored. For us on WUWT, virtually all posts are deleted or snipped.

Oh the joys of being censored by the freedom of speech and pro liberty crowd.

You said Mann has been unfairly attacked for ideaological reasons, and this struck me as being overly generous.

A conservative ideaology has historically been resistant to pollution–conservatives conserve, and want beautiful things to stay the same. 

Maybe a fre-market techno-cornucopian ideaology would believe that CO2 can’t be a problem because the market hasn’t priced it as a problem so it can’t exist, and if it does exist corporations will figure out how to deal with it and make bags of money. That would probably fit with some of the professional deniers.

But for the average folks who think Al Gore is a phony–what ideaology is supporting that? I think it may just be plain old fear–no ideaology at all.

I know a couple of smart, green professionals, very successful. But they both have large families, and they both need a shiny green tech future. I think they can’t face the children they love and brought into the world are going to have a crappy life on a degraded planet. That isn’t ideology it is just guilt.

I am getting more off-topic. I think most denial is driven by other things than ideology. I think calling it ideaology gives it more weight than it deserves, because we are used to valuing people’s opinions–we often think ideaologies are just different ways of getting the same things done. 

So I wonder how it would sound to say Mann has been unfairly attacked by people who are unable to cope with a changing world.

But what motivates much of the fear is the ideology/dogma since that is what has now become central to much of right-wing politics/speech.

Listen to the rhetoric coming form the denialists and sooner or later you’ll get to where they complain about it being an attack on the “free market” that many on the conservatives have deified. Or you’ll hear the same people that want to mandate sexual assaults on women that want an abortion complaining that AGW is a conspiracy to expand “Big Government”.

Understanding their minds;


(In order for it all to work, they have to have all their facts and figures compartmented.  i.e. go to a doctor and get treatment based on scientific consensus, but on the other hand undermine climate science consensus.)

Capitalism vs Climate;

“I want a drive a big car, therefore climate science must be wrong.”


In any case most of them seem to have some sort of communist apocalypse built up in their minds.  Last time I checked Kyoto called for me to continue driving my car, while we try to figure out what to do next.  Hardly the catastrophy they seem to make it out to be.

Here’s Bill Gate’s ted talk, Innovating to Zero;


I suspect he realizes that its a waste of his time and effort to do philanthropy work in the third world, since they will take the brunt of climate change.

Apparently “ATI” is short for American Tradition Institute. They seem to get at least some of their money directly and indirectly from those tied to fossil fuel interests.

Just curious if there is a similar fund in Canada, that would allow Canadians to make a tax-deducible donation to support scientists like Dr. Mann?

Buy his book and leave a/review omments on amazon where hoards of WUWTs are busy blurring up the flow of many very interesting and thoughful posts.

Worthwhile doing similar at inhofe’s Review board, since he targets Mann so (chiilingly) directly in his book. I mean seriuously, a US Senator singling out a research scientist in a book (hasn’t he done enough already? Apparently not…). Talk about doh whistle.

Anyhoo…lots of blogscience going on on that one as well that worth leaving a record and responding to especially since likely alot of the commenters attacking Mann and praising Inhofe are paid by the same folks to do so.

But why buy the book before doing a review?

Just do what Peter Gleick did, he totally slammed Donna Laframboise’s critically acclaimed new book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” without so much as peeking inside the cover.

Michael Mann should take his hockey stick, along with Keith Briffa’s hidden decline and head as far into obscurity as he can get, if he cares anything at all for his cause. There are plenty of other hockey sticks to illustrate it. The whole affair looks pretty dicey to me. While I’m not qualified to evaluate whether it is a minor flub ar a complete disgrace, Richard Muller certianly is and his video looks pretty damning:


I realize that there is nothing in this episode that disproves AGW, but rallying around this guy makes climate scientists look like some sort of exclusive preisthood. I wonder if they are?

Hide the decline refers to an old data set (100?) trees in which 10 of them in one location seemed to go down.

The 10 or so tree rings in question are hardly world temperature, and they are not the entirety of the proxy data.  Its a subset of a subset.

The rings in question have been examined (to no avail) by actual experts. (Plural, there are many dendro paleoclimatologist out there.  And none of them are saying what you claim.)

10 tree rings are hardly enough to get anyone panties in a twist.

But in case you’re wondering they have added another 150 more tree rings from all over the world.  Here’s the data set for you to see.  All trees are included in the data set including the ‘decline’ ones.

They are not hidden as you can plainly see.


You are an ignorant troll and should be banned.  Use science to understand science to understand things, not youtube from a bunch of bought hacks.