the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


Posted by Jeff Id on November 3, 2010

Andrew Montford linked to another self exoneration article by Michael Mann published in ‘New Scientist’, a magazine which may need to consider a less progressive title.  As we have learned when Mann writes, his language is full of half truths and intentionally misleading statements which do no good for someone caught red handed at the center of the biggest scandal in recent decades.  Mann refers to misrepresented conservative views as radical, while openly and regularly supporting his own extremist policies of economic limitation.  Pots and kettles, pots and kettles.

The rant is infused throughout with comments like this, that do no good for any debate and only serve to expose his own bias and lack of objectivity.

So why the ongoing attacks against me by Cuccinelli and other groups and individuals doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry?

Why does he keep writing these things when the Oil industry is primarily funding pro-AGW climate work?  You have to wonder what good he thinks this does, is the public too stupid to realize that ‘big oil’ is in on the same side of ‘big AGW’ industry as Mann is?  The real meat of the thing is to attack a conservative (Cuccinelli) with exaggerations of fact and hopefully prevent the exposure of his email collection which is almost certainly full of very nice goodies that would make climategate look like a cloud of cow methane in the wind.  He’s too much of an extremist political activist and there are too many clues in the East Anglia emails of his wrongdoing in the name of the greater good.  — as his enlightened mind sees it of course.

Still, if New Scientist wants to support dishonesty and political activists instead of science, it is their book, just don’t expect readership to expand much when everyone knows that they are being lied to ‘in the name of New Science’ for the purposes of political extremism.  I would bet $5 that if Mann’s emails actually do still exist and are exposed, he would be in a great deal of personal trouble.  The media never seems to learn.  In the meantime, if you can follow and believe in Mannian logic and newspeak, you likely already have adopted newthink and New Scientist has identified themselves as the perfect venue for it.

16 Responses to “Newthink”

  1. AMac said

    Dear Prof. Mann: Tiljander.

  2. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    “caught red handed at the center of the biggest scandal in recent decades”

    Perhaps Eliot Spitzer would not agree.

  3. Phillip Bratby said

    The more he lies, the more he has to lie to maintain the facade. It’s a vicious circle until he disappears up his own – sorry, where no-one wants to go.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

  4. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Michael Mann may end up answering the questions that should have been asked by the Penn State ‘investigating’ committee after all. If so, it will be congressional Republicans asking the questions. He of course always has the option of taking the 5th.

  5. stan said

    Obviously, slandering people is never good for his credibility. But I want to make a point about how Mann impugns his credibility as a scientist. It isn’t hard for anyone to understand the facts and recognize that the “funded by the fossil fuel industry” lie is a bunch of crap.

    A scientist is simply an investigator who is seeking to identify the facts. His methods and the nature of the facts may be specialized, but, in the end, he is about identifying the facts and communicating those facts which he can discover. Mann has demonstrated repeatedly that he is incapble of accurately identifying facts — facts which are relatively easy to discover. If he can’t get the easy facts straight (regardless of the reason — bias, self-interest, incompetence, corruption, whatever), we shouldn’t have any confidence that he can discern the more difficult scientific facts with any competence. He clearly lacks any skill as an investigator

  6. Gary said

    You have to wonder what good he thinks this does, is the public too stupid to realize that ‘big oil’ is in on the same side of ‘big AGW’ industry as Mann is?

    Stupid? Well, maybe, but it’s more likely they react emotionally. Stupidity is more about reason than emotion.

    Mann’s methods are a version of the class warfare tactic. Identify a bogeyman and you’ve won half your battle. “Big” anything is intimidating so it works. The strawman tactic is another big winner when people react rather than reason. Mann is a PR guy at heart; he just happens to employ his skills in a different marketplace.

  7. Brian H said

    Re: Phillip Bratby (Nov 3 13:03),
    That quote works just as well with “believe” as the last word, too. 😉

    Mann is way past the point where he can take the advice, “Stop digging!”

    Go, go, Cuccinelli! What a favor you might do the world …

  8. Brian H said

    About the emails — if someone really wanted to find them, there are, famously, copies of such things that get tucked away on ISP drives and in various places along the line. It’s REALLY hard to erase all your e-tracks.

  9. Kenneth Fritsch said

    So why the ongoing attacks against me by Cuccinelli and other groups and individuals doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry?

    I have seen this fossil fuel industry conspiratorial thinking from other climate scientists from academia – Judy Curry came on the blogging scene spouting this also. It would appear to go along with a number of otherwise seemingly educated and intelligent people who seem to need something big, make that very big, as an enemy that might account for their failing to get unanimous agreement on their works. In fairness, there are those who adhere to the skeptical side of the issue who all too easily throw out conspiratorial themes. Back in the fifties it was communist conspiracy that got blamed for a lot of our problems.

    I do not judge that Mann’s work should be reviewed in the government/political arena because it goes against my libertarian principles and I like that no more than I like to see business people hauled before a congressional hearing just so that politicians can make some points with their constituents. Secondly, Mann is good at playing the victim role and would win political points in that battle that he would not win defending his science efforts.

  10. Alex Heyworth said

    “a magazine which may need to consider a less progressive title.” I always liked Lubos Motl’s transliteration of the magazine’s title as “Nude Socialist”. Very apt.

  11. BarryW said

    Hmmm, maybe they mean it in the same sense that Orwell used New Speak?

  12. AusieDan said

    Kenneth – all such parliamentary investigations must have adequate support from statisticans and legal experts equipted with the skills to ask questions and demand answers that cannot be allowed to be just waffle.
    It is also necessary to call witness from people who can oppose his ideas with facts and analysis.

    We are all tired of AGW waffle.
    Time for the truth.

  13. kim said

    There’s a point you start to feel sorry for him. What a mess. Stupendous. Patholithic. Gargantuan. Pantagrueloramic. OK, I sob for him and us.

  14. Jeff Id said

    Pantagrueloramic – Try throwing that out at a cocktail party. I’ve never heard that one.

  15. Brian H said

    To save everyone the effort of looking it up, herewith the meaning of “Pantagruel” and its derivatives:

    The Life of Gargantua and of Pantagruel (in French, La vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel) is a connected series of five novels written in the 16th century by François Rabelais. It is the story of two giants, a father (Gargantua) and his son (Pantagruel) and their adventures, written in an amusing, extravagant, satirical vein. The text features much crudity, scatological humor, and violence. Lists of vulgar insults fill several chapters. According to Rabelais, the philosophy of his giant Pantagruel, “Pantagruelism”, is rooted in “a certain gaiety of mind pickled in the scorn of fortuitous things” (French: “une certaine gaîté d’esprit confite dans le mépris des choses fortuites”).

    Rabelais had studied Ancient Greek, and he applied it in inventing hundreds of new words in the text, some of which became part of the French language.[1] Wordplay and risque humor abound in his writing.

    Rabelasian, or wot? 😉

  16. Brian H said

    Oops! “Rabelaisian”, I mean. ;p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: