A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael
E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One
The book can be purchased at the SteynStore, or it will be available at amazon.com
(kindle edition available Sept 1).
The backstory on Mann vs Steyn is described in previous posts [link] and links therein.
The short story is this. Mann is suing Steyn (and others) for defamation regarding
a statement about ‘the fraudulent hockeystick’. Steyn is countersuing. The lawsuits
have been tied up in DC courts for years. The new book compiles what is presumably
evidence obtained by Steyn’s lawyers regarding whether ‘fraudulent’ is defamatory
here. And this is only Volume 1; apparently there is a Volume 2 in the works.
Anthony Watts reminds me of this statement I made in a previous post: “Mark Steyn
is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”
This book certainly supports my statement.
The book is organized around quotes from Ph.D. scientists (100+) that have made remarks
about Mann, either publicly in interviews, on blogs, or in private emails that were
revealed through FOIA or unauthorized releases (e.g. Climategate, SkS). This is not
just a compilation of quotes from the ‘usual suspects’; I was unfamiliar with many
of these individuals, and impressed by their credentials. Each chapter begins with
an overview and context about the particular theme, then each subsection is devoted
to a particular scientist, beginning with a brief biosketch of that scientist and
including backstory and context.
There is much wit and plenty of zingers in Steyn’s narrative (not sure if anyone
helped him with the technical aspects of this; seems pretty solid). However, for
my post on this book, I decided to focus on snippets from climate scientists who
generally support the consensus (explicitly, or lacking any evidence of the opposite),
including Mann’s collaborators. It was not simple to cull this down to ~1200 words
(so as not to steal thunder from potential buyers of the book), but the quotes below
I think give a pretty good representation from the climate scientists that were quoted.
Note, I focus particularly on the Hockey Stick (and subsequent incarnations), rather
than broader issues about Mann that were raised in some of the quotes.
From climate scientists, all of whom support the general consensus on climate change:
Wallace Broecker: “The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t
listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker
of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told
me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you
know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. If anyone deserves to get
hit it is goddam Mann.”
Eduardo Zorita: Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf2 Should
be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments
in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that
I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question
which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers
and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the
same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.
Atte Korhola: Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal
Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated,
filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by
my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become
cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery,
which has serious consequences.