....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Michael E. Mann and his Familiar Interviews

Over at Bishop Hill, Shub nicely illustrated the uncanny knack that uber-climatologist, Michael E. Mann has for recycling. In two separate (apparent) interviews, the good climatologist managed to produce the same chunk of text in response to two separate questions, from two different interviewers, for different publications. Extraordinary efficiency? Perhaps, but certainly an example of the systematic trumping of quality by quantity in climatology.

Here's the link a Bishop Hill's http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/11/6/mann-goes-atomic.html

Michael Mann in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
Q: "What’s all of this been like for you personally?" (see http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/6/1.full)

I’ve been the subject of attacks by climate-change deniers for more than a decade now, because of the prominent role that the “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction has played in the public discourse on climate change. This doesn’t mean that I’m numb to the outrageous attacks against me and other climate scientists. But I’m not surprised by anything anymore. There is nothing, it would seem, that that the climate-change denial industry isn’t willing to do in their attempts to thwart policy action to combat human-caused climate change. While the attacks have been tough to deal with at times, I’ve had a huge amount of support from my colleagues, other scientists, and ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork just to thank me for my contributions.

Michael Mann in Britannica Blog:
Q: "You personally faced charges of data tampering and deviating from the accepted practices of your field as a result of the release of the e-mails from CRU. Although you were fully exonerated, what effect did the investigation have on how you think climate science should be conducted?" (see http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/10/the-science-of-climate-change-5-questions-for-climatologist-michael-e-mann/)

I’ve been the subject of attacks by climate change deniers for more than a decade now, because of the prominent role that the “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction has played in the public discourse on climate change. This doesn’t mean that I’m numb to the outrageous attacks against me and other climate scientists. But I’m not surprised by anything anymore. There is nothing, it would seem, that the climate change denial industry isn’t willing to do in their attempts to thwart policy action to combat human-caused climate change. While the attacks have been tough to deal with at times, I’ve had a huge amount of support from my colleagues, other scientists, and ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork just to thank me for my contributions.

So, the journalists produced independent questions, yet Michael Mann produced a precisely the same answers. Well, I say precisely, actually a mistake has been corrected for the Britannica piece "...seem, that that the climate-change..." became "...seem, that the climate change..." so either the Britannica has better editing, or that detailed answer improved in the reciting.

And just when you think that this might be a one off, you notice that this piece of text exists in both pieces.
Britannica:
"Mann: While the attacks against climate science may have energized climate change deniers, and those who derive their information from talk radio..."

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
"MANN: While the attacks against climate science may have energized climate-change deniers, and those who derive their information from talk radio..."

Anyone would think that Michael Mann had some kind of prepared position that he was desperately feeding into any available outlet. Why not simply prove the case scientifically? The science is so strong, right?

No comments:

Post a Comment