Harry Passfield, is it only me, or have you noticed the same names keep cropping up at Real Climate, SKS, The Guardian, ClimateGate etc aswell?

I don't know how often they all drink from the same well, but they all seem to have been suckled by the same bunch of teats.

Dr Mann (or more likely his lawyer) originally wrote, in a statement containing over one hundred paragraphs,

"...As a result of this research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

Which, to be fair, is not quite correct as the prize was awarded to Al Gore as an individual and the IPCC as a corporate entity; this statement from the IPCC sets out their preferred wording:

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

And Mann's legal statement was amended to comply with this form of words.

BTW The IPCC did decide to honour Dr Mann, amongst other scientists who had 'contributed substantially', with a personalised certificate reading for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.

Now, some might think that the oft-repeated description as the first draft as a 'deception' and indicative of a flawed character, was taking desperate nitpicking to a whole new level.

I could not possibly comment.

Another Climate Audit fan, Jerry North, head of the NAS panel into paleo-reconstructions.

Does this ('ClimateGate') change any of the science, in your mind?

No, not at all. These guys thought they were talking in private, and found out they are not. I wonder how many of my e-mails have had insulting remarks in them. I don’t know.

What have your interactions been like with skeptical blog sites like Climate Audit(Steve McIntyre) that are playing up these e-mails?

I’ve been very courteous to McIntyre over the years since the committee in Washington. One time he sent me a message saying he couldn’t understand the greenhouse effect, and asked for a simple model explaining it. So I took a few hours and tried to explain it. And I sent him a simple paper I wrote many years ago that I thought might be helpful to his readers. He wrote back and asked if he might post the .pdf of the paper and I said fine. Within an hour or two there must have been 75 or so of these really insulting comments. One of these guys wrote, “North is obviously promoting his own agenda.” My answer to Steve is that no good deed goes unpunished.

Is he fair to climate scientists?

McIntyre to me, I think he is probably a well meaning guy. He’s not dumb, he’s very smart. But he can be very irritating. This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.”

http://blog.chron.com//sciguy/2009/11/climategate-what-does-it-mean/

Phil Clarke: You seem to be determined to smear Steve McIntyre. In your latest comment you pray in aid the experience of Jerry North and leave the implication that McIntyre is rude and abusive, yet really, it's the comments that have been (allegedly) abusive. Now, I have spent a number of years, nearly since CA started, reading and being educated by the comments at CA. I rarely see out-and-out abuse, the kind you can easily come across on SkS, for instance, and I know that SM polices the blog well. It is abundantly clear to me that the level of comment on CA is streets ahead of the technical level found in other blogs, BH and WUWT - with certain exceptions - as well.

As for Mann's fake certificate, the Nobel Committee (Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute) said this:

The text underneath diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to IPCC as such. No individuals on IPCC side received anything in 2007’—Nobel Committee: ‘Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.’

So someone in IPCC cobbled together a certificate from MS Publisher (probably) based on the one we used to get for swimming a width at the local baths, and stuck it up in his office. Such hubris.

Au contraire; I am sure that Mr M is unfailingly polite, kind to animals and loves his Mum. Its more this, and the drumbeat of thinly-veiled accusations of fraud, deception and malpactice.

Is it not the case that the Auditor-in-Chief pursued Dr Keith Briffa for data that (a) was not Briffa's to provide and (b) McIntyre already had? Oh yes, it is.

First of all, it should be made clear that McIntyre’s FOI EIR requests on the subject of Yamal are not for raw data, nor for the code or analysis methodology behind a published result, but for an analysis of publicly available data that has not been completed and has not yet been published. To be clear, these requests are for unpublished work. […]

So on to Yamal. The original data for the Yamal series came from two Russian researchers (Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov), and was given to CRU for collation with other tree-ring reconstructions (Briffa, 2000). As a small part of that paper, Briffa reprocessed the raw Yamal data with the regional curve standardisation (RCS) technique. The Russians published their version of the chronology with a different standardization a little later (Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002).

McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.

Another little appreciated fact: When McIntyre started to get interested in this, he asked Briffa for the underlying measurement data from Yamal and two other locations whose reconstructions were used in Osborn and Briffa (2006). In May 2006, Briffa politely replied:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues – will pass on your message to them
cheers, Keith

Briffa was conforming to the standard protocol that directs people to the originators of data series for access to the underlying data, as opposed to the reconstructions which had been archived with the paper. McIntyre expressed great exasperation at this point, which is odd because in email 1548, McIntyre is quoted (from Sep 26, 2009 

A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa’s website – after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).

To which Rashit Hantemirov responds:

"Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand."

Thus at the time McIntyre was haranguing Briffa and Osborn, McIntyre had actually had the raw Yamal data for over 2 years (again, unmentioned on Climate Audit), and he had had them for over 5 years when he declared that he had finally got them in 2009 (immediately prior to his accusations (again false) against Briffa of inappropriate selection of trees in his Yamal chronology).

Charming man. Less an enquiry, more an inquisition.

PS When the Climate Auditor In Chief published his own hastily-assembled chronology, Rashit Hantemirov's response was unequivocal:

Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters.
Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the
necessary concomitants of your job?

With disrespect…

Here's the source: lest I am once again accused of plagarism.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/

As for Mann's fake certificate, the Nobel Committee (Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute) said this:

You are repeating a lie.

Morano has issued the following lie about me through his "Climate Depot" site: "He [Mann] did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma".
Both statements are lies (i.e. not only are they untrue, but Morano must certainly--or should--know that they are untrue). Morano must know that (1) the certificate on display at my facebook page (and is available here for anyone to see) is the precise certificate that was sent to me and *ALL IPCC LEAD AUTHORS* signed by IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, formally acknowledging my "contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC".

It is an actionable lie to claim either that (1) I did not receive such a certificate or (2) that I in any way modified the text. 

These are ugly lies from someone who is *known* for ugly lies.

The only thing I did at all was to put the certificate in a frame, and display it in my office where anyone can see it.

This certificate is identical to every other certificate sent to every other IPCC lead author by the IPCC (w/ the exception of the name specified, which is different of course for each individual).

We now know that Marc Morano and his ilk will lie about literally anything to smear climate scientists and climate science, just as he lied about Senator John Kerry when he helped manufacture the "Swift Boat" smear back in 2004.

I thought I had seen the lowest of the low from professional climate change deniers, but this is indeed a new low for them.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/438502492872625

The appropriate thing now would be a retraction, and apology.

Dude, his lawyers claimed it in a deposition to a US court.

.... as I wrote at 11:16 AM.

And his lawyers withdrew the claim, but we won't be seeing an apology from Michael Mann anytime soon. Mark Steyn wished the libel case to proceed, but all of a sudden everyone else seems to be dragging their feet.

I am sure he changes his bio page at PSU. He went from sharing a nobbly, to contributing to one.
which we all did, one way or another

Bit of a stretch, EO. Did your 'thank you' from IPCC arrive yet?

LOL.

I got something, but I couldn't read it because it was upside down

Yes he has

Dr. Mann was a Lead Author on the Observed Climate Variability and Change chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report in 2001 and was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003. He has received a number of honors and awards including NOAA's outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002.

He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2012 and was awarded the National Conservation Achievement Award for science by the National Wildlife Federation in 2013. He made Bloomberg News' list of fifty most influential people in 2013. In 2014, he was named Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and received the Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dr. Mann is author of more than 190 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books including Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. He is also a co-founder of the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.

Phil Clarke says:

The appropriate thing now would be a retraction, and apology

Now, considering the quote I used upthread was from Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute, that would be difficult. It is up to Mann to demand such. However, as the quote from him starts: "The text underneath diploma is entirely his own", it is entirely possible that Lundestad was referring to Pachauri and not Mann when he said: 'his'. That said, the certificates were tailored by someone for the individual person. Were all 2,000-odd tailored or just Mann's. I don't know. Go ask the committee.

As I said earlier, you are determined to smear McIntyre. Seems you are digging in some pretty old archives there - 2004? - before SM even had his blog. I guess that back then SM was just beginning to realise the swamp he was having to get into. I have heard of other scientists who are incredulous at the antics of 'climate scientists' get up to when compared to their disciplines. I have to say, over the years I have become appalled at their conduct and nasty polarisation that it has brought about. Thing is, you see, like many here, I believe in climate change; I believe the planet warms (and cools); but I do not believe we need to fundamentally change society in order to fool everyone else that man can change the climate. That is an arrogance beyond belief. All it is doing is making some very rich and obscene people obscenely rich - at the expense of the poorest people in the world. There are no ethics for that.

it is entirely possible that Lundestad was referring to Pachauri and not Mann

Just wow.

Your irony eludes me, Mr Clarke.

I was channelling ATTP's admiration at your ingenuity, in this case avoiding the need to admit you repeated an untruth.

I mean: getting from :

As for Mann's fake certificate, the Nobel Committee (Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute) said this: The text underneath diploma is entirely his own.

To 'maybe he really he meant Pachauri, not Mann', takes some doing.

Just wow. Prof Lundestad was responding to a query specifically about Michael Mann.

Oh, and Jerry North's animadversions date from 2009.

Oh do get over yourself Mr Clarke. I did not repeat an untruth, I quoted a public man's utterences that, as far as I can see, have not been retracted by that man. You say he lied - 'cos Mann says so. So let Mann take it up. Has he (Mann) sought to have the Prof arraigned. Nah. The 'fake' certificate was displayed by Mann and used to glorify his own ego. He used it to try to fool people: that is corruption. The man is corrupt. He has no moral compass, otherwise he would not have made the claim in the first place. Even you know that Mann is NOT a Nobel Peace-Prize winner. The trouble is, Mr Clarke, if you lie down with pigs, expect to get dirty.

While we're on apologies, Mann's hockey stick will go down in history as the most notorious piece of science fraud since Piltdown Man. Ironically, the offences were very similar: Fusing together two separate things which should not have been fused together in a clear attempt to deceive the unwary. A bit like a dodgy car dealer might weld together two insurance write-offs to sell on as new without telling the buyer.

When he is apologising for the damage done to science and those afflicted by policies using the hockey stick as support, he should also apologise to Dr Judith Curry who considers statements by him about her to be libellous. She had some strong words today:

“In these two essays, Lucas Bergkamp has provided some remarkable insights into the utter disfunction an the interface between climate science and policy.
I have no idea how to push the ‘reset button’ here and salvage climate science.”

Mann, and his wilfully blind supporters, are partly responsible for this. He has got a lot to apologise for.

My dear Mr Passfield.

Oh dear.

Ø There was nothing fake about Mann's certificate, it was awarded by the IPCC to people who made a significant contribution to the work of the Panel, for 'contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC'

Ø Geir Lundestad wrote He (Mann, of course) has taken diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

To be as charitable as possible to the Professor, he has this wrong, it was untrue then and it is untrue now, the fact that the assertion has not been withdrawn does not make it any less false. The text was the same on all the certificates, and was authored by the IPCC. The professor's words were picked up, distorted, embroidered by the likes of Marc Morano and repeated here by someone who feels capable of criticising the moral compass of others.

As Dr Mann points out 'It is an actionable lie to claim either that (1) I did not receive such a certificate or (2) that I in any way modified the text. '

Mann's legal statement had the claim: '"...As a result of this research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." which reflected the fact that the IPCC was awarded the prize and Mann's IPCC contributions recognised as significant. The wording of the statement was changed as Nobel awards to corporate bodies are not intended to be treated as awarded to individual members. To describe a distinction that makes no difference as 'a lie' takes a very special moral compass indeed.

Oh dear.

Ø There was nothing fake about Mann's certificate, it was awarded by the IPCC to people who made a significant contribution to the work of the Panel, for 'contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC'

Ø Geir Lundestad wrote He (Mann, of course) has taken diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

To be as charitable as possible to the Professor, he has this wrong, it was untrue then and it is untrue now, the fact that the assertion has not been withdrawn does not make it any less false. The text was the same on all the certificates, and was authored by the IPCC. The professor's words were picked up, distorted, embroidered by the likes of Marc Morano and repeated here by someone who feels capable of criticising the moral compass of others. As Dr Mann points out 'It is an actionable lie to claim either that (1) I did not receive such a certificate or (2) that I in any way modified the text. '

Mann's legal statement had the claim: '"...As a result of this research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." which reflected the fact that the IPCC was awarded the prize and Mann's IPCC contributions recognised as significant. The wording of the statement was changed as Nobel awards to corporate bodies are not intended to be treated as awarded to individual members. To describe a distinction that makes no difference as 'a lie' takes a very special moral compass indeed.

Oh my word! You really want to pursue this, don't you, Mr Clarke. I don't recall I said Mann had faked the certificate, I said it was a fake. Upthread I said:

...the certificates were tailored by someone for the individual person

- which could have been Mann, but as the IPCC distributed around 2,000 of them I guess they were done by some kind of in-house publishing. The effect, though, was to make it seem that Mann et al had been awarded the Nobel PP. You know, and I know that he hadn't. He made out that he had.

You then go on to say:

The professor's words were picked up, distorted, embroidered by the likes of Marc Morano and repeated here by someone who feels capable of criticising the moral compass of others.

Don't make out that I distorted or embroidered his words. I took the quote from the UN's website. And, furthermore, yes, I do feel capable - notwithstanding all the failings I can own to - of criticising the moral compass of others - where they set themselves in authority over me. And you have no basis in fact to say I haven't.

Any fair-minded person would agree that Mann's claim of being a Nobel laureate was made to give him a status he was not entitled to - and for personal gain (reputational or financial): Assuming you are from the UK you may know of 'The Walter Mitty Hunters Club' which is a group of ex-Paras/SAS who seek out those who would try to pass-off their previous association with the regiment. Mann is classic example of the type of person they are after.

It's not just their moral compasses Harry, their magnetic ones are not working properly either.

It might be about time the scientific community abolished the notion of North and south and introduced the concept of 'conveniently up' and 'conveniently down'

Phil 'Streamer' Clarke contributes nothing. He might be a good spinner, dissembler and mis director, but none of that is useful in a scientific debate

Harry Passfield, Phil Clarke is defending Michael Mann, as though the whole future of Climate Science depends on it. I think it is only fair that you acknowledge Phil Clarke's profound insight.