Ø 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)

He claimed to be a contributor to a body that was awarded the Nobel. That was and is the case. Seriously, have you read the legal deposition? The rewording to make the distinction clear makes not a jot of difference to his case, it is a nitpick par excellence.

he said he Shared one.

are you fick or what ?

I said as much upthread, twice.

Before:

"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

After

"The work of Dr. Mann and the IPCC has received considerable accolades within the scientific community. In 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in climate change. The IPCC, in turn, has recognized Dr. Mann for his contribution to that award. "

And this distinction without much of a difference is evidence of grave moral turpitude?

Get real.

He said he shared one.

Exactly. 'I shared an award' vs 'I contributed to the winning of an award'.

You're going to hang him for that? Harsh.

Phil Clarke, how many times did Mann claim to have a Nobel Prize? How many times did he accidentally fail to correct the false impression that he was indeed a Nobel Laureate, and sought to boost his earnings?

I hate to sound nit-picky, but attempts to deceive, for financial gain, can be considered fraud under UK Law. Perhaps US Law is radically different, but it does seem an interesting way for Mann to prove his honesty and integrity, when his honesty and integrity are at the centre of Legal Action that he has instigated.

Maybe Mann will pull a Magic Wand out of hot thin air, say the Magic Words "Compootius Adjustico!" and turn it into a Hockey Stick, just to bewitch the Judge.

He said he shared one.

and that was false.

let's go one fact at a time

>>I hate to sound nit-picky,

Not doing too well, there.

>> let's go one fact at a time

Ok, it is a fact that sometimes, things are not just black and white. The Nobel was awarded in 2007:

"All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee," said Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian engineer who chairs the panel."

Gore, scientists share Nobel Peace Prize

In October 2012, Mann first filed his defamation suit, and in December 2012, the IPCC finally issued updated guidelines:

"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.” The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007"

And so Dr Mann revised his statement.

It is a fact that anyone making a mountain out this molehill risks looking very foolish, and ever so slightly desperate.

Phil Clarke 12:11 - another climate science failure.

Are you being paid for this Non Violent Direct Action? Someone might want a refund.

Throwing Pachauri under a bus (or is it a train, Pachauri might not know the difference) is a bit risky, now that he has nothing to lose. He might relish any subpoena to give evidence in a US Court, and defend his reputation against Mann's. It might attract quite a TV audience. I would watch.

Phil Clarke as you are trying to make a molehill out of a fair sized mountain, and have further revealed the desperation emerging about Mann's case, you could expect special thanks from Steyn.

Phil Clarke, so if the IPCC recognised Mann's contribution towards the Nobel Prize, what constitutes Mann's contribution, and would any invalidation of that contribution, lead to invalidation of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC, and of course anything

Is this why climate science is so keen to 'move on' from Mann's Hockey Stick, and tries to suppress all mention of Mann's Hockey Stick. No wonder you won't read the Hockey Stick Illusion. I think that mentions Mann and his Hockey Stick quite a lot.

Harry and Phil,

have tried to follow this thread, but with difficulty. Each of you seem to have valid points to make, but also seem to be going nowhere (with at several times resorting to personal insults).

Might I be presumptuous and suggest a more profitable way forward? Why not try to find points where you both can agree, rather than repeatedly concentrating on your differences? Perhaps each of you could re-examine the other person's position (as detailed in this thread) to find any agreement?

Should perhaps display my own prejudices. I am sympathetic to Harry's position but am perturbed that I was unaware of the basis of some assertions made by Phil. I am led to speculate that there is more to this story than I previously believed.

Alan,

In summary, Dr Michael Mann wrote incorrectly of 'sharing' the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC in 2007 in his defamation claim against Mark Steyn. He did make a substantial contribution to the work that resulted in the award however the Nobel Committee prefers it if members of organisations awarded prizes as a group refer to these contributions rather than individuals describing themselves as having been awarded the prize or as in this case, a share of the prize.

However this distinction was not officially clarified until after Mann submitted his deposition, and previously the head of the IPCC described the scientists as all being 'Nobel Laureates' - without a subsequent outcry or strident accusations of dishonesty to the best of my recollection. The deposition was updated and you can see the 'before' and 'after' version above. It was one sentence in a 32 page document.

But some parties are so blinded by MannHate and so desparate to find something, anything to beat the man with , and in the absence of anything substantive, that a poor choice of this words has been elevated to a lie, a deception and a deliberate fraud.

Now 'I shared the prize' is not semantically identical to 'I contributed to the winning of a prize', however the difference is so slight as to make those screaming fraud look very silly, and rather desperate.

This whole discussion is tedious and - as is typical - completely lacking in charity. Without comment, I will point out that it seems that there are others who have claimed to be a shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007.

Phil Clarke, so if the IPCC recognised Mann's contribution towards the Nobel Prize, what constitutes Mann's contribution, and would any invalidation of that contribution, lead to invalidation of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC, 

You live in hope don't you? ;-)

Mann was Lead Author, Third Assessment Report ,Working Group 1, Chapter 2 'Observed Climate Variability and Change'

HTH.

See also this.

ATTP, I wonder why that particular Fake Laureate has not updated his profile in line with the Nobel/IPCC suggestions issued several years ago? Financial gain? Prestige?

Tedious is right, I am exiting this rabbit hole.

I rather share Alan Kendall's views about this debate, which I have watched with interest. And I personally welcome Phil Clarke's contributions, even though I disagree with much that he says. As I have said previously, there is a danger of sites such as this being little more than echo chambers, and an alternative take on things is something I find welcome on the basis that it is good to challenge one's thinking rather than simply have it reinforced.

Occasionally, however, I think Phil digs himself a hole, and I think this is one of those occasions. In his last post, Phil very fairly summarises the position as follows:

"In summary, Dr Michael Mann wrote incorrectly of 'sharing' the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC in 2007 in his defamation claim against Mark Steyn."

The point is that the claim was made in legal documents prepared by Mann's lawyers during a defamation case. Even if (which I find hard to believe) Mann didn't understand the difference between making "a substantial contribution to the work that resulted in the award" and sharing the award, I am pretty confident his lawyers knew the difference (as a lawyer myself, I can immediately spot the difference, and I would be mightily unimpressed by Mann's lawyers if they couldn't). So it seems to me that the claim was probably made, in the knowledge that it wasn't true (a pretty serious matter in a Court document) - but in the knowledge that the defence put up by Phil could be adopted if they were called out on it - to big up Mann's reputation in the course of those proceedings. The obvious reason for doing so is to obtain a higher award of damages if the defamation was found by the Court to be made out - and in the USA, as we know, damages awards can be astonishingly high so far as those of us in the UK are concerned. It was therefore a handy false claim to make, as it would either intimidate Steyn and his co-defendants into crumbling; or if Mann's claim succeeded, it would increase his damages. It must be obvious, Phil, to you as well as to everyone else, that the Court is likely to award higher damages to a defamed Nobel Laureate prize winner than to a defamed non-prize winner who contributed to the winning of a prize. But his lawyers were caught with their pants down, and had no choice other than to amend the claim once the IPCC issued updated guidelines (in Phil's words).

That was all rather wordy, so in simple terms, imaging a footballer (one of a team of 11 - or more if substitutes are used) who says "I won the game" when he was one member of a team who won the game. The difference is substantial, and is not merely one of semantics.

Incidentally, Michael Mann (who is the plaintiff - or claimant in UK Court speak these days) still hasn't made disclosure in his proceedings against Steyn, even though Steyn made his disclosure ages ago. It is true that the case is bogged down in a procedural matter, so that Mann is not actually in breach at this stage, though as the plaintiff, anxious to vindicate his reputation, one might expect him to be rather keener than he seems to be to "get on with it". It is usually the defendant, in my experience, who drags their feet if they think they are in danger of losing the case.

And don't forget that Mann also brought a Canadian law suit some time ago (I forget the details, but those of you who are more IT literate than me can quickly find the details on the internet, I have no doubt) but that it was struck out for Mann's failure to comply with the Court's requirements that full disclosure of documents be made before the case could proceed to trial (a standard requirement in any civil litigation).

Phil, I am not full of MannHate (as you put it) but I do observe the facts and draw what I believe to be appropriate conclusions. Anyway, please keep up the good work, as I for one value your contributions, but I think it's time for you to withdraw gracefully on this one.

I was willing to accept from Phil Clarke that as Mann had - OK, grudgingly - admitted that his claim to be a Nobel Laureate was misleading, as was his deposition and press release in respect of his case against National Review (where he tried to fool a District Judge!!), and had said items clarified. However, it never hurts to check these things out and get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Therefore, a check on Mann's Facebook entry you can see an unaltered declaration:

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.

Donna Laframboise has a website dedicated to outing fake laureates.

Therefore, a check on Mann's Facebook entry you can see an unaltered declaration:

Harry - That facebook entry (which you would have to search for) is reflecting the original legal statement. No doubt Dr Mann has better things to do with his time than updating old FB posts and If it were updated no doubt here would be shouts of 'rewriting history'

If you clicked on the link I gave above under 'See also this' it takes you to an update on Mann's Facebook page (or whatever the term is) that reads …

On the IPCC's Nobel Prize Guidance

There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion. 

After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award. 

To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter (see letter above and also this statement by the IPCC:http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf ). I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct.

Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/photos/a.221233134599563.54502.221222081267335/441602745895933/?type=1&theater

That was all rather wordy, so in simple terms, imaging a footballer (one of a team of 11 - or more if substitutes are used) who says "I won the game"

I don't think Dr Mann ever claimed to be the solely responsible for the victory. Your thesis seems to revolve around Mann and his legal team assuming that nobody would ever check the claim, which seems rather implausible in a high stakes court case, I generally favour cockup over conspiracy. Nobody's perfect, eh?

Mike - it was a peace, not a science prize.

Ah daylight!

Donna Laframboise has a website dedicated to outing fake laureates.

A grand total of four. All of whom have updated the relevant websites.

Unlike Donna.