Just how big is Michael Mann's ego?

Ever stop to think he might be doing this *just* to **** people like you off? I mean, he's right, he knows it, he's won every legal battle the skeptics have thrown up, the people who have accused him of all sorts of bad things have been shown to be themselves liars, cheats, frauds, and just generally dishonest, and he did have a fairly important role in producing the IPCC report in 2007. I think it's pretty funny that he makes a claim, that has a certain amount of merit to it, and displays a certificate he received from the head of the IPCC, and you go absolutely bonkers.

You blew a gasket, just like the people at the right-wing media told you to, all because of a stupid piece of paper. I would say major win for him. Mann played you guys like a cheap fiddle, and like a cheap fiddle, all you can do is squeak. We will see this more and more from you, as the objective narrative demonstrates your intellectual position is without merit.

The planet is warming, we are responsible, and the consequences will be bad. Deal with it.

warmth Manhunter Band of the Hand (an action flick from the previous due 80s about juvenile delinquents experienced to be a vigilante team) BQ: The scene from warmth the position Pacino and Deniro communicate contained in the diner. a close 2d position might want to be the scene from the Insider the position Pacino and Russell Crowe are parked in the front of a huge clock, by way of the indisputable fact that clock develop into 2 blocks removed from the position I lived in my domicile city. BQ2: Now that i comprehend it is Mann's birthday, i imagine i am going to look at Manhunter. have not considered it in a lengthy time period. BQ3: No. Miami Vice is extra ideal than maximum folk make it out to be; Public Enemies is solid, yet no longer tremendous.

Great, yet another fabricated non-issue by OM read at any of the denier sites he so frequently visits.

Your hypocrisy shows particularly in the following paragraph:

<<It's not clear if that certificate is what Mann received or if he add the bottom part himself because it was either him or the chairman of the IPCC. >>

If it is not clear if that certificate is what Mann received or whether he himself added the bottom part of it, why this question? Isn't that the CORE issue of your 'question'? Wouldn't a REAL skeptic try to find this out first BEFORE asking a question?

Then there's this gem:

<<Perhaps we would need to look at what the other 1999 people received although none are really as vocal about it.

Fantastic Mike! Absolutely amazing. You ADMIT you haven't got a clue but that doesn't stop you from smearing Michael Mann a bit more.

Oh look, Kevin Trenberth got one too from the IPCC! http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1335053&l=35...

And Evan Mills http://evanmills.lbl.gov/nobel/nobel-certificate.p...

And another one (page 31): http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr...

This whole fake story is based on the suggestion, eagerly taken for granted by fake skeptics like OM, that Michael Mann himself added the text himself to the bottom part of the IPCC issued certificate. The fact that it is an IPCC issued certificate (and not a Nobel certificate) should have been a clue but few in any fake skeptics noticed because they were too eager to smear Michael Mann once more.

<<What do you think all of this says about Mann and his character and his ego?>>

Very little. The IPCC send him a certificate and he simply put it in his office. Sounds like a perfectly normal man to me.

How big is Ottawa Maxx' ego? Your question is nothing but an ad hom. Science is not decided by scientists' personalities. A jerk's hypothesis can be successful and a saint's hypothesis can fail. The conclusions of Michael Mann's work, that climate was stable for centuries and suddenly started to warm in the last century and a half is supported in many reconstructions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb...

<Hence, this question which you didn't actually address but rather tried to use your strawman to divert attention from the actual question. The real significance of the certificate is as indicated by Geir Lundestad of The Norwegian Nobel Institute who basically says the certificate has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize. That means it's insignificant, except apparently to Mann who thinks it gives him egotistical license.>

So what is this question doing in Global Warming?

And another ad hom against Andrew Weaver.

<I'm sure as a lead author in the upcoming IPCC report he is complying with their conflict of interest guidelines and will be as objective as he needs to be.>

Richard Lindzen also contributed to the IPCC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

I'm sure that he complied with their conflict of interest guidelines.

Sagebrush

<We all know that Penn State vindicated him of all wrong doing. Isn't that the same university that vindicated Sandusky, once upon a time?>

You are comparing Michael Mann with a sex offender? That is sick.

<Isn't it amazing that all these greenies condone his unquestionable unscrupulous actions?>

Can you name one unscrupulous action commited by Michael Mann? I thought so.

<It just shows what side of truth they are on.>

Can you name one instance where Michael Mann lied? I thought so.

But regarding your track record.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ajm27...

Give up what freedoms? How will new fuels take away our freedoms? And the majority of people have no choice but to light their homes with electricity from coal today. The idea that we have to give up freedoms to fight global warming is a lie.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmVbX...

Ther is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that prohibits wind or nuclear power or that says that we have a right to drive an SUV. If it did, we would have to give an SUV and the gas for an SUV to every welfare recipient. And reducing dependence of OPEC oil will protect the national security of the U. S., not harm it. To claim that telling the truth about AGW is against the U. S. constitution is a lie.

And the science came first and Agenda 21 came later. Svante Arrhenius said that humans cause global warming in 1896.

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-w...

Agenda 21 was drfted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 96 years later. To say that telling the truth about AGW necessarily has anything to do with Agenda 21 is also a lie.

I suppose this one was also a forgery

http://jewishhistoryaustralia.net/pix/2007_Nobel_P...

as was this one

http://www.scheraga.com/uploads/1/3/4/1/13419385/1...

and these ones

http://www.um.edu.mt/newsoncampus/features/?a=3123...

http://www.mahmoudmedany.com/home/images/cer/Nobel...

Why do you even bother us with these pointless posts? Instead of believing things at face value how about instead if you do a little more searching to find the truth before posting in here? It's amazing that you will believe outright and proven liars such as Morano and Watts. The certificate was sent to all IPCC 2007 lead authors.

Edit: So the IPCC makes an award and sends it to all of the IPCCs lead authors. Mann is proud of his accomplishment, as he helped and was a member of the IPCC and was a lead author on the 2007 report, and frames and hangs it on his wall (Much as many other lead authors have done). You then proceed to nitpick the statement that the IPCC was on the reward name not Mann and then go and blame Mann for accepting the reward the IPCC sent to him which was due to him and the other lead authors, as well as Gore, making the scientific knowledge available to the public. You and those blogs you read then take the further step of stating that Mann himself reprinted the award with his name underneath. You find every little thing to complain about and then take it that one step further. As others have stated, shoot the messenger not the message eh?

And might I add you and every other denier who is trying to make this into a witch hunt is pathetic. even Jim states Mann doctored the award. Give it up. It's no wonder we call you deniers of reality backing anything that is accepted according to their own personal beliefs regardless if it's true or not.

There isn't room enough in this universe for his ego. But his integrity inside an atom would sound like a pea in a fifty gallon drum.

We all know that Penn State vindicated him of all wrong doing. Isn't that the same university that vindicated Sandusky, once upon a time?

Isn't it amazing that all these greenies condone his unquestionable unscrupulous actions? It just shows what side of truth they are on.

When you consider that Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Gore and Obama all won the prize, it seems obvious that it is often awarded for those on the far left (in the case of Arafat, he was championed by the far left). Mann helped provide a product that was savored by the far left and so for me it has far more to do with politics than science. That tarnishes the value of the prize. Obama to his credit or possibly to his embarrasment didn't brag about the prize he won in the campaign or at least I haven't heard. It is pretty pathetic that Mann would doctor his prize with his name on it. I think it is a bit like a veteran, which I am one, showing off medals he didn't earn. I don't know if it means he has a big ego or a little one.

Jeff - YES... they are all fake.

Read what they say. They are awarded by the IPCC. The IPCC has no authority to award a Nobel Peace Prize or distribute any part of one.

Anybody that has one of those certificates that says they are co-winners of any Nobel Peace Prize is a LIAR.

But we've known Michael Mann was a liar long before now.

--------------------------

I suppose all this means the laws of physics are wrong. How does any of this have to to with the science. If all else fails, go after the messengers or start conspiracy theories

I see our warmer friend Jeff thinks something written by the IPCC is the same as something from the nobel prize committee, simply amazing

warmers never cease to amaze me