Skip to content

DELINGPOLE: Michael Mann Vs the Truth at Congressional Climate Hearing

March 31, 2017

By Paul Homewood




Dellers writes at Breitbart:


Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.


Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)

This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here.

So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:

“Liar, liar. Your pants on fire.”

Here’s the evidence:

Porkie Number One

Mann told the Congressional hearing he had no association or affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute (one of the numerous ad hoc organisations formed in order to give the harassment of climate sceptics an air of scientific credibility).

Yet according to his CV he sits on the Climate Accountability Institute’s advisory board and has done since 2014.


Porkie Number Two

Mann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.

“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.

To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”

Mann then proceeded indignantly to quibble that though he might have called Curry a “climate science denier” he hadn’t called her a “climate change denier”. [As if there’s any meaningful distinction between the two slurs]. But this claim – as Stephen McIntyre notes – was also a lie.


Porkie Number Three

Mann – busily trying to develop the case that climate scientists like himself are the innocent victims of vicious slurs – was asked whether he’d ever dismissed another of the expert witnesses on the panel, Roger Pielke Jr with the phrase “carnival barker”

“You’d have to provide me with the context. I don’t remember everything I have said or done,” said Mann.

Here’s one example:


And here’s Mann again using the insult – clearly a personal favourite – on Judith Curry:


Porkie Number Four

Mann, in yet another bid to present himself as a persecuted martyr of anti-science Republicans, claimed that Joe Barton – the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – had demanded all his “personal emails and correspondence with other scientists.”

This, again, was a lie.

Barton had asked for Mann’s funding sources – which Mann, in his congressional testimony, said was fair game – but not for his personal emails.

Here, once again, Steve McIntyre has the evidence.


Michael Mann claims to be an expert on climate change and is frequently called on by official panels like this Congressional committee to speak on behalf of the scientific establishment.

Is there anyone who still takes this guy seriously?

  1. glenwaytown permalink
    March 31, 2017 1:05 pm

    Disgracefully weak interview by BBC Inside Science – allowing Michael Mann free reign to spout alarmist nonsense that I am sure that Paul would be able to debunk in a few minutes.

    • March 31, 2017 1:10 pm

      Bugger, i just posted what you said before I’d read yours.

      • glenwaytown permalink
        March 31, 2017 6:38 pm

        The more the merrier.

    • March 31, 2017 1:55 pm

      Oneside Science.

  2. March 31, 2017 1:09 pm

    BBC Inside Science had that bugger on the other day. so much for being impartial. The shit got a free pass and was not challenged on anything. I’d finished with BBC News and Current Affairs it now seems I’m not listening to a supposed science programme either.

  3. Joe Public permalink
    March 31, 2017 1:11 pm

    Miriam O’Brien will be well pleased her blog gets a quote Breitbart.

  4. martinbrumby permalink
    March 31, 2017 1:21 pm

    “Is there anyone who still takes this guy seriously?”

    Actually, I have absolutely no doubt whatever that the Dims (and some Republicans) will savour every word of his testimony as Holy Writ revealed. And put their fingers in their ears chirping “Can’t hear you la la la la la” whilst Curry, Christie and Pielke were giving evidence.

    Not sure how “seriously” that implies that they take him. But a certain reflection of the fact that those scum certainly know how to keep a scam running, especially when many of them have their snouts in the trough, anyway.

  5. mothcatcher permalink
    March 31, 2017 1:34 pm

    Having listened to the hearings, I just posted this at Jo Nova’s, but would seem as relevant here, for anyone wanting to compare notes —

    ” I sat through the whole thing and was very disappointed. Very much doubt that any minds were changed. It was a mistake to put Mann up against three sceptics. He will probably get the sympathy vote. Better to have had another couple of warmists there, who might well have disagreed with him more effectively (though it’s possible many would not want to appear alongside him, such is his tarnished reputation). He acquitted himself pretty well all told and though he said plenty that could have been challenged and indeed should have been challenged, it wasn’t.

    The sceptics were okay but far too polite, probably in deference to the stiff format of the proceedings and the genial chairmanship of Lamar Smith. I used to think that UK House of Commons fact-finding committees were pretty dire, for much the same reasons, but this was certainly far worse. No idea what it’s like in Oz! Have you ever been a witness in a court case? I have. You are listening to what’s going on, and you know what happened, because you were there. But the counsel questioning you just won’t ask the right questions, and you are cut off if you try to explain beyond ‘yes’ or ‘no’! So you leave the witness box knowing that the court will end up with entirely the wrong end of the stick. That’s what it seemed like to me. It was a pantomime – ‘planted’ questions on both sides were addressed not to the antagonist, but to the guy who agreed with you. Even PMQ is better.”

  6. Athelstan permalink
    March 31, 2017 2:47 pm

    What a rotten disappointment clearly this creepy little weasel has some friends in very low places. Indeed it leads one to seriously consider that, Mann only appeared because he could probably choose the type of questions and that, the proceedings were made to be as mildly inquisitorial as possible.

    Alas, we will have to be content in the knowledge that, Mann knows full well he has been exposed in the court of public opinion to be a Class A1 inveterate liar verging on pathological proportions.
    As Mr. Trump turns off the spigot, no money means the contracts and public money hose dries up, Penn State will reach the momentous decision it no longer needs nor wishes to be associated with such an infamous loud mouth fraud, therefore they make to shut down its climastrology department and Mann will be given the order of the boot on the QT.

    The sun is sinking on the pate = Mann’s delusional ego, he is shown up for what he is, a charlatan and egregiously bad alchemist and that’s enough, already: he is yesterdays pariah.

  7. March 31, 2017 2:48 pm

    In a proper functioning science Mann’s career would have probably been finished by the Hockey Stick, but since the science has been an extension of politics ever since it provided the launch pad for the “sustainability” mob of global “environmentalists” he will now get lifetime protection and in due course elevation to sainthood.

    The BBC Inside Science programme was breathtaking in its adoption of an extreme partisan position in a political debate, I’d cancel my license if I’d not already done so.

  8. HotScot permalink
    March 31, 2017 3:29 pm

    Mr Toad…….Poop, Poop.

  9. March 31, 2017 3:39 pm

    Dellers is far too polite. He should really tell it like it is.

  10. Joe Public permalink
    March 31, 2017 3:55 pm

    From David Rose on Twitter:

    “The Mann who lied to Congress about @curryja also said this: “What I have seen from her… is boilerplate climate change denial drivel.””

  11. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 31, 2017 4:21 pm

    Yesterday listened to the BBC Radio4 prog oleaginously a&rse-crawling to Michael Mann for at least 15 mins as he pushed his recent paper linking extreme weather events to ‘climate change’. Not a single good question was asked. No mention of climategate. His paper must be dissected when seen. He played the Upton Sinclair quote against sceptics. He was thanked and left, described as ‘distinguished ‘
    That he is , very distinguished. The

  12. March 31, 2017 4:21 pm

    The vitriol quoted was humourless & missed the target repeatedly like a brazen drunk trying to swat a mosquito with a giant inflatable banana. “bald-pated”? So is Buddha. “Embarrassingly useless”? Nope.

    A better approach is McIntyre’s: dispassionate and factual. Let people clip Mann’s testimony and place it on youtube: it’s disgraceful enough to disgust the impartial on its own.

    In contrast to Mann, the three lukewarmers, if I can call them that, were calmness personified – almost as if they had planned in advance not to rise to their antagonist’s bait. I thought the approach worked. He railed and lashed out incoherently; they reported the facts.

    However, the way the committee went about its business could easily be improved. Many of the panel used their time to give speeches. They generally asked easy questions of “their” side. Better is the approach in uk parliament committees.

  13. Broadlands permalink
    March 31, 2017 7:01 pm

    Michale Mann and his funding… downloaded from Penn State but no longer available…

    Michael Mann’s funding (1996-2010):
    NSF: $3,854,410
    NOAA: $1,151,887
    DOE, ONR, USAID, U-VA and others: $1,403,403
    Total: $6,409,700.

    Dr. Mann wrote: “My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.”

    Penn State cleared him? A thorough, objective evaluation?? ALL his “research” money came from the taxpayers. With Penn State’s administrative overhead ‘share’ at risk? A tidy sum just for “processing and handling”? How objective and thorough can that one be?

    Michael Mann: A well-funded, hypocritical climate alarmist? And liar?

    • Joe Public permalink
      March 31, 2017 7:58 pm

      “My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.”

      The Penn State Reports – further details & their flaws in Steve McI’s Amicus Brief below.

  14. Joe Public permalink
    March 31, 2017 7:38 pm

    Steve McIntyre’s Jan 2017 Amicus Brief in Mann v CEI, Steyn, etc:

    Click to access 20170126%20McIntyre%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

  15. Ross King permalink
    March 31, 2017 8:14 pm

    Loook at this self-satisfied berk applauding himself
    He never fails to claim he is “Distinguished” ….. distinguished at … what? Tendentiousness.
    The wonderful word “tendentious” is ONE FOR OUR TIMES, thanks to “DISTINGUISHED” Prof.Mann, his equally de-facto, undistinguished acolytes; the scheming ClimatGate and co-conspirators:
    Thanks to OED, “tendentious ” = “having an underlying purpose, Calculated to advance a cause”

    Here,now, in 2017 (are we still in the Era of enlightenment ?…. I think not, thanks to Mann and his self-serving, sinecure-seeking, grant-seeking, cabal of academics tendentiously driving [read-up on climatGate shenanigasns] to secure their financial futures at the public-trough …. I must say that if there ever was an example of “tendentious”, I would use Mann et al & his cabal as the perfect definition thereof. It’s the “CALCULATED” definition that really, rally resonates. There guys are Calculating to the last self-serving cent. Intellectual Honesty, Probity & the Scientific Principle ‘be damned’.

    There is an
    english legal principle based on what the average ‘Joe on the ”

    CVlapham omnibus” commutiong ot work everyr day, would think is ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances (there is a llovely definition of this principle in Wikipedia, to which I earnestly refer you.
    Mann and his co-conspirators in promoting the AGW cabal do not paas the test IMHO.
    Having viewed his performance at he recent Committee hearings in Washington, tha self-exculpatory (“I’m only interested in SCIENCE” schtick) and supreme arrogance would get him hanged — if it were a murder trial….. run-up the gallows!

    Nota bene that I have no qualms about ‘calliung for his head’, as it were, feeling completely exonarated by similar calls adduced by Alarmists concertedly in the media about a similar fate for those who do not subscribe to the Aalarmists’ doctirne. WHAT’S SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER.

    So, for every nay-sayers lined-up at the row of nooses, let there be an equivalent number of AGW Promoters, tendentious sinecure-seekers, and porkers at the public-trough …. starting with our “Distinguished” Prof Mann, co-Climategate conspirators and his chief promoters of tendentiousness which have run-up billions of Dollars that could have better been spent elsewhere (as a taxpayer, I’m feeling pretty vengeful about these people who have — in the process, dispossessed millions of peiople around the World of [MYYYYY!!!!] funds better spent (see Prof. Lomborg’s “Let’s Cool It!”)

  16. Ross King permalink
    March 31, 2017 8:44 pm

    QUOTE:Dr. Mann wrote: “My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.”
    Trouble is Mr. Mannipulator Mann, that the ‘Man on the Clapham Omnibus’ (for which read the Average Joe– see my earlier post) doesn’t believe a word of it.
    Well may your employer decide to back you, the the Reat of the World ( DOES NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF IT.

    “DISTINGUISHED PROF. MANN” … as –by now — EVERYONE knows you require to have such a “poncey” (as the Brits wd say) appellation, I wd suggest you have lost/ are losing yr audience thro’ pure hubris, if nothing else. We tax-paying proles recognize:
    a) a wanker & self-promoter when we see one;
    b) a pig at the trough, ditto;
    c) a self-promoting, power-hungry wannabe, ditto;


  17. Broadlands permalink
    March 31, 2017 9:29 pm

    More on “poor” Mikey…

    A quote from Brian Winter, USA TODAY (3/11/2010)…

    “The violent threats are not what bother Michael Mann the most. He’s used to them. Instead, it’s the fact that his life’s work — the effort to stop global warming — has been under siege since last fall.”

    His life’s work has been to STOP global warming?? A stunning admission! If true, it seems clear that he had already drawn his conclusion early on and then spent his life’s work… (research time, effort and taxpayer dollars) trying to “prove” it?

  18. Joe Public permalink
    March 31, 2017 10:58 pm

    Appealing not so much for the sympathy vote, but for hard cash:

  19. April 2, 2017 11:52 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: