Michael Mann : Fake Nobel Prize – Fake Science

In his 2012 lawsuit against Mark Steyn, Michael Mann claimed he was a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and that he was “one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th century.”


The Nobel Prize committee says the he was not award the Nobel prize, and that he forged his fake document.

“1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.”

  • Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute

And here is his fake hockey stick.

He erased the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age. and almost all of the post 1940 cooling.

21 Jul 1974, 13 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

There was unanimous consensus in 1961 that Earth was cooling.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

Scientists were worried about a new ice age.

March 1, 1975 | Science News

March 2, 1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? | Chicago Tribune Archive

29 Jan 1974, 5 – The Guardian at Newspapers.com

The National Academy of Sciences wanted to evacuate six million people to save them from global cooling.

TimesMachine: December 29, 1974 – NYTimes.com

Climatologists wanted to melt the polar ice caps to save the world rte world from global cooling.


International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times



Prior to Michael Mann’s hockey stick, the IPCC showed a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.


The glaciers in Glacier National Park largely formed during the Little Ice Age, and may not have existed during the Medieval Warm Period – which Michael Mann claims didn’t exist. Ice doesn’t lie, but Michael Mann does.

History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

Climate alarmists plotted to erase the Medieval Warm Period, and they found one guy unscrupulous enough to do it. The fake Nobel Prize guy.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Michael Mann : Fake Nobel Prize – Fake Science

  1. lance says:

    Isn’t that ‘forgery’ for that document? I’m thinking some sort of crime for that document?

  2. Theyouk says:

    Wow, Tony. You…are…on…fire!
    Amazing–thank you!

  3. KevinPaul says:

    The loon’s a complete fake, just like his Nobel Peace Prize.

  4. arn says:

    His nobel prize is as real as his climate change hockey stick.
    (thanky god faking hockey sticks is so much easier)

    And with this he fits perfectly into the group of people
    who buy million dollar beach mansions which,according to them,will be flooded tomorrow,
    who used the Lolita Express,
    are behind the Arkancide,
    who fly all the time in private jets around the world while preaching “don”t release co2” and own half a dozen houses,
    etc etc

    And these people want to make the world a better place.

  5. anothermaninthemirror says:

    Tony, what a piece of documentation to come up with!! Perhaps someday it will appear in a mainstream media article. Geir Lundestad’s, director of the Nobel Institute, words are extremely damaging and the Nobel Prize committee saying that he was not awarded the Nobel prize, and that he forged his fake document! A picture says a thousand words and it would seem that this picture is not a fraud, backed by Geir Lundestad’s words. Keep your powder dry Tony. More may well flow from this revelation if this is the first time this has been revealed. Keep up the good work.

  6. tom0mason says:

    Thank-you Tony for showing that M. Mann is obviously a fraudster and faker.

    “Michael Mann claimed he was a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and that he was “one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th century.””
    So the 20th century has been warming-up. Humm, I wonder what caused that?
    There the solar effect (dismissed by the UN-IPCC ) that shows …

    Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000). The thin line indicates the annual reconstructed solar irradiance, while the thick line shows the running 11 average. The values shown include a background component.
    From http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm

  7. upcountrywater says:

    Hi Tony,
    Are you part of this group?
    If not they are ripping you off..

    • KevinPaul says:

      They give credit to Tony as the source, and I believe they are one of the defending parties in Mann’s lawsuit against Mark Steyn, so they need all the help they can get to call out this fraud.

  8. Mac says:

    I swear, folks, do not be surprised if, within a few years, you’re driving down the freeway and on the side of the road you see a Michael Mann Chevrolet dealership.

    Lies, forgery, and climate change. That about says it all.

  9. spren says:

    I remember back in 2009 upon the release of the CRU (Climategate) emails, there was one exchange between a couple of these researchers (I can’t remember who they were) that “We have to get rid of the MWP.” Well, except for a handful of people like Tony Heller, they seem to have been largely successful.

  10. Mark Amey says:

    Waiting to hear this on the msm. Waiting, waiting….still waiting.

  11. Noel Herron says:

    What grubby little degenerate he is , the question is , is he mentally ill or just a fradster . Every piece of research he has been involved with is suspect , every qualification he has is now questionable, his PhD research should be thoroughly scrutinised. He should be suspended instantly from his post pending a thorough investigation of his activities. Then public censure should follow. He might very well be subject to criminal proceeding. If this or something like it is not done then the American academic authorities are a disgrace and a fig leaf for fraud.

  12. MGJ says:

    Receiving the Nobel Prize is true FOR HIM! Which, as any post-modernist lefty will tell you, is all that matters.

    Given what a complete and utter joke the Nobel Peace prize has become (just look up some of the recipients!), he really ought to be given it.

  13. Brad says:

    He’s since won another one

    Vilified climate activist & pioneering climatologist win ‘Nobel Prize for Environment’


    Except it’s not it’s the same award Paul erlich won

  14. Peter Steenkamp says:

    Even if made by competent and honest scientists, a tree ring reconstruction of the climate still gives a false hockey stick. This is because trees not only grow faster with higher temperatures but also with higher CO2 levels. And “peer reviewed” scientific papers don’t compensate for that and thus mislead.

    Wikipedia shows a graph of the temperature record of the last 1000 years:
    (source page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years )

    One of the lines in this graph comes from this scientific article:

    At the bottom of page 2251 there is a graph (black line with blue interval) that plots radial stem growth of trees against a timeline of 1200 years.
    If I look at the bottom of page 2252 there is a graph that plots temperature anomaly against the same timeline of 1200 years. Comparing the two plots carefully you can see that they are identical: radial stem growth of trees is converted to temperature on a 1:1 basis without compensating for CO2 effect.

    So what effect does CO2 have on tree growth? I found a literature study that says that if in a laboratory you increase CO2 in the air by a few hundred ppm, the tree stems will grow 10-30% thicker in the same time:

    The temperature/radial stem growth graph in the scientific article above shows two maximums: one at the end of the 20th century, and one shortly before 1000 A.D. Both are about the same height. However, the one at the end of the 20th century is caused by warmth PLUS additional growth from extra CO2, while the one shortly before 1000 A.D. is caused only by warmth. Since both maximums are about the same height, it follows that the 1000 A.D. peak must correspond to higher temperature than the one at the end of the 20th century. By not compensating for the CO2 growth effect on tree rings, temperature graphs based on tree rings show the temperature before the fossil fuel era (i.e. before 1850) as too low temperature compared to what would have been the real temperature. Thus you get an artificial “hockey stick”.

    What’s wrong with the hockey stick graphs from tree ring reconstructions is not the rising line after 1850 (I’m sure that that part is calibrated against real measured temperatures) but that the reconstructed temperature in the part before 1850 is artificially low.

Leave a Reply to lance Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *