Tom Nelson spots another Climategate zinger.
Email 2743, Sept 2009, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: “So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.”
Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre. Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response—if any—is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.
[Mann] Good editorial on #CRUHack2 in The Economist: emails actually show science working as it should (robust debate, etc.)
===
And yet, somehow, there are still people who think Dr. Michael Mann is simply misunderstood. He seems pretty clear to me when we look at his own words. There’s no “out of context” defense for this one.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“science working as it should”
:-/
Well goodness me. He deleted comments he didn’t like on his blog. What a zinger that is!
REPLY: And thus, with the head in the sand, ignoring what the science actually says, not what they want it to say, the Team gave birth to Climategate. Yes that was some zinger. – Anthony
Wow, I don’t understand how people can see things like this and still think the work from these people is valid.
Keep on banging Tom!
I look forward to the day when Dr. Michael Mann is finally brought to justice.
Do they have a stated policy at Real Climate to the effect that if they don’t have an easy answer for a question they will just delete the question? I know most of us have noticed this as a matter of practice, but what is the stated policy I wonder? The major unwritten rule that defines that website, and condemns it to justified shame, has now been become writ. Thank you Climategate.
Ah but the debate wouldn’t be “robust” if you allowed Big Oil/Tobacco-funded baby seal eating “deniers” to participate now would it?
There’s that use of “robust” by Mann again. He really doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what it means.
But they meant well. Wouldn’t want to confuse people. Right? Skewered by their own words.
O/T: Anthony, Thanks for recomending WP. You are absolutely right. It is an awesome tool. Starting with zero WP experience, I was able to set up and configure a site in about a day, modified to have behavior a lot like yours. At least for me, WUWT is the gold standard.
“minions”? McIntyre has “minions”?
Excellent!
Science + politics = Lysenkoism
Just when you think they’ve bottomed, they get a shovel and start digging…a new low.
Coalsoffire says:
January 19, 2012 at 9:41 am
Here’s their comment policy
I only wish those employed to write about climate in the mainstream media and to discuss it on TV would do their research – or at least read WUWT.
The general public esp in the US is still totally blinkered about the AGW lobby – I spend a great deal of time on FB trying to correct the alarmist nonsense friends post there, always to be shouted down regardless of the authoritative sources I cite, and by supposedly intelligent and educated people too. They still refer to all this AGW ‘team’ as ‘scientists’.
There is still a very long way to go; let’s hope the West isn’t bankrupted before the penny drops
He made a similar remark in 0208.txt –
That’s the one where he goes on to say
Unfortunately for Mike it was he who was exposed badly.
Rujholla says:
January 19, 2012 at 9:36 am
“Wow, I don’t understand how people can see things like this and still think the work from these people is valid.”
They don’t actually read the emails. They read the reports that assert Climategate is much about nothing. I have yet to encounter a Warmists that has read any actual emails. I have not encountered a single Warmists that even understands what “hide the decline ” is about.
Michael Jankowski says: “There’s that use of “robust” by Mann again. He really doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what it means.”
I think he heard it in a salad dressing ad once, and liking the sound of it, applied it to all his work.
Look, Im sure this has all been taken completely out of context! 🙂
It doesnt look good for the team though does it? Sadly, as highlighted by the second post in this thread, there are far too many people who will just bury their heads in the sand over Mann and the rest of the teams behaviour.
Regards
Mailman
Whenever I see ‘robust’ anymore, I automatically look for lie… wait, the Whole Thing is the lie!
If I recall rightly, someone a few years back said ‘solar cycle 24 is going to be Robust, we’re gonna cook!’ (ok, not Exactly like that, but damn close). Just as an example….
mikey mann has a Robust delete key finger.
Alan Statham says:
January 19, 2012 at 9:33 am
“Well goodness me. He deleted comments he didn’t like on his blog. What a zinger that is!”
Alan, it’s not a debate when you silence your opponent.
The UK independent, sister paper to the UK Guardian.
Michael Mann: The climate scientist who the deniers have in their sights.
Mann believes the theft of the emails was not the work of a random hacker, but part of a sophisticated campaign. “It was a very successful, well-planned smear campaign intended … to go directly at the trust the public had in scientists,” he insists.
Read the comments,
licensed_to_chill
oppugner posted this below…I’m just moving it to the top because it is a thing of beauty.
Collapse Climategate 2.0 e-mails;
Fudge. Sweet!
Email 636 Solution 1:fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything.
Email 5175-Tom Wigley – 2004but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor.
Email 5054, Colin Harpham, UEA, 2007I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a ‘fudge factor’ along with the poorer modelling for winter.
Email 1461, Milind Kandlikar, 2004Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics.
Email 1047, Briffa, 2005The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.
Email 723, Elaine Barrow, UEA, 1997Either the scale needs adjusting, or we need to fudge the figures…Briffa_sep98 code;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
Well done Oppugner.
It’s like the Trailer for the big feature….”climategate3″ …
just when they thought it was safe to start spouting warmist drivel again….
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/michael-mann-the-climate-scientist-who-the-deniers-have-in-their-sights-6290232.html
@Sam The First: The West is already bankrupt. Way beyond bankrupt. And that’s our only salvation. All the remaining money has to go solely for the most basic and important purposes. It has to go directly into the Swiss bank accounts of super-rich speculators, and nowhere else.
There’s nothing to spare for luxury projects like subsidizing windmills, which only provide a partial return to super-rich speculators.
The comments policy at RC is such that anything at all can be considered to fit one of more criteria for deletion, editing or diversion to the borehole. In those circumstances there is little chance of an open discussion taking place.
Further, evidence to date both observational by the content of comments and the revelations from Climategate emails shows that there never was an intention to have open discussions. It is a propaganda site hoping to draw in useful idiots.
I am not sure if anything has changed lately at RC, but in the light of the email that this thread is discussing, I suggest to Anthony that RC be moved to that sidebar on the right titled ‘Unreliable’. If there is any doubt about those sites so listed, the Title ‘Unreliable’ could link to a short explanation of how that inclusion is made, with citations from both the site itself and supporting evidence from other sources.
The admitted manipulation by Gavin et al of the site contents which we know from his own pen, those of his supporters and those of many well-known bloggers attempting to engage in serious discussions of climate science on the RC site provide overwhelming evidence that the content of RC is in totonot reliable from an academic or ordinary point of view. Serious and reliable discussions are easily found at ClimateAudit and JCurry and of coures, amid the sometimes chaotic world of wattsupwiththat (SCWOWUWT).
A heartfelt echo of what Sam the First says…
Here in the UK I find it difficult to accept the overwhelming warmist and “Team Friendly” coverage produced by the Guardian and the BBC. A reasonable amount of research into the UEA emails and the shenanigans by the Team revealed here at WUWT and elsewhere ought to have an immediate proper review taking place by the Grun, the BBC and the entire scientific establishment. But it never happens. There is a narrative…and it is closely adhered to. I believe there is too much in the way of money and reputations involved.
There are none so blind as those who very much do not wish to see.
“robust debate” is only for climate ‘scientists’. In secret. When thought to be off the record. Then they can discuss whether their science is full of holes.
In public, it’s back to the party line.
It’s like a Spartan phalanx with shield walls up against external enemies, but inside the wall there are mumblings about irreproducable hockey sticks, conflicting data, and climate sensitivity.
But if any outsider comes near, the spears fly.