Mann of the people

English: Michael E. Mann

Image via Wikipedia

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.”


Email 2743

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.

Flashback: Michael “robust debate” Mann on the opportunity to robustly debate Steve McIntyre: “Phil, I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud…I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that”

[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.

About these ads

80 thoughts on “Mann of the people

  1. 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

  2. Wow, I don’t understand how people can see things like this and still think the work from these people is valid.

  3. 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.

  4. Ah but the debate wouldn’t be “robust” if you allowed Big Oil/Tobacco-funded baby seal eating “deniers” to participate now would it?

  5. There’s that use of “robust” by Mann again. He really doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what it means.

  6. 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.

  7. Coalsoffire says:
    January 19, 2012 at 9:41 am

    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?

    Here’s their comment policy

    Comment policy
    Filed under: Comment Policy — group @ 9 December 2004

    1. Comments are moderated. Comments are periodically reviewed, but especially at weekends, evenings and holidays, there may be some delay in approving otherwise non-contentious posts. Please be patient.

    2. Questions, clarifications and serious rebuttals and discussions are welcomed.

    3. Only comments that are germane to the post will be approved. Comments that are “off-topic” should be made on an open thread (usually entitled “Unforced Variations”), and we may move OT comments to those threads.

    4. Comments that contain links to inappropriate, irrelevant or commercial sites may be deleted.

    5. Discussion of non-scientific subjects is discouraged.

    6. No flames, profanity, ad hominem comments are allowed. This includes comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others, or which otherwise try to personalize matters under discussion.

    7. We reserve the right to make spelling corrections, correct text format problems, etc.

    8. We use moderation to improve the “signal to noise” in the discussion. For this reason, we may choose to screen out comments that simply repeat points made in previous comments, make claims that have already been dealt with or that “muddy the water” by introducing erroneous, specious, or otherwise misleading assertions. These comments may be sent to “The Bore Hole“.

    9.We reserve the right to either reject comments that do not meet the above criteria, or in certain cases to edit them in a manner that brings them into accordance with our comments policy (e.g. by simply deleting inflammatory or ad hominem language from an otherwise worthy comment). In cases where we do this, it will be noted by an [edit].

    0. Given that RealClimate represents a volunteer effort by about 10 different contributors, each of whom are free to participate in queue moderation, the items indicated above only constitute the basic ground rules. We cannot insure uniform application of the various considerations listed above from one individual comment to the next.

    11. Quick responses to questions that don’t merit a full post will be placed in-line (with credits).

    12. All comments are assumed to be released into the public domain.

    13. Comments generally close after a month.

    14. Repeat violators of our comments policy (in particular, individuals demonstrating a pattern of “trolling”) may be barred from future access to the blog.
    revised 01/06/11

  8. 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

  9. He made a similar remark in 0208.txt –

    thanks for the update re CA–caught a hint of this latest fuss in a comment that came in at RC (which we deleted from the queue).

    That’s the one where he goes on to say

    I’ve been trying to no avail to get some journalist to look into their funding, industry connections, etc. they need to be exposed–badly!

    Unfortunately for Mike it was he who was exposed badly.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. @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.

  17. 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).

  18. 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.

  19. “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.

  20. Bill Marsh says:
    January 19, 2012 at 9:48 am
    “minions”? McIntyre has “minions”?

    Excellent!

    Myrmidons surely?

  21. Mike Mann will go down in history as the most anti-science scientist of the 20th/21st century. He is an absolute disgrace in so many ways.

  22. “I’ve been trying to no avail to get some journalist to look into their funding, industry connections, etc. They need to be exposed badly!”

    Yes Mike, in my very hand…I hold a complete list of the COMMUNISTS in the Skeptic movement…

    Wait, that sounds familiar, “Joe…JOE? Where did you get that LIST?”

  23. Ooh, ooh, where do I apply to be a “McIntyre Minion”??!?!

    Are there T shirts?!?!?

    Do we get some of that Big Oil Funding?

  24. Sam the First says:
    January 19, 2012 at 10:05 am
    ////////////////////////////////
    Sam

    Since this site has been voted the best science blog on the web, one would expect any serious MSM science writer/journalist to look in on this site on a regular basis as part of their job (keeping up to speed on science issues on which people are talking about).

    I suspect that many science writers/journalist do have a look at this site but notwithstanding that, it has little impact on what they write. Perhaps this is due to the own ideology or due to editorial policy of those higher up. It does make one wonder since there truly is an investigative journalists story of note just waithing to be reported upon.

  25. ZippyChick says:
    January 19, 2012 at 11:19 am

    “Ooh, ooh, where do I apply to be a “McIntyre Minion”??!?!

    Are there T shirts?!?!?

    Do we get some of that Big Oil Funding?”

    LOL! Sign me up!!!!

  26. If McIntyre is such a ‘fraud’, why don’t the gang at Real Climate welcome the opportunity to expose and humiliate him in a public forum? How can somebody be ‘off topic’ on an open thread?

  27. What seems pretty clear by these emails is that Micheal Mann and the rest of the “team” think that McIntyre is a fraud and they think (and aren’t shy about saying so in private emails) that responding to him in public only gives him credibililty that he doesn’t deserve. Why is this so surprising? Ignoring those who you feel are way out there is standard PR practice by many groups and individuals.

    BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “teams” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.

  28. Alan Statham says:

    Well goodness me. He deleted comments he didn’t like on his blog. What a zinger that is!

    Wow.

    And they call us deniers …

  29. Both O/T and on-topic to Alan Statham:

    I think it is a test of the integrity of a website/blog that they allow reasonable dissenting opinion. If I tried to post any anti-CAGW comment at RealClimate, it would disappear faster than a March hare on the first day of rabbit season. Anthony and moderators here at WUWT have allowed (as far as I can tell) your comments without restriction or editing. If I am wrong on that information, I apologise to all.

    On an earlier thread, there was an assertion that, ‘as CO2 increases, the atmosphere becomes more opaque to outgoing LW radiation [ie, infrared], therefore the atmosphere heats up’. It may not have been by you (I have read so many comments in the past day or so that I may be confusing postings).

    Let us assume that this is a 100% true statement. If it is, just exactly HOW did Rodinia have those three episodes of glaciation when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was some 13%, give or take?

    Best regards to all,

    Mark H.

  30. 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!”
    ===========================
    Lucky for you that doesn’t happen at WUWT.

  31. Given that the two leaks of emails have both contained messages which suggest that, er, other scientists have “issues” with the way Mann conducts himself – I seem to recall words like “defensive” or “reactive” in the emails – I have to wonder what those other scientists now think of Mann, or indeed what he now thinks of them.

  32. Robuk says:
    January 19, 2012 at 10:37 am
    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……………………

    ___________________________________________

    Convenient, Twitter-size comments. Maybe that’s the way to publicize the real travesty.

  33. R. Gates says:

    What seems pretty clear by these emails is that Micheal Mann and the rest of the “team” want to think that McIntyre is a fraud to preserve their delusions of competance and they think (and aren’t shy about saying so in private emails) that responding to him in public only gives him credibililty that they don’t want him to have he doesn’t deserve.

    That version is consistent with the facts before us.

    Why is this so surprising? Ignoring those who you feel are way out there is standard PR practice by many groups and individuals.

    Uh …because it is a standard PR practice. The people doing this are supposed to be scientists, not PR agents or propaganda ministers. Scientists are supposed to address criticisms of their work, not bully and censor. Also, you need to get a grasp on the difference between “ignoring” and “suppressing”. Both are decidedly unscientific, the latter is particularly egregious.

    “BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “teams” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.”

    No it isn’t, and no it doesn’t. Their internal comment regarding McIntyre’s criticism of Yamal is “[We] are wondering what to make of this.” Their response is to just delete the scary thing they dont understand, to keep anyone else from finding out about it. That is not internally consistent with the view that they hold of themselves or of Mcintyre

    McIntyre was, and remains, right about Yamal. He was, and remains, correct about a lot of other criticisms of the Team’s work. They knew quite well that, whatever the a priori merit of any individual criticism they find themselves faced with is assumed to be, he is right about enough of what he says that he deserves to be taken seriously.

    And they did take him seriously. Unfortunately, their approach to serious criticism is founded in political manuevering, not scientific reasoning.

  34. I realize that these men (for the most part, interesting in itself) believed they had privacy in their communications. Why they held that belief, I do not know as they seemed quite comfortable forwarding/copying/cutting and pasting the ‘in confidence’ or personal communications of others, to others, at the drop of a hat. They certainly didn’t seem to believe that private emails in their possession were worthy of their protection, even when confidence was clearly at issue.

    In any event, the willingness to counter challenges to their expertise with ad hominems and charges of nefarious connections as a first reaction is quite telling. From what I can see there are two or three major serial offenders in this respect, with Michael Mann coming out the clear winner in the level of vitriol. Even his ‘pals’ complain about his tendency to overreact and to do so too quickly. Keith Briffa’s assessment of him to a potential employer is in itself very interesting.

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3144.txt

    What I truly find saddening about their reactions, is that they simply cannot seem to wrap their heads around independent, intelligent and concerned citizens wanting to verify for themselves the truth of their scientific pronouncements. Are these not university Professors? Are these the educators of the next generation? To my way of thinking, they are the very people who should welcome challenge, be open to questions, accept and therefore become the midwives to new ideas with novel approaches even if these serve to destroy a personally cherished theory. Should they not teach that entrenched dogma in any discipline, particularly at a level of higher learning is a very dangerous thing? Frankly, I expect better of my child’s kindergarten teacher than I have seen in the responses to challenge of these educators and researchers.

    Those of us who have been taught to think for ourselves, not to believe everything one reads and to practice caution in taking for granted that experts always know what they are doing, have both the right and the obligation to ask pointed questions until satisfied with their proofs. Especially when their pronouncements could lead to a radical restructuring of our system of government and our way of life. Especially when these scientists are supported, in the main, by dollars collected through the very same citizenry (for which, BTW, I do not have any objection). That they demand we do so only within the confines of their vaunted, minimally supervised ‘peer review’ process is beyond the height of arrogance. We have the technology to do better than that as is evidenced by discussions about the science being presented on sites like this and others contained in the blogroll – Skeptic, Lukewarmer and pro-AGW alike.

  35. I’m sorry, but:
    Having seen every post and many of the comments at WUWT in the last 2 years, I get the jist of this post but can’t tell who is saying what, or when.
    To a new reader, or a senators aide, it must read like Hieroglyphics.
    Just a thought.

  36. R. Gates says:
    January 19, 2012 at 11:58 am

    BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “team’s” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.

    Bold mine. @ Gates: your use of the word “necessarily” is quite telling.

  37. Regarding the (now disliked) word ROBUST, my supposition is that it’s a word that was/is used very often by Choo Choo Pachauri, and since it is safe to assume Mann became a “favourite” of Choo Choo after the Hockeystick, the two of them would have spoken regularly e.g. “Well done my boy, you have a very bright future in our robust organization, keep up the robust work.” etc and Mann picked up the terminology.

    But of course, my supposition may not be robust.
    (my most disliked word after “whatever”. I have teenagers at home. :(

  38. Nigel S says:
    January 19, 2012 at 11:01 am
    Bill Marsh says:
    January 19, 2012 at 9:48 am
    “minions”? McIntyre has “minions”?

    Excellent!

    Myrmidons surely?
    ____________________________

    I would have thought “McMinions!”

  39. The Universe is a soccer ball God created. The big bang is God kicking the ball. The ball has curve from spin. Ball goes where it may. God starts again.

    =========

    can anyone disprove this statement..?

  40. Re The Independent article posted by Robuk (January 19, 2012 at 10:37 am) above, this quote stuck out:

    . . . 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. “Even though they haven’t solved the crime of who actually broke in, the entire apparatus for propelling this manufactured scandal on to the world stage was completely funded by the fossil-fuel front groups.”

    I don’t suppose Michael Mann actually believes that independent web sites like WUWT which broke the Climategate story are “completely funded by the fossil-fuel groups.” Doubtless this is just the party line that you have to tell any gullible ‘journalist’. At the same time, it is scandalous that miscreants like Mann can spout such patently obvious falsehoods and remain completely unchallenged by the commercial media. Where are the investigative reporters (not ‘journalists’) of old?

    /Mr Lynn

  41. From RC’s Comment Policy:

    “…5. Discussion of non-scientific subjects is discouraged…”

    In that case, how can ANYTHING done by Mann ever be discussed?

    and this one:

    “…6. No flames, profanity, ad hominem comments are allowed. This includes comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others, or which otherwise try to personalize matters under discussion…”

    No “…comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others…” Just read RealClimate and try to find one posting that DOESN’T impugn the motives of others.

    Just today, you can find comments like this:

    “…Fred Singer, for instance, has a long history of taking money from industry groups in exchange for producing “made as instructed” polemics…The fact that he is “sincere” is really of no moment. After all, a whore is a whore even if he or she enjoys the work…”

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=10297 (under “Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference).

    And yet the “signal-to-noise” ratio is increased by deleting certain replies.

  42. ZippyChick says:
    Ooh, ooh, where do I apply to be a McIntyre Minion??!?!
    Are there T shirts?!?!?
    ——
    Zippy – you cannot be that obvious, or you will be macerated by those Minion-munching maniacs at sKs.
    Rule 1 about being a Minion – NEVER talk about being a Minion
    Rlee 2….

  43. David, UK says:
    January 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    R. Gates says:
    January 19, 2012 at 11:58 am

    BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “team’s” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.

    Bold mine. @ Gates: your use of the word “necessarily” is quite telling.
    ———
    It is the best choice of words as I don’t know enough of the actual details to say if I agree or not. The “team” might be dead right about McIntyre, or they might be simply trying to cover their bad science. Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.

  44. Bill Marsh says: ““minions”? McIntyre has “minions”? Excellent!”

    Where do I apply to be a minion? Do there have to be ten* or more of us? Do we get badges or little lapel thingies? Bumper stickers? Josh cartoon?

    * obscure joke. either you get it or you don’t.

  45. Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.

    And this is of concern, because . . . .

  46. jorgekafkazar says:
    January 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    I can see a Josh or Fenbeagle cartoon. McIntyre and his minions storming the bastions of paleoclimatology. Hansen the Mad pouring climate change induced boiling sea water down upon the marauding heathens and calling for the seas to arise and swallow the unwashed. Other noted “realists” firing down from the ramparts with Polish dueling pistols. Al Gore high tailing it out the back door with crown jewels. St. Judith looking down from a cloud in dismay at the scientific carnage.

  47. R. Gates;
    Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.>>>

    What? What are we doing to the climate? Exactly what are you referring to R. Gates? Exactly what are you referring to and what evidence can you show that your position has merit? You babble on in thread after thread mumbling about the truth while never actually saying what it is while also implying that whatever it is, it must be bad. Vague inuendo and a distraction from the facts.

    The facts are that the most highly regarded “scientists” in the climate science community have falsified their results. Tell me Mr. Innuendo, if we were actually “doing” something to the climate, why do they have to fake their results? If we are actually “doing” something to the climate, then why don’t your prescious scientists which you don’t “necessarily” disbelieve do some actual science and who some actual results that are actual truth?

    and since they haven’t….

    Why don’t you?

  48. @R.Gates:

    The entire bloody point of ClimateGate is that CAGW IS A MADE-UP PHENOMENON.

    It’s as real as the Great Pumpkin.

    Mann, Jones, everyone involved in this fraud should be put in the stocks and be made to pay back every bloody cent wasted on this chicanery.

  49. R. Gates – I read all of your comments posted on this site, because you almost always offer a different view, and it is good to read both sides of an argument; however, for Mann to purposely avoid debating expert statisticians like McIntyre and Wegman seriously degrades his reputation and integrity and calls into question his pronouncements. Mann is consistent and makes sense!? You are spinning a negative into a positive.

    When Freeman Dyson, one of the century’s heavyweight thinkers, questions the basis of CAGW, I sit up and pay attention, for that by itself tells me the science is far from settled.

  50. davidmhoffer says:
    January 19, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    . . . The facts are that the most highly regarded “scientists” in the climate science community have falsified their results.

    Vincent Nunes says:
    January 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    The entire bloody point of ClimateGate is that CAGW IS A MADE-UP PHENOMENON. . .

    I can remember, not long ago, when Anthony cautioned participants here against using “the F word”. That was before the Climategates. Now the partisans on the Realist side of the debate are freely accusing the Alarmists of perpetrating science fraud. What is interesting is that these extremely serious charges are still ignored by the scientific establishment, which if anything has closed ranks behind the clique of self-proclaimed ‘climate scientists’, against what it likes to characterize as the rag-tag “minions” (see above) of “the fossil fuel industry.”

    Is there any way of bridging this gap? Probably not until someone high up in the inside is willing to step up and blow the whistle on his colleagues. If the Alarmists in academia and government really are falsifying results, there is no way this can continue forever. Someone is going to rebel and break ranks.

    /Mr Lynn

  51. McIntyre’s Minions… I like, we canadians should push for formal appointment of Special Auditor McIntyre to oversee the official AWG science claims made in Canada

  52. Vincent Nunes says:
    January 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    @R.Gates:

    The entire bloody point of ClimateGate is that CAGW IS A MADE-UP PHENOMENON.
    ———–
    Nope. This should not be the “bloody point” of Climategate. The science is far bigger than “the team”, The emails say a great deal about human nature, and almost nothing about the human effects on nature.

  53. R. Gates;
    Nope. This should not be the “bloody point” of Climategate. The science is far bigger than “the team”, The emails say a great deal about human nature, and almost nothing about the human effects on nature.>>>

    More innuendo. Spell it out R. Gates. What are the human effects on nature?

  54. R. Gates;
    Nope. This should not be the “bloody point” of Climategate. The science is far bigger than “the team”, >>>>

    And yet world wide governments are implementing policy based exclusively on the opinions of the team. You can misdirect everyone’s attention using the NLP techniques of Milton Dilts (chunk up in this case) but the fact remains that the effect on us humans of economic policies influenced by “the team” is pretty substantial while human influence on the climate is neglible.

    Stuff your psychological tricks up your wazoo, I for one am sick of them.

  55. R. Gates,
    To this very day not one piece of scientific evidence has been found and proven to back AGW.

    One positive change that has been shown and proven is that higher levels of CO2 are having a beneficial effect on the flora of the entire planet. This is good for animals, people and the health of the planet. Belief in Unicorns does not make them true.

  56. The likes of Steve McIntyre and others like him, who devote personal effort to discover scientific truth, deserve respect. Montford’s book reveals an astoundingly thorough, patient, respectful man on a quest. McIntyre has changed climate history. In my eyes he is a hero.
    Tom, I thank you too for the patient work you are doing with these emails. I guess you find it fulfilling in some way. I think it great that what you discover shows the characters on this surreal play in true light. Keep up the good work. The climate shenanigans is being corrected by your efforts.
    Robin

  57. Vincent Nunes says: January 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    @R.Gates: The entire bloody point of ClimateGate is that CAGW IS A MADE-UP PHENOMENON.
    It’s as real as the Great Pumpkin.

    I think that a more apropos comparison would be — It’s as real as South Park’s Mr. Hankey. Both are complete cr*p.

  58. The deletions were not because they didn’t “like” McIntyre.

    his Yamal work
    . So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.

    They didn’t want any attention, especially competent attention, on the Mann Yamal work.

    Because they knew it was crapulous.

  59. Bill Marsh:

    “minions”? McIntyre has “minions”?

    Excellent!

    The same email was highlighted by Dennis Wingo on Climate Audit on 25th November, leading to the following classic interaction:

    Richard Drake: Love the alliteration – in fact, love everything about this phrase. But how does one know that one has become a minion. I mean, really made the grade?

    Craig Loehle: You get a decoder ring and a secret handshake.

    Jean S: Yes, but only after you have retired. All minions are retired and have therefore infinite time. #4986 (Phil Jones –> Bruce Tofield):

    They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired.

    Phil Jones’s plaintive comment stuck in my mind and popped up during the important Index on Censorship debate on openness in science in London last month, as recorded on Bishop Hill. Index on Censorship indeed. Such ‘liberal’ organisations (using that word in its most optimistic sense) need to realise that Professor Michael Mann isn’t ‘one of them’ but the very essence of the authoritarian they were founded to resist. Just give it time.

  60. @Anthony

    The free internet really threw the good old boys club in academia and peer reviewed literature for a loop. I don’t think many academics appreciate the fact that the vast majority of highly intelligent people don’t become professors nor do they appreciate the fact that for the last 15 or more years everyone has had all the information at their fingertips in virtually any subject under the sun for free. In fact the true modern academic can go to school without getting out of bed. It just get easier and easier. If I’m curious about something or need to check a fact these days if I’m not near a keyboard I can ask my smart phone using my voice like I’m talking to a human assitant and it’ll consult Google about it. Amazing. The old Academy is quaint. Anyone with a vested interest in the old Academy would be justifiably distressed and more than a little interested in protecting the old school ways.

  61. I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. OBVIOUSLY, facts “muddy the water” over there so they must be removed from the comments.

    This is how all propaganda machines work.

    Sheesh…

  62. R. Gates replies to a comment in the following terms:

    “It is the best choice of words as I don’t know enough of the actual details to say if I agree or not. The “team” might be dead right about McIntyre, or they might be simply trying to cover their bad science. Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.”

    What a strange comment!

    Since the argument between McIntyre and the “Team” is precisely about the impact of human activity upon the climate it seems just silly to be stating that no matter what the truth of the argument is, nevertheless it (meaning the truth of the argument one way or the other) ‘doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate’.

    If you get any more circular in your comments you will find yourself disappearing up your own…..

    Kohl P

  63. jorgekafkazar says:
    January 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    Bill Marsh says: ““minions”? McIntyre has “minions”? Excellent!”

    Where do I apply to be a minion? Do there have to be ten* or more of us? Do we get badges or little lapel thingies? Bumper stickers? Josh cartoon?

    * obscure joke. either you get it or you don’t.

    Well, if we can get “fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day”… well “friends they may think it’s a movement.”

    Oh, and the t-shirts should have some sort of oil stain on them, in honor of all the Big Oil support for the McIntyre Movement.

    :)

  64. cui bono says:
    January 19, 2012 at 10:53 am

    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.

    And “why is the guy in front of me wearing a thong?”

    Seriously though. None of the RC crew have engaged in a robust debate that I’m aware. I would pay good money to see McIntyre and Schmidt or Mann engage in a debate with no input from anyone else.

  65. Alan Statham, yes, WUWT often deletes or trims comments- but those deletions are typically of the form:

    [snip – personal appearance isn’t a valid issue. -A]

    Policing the comments section, and slapping *skeptics* for being rude to warmists, is the exact opposite of the actions at Real Climate. It’s called integrity.

Comments are closed.