Booker mentions Mann – Mann has a Twitter tantrum

Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has taken note of the Shakun et al takedowns here here here here here here and here at WUWT, linking it in with Michael Mann’s earlier proxy publications.

(h/t to EU Referendum and REP) Mann as usual, was not amused by anything using his name (unless laudatory), and launched this Twitter tantrum (h/t to Tom Nelson):

Twitter / @MichaelEMann: @MichaelEMann @Telegraph ” …

@MichaelEMann @Telegraph “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Booker even starts out w/ tired smear against Ben Santer I debunk in intro of #HSCW

Twitter / @MichaelEMann: @ret_ward Would think that …

@ret_ward Would think that even they might be put off by the deficiency of intelligence & honesty reflected by Booker’s hit pieces/polemics

Twitter / @MichaelEMann: @MichaelEMann @Telegraph H …

@MichaelEMann @Telegraph How much lying/libel/deceit will Telegraph allow before “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Chris Booker canned? #HSCW

Twitter / @MichaelEMann: I guess “Patron Saint of C …

I guess “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Booker of @Telegraph disliked (tgr.ph/IFXN76) light shined on him by #HSCWbit.ly/sRasaq

=============================================================

Meanwhile, Climate Depot reports that Mann may be asked to chair a school of something back at UVa. Word has it on the academic grapevine that his “sabbatical” at Penn State may be the beginning of a never ending story.

One wonders though, if this just isn’t an exit strategy that Mann has engineered himself. As we’ve seen though his many writings, he’s very good at self promotion.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, media, Michael E. Mann, Satire and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to Booker mentions Mann – Mann has a Twitter tantrum

  1. jmotivator says:

    Mann’s new book: “How to look stupid in 140 characters or less”.

  2. Matt in Houston says:

    Bahahahaha!

    Sometimes all one can do in the face of a fool is laugh.

    Please, Mr. Mann provide us with some more laughter, it seems all you are good for. Your skill in science is non-existent.

    What a pathetic, narcissistic little man.

  3. Barry Sheridan says:

    In making these sort of comments Mr Mann is doing a good job of imitating a child. If he finds himself a odds with Christopher Booker he can say so without resorting to pathetic slurs and juvenile insults. It’s all rather sad given the urgent need for grown up debate in the public domain.

  4. Pointman says:

    “Of course, there are still a few free-range climate scientists on the loose out there, but their increasingly erratic behaviour has isolated them from everyone, most interestingly their own side, who quite rightly fear it’s only a matter of time until they land themselves, and “the cause”, into another disaster of gleickian proportions.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/the-climate-wars-revisited-or-no-truce-with-kings/

    At this stage, he can’t help himself. He’ll eventually pull the pin.

    Pointman

  5. geoprof says:

    It is disconcerting that an academician is allowed by the university system to function in such an immature, dysfunctional manner. The man has beclowned himself so many times. One would think the university would rather he keep his mouth shut.

  6. JohnH says:

    A sensitive wee soul !!!! ;)

  7. Jeff says:

    Or, the Mann who put the twit back in twitter…

  8. omnologos says:

    Aaargghh!! What happened to his head!!

  9. apachewhoknows says:

    Michael Mann,,,jaba blah,blah in a hut.

  10. Interstellar Bill says:

    I wonder for whom Mann will be voting in November?
    Such a sterling scientist surely makes such a major choice only after long, deep pondering.

  11. Monty says:

    So, these ‘takedowns’ of the Shakun et al paper are going to be submitted to peer-review are they? Or are they just a typical post on WUWT where someone like Pat Frank or Willis Eschenbach writes a critical review of a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which is automatically cheered to the rafters by a bunch of skeptics who don’t understand it? How about a review of some REALLY bad science (you know the stuff produced by Soon and Baliunas etc).

    By the way, is it true that Willis Eschenbach has only ever published papers in Energy and Environment …the non-ISI rated journal that will publish anything so long as its skeptical of AGW?

  12. The Booker article is a good summary of the low points of climate science. It should be read by all. Given Rio+20 in 2 months, Booker is giving fair warning for what is to come.

  13. RockyRoad says:

    Mann calling for Booker’s job shows Mann has been exposed as a non-scientist. Every day it gets worse for Mann–but then the tenure of every charlatan never ends well.

  14. TheBigYinJames says:

    Is it just me, or does the mere sight of Mann, Gleik etc these days annoy the heck out of you? Perhaps I’m just imagining the air of smugness.

  15. JohnWho says:

    Interstellar Bill says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
    I wonder for whom Mann will be voting in November?
    Such a sterling scientist surely makes such a major choice only after long, deep pondering.

    Uh, he’ll probably send in a proxy vote.

    :)

  16. Phil C says:

    One wonders though, if this just isn’t an exit strategy that Mann has engineered himself. As we’ve seen though his many writings, he’s very good at self promotion.

    Anthony, why don’t you apply for Joe D and Helen J Kington Professor in Environmental Change job at UVA? At a minimum, you should at least be granted an audience to tell UVA why Mann is wrong and you are right about climate change!

  17. polistra says:

    I’d think moving back to UVa would be unwise. Most of the legal action against Mann has been coming from Va’s attorney general. As far as we can tell publicly, Pennsylvania hasn’t made any moves against Mann. Though UVA has done yeoman work in defending Mann’s idiocy, it wouldn’t be smart to count on that in the future.

    Could this be an indirect indication that Mann knows something’s brewing in State College? Maybe part of their post-Joepa cleanup?

  18. Latitude says:

    ..it’s all about the science

  19. Pull My Finger says:

    Bless its pointy little head.

  20. Jeff says:

    @omnologos, maybe he was trying to hide the decline? Or it’s not him, but a model, where
    the data’s been,er, corrected (hence the Redux in the photo credit)….PHB in training?

  21. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Someone should tell him not to sit too close to the camera next time.

  22. rgbatduke says:

    Why waste time on this?

    Look, if Mann were actually a scientist and worthy of respect, he wouldn’t twitter about Willis plots, he would address them in some substantive way. I’m not certain how he might proceed to do that — Willis is just plotting the data, after all, he didn’t obtain the data himself and it is the same data, in many places, used in the Shakun paper — but the data is right there, he can get it for himself, plot it for himself, and analyze it himself. For that matter, anybody can go to the WUWT pages and look at the arguments and plots for themselves, although spread out over three posts its a bit tedious at this point to work though it all (which is why Willis should turn it into a paper and submit it somewhere).

    What he does is not beyond criticism, by the way. I’m still not so sure about the validity of his rescaling the data to be able to put all of the temperature trends on the same scale because this makes some assumptions about where, how, and when the warming occurred that might need justification (at least I might need him to further argue that they are correct and reasonable, given that the way the warming proceeded in the tropics dominates the surface area because of the Jacobean and because yet another metric for the dominant warming would be warming in the band of latitudes with the greatest fraction of oceanic surface area and the latter — progression of the warming over ocean volumes — is what one would expect to drive the CO_2 concentration according to a numerically computable model, actually). However, that does not mean that he isn’t clear about what he’s done and how he’s plotted and analyzed the result.

    What stops Mann from grabbing the data and doing the same general thing for himself? He’s presumably actually funded by Our Government for doing precisely this sort of research, unlike either Willis or myself or Anthony or many of the other people here who spend a fair bit of time actually messing with models and numbers.

    The most impressive thing about Mann is that he is, in fact, the CAGW crowd’s own worst enemy. He has done more damage to the scientific argument in favor of CAGW than any other single human, precisely because he spends so very much time name calling and indulging in petty ad hominem and so very little in calmly reasoned argument.

    What I think is happening is that the shoe is finally dropping. I hadn’t seen the Mauna Loa transmittivity data before today, but it is very, very worrisome. A 1% negative trend over only 30 years! Goodness gracious, and here we are worrying about carbon dioxide, which at most and according to its most ardent supporters is responsible for at most 100% of Mann’s hockey stick. I’m certain that somebody is quietly realizing that this 1% is enough to completely cancel all of this warming, and that is before looking at the extra 2% negative change in mean insolation due to the 7% increase in albedo over the last 15 years.

    The temperature curves — even GISS and CRUT3 — are starting to turn down. Worse, we can understand why they are turning down, we can predict that they must turn down. We may not understand why the atmosphere is reflecting more light or absorbing more of it well above the surface of the Earth, but we can see that it is doing so by looking at reflected Earthlight on the dark side of the moon and at reflected light received by distant satellites. We can even connect it directly with a gradually increasing cloud cover. I think the CAGW enthusiasts — having literally bet their careers on CAGW and doomsday — are praying that a miracle will happen, the laws of physics will be suspended, and temperatures will turn around and go back up, or more reasonably, that whatever unknown conditions that have downregulated the transmittivity and increased the albedo will go back the way they were so doomsday can proceed, but at the same time they must know that the sun is probably the proximate cause and that thereby their careers are almost certainly doomed. Time to hedge one’s bets, get a good permanent job while you still can, and invest in a small castle to hold off the peasants with the pitchforks and torches who will, without doubt, come for you when they learn that they’ve spent thousands of dollars apiece indulging your heroic fantasy.

    Maybe I’ll have time today to put together a top post on this. Lord knows I want to. But of course to do that, I have to stop posting to stuff like this…

    So I conclude. Don’t waste your time on Mann. If the best he can do to reply to an article that challenges one of his scientific convictions is to call somebody names, he is completely ignorable.

    rgb

  23. Chuck Nolan says:

    “Twitter tantrum” I love it! That’s the correct term.

  24. Pete of Perth says:

    Trying to comprehend what the twiteratti write gives me motion sickness.

  25. Chuck Nolan says:

    I am such a “doubting Thomas” always thinking the worst in some people. I was thinking the only reason Professor Mann wanted to get back to UVA was to get back into the UVA mail system to “hide his decline”.

  26. beesaman says:

    Just think, in the not so distant future he will be studied and ridiculed as the creator of ‘Mann Made Global Warming.’

    And yes he is an odious litle publicity seeker and is a model for all that is wrong in present day academia…..

  27. Bill H says:

    Mann’s pointy head fits the dunce cap well…

  28. frozenohio says:

    Somebody has his panties in a wad….

  29. Snotrocket says:

    “How much lying/libel/deceit will Telegraph allow…

    Of course, there is a perfectly good remedy, Dr Mann. I think Christopher Booker knows his way around the libel courts in the UK. So, as they say in these parts, shut up or put up.

  30. Bill Tuttle says:

    Betcha the number of people who saw the tweets here outnumber the people who read them on their phones, and *they* probably outnumber the people who’ve bought his books…

  31. John from CA says:

    Booker’s comments are very reasonable, why is Mann attacking the author instead of presenting a POV? I guess he didn’t like this statement.

    “In 1998, Nature published the first of the two iconic “hockey stick” graphs by an obscure young physicist, Michael Mann, which rewrote climate science by appearing to show that temperatures had suddenly shot up in the late 20th century to easily their highest level in history.”

  32. Dan Kurt says:

    re: @Monte ” How about a review of some REALLY bad science (you know the stuff produced by Soon and Baliunas etc).”

    Can anyone point me to a reference that actually shows where Soon and Baliunas are wrong. Are they not Astronomers?

    Dan Kurt

  33. Bloke down the pub says:

    Whatever your opinion of Christopher Booker, if he can get Mann into a hissy fit like that, he can’t be all bad.

  34. Matthew W says:

    JohnWho says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:21 am
    Uh, he’ll probably send in a proxy vote.
    =================================================
    The good news is that if he does vote by proxy, there’s a good chance it won’t be correct.

  35. Myrrh says:

    ..I read that as Michael Mann’s earlier poxy publications. I wonder how Booker will respond.

  36. Reed Coray says:

    TheBigYinJames says: April 16, 2012 at 8:18 am
    Is it just me, or does the mere sight of Mann, Gleik etc these days annoy the heck out of you? Perhaps I’m just imagining the air of smugness.

    It’s not just you.

  37. James Allison says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
    So, these ‘takedowns’ of the Shakun et al paper are going to be submitted to peer-review are they? Or are they just a typical post on WUWT where someone like Pat Frank or Willis Eschenbach writes a critical review of a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which is automatically cheered to the rafters by a bunch of skeptics who don’t understand it? How about a review of some REALLY bad science (you know the stuff produced by Soon and Baliunas etc).
    ========================================
    Thanks for passing by Monty. If you would like to refute ANY of W Eschenbach’s many takedowns of Shakun et al paper then this is the perfect forum to do so. Otherwise piss off back to the echo chamber juvenile sandpits of the warmista blogs where your useless comments will be welcomed.

  38. j molloy says:

    Booker & Dr North’s most exellent book “Scared to Death” was my first eye-opener . thoroughly recommended

  39. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    His twits display the same nasty narcissism as his climategate emails. Perhaps he thinks they should be personal, privileged , and protected from FOI laws as well.

    And yes, I know they are called ‘tweets’ but in this case you have to consider the source.

  40. geoprof says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:05 am
    It is disconcerting that an academician is allowed by the university system to function in such an immature, dysfunctional manner. The man has beclowned himself so many times. One would think the university would rather he keep his mouth shut.

    UPa would have great difficulty ‘disappearing’ the Mann child. He brings too much pre$tige. Only when they realise that the scorn heaped on them for “aiding the charade” (and hiding Mann’s decline) has become an occluding stink, perhaps. No convenient error 404’s like the Norgaard ‘treatment’. Or at least not for now. I would hope they tire of that beady-eyed smirk after a while. Silly me turning blue like that.

  41. Frank K. says:

    Meanwhile, as Mann has yet another bad Twitter day…

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    The arctic sea ice is just NOT cooperating this year…

  42. pat says:

    Don’t these people realize what fools they make of themselves with Twitter?

  43. major9985 says:

    I cant belive Michael Mann even took the time to comment about this joke of an article

  44. cui bono says:

    Mann and criticism: bristle, moan, whine.

  45. jimboskype1939 says:

    Aloha: RGbatduke-
    “What I think is happening is that the shoe is finally dropping. I hadn’t seen the Mauna Loa transmittivity data before today, but it is very, very worrisome. A 1% negative trend over only 30 years! Goodness gracious, and here we are worrying about carbon dioxide, which at most and according to its most ardent supporters is responsible for at most 100% of Mann’s hockey stick. I’m certain that somebody is quietly realizing that this 1% is enough to completely cancel all of this warming, and that is before looking at the extra 2% negative change in mean insolation due to the 7% increase in albedo over the last 15 years……”.
    Please DO write a post detailing these items ! Many thanks.

  46. Dave Wendt says:

    Mr.Mann repeatedly calls Mr. Booker the “Patron Saint of Charlatans”. In the future, if you go to a psychology textbook to look up “projection”, you will likely find Mr Mann cited as a perfect exemplar. Perhaps sharing the page with Keith Olberman for his ” Worst Person in the World” awards.

  47. Roger says:

    I say, DONT attack the man Mann attack his work when it is deficient wrong or fraudelent . Any reference to the man’s perceived character does not help. After all a lot of people probably think I got a lousy character haha, but still respect my publications (which were not fraudelent). Otherwise we are falling into same warmist’s tactics which are obviously slowly collapsing LOL

  48. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Perhaps the reason the Chinese continue pumping out 1 coal plant after another is they know there is no hockey stick
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/

    In the meantime the Germans ran their war machine on coal to oil, we are sitting on a camelot of energy to power an economic comeback ( that would lead to more money for future grants to conjur up some other threat, but at least it would be there) and Dr. Mann wonders why in the face of one metric after another showing co2’s relationship to temp is coincidental, why this happens.

    Of course in the world of leftists, the solution to a problem is not to confront the problem, but destroy anyone bringing the problem up. Amazingly Eisenhower warned about what could happen with the scientific community, and while they are fond of quoting his warnings about the industrial complex, they dont seem to understand the same warning was issued about them

  49. John B says:

    Frank K. says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Meanwhile, as Mann has yet another bad Twitter day…

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    The arctic sea ice is just NOT cooperating this year…

    ———————

    It is well-known that Arctic sea ice is high at the moment. Don’t expect it to stay that way for long.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    “Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.”

    Check back in September.

    John

  50. Eric Simpson says:

    “How much lying/libel/deceit will Telegraph allow…” — M Mann. Ironic, as lying and deceit, as exemplified in the Hockey Stick, is the central modus operandi of Mann, and the others of The Chicken Little Brigade. Here’s my earlier comment in Real Science:

    In 1993 the leftist Senator Tim Wirth said they should ride the agw issue even if the theory is wrong. Earlier, in ’89, Steven Schneider said that they should offer (make up) scary scenarios, saying that there should be a “balance” between telling the truth (ineffective) and lying (effective). Watson of greenpeace echoed this, saying “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    These type of statements suggesting that the scare mongers should lie and fabricate were certainly gaining esteem, and by the time Al Gore was running for president (and the H. Stick was fabricated) a critical mass must have been reached. Truth no longer mattered, and was in fact something to be frowned upon.
    These intelligent elites thought of themselves as soldiers that were trying to save the world, or at least trying to further the laudable causes of de-industrialization and leftist global politics. The Chicken Little Brigade. They were the chosen, and the “little people” (the public) were too dumb or too ideologically impure to respect. Manipulating and deceiving the little people became the key to implementing their radical agenda, and that is what they became experts in (deception).
    And in fact, they had many of us duped good, for a long time. The problem for them, though, is that now, with the CGate emails and Hide the Decline etc, their deceptive intent, and ideological motives, is clear as day. ALL their predictions of disaster, and ALL their models, have failed.
    The wheels have fallen off their deception mobile. Yet these guys seem unfazed, moving apace like mindless automatons they roll out fresh baloney daily it seems, and new, but obviously false predictions of doom. A joke.

  51. AnonyMoose says:

    The image captioned “A scientist examines a core sample taken from the Icelandic ice cap” should be labeled “A scientist exposes a delicate ice core sample to Icelandic sunlight”. I’d add adjectives about the power or damage which sunlight can do to his sample, if I had found any papers which study how such handling can damage ice cores. Such handling seems to have been ignored.

  52. Chuck Nolan says:

    cui bono says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:41 am
    Mann and criticism: bristle, moan, whine.
    —————————–
    I thought it was bristle cone and pine.

  53. David A. Evans says:

    I’ve seen two interviews of this whining, wheedling, petulent little Mann child.

    His attitude that his papers are beyond critique because he’s a scientist makes me of the opinion that if he told me the Sun was going to rise tomorrow, I’d have to check!

    DaveE.

  54. bravozulu says:

    JohnWho says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:21 am
    “Uh, he’ll probably send in a proxy vote.”

    He will probably read the ballot upside down and vote for the Republican. He will then say that multivariate ballots are insenitive to which ever hole you punch.

  55. Richard S Courtney says:

    The Mann is a legend in his own lunchtime.

    It is good that the AGW-scare began its demise in the COP at Copenhagen and continues to fade away. But a sad effect of this is that Michael Mann will disappear into obscurity with it.

    Yes, it is sad because otherwise the Mann and his antics would be a source of amusement for decades to come. e.g.
    You want to see how statistics can be invented to show any desired result? The Mann is your man.
    You want to erase the MWP? The Mann is your man.
    You want science sliced up to support a political agenda? The Mann is your man.
    You want to see a temper tantrum on demand? The Mann is your man.
    You want to see a skin as thin as tissue paper covering an ego as large as the Moon? The Mann is your man.
    etc.

    Richard

  56. Jean Parisot says:

    A suggestion, until Mann issues the retractions and corrections for the upside down tiljander data, please post his photo upside down.

  57. Peter Miller says:

    Patron Saint of Charlatans?

    Presumably Mann is nominating himself.

  58. aaron says:

    Michael Mann, Patron Saint of Charlatans.

    Love it.

  59. RichieP says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Oh dear, it feels SOOO bad to be losing doesn’t it? Whining narcissistic egotists with no actual arguments seem to be the standard for you warmists and you fit the mould very well. Are you sure you’re not the Mann himself?

  60. Frank K. says:

    John B says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:18 am

    “Check back in September.”

    Will do. I’m sure there will still be ice there. Like there will be the next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and …

    Also, there is NOTHING that humans can do that will alter the natural sea ice cycle…

  61. Monty says:

    My recent post hasn’t got through. Funny that…WUWT clearly doesn’t like dissenting voices!

    REPLY: Dear Mr. Smith. Do you mean this one at 8:12AM? Or is it one of the other 23 comments you’ve made here? Please learn to use the scroll bar before complaining about non-issues that exist only in your mind, we expect better of Oxford staff. – Anthony

  62. The Other Pamela Gray says:

    I can’t imagine Mann returning to UVA. The attorney general who is after UVA is going to run for governor and he has a good chance of winning. Cuccinelli is not beyond holding up UVA’s funding if he can.

  63. EternalOptimist says:

    what on earth happened to the photo ?
    I hate ad homs
    but I think we should put Gollum on danger money. the competition for his job is growing

  64. BC Bill says:

    Wasn’t the character Vizzini in the Princess Bride based on Michael Mann? Or maybe he played him? (I guess I have to say sarc.)

  65. While we have religion, fiscal opacity, and lobbyists there will never be true democracy.

  66. Nerd says:

    dave turner (@cmdocker) says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:42 am
    While we have religion, fiscal opacity, and lobbyists there will never be true democracy.

    =====

    You mean Republic? In Democracy, 51% rules over 49%.

  67. D Johnson says:

    OT, but I think someone should establish an Anti-Twitter message system with the following charateristics:
    1. MINIMUM message length of 140 characters.
    2. Built in spell checker, with messages rejected until corrected. (Would eliminate 2 for to or too, 4 for for, cuz for cause, etc.)
    3. Replies subject to the same criteria.
    4. Acronyms must be defined on first usage.
    5. Thumb typing prohibited (if someone could figure out how to enforce it).
    I think this would substantialy increase the literacy level of the internet.;-)
    6. No emoticons

  68. EternalOptimist says:

    Gollum for UVa
    Mann for Mt Doom

    it’s got a bit of a ring to it

  69. IAmDigitap says:

    Thanks for the Marxism lesson Dave, we checked it by running some tests on the Soviet Union and China.

    Religion, fiscal opacity, and lobbyists win.

    Hands down.

  70. Vince Causey says:

    Booker has really touched a raw nerve here. The fact is that Willis has so easily and thoroughly debunked the Shakun paper, that it has left Mann speechless. Speechless, that is, if speech is measured by the content of ones argument, but not when expressed by the output of mouth-foaming apoplexy.

    And along come the usual trolls, stamping their feet and shouting “it ain;t so, it ain’t so.”

  71. Monty says:

    No…I pointed out in another post that the Soon and Baliunas paper that was so poor was their 2003 one in Climate Research. Isn’t it strange that you ‘skeptics’ are so eager to be skeptical of Mann et al but somehow fail to be skeptical of the rubbish put out by Monckton, Plimer etc.

    After all…if someone with a degree in classics and no publications in the scientific literature (like Monckton) was talking about AGW you and your acolytes would be the first to cry foul. Strange that your ‘skepticism’ only seems to work one way!!

    I wonder if you’ll let this post through?

    REPLY: I don’t see such a post. There’s nothing in que nor in the spam filter. Perhaps you simply failed to submit properly in the form. Isn’t it strange that you “academics” whine about censorship when the fault might simply be your own? Feel free to resubmit it, being mindful of course of our policy page

    While you are at, please explain why someone at Oxford has to be dishonest by making a fake name? If your views are so pure and so fact filled, you’d think someone of your stature would be willing to stand behind it. – Anthony

  72. Vincent says:

    Following twits, twitterati and facebook fools does not fall into the plan of my day-to-day life. So I am mistified at the meaning of the original posting.

    Please translate twitter, if you wan’t people with a life to live, to understand it.

  73. David A. Evans says:

    EternalOptimist says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:34 am

    I hate ad homs

    I think we’re justified in making an exception in this case.

    DaveE.

  74. Monty says:

    Anthony
    Well I’m glad you let that post through. Can you explain, then, why your ‘skepticism’ only seems to fall onto the anti-AGW side? Surely you can see that relying on the likes of Monckton, Plimer, Ball etc is unbelievably damaging to your arguments. Or is that all you have got? After all, ALL the world’s major scientific bodies accept the ‘IPCC consensus’ and NONE support the ‘skeptic’ view. Doesn’t that concern you at all?

    REPLY: Ah, so you admit now that your post wasn’t censored at all. Like I said, we expect better from an Oxford academic.

    How do you know my skepticism falls only on the AGW side? You’ve cited nothing. You obviously don’t look around much, for example I’m critical of some alternate theory that I think is unsupportable. This tactic seems typical for people like you, looking to pigeonhole so labels can be applied. News flash there professor – I used to be wholly in favor of the CO2 theory…but you haven’t bothered to look at the bigger picture. Kind of like these guys who used to be just like you who did in fact look at the bigger picture, and found it wanting.

    And why do you duck questions? Again, if your opinion as an academic is so pure and so factual, why can’t you stand behind it? No more posts from you until you answer my question – sorry. – Anthony

  75. As soon as i mention The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Im vilified.

  76. David A. Evans says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:57 am

    No…I pointed out in another post that the Soon and Baliunas paper that was so poor was their 2003 one in Climate Research.

    If I remember correctly, that was a meta study, a sort of compilation of studies. I do seem to recall a lot of people criticising it but no meat. Just people saying it was crap.

    Isn’t it strange that you ‘skeptics’ are so eager to be skeptical of Mann et al but somehow fail to be skeptical of the rubbish put out by Monckton, Plimer etc.

    After all…if someone with a degree in classics and no publications in the scientific literature (like Monckton) was talking about AGW you and your acolytes would be the first to cry foul. Strange that your ‘skepticism’ only seems to work one way!!

    Are you new here? I see loads of people, both sceptics and believers criticising both Monckton and Plimer here.

    Anyway, what qualifications are required to cite and quote as much of what Monckton does is?

    Given your spelling of sceptic, I’m assuming that’s a different Oxford to the one I’m familiar with.

  77. Theodore says:

    So do you think Mann might be working to secure a position at UVA to try and take away the FOIA argument tha UVA gave the emails to one outsider (Penn State’s Mann) so they have given up the right to deny them to others? Not that it would work in any sane court, but they might try it anyway if the results of a release are that damaging. Remember Mann said that letting lawyers or the judge review his emails will seriously damage the reputation of a large number of scientists.

  78. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Why is it that Oxford based warmist academics want to remain anonymous? What is it that you have you to hide?

  79. DirkH says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
    “So, these ‘takedowns’ of the Shakun et al paper are going to be submitted to peer-review are they? Or are they just a typical post on WUWT where someone like Pat Frank or Willis Eschenbach writes a critical review of a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which is automatically cheered to the rafters by a bunch of skeptics who don’t understand it?”

    What I did understand is that the timing of the volcanic explosions mentioned in Shakun doesn’t quite match the timing of the cooling. If that is a misunderstanding, you are free to argue Shakun’s case here.

    ” How about a review of some REALLY bad science (you know the stuff produced by Soon and Baliunas etc).”

    I’m sure you could link to one. Why didn’t you do so? The CAGW orthodoxy must have produced dozens of takedown; you are awash with funding for that.

    “By the way, is it true that Willis Eschenbach has only ever published papers in Energy and Environment …the non-ISI rated journal that will publish anything so long as its skeptical of AGW?”

    Might I point you to the ClimateGate 1 e-mails that show the lengths to which the CAGW occultists in the formerly scientific institutions go to to keep journals in line, get editors fired and suppress opposing views in the literature?

  80. johnmcguire says:

    BC Bill April 16 at 11:40, Inconceivable!!!!!!

  81. Berényi Péter says:

    These twits, in order to be taken seriously, should be published first in a peer reviewed mainstream climate science journal. Go ahead resolutely, Mike, no doubt it is doable. You’ve already had exploits more substantial than that.

  82. KnR says:

    Well I say Mann’s doing a good job , just not the one he is paid too nor the one he thinks he is doing , but nevertheless a ‘good job’
    When Mann fails I think we will be surprised to see who lines up to give him a kick on the way down, such is nature of Mann and his approch to working with others .

  83. Keith says:

    It would appear that “Monty” hasn’t been taking his Vitamin B. Just like Mann, it seems that he can’t respond to rebuttal/refutation of weak climate ‘science’ with anything of substance at all. Why might this be, I wonder?

  84. Anything is possible says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    “After all, ALL the world’s major scientific bodies accept the ‘IPCC consensus’ and NONE support the ‘skeptic’ view. Doesn’t that concern you at all?”

    ===========================================================================

    I can’t speak for Anthony, or the other bloggers on this site, but personally, the fact that all the major scientific bodies appear to accept the “IPCC consensus” with unquestioning obedience, concerns me a great deal.

  85. apass says:

    Monty repeats the old false charge from the warmer contingent that the skeptics are only skeptical of one side. Saying this just underscores his own ignorance. The AGW-skeptics have shown themselves quite willing to turn their fire on their “own side” when they believe it is warranted. The G&T theory has been dismissed out of hand here and on other related blogs. You will not see much support for the skydragon crowd either. The WUWT reception given to Nikolov and Zeller was beyond harsh. Scafetta’s papers have attracted significant criticism. Even Loehle’s first climate reconstruction took a severe beating from the skeptic group (admittedly mostly on Climate Audit). And there are plenty other examples.

    If you are looking for the group that wears blinkers, it is Monty’s friends. In his infamous 2008 PNAS article, Mann used a sediment series upside down. An obvious, clear mistake. Yet, not a single mainstream climate scientist has acknowledged the mistake. Not one. Four years later. They have let him get away with the nonsense reply that “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.” Until we see some intellectual honesty from Monty and his friends, they are in absolutely no position to complain that “‘skepticism only seems to work one way”.

  86. A Lovell says:

    “twitter
    [twit-er]   Example Sentences Origin
    twit·ter
       [twit-er] Show IPA
    verb (used without object)
    1.
    to utter a succession of small, tremulous sounds, as a bird.
    2.
    to talk lightly and rapidly, especially of trivial matters; chatter.
    3.
    to titter; giggle.
    4.
    to tremble with excitement or the like; be in a flutter.
    5.
    Digital Technology . tweet ( def. 4 ) .
    verb (used with object)
    6.
    to express or utter by twittering. ”

    That says it all really. Does anyone know how the term ‘twitter’ came to be applied to this form of communication?

  87. Otter says:

    monty’s stopping by here is appropriate, considering Twitter is part of the story, and Monty Python was all about Twits.

  88. rogerkni says:

    rgbatduke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:31 am

    What I think is happening is that the shoe is finally dropping. I hadn’t seen the Mauna Loa transmittivity data before today, but it is very, very worrisome. A 1% negative trend over only 30 years! Goodness gracious, and here we are worrying about carbon dioxide, which at most and according to its most ardent supporters is responsible for at most 100% of Mann’s hockey stick. I’m certain that somebody is quietly realizing that this 1% is enough to completely cancel all of this warming, and that is before looking at the extra 2% negative change in mean insolation due to the 7% increase in albedo over the last 15 years.

    The temperature curves — even GISS and CRUT3 — are starting to turn down. Worse, we can understand why they are turning down, we can predict that they must turn down. We may not understand why the atmosphere is reflecting more light or absorbing more of it well above the surface of the Earth, but we can see that it is doing so by looking at reflected Earthlight on the dark side of the moon and at reflected light received by distant satellites. We can even connect it directly with a gradually increasing cloud cover. I think the CAGW enthusiasts — having literally bet their careers on CAGW and doomsday — are praying that a miracle will happen, the laws of physics will be suspended, and temperatures will turn around and go back up, or more reasonably, that whatever unknown conditions that have downregulated the transmittivity and increased the albedo will go back the way they were so doomsday can proceed, but at the same time they must know that the sun is probably the proximate cause and that thereby their careers are almost certainly doomed. Time to hedge one’s bets, get a good permanent job while you still can, and invest in a small castle to hold off the peasants with the pitchforks and torches who will, without doubt, come for you when they learn that they’ve spent thousands of dollars apiece indulging your heroic fantasy.

    Maybe I’ll have time today to put together a top post on this.

    rgb
    Call it “The Warm Is Turning.”

  89. FrankK says:

    A portrait photo is worth a thousand words ugh!

  90. Thirsty says:

    Enough forehead for four heads.

  91. Bart Denson says:

    Concerning Monty;

    Please Anthony don’t cut Monty off. I do enjoy the wrasslin and the take downs
    put on Monty by the commenters here. I hope you’ll reconsider.

    cheers
    Bart

  92. Roger says:

    This guy Monty is a real winner… for the skeptic movement please let him stay, Great find Antony!

  93. BC Bill says:

    johnmcguire says: Inconceivable

    You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you?

  94. rogerkni says:

    Simpson says:

    Truth no longer mattered, and was in fact something to be frowned upon.
    These intelligent elites thought of themselves as soldiers that were trying to save the world, or at least trying to further the laudable causes of de-industrialization and leftist global politics. The Chicken Little Brigade. They were the chosen, and the “little people” (the public) were too dumb or too ideologically impure to respect. Manipulating and deceiving the little people became the key to implementing their radical agenda, and that is what they became experts in (deception).
    And in fact, they had many of us duped good, for a long time. The problem for them, though, is that now, with the CGate emails and Hide the Decline etc, their deceptive intent, and ideological motives, is clear as day.

    I’ve heard their mindset and antics referred to as “malignant altruism.”

  95. Wijnand says:

    I agree, let Monty stay and make an even bigger fool of himself, especially since we now know where he (anonymously) is writing his crap from, which makes it even funnier!!

    Aahh Antony let Monty show everybody here once more the modus operandi of the better warmist ivory tower troll? ;-)

  96. John M says:

    Wow, Mann is a plaintive in a defamation lawsuit because he claims he was defamed, and then posts this kind of stuff up on twitter?

    One can surmise one of three things:

    a) he is an idiot
    b) his lawyers are idiots
    c) both a and b apply

  97. Yes, yes, let us have Monty back! Panem et circenses(Bread and circuses) we want! We’ll make a gilded cage for him and pamper him with reruns of Inconvenent Truth. So few Warmies make it out here; over the months I’ve even tried to challenge and entice a few from other blogs, but their bluster didn’t translate to courage. Can’t say I blame them.

  98. Richard S Courtney says:

    Anthony:

    This is your blog so only your decisions should count. However, I write to support those who have asked you to allow the “Monty” character to post here so his own words can be used to demonstrate his true colours.

    Indeed, I put it to you that “Monty” probably wants to hide behind a false name because he fears that his posts on WUWT would expose him in similar manner to how the words of Jan P. Perlwitz exposed him for what he is in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

    (I suspect that all WUWT readers who are sceptical of AGW would want to read that ‘debate’ with Perlwitz and would enjoy it).

    Exposing Perlwitz was easy because he was too arrogant to recognise he was being encouraged to put his feet in his mouth. However, exposure of “Monty” would probably require a little more effort because his refusal to use his own name indicates he has more sense and less courage than Perlwitz.

    Richard

    REPLY: He can post, but since I’ve addressed his accusations, I simply expect him to address my question before we continue. – Anthony

  99. johnmcguire says:

    BC Bill April 16 at 2:29 You cannot malighn Vizzinni and get away unscathed! Anthony, I hope Monty answers your question. But , I do hope you continue to allow him to post as he seems an easy target. I have yet to see him say anything substantial.

  100. Johnnythelowery says:

    James Allison says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:10 am
    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
    So, these ‘takedowns’ of the Shakun et al paper are going to be submitted to peer-review are they? Or are they just a typical post on WUWT where someone like Pat Frank or Willis Eschenbach writes a critical review of a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which is automatically cheered to the rafters by a bunch of skeptics who don’t understand it? How about a review of some REALLY bad science (you know the stuff produced by Soon and Baliunas etc).
    ========================================
    Thanks for passing by Monty. If you would like to refute ANY of W Eschenbach’s many takedowns of Shakum et al paper then this is the perfect forum to do so. Otherwise piss off back to the echo chamber juvenile sandpits of the warmista blogs where your useless comments will be welcomed.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    Good name for this joker: Monty
    His lack of anything outside of the Adhom attack is telling. This is the perfect forum as you say.

  101. LearDog says:

    I hadn’t heard about the possibility of a UVa appointment. Interesting. One is inclined to wonder whether this isn’t a part of a greater ‘email ownership’ gambit….. ;-D. /sarc

  102. Richard S Courtney says:

    Anthony:

    Thankyou for your clarification. As I said, only your decisions should count on this (your) blog, and I was not intending to deflect from that in any way.

    Richard

  103. Janice says:

    dave turner says: “As soon as i mention The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Im vilified.”

    Dave, it is very simple. Anthony is very careful to avoid rampant discussions of religion, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a Minor Diety, which falls under discussion of religion. Now, some people believe The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also the creator of all things good and tasty to eat, which implies creationism, which is part of the religious discussions we aren’t supposed to have. You can talk about anything else that has some bearing on the current discussion, but just don’t bring in these silly religious arguments. And don’t even bring up the fact that Newton wrote just as many religious treatises as he did scientific ones, as that is simply irrelevant (as is my mention of it).

    And, moderators, please feel free to delete this if it is too far out-of-line.

  104. PaulID says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:33 am
    Interesting in the small town(350 pop) I grew up in we had a lake named Monty it was the end of the towns septic system from reading your comments I can see that lake and you have alot in common.

  105. Arno Arrak says:

    To Monty, April 16th 8:12
    First, you know nothing of science when you insult Soon and Baliunas for REALLY bad science. REALLY REALLY bad science is idiotic predictions of warming coming out from the likes of Hansen. None of his predictions since 1988 have come true or are likely to come true. Second, it is interesting that you associate non-ISI related journals with publishing material skeptical of AGW. It is an admission that AGW advocates have control of the ISI journal selection process. This is of course not really news since Climategate exposed their techniques of suppressing opposing views and getting recalcitrant editors fired. And yes, papers like those of Willis Eschenbach are of equal and in many cases higher quality than most of the “peer-reviewed” stuff that appears in your controlled literature. Here is an example. Nature ClimateChange for October 2011 has an article entitled “Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change.” From the abstract we read: “…Many species already exhibit smaller sizes as a result of of climate change and many others are likely to shrink in response to continued climate change… This could negatively impact both crop plants and protein sources such as fish that are important for human nutrition…” This is demonstrably abject nonsense, and if I had been the reviewer it would not have seen the light of day. There are many other articles of similar low quality. Unfortunately these days peer review is buddy review and articles the editors favor just get waved through. Critical thinking is what you lack, Monty, when you put a blanket approval on trash like that.

  106. theduke says:

    There he goes again, suggesting that people lose their jobs for writing things with which he disagrees.

  107. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Monty says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Is that a “Full Monty”???

  108. Smokey says:

    For those interested, Soon and Balunias.

    They seem pretty reasonable to me.

  109. Arno Arrak says:

    Monty April 16th 12:16 p.m.
    Missed your second post. Relying on the “likes of” Monckton, Plimer, Ball, etc. is not damaging to the skeptical argument but insulting of the people referred to. What I said before applies here too – you badly need to develop critical thinking. That means actually reading their work, not rejecting it on superficial characteristics because you are intellectually lazy. There is no such thing as training in climate science – there is just climate science practiced by scientists who have chosen to study it in addition to what they are trained to do. In my research career I found that scientific research very often requires you to study up on knowledge that was not in your textbook or part of your curriculum. After an interruption of many years and retirement I found myself doing climate science that required me to acquire new knowledge that did not even exist when I went to college. I found it not so different from other research I had been involved in. Ask any working scientist and you will find that their experience is similar. What it all boils down to is this: the climate science estalishment tells us is that a warming Armageddon is on the way, caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2, if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. I have personally studied the relevant data and can tell you that this thing called carbon dioxide greenhouse effect does not even exist. To start off, there is no period of warming within the last one hundred years that can be identified as greenhouse warming. The warming in the twentieth century was not uniform but occurred in two instalments. The first part of twentieth century warming started in 1910 and ended in 1940. We know that carbon dioxide was slowly increasing and did not surge when the warming started. Hence, greenhouse warming as a cause is ruled out by the laws of physics. Bjørn Lomborg thinks it has a solar origin and I agree with him. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies while carbon dioxide kept steadily increasing. No satisfactory explanation exists why this carbon dioxide increase did not lead to warming during that thirty year period. Satellite temperature data show that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties either until a giant super El Nino arrived in 1998. It carried so much warm water across the ocean that it caused the global temperature to rise by a third of a degree Celsius in only four years. This was the second instalment of twentieth century warming and there was none after that. This means no greenhouse warming for the last 100 years. I did not mention Arctic warming but this one unfortunately for you guys is not greenhouse warming either, being caused by Atlantic currents that carry warm Gulf stream water into the Arctic. So where did that famous greenhouse effect disappear? Ferenc Miskolczi has the answer. Using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs had not changed in 61 years. During that same period of time the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to the air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and overrides any theoretical calculations that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides climate models that use carbon dioxide greenhouse effect to predict warming. Carbon dioxide does not cause warming even if you double it, hence the vaunted sensitivity to doubling is exactly zero. Time to start dismantling irrational laws designed to change the climate.

  110. Bill Tuttle says:

    REPLY: He can post, but since I’ve addressed his accusations, I simply expect him to address my question before we continue. – Anthony

    It might be a long wait. Popcorn?

  111. Bill Tuttle says:

    Wayne Delbeke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Is that a “Full Monty”???

    More like a “full of himself” Monty…

  112. Brian H says:

    As for laudatory references to Mann, are there any from anyone other than himself?

  113. Kozlowski says:

    Jean Parisot says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:54 am
    A suggestion, until Mann issues the retractions and corrections for the upside down tiljander data, please post his photo upside down.

    BRILLIANT!

  114. atheok says:

    Theodore says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    “So do you think Mann might be working to secure a position at UVA to try and take away the FOIA argument tha UVA gave the emails to one outsider (Penn State’s Mann) so they have given up the right to deny them to others? Not that it would work in any sane court, but they might try it anyway if the results of a release are that damaging. Remember Mann said that letting lawyers or the judge review his emails will seriously damage the reputation of a large number of scientists.”

    I think that you might’ve hit the nail on the head. I can almost hear the bald guy’s lawyers telling him that he would have to work for UVA to cover up that copy of all his email blunder of his. Now we’re just going to have to wait till he shows up in court and tries to prove UVA employment at the time UVA gave him a copy of the emails. Think he’ll ask for more time to review his options “based on new evidence”? By the way, nice name, I like it!
    ………
    About the “monty” question; I don’t see why so many want someone back who acts so bigoted pigheaded and is lazy to boot. All he does is demean, rail and ask, er, demand answers to silly questions he posts. Then he pouts, whines and pretends to be offended by our lack of consideration for his condescending eagerness to learn. Personally, I wonder if he’s just another paid/CAGW religious troll without a life of his own so he spends it trying to threadbomb and insult those who discuss honest science.

    Tell you what Monty, after you explain why you support perversion of the peer review process by the climate alarmist crowd and why you believe the “team” can go to such efforts in preventing or stymying any research that contradicts the falsified papers of the “team”. Maybe, just maybe depending on how decent a job you do of it, and probably after you answer all of the other questions posed to you, we’ll post the links for the information you were too lazy to search for.

    Other than that, I think we should let Monty learn courtesy, manners and good scientific process before he gets to participate again. After all, he claims he’s a climate scientist and hopefully they all don’t have Mann’s ego and manners, Phils sense of data order, Ben’s bully approach, or Gleick’s moral compass. Though so far he sure seems to have learned some of the above. I wonder if he writes his own climate model code too.

  115. Lew Skannen says:

    What is the relevance of the picture of the walrus?… oh wait, sorry. carry on.

  116. david says:

    Beesaman said:
    ‘Mann Made Global Warming.’

    Priceless!!

  117. James Bull says:

    As my Mum says “All sound and fury signifying nothing”. Seems to sum up Mr Mann’s utterances on many (all?) things.

    James Bull

  118. Shevva says:

    Don’t know why but Mann always gets me singing ‘Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down’.

    http://www.hasbro.com/playskool/en_US/weebles/

    I so want a Weebles Whirl-E-Copter

  119. Mr Green Genes says:

    REPLY: Dear Mr. Smith. Do you mean this one at 8:12AM? Or is it one of the other 23 comments you’ve made here? Please learn to use the scroll bar before complaining about non-issues that exist only in your mind, we expect better of Oxford staff. – Anthony

    Anthony – sadly, we in the UK have got used to not expecting anything better from Oxford staff. His unrelenting claptrap is, nowadays, the norm for what used to be a reputable establishment.

  120. Monty says:

    Hi Everyone
    Thanks for providing me with ammunition. For instance….Arno Arrak (8.37pm) says: “I have personally studied the relevant data and can tell you that this thing called carbon dioxide greenhouse effect does not even exist”.

    Really? This Arno Arrak has ‘personally studied’ the GHE and can say that it does not exist? When will he be collecting his Nobel Prize in Physics I wonder?

    And not a word of skepticism from any of you!

  121. Chris Wright says:

    Hi Monty,
    Strictly speaking, Arno Arrak is correct. Yes, if you double the amount of CO2 you will get approximately one degree of temperature rise – something, by the way, that I have great difficulty losing any sleep over. History teaches us that mankind always prospered when the world was a bit warmer.
    But the ‘greenhouse’ effect does not exist, because CO2 warming has nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air, and not by trapping IR radiation. The AGW theory is clearly wrong and most of the 20th century warming that we enjoyed was almost certainly natural, just as it was during the Medieval period. It’s appropriate that the creators of the deeply flawed theory couldn’t even get the name wright.
    .
    Just a friendly suggestion: if you think Willis or any of the others are wrong, please say exactly why and I’m sure Willis would be happy to enter into a constructive discussion. But of course that’s a bit unlikely. You people like to say that the ‘debate is over’, but what you’re really saying is that you are terrified of real debate. That’s because you usually lose, the Oxford Union debate being a perfect example. You’re happy to call people like Christopher Monckton names. If Monckton and co are so utterly wrong, please explain why Monckton and his team won both the Oxford Union debate and the vote.
    Chris

  122. Michael Jennings says:

    T Monty, with love “Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt” Mark Twain

  123. kim says:

    How droll this troll. He’s from a time-warp, about five years ago. The talking points expose him.
    =================

  124. kim says:

    The Piltdown Mann seems from a time warp, too. He has successfully denied the last five years.
    =======================

  125. Otter says:

    Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 2:55 am
    Hi Everyone
    Thanks for providing me with ammunition.

    Even then, you keep shooting blanks. How about addressing what Chris Wright just said, directly after your last post?

  126. kim2ooo says:

    Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 2:55 am

    Hi Everyone
    Thanks for providing me with ammunition.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Ha ha ha …. your gun is impotent!

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Waving to kim…..”Droll Troll” ha ha ha

  127. Mike (One of the Many) says:

    @Monty

    I think you labouring under some mis-conceptions, many of the denziens of this and other sceptical blogs are highly educated people, who seek only to uphold good science and it’s proper practice.

    If your side’s responses to any criticisms of both their works and their methods, were to be.

    “Okay we’ll go away and do some more research and address these concerns that you’ve raised”

    You’d be a lot further down the road to the apparent consensus that you seek, not that a consesus, is ever a useful scientific concept ;-)

    But, No….. You and your ilk would rather just attack people, as one might in a school playground – Can I ask what you think this usefully brings to a debate of any description, scientific or otherwise?

    Surely, if one is unable to rationalise one’s argument, then one will be unable to convince rational people… those of us, who might consider to call ourselves scientists, are on the whole both rational and logical, who tend towards the idea that science and the truth(obviously, for a given value of truth) will out. You, don’t think that engaging into debate with us would be more productive? How do you think all other scientific fields move forwards? When was the lastime you heard a string theorist called a quantum loop gravity denier?

    Your sides antics, simply confirm to the rest of us that you know you’ve already lost the scientific argument, so please feel free to continue, you only hasten your own decline ;-)

    Personally, if I’d ever treated any of my own data sets, in the same way that Tiljander’s Data has apparently been treated, then I’d be in trouble, as would any work that I’d published as a result.

  128. Latimer Alder says:

    I wonder if I am alone in thinking that Mann probably needs chemical therapy rather than legal advice?

    He has arrived at the age of 46, achieved a relatively senior academic position, is no stranger to public controversy and yet seems to have developed no more of a thick skin than a nervous teenage bully.

    I’m not a psychologist but I think that if I met him face to face I’d detect more than a hint of paranoia. Some of his Climategate buddies weren’t over-complimentary about his social skills and ‘touchiness’ either.

  129. Admad says:

    Mann has a Twitter tantrum – aah, bless

  130. larrygeiger says:

    Shevva says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:25 am
    Don’t know why but Mann always gets me singing ‘Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down’.

    Now that’s just plain funny right there!

  131. atheok says:

    Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 2:55 am
    Hi Everyone
    Thanks for providing me with ammunition. For instance….Arno Arrak (8.37pm) says: “I have personally studied the relevant data and can tell you that this thing called carbon dioxide greenhouse effect does not even exist”.

    Really? This Arno Arrak has ‘personally studied’ the GHE and can say that it does not exist? When will he be collecting his Nobel Prize in Physics I wonder?

    And not a word of skepticism from any of you!

    Whatever for!? This is a thread about Mann’s twitter tantrum tweets and being a general twit. Yet you woud have us challenge people’s personal statements about themselves and their general opinion.

    Decorum, courtesy and pleasant manners are necessary in discussions. The louder one side bluffs, threatens or descends to cheap personal attacks, the more sure we are which side is wrong. If not in the science as that part of the discussion is generally ignored by the noisy childish side, then definitely in their methods of practice.

    Mike (One of the Many) says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:22 am
    @Monty

    “But, No….. You and your ilk would rather just attack people, as one might in a school playground – Can I ask what you think this usefully brings to a debate of any description, scientific or otherwise?”

    Mike: You’ve proposed and identified some excellent points, but this one perfectly describes my thoughts when reading monty’s blusters.

    monty the schoolground bully! Challenge people loudly and publicly and maybe they’ll back down without a fight. Therefore nobody will realize how ignorant and cowardly the schoolground bully really is. And you would think people would have grown out of this childish approach by adulthood. Reaching a period known as maturity, that is if one has matured.

    I certainly don’t think this monty creep, (cheap insult, but you’ve earned it), is from Oxford University. We’ve been led to believe that scholars from Oxford are urbane, civil, educated and well, proper about things like science and scientific discussion. I’m more inclined to think he’s, (assumption of gender, should I challenge him to prove it?), from oxfordclimate.com.

    His whole method of cheap slanderous challenging of anyone here, failing to keep on topic, yet not putting anything forth of a real scientific discussion. Reminds me of that wikidelete cconneellyy chap.

  132. Roger Longstaff says:

    Anthony called Mony “Smith”

    Perhaps he is related to Captain Smith of the RSS Titanic, whose famous last words were:

    “Gentlemen, the consensus is that this ship is unsinkable. Oh, bugger…….

    More ice anybody?”

  133. David Jones says:

    Mr Green Genes says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:49 am

    REPLY: Dear Mr. Smith. Do you mean this one at 8:12AM? Or is it one of the other 23 comments you’ve made here? Please learn to use the scroll bar before complaining about non-issues that exist only in your mind, we expect better of Oxford staff. – Anthony

    Anthony – sadly, we in the UK have got used to not expecting anything better from Oxford staff. His unrelenting claptrap is, nowadays, the norm for what used to be a reputable establishment.

    It is not clear which Oxford is referred to, let alone which establishment in which Oxford. There are more than one.

  134. Reed Coray says:

    Jean Parisot says: April 16, 2012 at 10:54 am
    A suggestion, until Mann issues the retractions and corrections for the upside down tiljander data, please post his photo upside down.

    i agree. What better way to illustrate the upside-down world of Dr. Mann?

  135. TheAverageJoe says:

    Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg and commented:
    Dr. Mann explodes in furious temper-tantrum for nothing? Read more to find out.

  136. Tony Mach says:

    Michael Mann reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail: He will never acknowledge his defeat and he will never give up, all the while taunting his adversaries.

  137. Ryan says:

    Yet again this silly little Mann is calling for somebody to be sacked. It’s like living in Wonderland “off with his head!”. Does he behave likes this in his personal life do you think? Must get very tiresome for those around him.

  138. AndyB says:

    If everyone on Twitter rounded on Mann would it be The Twitter Batter of a Tiny Geek? Just wondering …

Comments are closed.