Mann's Grinning Cheshire Cat Commentary

Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”? Does Penn State offer that course? Heh.

He does look happy though. Plus, he has an interesting choice of wall art, I thought sure he’d frame his famous graph. Maybe he has a special room for that. Despite this “exoneration” that according to Sir Muir, didn’t examine the science, his hockey stick still doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

It’s dead. Jeff Id does a great review of what Muir missed, simple, basic, things that anyone who can read can see for themselves.

McCoy_hockey_stick_Its_dead_Jim

Here’s the link to the video interview, about 10 minutes long, if you can stand to watch that long.

About 6:45 into the interview Mann blames the current (east coast) heat wave on manmade warming. Of course we all know (because we are repeatedly beaten over the head with the phrase like we’re stupid or something) that “weather is not climate”.  Me thinks it’s more about asphalt.

‘Scuse me while I go look for an antiemetic. (mmpf!)

h/t to WUWT reader Loodt Pretorius

Update: From WUWT comments (Philip Foster) we have this.

If anyone is moved to write to Sir Muir Russell, here is his office address:

Sir Muir Russell

Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland

38-39 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

Scotland

Advertisements

139 thoughts on “Mann's Grinning Cheshire Cat Commentary

  1. The wall picture is framed Batik art, found across the African continent. He probably got this from a Kenyan tourist hotspot, but there’s some fantastic examples to found around Ghana, Togo and Benin (all well worth a visit).
    The hockey stick graph is probably in a photo frame, on his desk, facing his visitor seat (psychologists can tell you what that means).

  2. The picture in the background looks exactly like a batik print my dad got in Kenya in the early 70’s. The same picture with the same frame. Imagine that.

  3. jeef says:
    July 8, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    …The hockey stick graph is probably in a photo frame, on his desk, facing his visitor seat (psychologists can tell you what that means).

    Do you mean…..still didn’t go out of the closet?

  4. So the AGW scientists have all now been exonerated. They can now tidy up their house and get back to the serious business of saving the Earth. The AGW house has a brand new coat of paint… whitewash with green trim. I hear it is a nice red color on the inside.

  5. typos
    2
    though (should be thought)
    scruntiny (should be scrutiny)
    I don’t think you meant a tiny “scrunt”, a grass-covered lupine that lays preternaturally flat, though “preternaturally flat” is certainly an apt description of his hockey stick graph that misses the Medieval Warm Period…
    REPLY: Thanks, fixed. I was fighting nausea. -A

  6. For Mann-made stomach upsets, I recommend turning off the TV and the Internet, throwing out today’s “obsolete print media” (newspapers), getting an engrossing novel to read, and fixing yourself some licorice tea. [Some people recommend ginger, but that is like trying to put out a fire by adding gasoline.]

  7. O J was also happy.
    I agree with him it is not coincidental. All the girls and parties at Copenhagen. Same chicks and parties at mexico City.
    I notice he plays the tobacco card.
    Well financed well organized attack. But he can’t name the person that leaked.

  8. After reading the e-mails and observing the methods and mien of Mann, I feel nothing but revulsion and disgust.
    As a professional chemist, my understanding of the peer-review process and the conducting of science and scientific investigation has received a rude awakening. I would expect politicos, businessmen and advocates to be capable of subverting and exploiting existing systems. While I know from other instances (fraudulent research revelations for example) that the peer-review process eventually finds the fault and lays it accurately, the depth and breadth of this calumny will take a long time to unravel and unwind.
    Thankfully, we will not rest until this unscrupulous wrong has been righted.

  9. In my view, Mike was a lot more effective in the video that showed him tackling pine trees with a cheerful sound track:

  10. Watched the Mann video, start to finish. He does lie well, and his use of ad hominems is remarkable. I rate it an A++ for Alarmist bafflegab and for self-satisfied puffery.
    Need to take a shower now.

  11. So, off into the sunset we go, singing “Que sera sera”. It was fun following and being a skeptic for a while. The slough of despond becons and “pliable” lives another day.

  12. All this shows is that the rot in Science / Academia is worse than we thought. In fact, the Hockey Stick clearly shows the great increase of this rot in the latter half of the last century. There is definitely a man-made global warning, to say nothing of the Mann-made global warping.

  13. “Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”?”
    “I rate it an A++ for Alarmist bafflegab and for self-satisfied puffery.”
    Many of us would take you more seriously, Mr. Watts et al., if you were not so obviously biased and antagonistic.
    REPLY: I used sarcasm. But Mann’s biased and antagonistic comments are ok? Thanks for clearing that up. -A

  14. Mikey seems to think he’s having the last laugh . . . let’s hope he enjoys it while he can.
    Have a nice career Mikey.
    How do you like your toast?

  15. I watched only 20 seconds of this gurning fool’s verbal garbage before I simply HAD to switch off the video.
    What a load of cobblers, right from the very beginning!

  16. Don’t worry.
    In New Zealand we had an MP that was exonerated by a parliamentary enquiry of accusations of taking bribes.
    As soon as he came out from under the protection of the then ruling Labour party, he had to face the same charges in a court of law, and is currently serving a gaol term. 🙂
    Anyone with half a brain knows that the type of investigation that Mann & Jones have been subjected to are a complete joke, and the conclusions reached are worthless. They are always subject to “terms of reference” that actually mean that the investigation is hobbled deliberately so that the result can be predetermined.

  17. An amazingly straight-faced series of lies. Mann knows that Steve McIntyre, for instance is not paid by the fossil fuel industry, but implies it. Of course the idea that he’s been exonerated is silly. I note the interviewer never asked him how he’d answer the charge that the panels were white-washes, and that not one of them actually looked at the science nor defended it. Others have mentioned the purposeful confusion of climate and weather. Mann also does the old poisoning the well “trick” bringing in the claim that climate change “deniers” are rife with tobacco “deniers.” His characterization of “climategage” is of note too. He claims the charges coming from a face value reading of the e-mails have somehow been refuted, though he gives on particulars. All in all, nice propaganda, but for those of us who have read the e-mails, and all the other things Mann and his cronies have done, the major value of the interview is that his lies and distortions are all there in one place to be pointed out when needed.

  18. ♫♫♫
    Roly Poly scrambled eggs for breakfast
    Bread and jelly twenty times a day
    Roly Poly eats a hard day dinner
    It takes lots of strength to run and play
    Well now he pulls up trees
    And does the chores
    Runs both ways through all the doors
    He wears up that apetite that way
    Roly Poly daddy’s Al Little Fatty
    I bet he’s gonna be a politician someday ♫♫♫

  19. There is the inconvenient fact of a law suit still on going. Of course Penn would clear him if they had half the chance. Otherwise they would be pleading guilty to the charges in the law suit and have to come up with the money to pay back VA.

  20. It takes half a brain cell of the most idiotic specie that ever existed in the universe to see that Mann’s tree ring proxy based temperature reconstructions with hidden decline was not good science and was deceptive.

  21. Regardless of this video of this “vindicated” scientist, it is amusing to observe they needed at least 5 reports to exonerate the poor Mann.
    If they wish to keep what’s left of their credibility -very little as we know- they should stop there…
    In the time of World Cup Soccer, the Sir Muir report was the an antiClimatic Mannshaft…

  22. “Mann’s biased and antagonistic comments are ok? ”
    This is the dialogue you have fostered, Mr. Watts. It is a little late to begin playing the martyr or crying foul play. The scientists are gaining a voice in the media. You can backlash like small children or you can discuss. For many of us, your voice is the more blatantly provoking and unreasonable.
    REPLY: Oh gosh, you don’t get around to some of the other sites much do you? Since you dodged it, I’ll repeat:
    Mann’s biased and antagonistic comments are ok? And a bonus question: Is it OK to use your taxpayer funded position at a university to harrass the public? – A

  23. Jules says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    “Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”?”
    “I rate it an A++ for Alarmist bafflegab and for self-satisfied puffery.”
    Many of us would take you more seriously, Mr. Watts et al., if you were not so obviously biased and antagonistic.
    —————————————————————————————
    Biased by science and fact; antagonistic when challenged on it.

  24. I don’t see a surprise at all.
    They investigated themselves for lying, cheating, and rigging the results…
    …..now isn’t that odd

  25. What I want to know is how do I become a professional “climate change denier” and start to collect my well earned stipend from the fuels industry that they surely must owe me.
    But does it matter if I am not a climate change denier; after all, if the weather changes; and we know it changes every day and in every part of the globe; so how could climate not change. It’s me taking the blame for it that I am against. For the last time; no I didn’t do it; and no; nothing I could possibly do; would either do it; or undo it.
    So get off my back; but I still could use that stipend than Professor Mann of Penn State, says I am due. He must be the second thing that Penn State is known for; don’t they play some sort of football there?
    No: not the Copa Mondial kinda football; but that real “please don’t kick the ball” kind of football ?

  26. Yes, well, i just had to watch it and I have to say that it didn’t disappoint.
    Same old MM, same old collective nouns, contrarians, deniers, orchestrated professional big oil funded enemies of the people who have moved from lobbying about tobacco etc etc. This record is well and truly worn out. Michael Mann is a poor deluded soul who, (it appears to me) has totally lost touch with reality.
    Sad really.

  27. Mom2girls says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Wait till the Virginia AG gets done with him…
    This week it is reported that Greenpeace is doing an all out personal attack on the AG. Just like Mann claims to be the victum of. You don’t want to attack a prosecutor and then try to win a case.

  28. I watched the video and was blown over when she stated a question that included the phrase “given the global consensus” and he didn’t correct her.
    There can’t be a global consensus regarding a branch of Science that’s only 10+ years old unless everyone is on to many meds or am I missing something important?

  29. I could only watch about six minutes of this crap. So much of the same arguments about the ‘skeptics/deniers’ , such as being funded by the fossil fuel industry,
    I suggest we ALL write, phone, or e-mail him, and ask him to have a DEBATE with other prominent climate researchers, such as Dr. Spencer, Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Christy, et al. about this. And with no nasty comments or threats, just something simple as,
    “Mr. Mann, I would like very much to see you debate your position on climate change with others in your field, such as Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Christy. Would you please consider doing so. ”
    This is from Mann’s website as to address, phone, and e-mail
    523 Walker Building
    University Park, PA 16802
    Email: mann@psu.edu
    Phone: (814) 863-4075

  30. UPDATE, concerning e-mailing Michael Mann:
    (ref posting of July 8, 2010 at 3:00 pm)
    I just got an out-of-office reply from Mann’s e-mais that says:
    “I will be away from my email through July 24, 2010.
    Any email sent before then may remain unread and be discarded. If your message is important, you will need to resend after that date.”
    . . how CONVEEEENIENT . . . ! ! !

  31. A bit OT but below that video linked on Mann on the same page is also a video of how the spill is pushing the energy bill through congress.
    The more that congressional action is pushed right now the more my suspicions grow that either the BP manager who OKed the flushing of the mud that caused that spill or someone even higher up in BP was possibly bought off to make such an asinine decision. It has come out that they knew that well was having trouble weeks, even months, before the blowout. I think a query for a possible criminal investigation into that explicit matter may be now be called for, something is starting to stink and it’s not from the oil.

  32. I say, who was it that did these jolly old inquiries, eh old chap? Sir Humphrey Appleby? Sound fellow. Only asks questions where he thinks he knows the answers …

  33. Penn State does produce first-rate linebackers. Given the he-gets-grants-ergo-he’s-innocent logic of the university investigatiors, they should appoint Mann to take over football recruiting. I doubt that Joe Pa would be happy in that valley.

  34. “REPLY: Thanks, fixed. I was fighting nausea. -A”
    Odd, after watching the video, I , too, became distracted by an overwhelming urge to purge. Is this an epidemic? Are other critical thinkers similarly effected?

  35. It doesn’t matter what the science is, and it doesn’t matter what Mann’s actions were. The University needed to exonerate him for the simple legal reason that finding otherwise would open the university to all sorts of lawsuits. That’s how it works in this country.

  36. Whatever became of Mann’s threat to take the “Hide the Decline” parody folks to court? I haven’t heard anything of it as of late, but I’m glad it was posted above as it gave me a reprieve; I simply could not get myself to listen to Mann’s self-exoneration video–I’ve got a steel stomach but not for his ilk.

  37. If we can win the house back this November, Inhofe may be able to serve some justice. Until then, there is no law.

  38. ZT says:
    July 8, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    So the “Hide The Decline” tune is back?
    I love it! Thanks ZT!

  39. Jules says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Many of us would take you more seriously, Mr. Watts et al., if you were not so obviously biased and antagonistic.
    “Us” meaning what, Alarmist trolls? You’re right, though there is a bias here, in favor of science, and the truth. But, I guess you wouldn’t know anything about that.
    People tend to get angry when they are lied to by people they are supposed to be able to trust. Surprise, surprise.

  40. Just a thought–Mann is more talented than I gave him credit. Just think of the hole he is digging, and not with a shovel, but with his tongue. Stupendously talented, I’d venture.

  41. Julesbue@gmail.com says:
    July 8, 2010 at 1:37 pm
    “So the AGW scientists have all now been exonerated. They can now tidy up their house and get back to the serious business of saving the Earth. The AGW house has a brand new coat of paint… whitewash with green trim. I hear it is a nice red color on the inside.”
    Yes. Its from the Watermelon School of Social Architecture. But, for the good of the planet and the serfs, the penthouses are designed to provide the dear leaders with the all the comforts they need to continue providing their robust thoughts.
    And no doubt that new paint is also the same kind of latex that Anthony discovered increasing the temperature readings on weather stations, just for good measure.

  42. michael mann just go and get a real job like digging up the roads with a pick and shovel

  43. I notice we have a concern troll
    Mann was quick to point out the Big Oil influence.
    Penn State is hot right now because the Marcellus shale is hot. BP is donating, recruiting and funding. Big oil is offering graduate fellowships and various internships. Mann can mouth off too much and the other departments may speak up.
    There are very few petrol geology schools back east.

  44. Even though they have got away with it – what is it? – 5 times now? 5 investigations? There ain’t no smoke…
    And think of all that evil CO2…

  45. The Climate problems are compounding. What to do with: …..’…undiscovered species face extinction!’. Think about it.

  46. morgo says:
    July 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    “michael mann just go and get a real job like digging up the roads with a pick and shovel”
    He should be just about qualified for that. Isn’t he a “geologist”?

  47. I’ve just posted this over at BishopHill. if you will pardon the duplication:
    Acton (and Russell) seem to miss a rather obvious point: ‘Science’ has at its core a requirement for disclosure, openness, sharing of data, and replication. The value of scientific knowledge is not determined by some panel, but by whether, through time, science conducted according to such principles withstands scrutiny and its hypotheses withstand repeated attempts at falsification. Climate science relies too much on nonsense such as speculative extrapolation (use of the word ‘could’), and bringing evidence to the theory (the use of ‘consistent with’), rather than the generation of falsifiable hypotheses. Where it has produced falsifiable predictions (water vapour will rise with temperature, there will be a hotspot at a particular place in the atmosphere, etc) its hypotheses are not well supported by evidence.
    As the US Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v Merril Dow, science is a process. It is oxymoronic to suggest that the process can be flawed, but the science sound. End of story.
    Besides, those of us who follow ‘Yes, Minister’ recognise only too well the Sir Humphrey Appleby kind of enquiry: pick someone who is ‘sound’ and limit the terms of reference. Such an enquiries are little more than an exercise of power, and in that regard I prefer the more venerable Acton. As His Lordship put it, ‘All power corrupts….’ Exercising power to defend poor scientific practice simply corrupts science

  48. Climategate and post-climategate inquiries/”investigations” — can anyone say mutual admiration society?

  49. “his hockey stick still doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.”
    And yet, as I said on that other thread: The give away is this: “Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller,” So where is this new graph constructed using the “appropriate technique” that has a smaller blade? Well it doesn’t actually exist, Professor Hand is talking nonsense.

  50. Jules says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    “Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”?”
    “I rate it an A++ for Alarmist bafflegab and for self-satisfied puffery.”
    Many of us would take you more seriously, Mr. Watts et al., if you were not so obviously biased and antagonistic.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    It is obvious you either have an agenda or have not bothered to read the Climategate emails
    As a chemist I was appalled at what climate “scientists” have done to science. If historians are truthful this era will be known as the same sort of tragedy as the 1633 trial of Galileo Galilei, [where] two worlds come into cosmic conflict. Galileo’s world of science and humanism collides with the world of Scholasticism and absolutism that held power in the Catholic Church. The result is a tragedy that marks both the end of Galileo’s liberty and the end of the Italian Renaissance.
    In our era the two world colliding are experimental science and Western Civilization vs another form of absolutism called “Global Governance” or Agenda 21.
    Here is the link to the full text of Agenda 21: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
    Here is the email reference to the equivalent (sustainability) see comment for links: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/06/sustainability-teaching-lack-of-ethical-dimension/#comment-424598
    “Agenda 21 is a detailed prescription for the goals and objectives of a global, totalitarian system. It is all out in the open and always was. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Those with the potential for absolute, total power to control have no need to conspire. They just do it.” (Walter Schneider )
    AGW is just the window dressing to keep the serfs quiet as their freedom and wealth is stolen in the name of “sustainability” and “global governance”
    If we are very very lucky you and your children will not look back to this time and curse the day they listened to and believed Mann instead of Anthony Watts. Unfortunately I think the vast majority of people are fooled by the slick used car salesmen like Mann and therefore we are headed into another dark age in the not too distant future.

  51. We’ll see what Mann has to say when the still building La Nina has its full impact. Last month, Land temperatures fell by as much as 0.25C as the effects of the El Nino wear off. There are areas in the circulation system of the ENSO in the Pacific which are low as -7.0C and all the indicators are pointing to this La Nina being a very strong one.

  52. In that beautiful symmetry that we call life, the first spontaneous thought that springs to mind upon viewing this video is “puffed up”.
    At first, we may try to suppress such involuntary responses (in shame) – but then we might wonder at their dogged persistence…
    Not for Mike a few lowly individuals unearthing embarrassing sloppiness in his work… Mike needs a WHOLE INDUSTRY pitted against him.
    Not for Mike a handful of armchair amateurs pointing out his errors… Mike needs the FOSIL FUEL FUNDED PROFESSIONALS seeking his downfall.
    Mike’s inflated obstacles are as necessary to Mike as his inflated ‘science’ is. One feeds off the other in the ever-expanding universe of Mikeness. And the result of all this inflation is there to witness in Mike’s video.

  53. if you can stand to watch that long
    No, I can’t. I can’t even stand to see the photo above.

  54. The more the AGW scam lasts the better (its fun to watch) guys und gals don’t worry the temp data is what counts and it ain’t gonna go AGW LOL. BTW NH temp data still below and sea surface going down quick and it means nothing zilch , zero its just like like if it was going up as well means nothing in climate terms. I predict that from August this year ALL the data will be going against the AGW theory

  55. This man is taking his last laugh. He knows he’s on thin ice, because the globe is not warming. He’s playing out his tragedy to the end. In the future, bad science will be refered to as “hockey stick”.
    And Mann and Lysenko will be synonyms.

  56. PJB,
    You lumped in businessmen with politicos who are typically subversive of existing systems. As a former practicing engineer (PhD in Chemical engineering) now in business, I actually find that businessmen hold themselves to a high standard, otherwise if once found as a fraud, lose all credibility and ability to do deals. Unfortunately, businessmen are smeared by swindlers, who by definition, are not the norm. Please don’t confuse swindlers with businessmen. The world would not function without them. The same cannot be said of politicians.

  57. Marxism targets intellectuals and farmers (farmer story in the next thread). The only ‘intellectuals’ and ‘scientists’ not targeted in that philosophy are ones that aid it. Is Michael Mann one such? Is this Marxism or just the worst side of mankind unfolding before our eyes?
    Dr. William Happer talking about the ‘more equal’ Hockey Stick graph.

  58. Jules says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    This is the dialogue you have fostered, Mr. Watts. It is a little late to begin playing the martyr or crying foul play. The scientists are gaining a voice in the media.
    You sound like a character from a movie, say….1984. Or better yet, you sound like Baghdad Bob, “The Americans are not here. We are pushing them back. We are cleaning them out.”
    Poll numbers show no one cares about global warming.
    Care to reply to me?

  59. Lucy Skywalker says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    to say nothing of the Mann-made global warping.
    This is the sad part. It is also a smelling salts. There’s another day coming! 🙂

  60. A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion shows step by step, in very convincing detail, how Michael Mann deliberately manipulated long accepted algorithms in order to create his hockey stick chart [BTW, Montford is Bishop Hill].
    Mann’s algorithms produce a hockey stick shape even when a random series of currency trades is entered. In fact, with Mann’s algorithm it is hard to not produce a hockey stick shape. And as Montford shows, Mann’s response when asked about it is to repeatedly – and provably – lie. That is stupid, for someone presumed to be smart.
    Either Mann devised his current strategy of talking with friendly media types, or someone has advised him to never give an interview unless the interviewer is completely sympathetic. That is bad advice, for reasons that an arrogant person may not understand.
    Instead, Mann should have made a short statement after each whitewash that he was putting the matter behind him because he was exonerated, then never said another word about it. He should have said the same thing with increasing exasperation following every whitewash, and he certainly should have worked hard to appear humble, and contrite for any mistakes, like Phil Jones did. Then he would have garnered some sympathy as someone who was being unfairly harassed.
    Instead, Mann has been a real Chatty Kathy doll, stating things that may well come back to haunt him if he is ever forced to answer questions posed by a very unfriendly litigant or state prosecutor.
    Michael Mann and Barack Obama have much in common. Both were propelled upward at a young age, and neither one had any real accomplishments under their belts. They are both arrogant without cause, vindictive, and they like to step on toes to show who’s boss. That might not go down well with co-workers who toiled in anonymity for decades, only to see a young upstart get all the glory — based on what they must know to be bad science.
    I suspect that whoever leaked the emails was a fellow scientist who was pretty disgusted with a guy who, still in his early 30’s, lorded it over everyone. Mann became a hero of the university and government/UN scientists who game the system in order to keep the grant money flowing. They will turn on him if he becomes a liability.
    None of Michael Mann’s rainmaking will matter if he makes even one mis-step. If he is ever in a true adversarial legal proceeding, his words and his hockey stick algorithm will show the world a dishonest scientist. One mistake, and Michael Mann will be in the ranks of Jan Hendrik Schön, Victor Ninov, and Woo Suk Hwang.
    He should really STFU, but his ego is too big, and he cannot resist getting his digs in. One day, he may face a very long, drawn out deposition under oath, and have to convincingly defend both his science and his comments. Until then, I hope he keeps talking.

  61. James Inhofe is a cretin. Every time he opens his mouth he does more to advance support for climate change than any true believer could do. I have been skeptical of many apocalyptic pronouncements for many years, but the alignment of those theories with a political spectrum holds far less water than the theories themselves. If you want to cheapen the debate about junk science by showing how it sometimes somehow confirms your world view, then by all means go ahead. But don’t be surprised when all it takes to marginalize you is a raised eyebrow and a smirk. Poor science and worse science reporting have been endemic in the United States for decades, regardless of the prevailing political moods. The way to rectify the situation is with facts, not emotion.

  62. What do you suppose will happen to the employment market value of Penn State academic degrees in the wake of the sham Mann investigations?

  63. ““Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”?””
    Professional means you do it for money. Some may claim I am a denier, but I make no money from it.
    Unlike the climate change industry, where Mann and Jones get millions of dollars of grants, and CRU got money from BP and Exxon. This is the warmist hypocrisy.

  64. Eric says:
    July 8, 2010 at 7:32 pm
    James Inhofe is a cretin. Every time he opens his mouth he does more to advance support for climate change than any true believer could do. I have been skeptical of many apocalyptic pronouncements for many years, but the alignment of those theories with a political spectrum holds far less water than the theories themselves. If you want to cheapen the debate about junk science by showing how it sometimes somehow confirms your world view, then by all means go ahead. But don’t be surprised when all it takes to marginalize you is a raised eyebrow and a smirk. Poor science and worse science reporting have been endemic in the United States for decades, regardless of the prevailing political moods. The way to rectify the situation is with facts, not emotion.
    —…—…—…
    And you are directing your criticism towards Inhofe – one of the few politicians who’s staff actually discusses the real (lack of) science of CAGW and the billions who will suffer needlessly under Obama’s 1.3 trillion dollar cap and tax bill?
    Why?
    Give me five specific examples of where Inhofe is wrong.
    Give me any example – even one – where Mann-made global warming is correct.

  65. Mom2girls says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Wait till the Virginia AG gets done with him…
    We can only hope, can’t we. 🙂

  66. Jules says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Many of us would take you more seriously, Mr. Watts et al., if you were not so obviously biased and antagonistic.
    Meaning you and the others under the bridge with you?

  67. Follow the money, if you will please, sir, down the rabbit hole where money is god.

  68. What a disturbing, hard to watch video. I almost ralphed a couple of times.
    Was it just me….or did anyone else note the occasional sneers and weird half-smiles…like little jabs in the stomach?
    I realize that pretty much no one skypes well but skype or not….this individual is not to be trusted.
    Shifty-eyed, sneering, and biased….it is almost pathetic to watch him in in constant “defense mode”…while even the babe reporter (who herself has a restrictive line of questioning) struggle to get a good answer out of him.
    Its in his eyes and his energy.
    He is not to be trusted.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  69. White washes are normal for academia. Heck, I can link to a story where a college professor calls white Republican students “white shit bags” on video tape and the inquiry panel finds no problem because the professor was generalizing against all white people, not the particular student to which he was getting in the face of.
    It must take an amazing amount of self dishonesty to be a lefty.

  70. Hey, did you guys get your big oil cheque in the mail this month ?
    I still haven’t received mine yet…

  71. I haven’t recieved my check either, but I keep hearing that their money is good. I wonder if I can take out a loan on the promises of the lefties. Really Mr. Banker, the Commies say the pay off is coming. They swear they aren’t lying this time!

  72. I did watch the whole thing and noted only two comments he made on climate;
    1. The current US heatwave is an indicator of climate change.
    2. The cold last US winter was unusual.
    How does he justify this? Could it not be equally possible to consider these events the other way round? Heatwave as ‘unusual’ and cold as ‘climate change’
    Or possibly, as an observer without an agenda might call them – weather extremes.

  73. Jules,
    You’re right… We are bigoted…
    We are bigoted against ignorance, malfeasance, incompetence, intentional stupidity, violation of the scientific method, and fixing evidence to make ones hypotheses to fit the data, rather than making sure the data fits the hypothesis, to those who think their place in education or politics allows them to circumvent the law of education and the laws of the land, then pat us on the head like morons when ones politico buddies white wash the information and totally overlook the obvious facts.
    We are biggoted against unethical people like Al Gore et al. who want to destroy our economy to fill their lust for money through environmental taxes like CAP and TRADE for something that has been proven time and time again to not be true!
    We are bigoted against blinded people who refuse to be reasonable and discuss science like men, but instead have to fling red herrings like the strange psychotic character on the Muppets or fling on obnoxious ad homonym insult after another when the same group of people who are supposed experts can’t answer a simple question.
    We are prejudiced against people using the same argument over and over and over thinking in ignorance or arrogance that just because it is said a million times that we’ll start believing it.
    History doesn’t tell us for sure whether it was Hitler, Goering, or Churchill, but the fact of the matter is, the comment stands the test of time and apparently is a favorite of the alarmist elite. “Say a big enough lie often enough, over and over and the masses will begin to believe in time.”
    Only problem is we are not ignorant at WUWT.
    We are like Roddy Piper in the movie, “They Live”. We have the special glasses and we can see past all the cra* that is passing for science from the side of the Alarmist Elite and we’re not falling for it and it makes us sick to our stomachs.

  74. Where’s my stipend for coining ClimateGate darnit… It should have been a pension for life. It is a travesty that I can’t explain the lack of funding!

  75. Mr Watts, i’d ignore the trolls or you’ll end up having to apologies to someone for no reason.

  76. I have a suspicion that there might be more gaps in the education and the grasp of logic of a professor who speaks of “warmer temperatures”. I cannot wait to hear him talk of the dangers of a “higher climate”.

  77. Lucy Skywalker says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    All this shows is that the rot in Science / Academia is worse than we thought.

    Their “extend and pretend” policy is just digging establishment science / academia deeper into their hole. But they feel safer in their bunker. And they can’t imagine nature dramatically falsifying the warmist / alarmist consensus soon. Let’s hope they’ve “tempted fate” thereby.

  78. Peter S says:
    July 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    In that beautiful symmetry that we call life, the first spontaneous thought that springs to mind upon viewing this video is “puffed up”.
    ……..
    Mike’s inflated obstacles are as necessary to Mike as his inflated ‘science’ is. One feeds off the other in the ever-expanding universe of Mikeness. And the result of all this inflation is there to witness in Mike’s video.

    Narcissism.

  79. Anthony Watts, you’re hilarious! Just two days ago we predicted that you’ll respond to the Muir Russell report by attacking Michael Mann. And — true to form — that’s exactly what you did!
    Face it: you’re just obsessed with Michael Mann.

  80. stepanovich,
    It seems that the comments in this thread have gone right over your head. That’s what happens with true believers.
    If you can not see that this internal ‘investigation’ was specifically designed to excuse scientific misconduct, then there is nothing the rest of us can do to help you.

  81. Gee, Mann is really digging himself a rather large hole in that video.
    It’s the longest interview I’ve seen from him and I have to say, he doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed………. I’m not surprised, he’s built his career on a lie and that never ends well…..
    There are people in every profession who get to where they are by spinning bullshit. I know quite a few in my line of business……
    Luckily, it always ends the same way…… people that have to use spin rather than talent to get work eventually crash and burn by going one bullshit story to far.
    That interview doesn’t make me angry, we all know and deal with people like Mann in every day life. He’s a bit stupid and I feel a little bit sorry for him. Not a very good strategist I have to say.

  82. What a great interview. Focussed and tight. My favorite part is the effect the opposition has had. None! Mann has published more, researched more, aquired better resources and become more influential in the face of attack. True science hasn’t stopped.
    Well done.

  83. “I will be away from my email through July 24, 2010.
    Any email sent before then may remain unread and be discarded.”
    Deleting emails? I thought these guys were above reproach….

  84. To Chris
    Indeed, my brush was very broad and, of course, many within the business ranks are forthright and upstanding individuals. (The the Gulf of Mexico fiasco following on the heels of the financial crisis, well, you know…) My zeal to condemn Mann was more powerful than sensible.
    His time will come.

  85. How sad you all are falling over yourselves to agree with Anthony Watts ….ooh I could only watch the vid for six minutes …. No !! I could only watch for six seconds …. well I could not watch it at ALL … that sort of thing , and you talk of AWG true believers it seems as if a cult is building around WUWT and Anthony Watts .
    I come here for alternative views on climate science but have to wade through so many comments just stating how its common sense that there is no AWG and that others must be stupid or be of malevolent mind to even suggest it . Its repeated on every page ad nauseum to the point that one wonders if its just to reinforce their own belief .

  86. John McManus,
    You clearly don’t know the players.
    Winston Smith,
    Please provide any real world evidence of AGW, if you can. See, that’s the problem: climate alarmists insist AGW exists… but they are unable to provide testable evidence. So they demand that we take it on faith. But faith is not science, except in the deluded minds of fictional Orwell characters.☺

  87. Every inquiry into the invasion of Iraq and the “intelligence” behind it, directed at the UK politicians and elites involved at the time has exonerated all of them.
    Blair, Straw et al. are obviously completely innocent. I remember the front page of The Independent after one of the inquiries – just one word, “whitewash”. Who are these people to deny the evidence of an official investigation eh?

  88. Winston Smith says:
    I come here for alternative views on climate science but have to wade through so many comments just stating how its common sense that there is no AWG and that others must be stupid or be of malevolent mind to even suggest it .

    Maybe this site should tag the “attack” threads in some way, so you can avoid them. But there are plenty of sciency threads. Click on the “Categories” header in the sidebar, then click on a topic of interest.

  89. Smokey
    I dont demand that anyone takes AWG on faith , I would like that people look at all sides , but there are some people here that only accept anti AGW science and demand to take on faith that all pro AGW science is corrupt , to me anything that fit with my world view I am even more skeptical of becuase I recognise an inbuilt bias , therefore I seek out alternative views , Iam no scientist or even academic so I could not give a qualified answer to “Please provide any real world evidence of AGW, if you can” . I dont have the skillls to engage debate at that level of climate science .
    “deluded minds of fictional Orwell characters.” Ah but Winston wasnt deluded he always new 2+2=4 and the only reason he believed 2+2=5 in the end was because he new it would bring death his only escape .
    remember if someone agrees with you its not because they think your right its becuase they think their right….. lol that sounds crappy but its late

  90. Northern Exposure says: July 8, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    Hey, did you guys get your big oil cheque in the mail this month ?
    I still haven’t received mine yet…

    Didn’t you hear, BP was forced to suspend dividends.

  91. “”” Winston Smith says:
    July 9, 2010 at 6:49 am
    How sad you all are falling over yourselves to agree with Anthony Watts ….ooh I could only watch the vid for six minutes …. No !! I could only watch for six seconds …. well I could not watch it at ALL … that sort of thing , and you talk of AWG true believers it seems as if a cult is building around WUWT and Anthony Watts .
    I come here for alternative views on climate science but have to wade through so many comments just stating how its common sense that there is no AWG and that others must be stupid or be of malevolent mind to even suggest it . Its repeated on every page ad nauseum to the point that one wonders if its just to reinforce their own belief . “””
    Well Winston; I can’t say that I have seen any of your previous posts here; if I have missed them, then perhaps I should go and search better.
    But if this one here represents your view of this site; then I think you probably need to go to Real Climate or some other place that doesn’t allow ANY “alternative views”; which is apparently what you seek.
    It would seem that you had some preconceived notion of what an “alternative view” might comprise.
    My experience here has been quite different from yours evidently. As near as I can tell, Anthony and other guests provide articles and stories from other sources; or from their own works; and they are presented here for us to read; and comment on should we choose.
    I don’t see Anthony in an “editorial role” pushing what may be his view of any of these articles; they usually are just here for us to do with as we choose (or not).
    There are plenty of quite serious posters who present views, and arguments, and papers and other data; that would generally be construed as supportive of a man made global warming climate change scenario; but don’t really take a “political” position on that issue; just offer real science in that vein. I’m not going to name names; because those who come here often know who some of those are.
    And the inputs of those posters, are quite thought provoking and often instructive, and illuminating too.
    So if you think this is one monolithic road block to the ascendancy of AGW philosophy; then I think you just haven’t beeen reading here long enough.
    Unless I have slipped up (and I do that), you won’t find anything from me, denying that CO2 intercepts LWIR radiation as is claimed; that’s an indefensible position. Nor that there wasn’t a recent period of warming; and ice melting and that part of that may be ongoing. You won’t find me claiming that man doesn’t affect his environment by his actions.
    But neither do I believe that a case has been made that these changes are significant; or under our control; or that the result of any such changes will be catastrophic for the planet or for humans.
    And I base that position on just what I know of some elements of the pertinent science. Much of it, I have no knowledge of, and no interest in either; since largely it is entirely peripheral to the main issue of whether planet earth is on a collision course with an unsurvivable future that we are creating (climatically).
    We certainly seem to be doing that politically; but I think political errors and folly will get us long before the climate becomes unliveable.
    I have only one interest in this subject; and that is to see that they get the science correct; and frankly I don’t think they are even close to explaining what really controls the planet’s climate; which I think is quite stable and quite out of our control.
    And no I don’t get one brass razoo for saying so or believing so. My work is in no way involved in either climate or energy or other consumable raw material resources; not have I ever worked for any enterprise or company; that has any such interests; well I should change that; I did once work for Monsanto Chemical Company; and when I worked for them; they made Sacharine, Aspirin, Soap powder (ALL of them), Non-flammable Hydraulic fluids, Astro-Turf, Single Crystal Silicon, Exotic III-V semi-conductor materials; and fertilizers. That was 45 years ago, and all I did for them was design digital electronic Instruments (which they sold), and Optical Semi-conductor products.
    Since then, of course they have become big in genetic modified products. At no time have I ever owned any of their stock; or had any other fiduciary interest in them.
    So I’m interested in just the science; well the facts of the science; and frankly I see quite a lot of what is non-science , masquerading as science.
    But Winston; you know better than we do; how it was that you got here to WUWT. That same process, can take you to many other places where you can find “alternative views” that are much more in tune with your expectations.
    So you are not locked in just because you found this place.

  92. It will be interesting to watch Dr. Mann’s career trajectory.
    Let’s call it a useful idiot case study and we’ll see what happens now that he’s no longer useful.

  93. Winston Smith says:
    July 9, 2010 at 6:49 am
    I come here for alternative views on climate science
    You’ve come to the right place, then. For the “settled science” see RC Koolaid, DeSmog Bilge, or WikiConnelly.
    Many of us used to believe the “consensus”. Many skeptics/climate realists in fact come from the liberal side of the political spectrum, where, in fact the concept of manmade global warming does fit their built-in bias. It was, in fact only once we started looking at the actual evidence that we began to see there was a lot of hype, smoke and mirrors, exaggeration, and outright lies. It’s a simple matter of pulling the blinders off a smidge. Try it.

  94. “Jules,
    You’re right… We are bigoted…
    We are bigoted against ignorance, malfeasance, incompetence, intentional stupidity, violation of the scientific method, and fixing evidence to make ones hypotheses to fit the data, rather than making sure the data fits the hypothesis, to those who think their place in education or politics allows them to circumvent the law of education and the laws of the land, then pat us on the head like morons when ones politico buddies white wash the information and totally overlook the obvious facts.”
    **********************************************************************
    I don’t believe I used the word “bigoted.” But I do think I argued that the good people here have a simplified, antagonistic, one-sided, hardened mindset that repeatedly goes against both the science (at least the science done by the professional scientists) and the official version of events. I look at your comment excerpted above and cannot conceive of the paranoia and aggression toward these people.
    There may be a reason that none of the “skeptics” were called to testify (other than a lack of credentials for most skeptics) and that very well may be the juvenile nature generally found in the the skeptical opinion.

  95. Jules, do you have a grasp on the backstory? Did you read any of the emails in question? As a person concerned about the integrity of science, are you satisfied with the investigations?

  96. Marge says:
    July 9, 2010 at 10:21 am:
    “The hockey stick hasn’t been debunked.”
    What?? Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick chart has been thoroughly debunked. That is the reason why the IPCC can no longer use it in their assessment reports. They can only use pale imitations now, which do not have nearly the visual impact of Mann’s deconstructed chart. The IPCC would love to continue using the MBH99 chart — but if they did, what is left of their evaporating credibility would drop even further.
    Jules,
    Putting quotation marks around the word skeptics is disingenuous, because the only honest scientists are skeptics first, last, and always.
    You state:
    “There may be a reason that none of the “skeptics” were called to testify (other than a lack of credentials for most skeptics) and that very well may be the juvenile nature generally found in the the skeptical opinion.”
    That baseless assumption fails the smell test. Marge was good enough to re-post Mann’s CV. Compare it with this. Then think about who is being juvenile.

  97. @Jules says: July 9, 2010 at 11:22 am
    Jules, your contributions here are a bit like urinating in your trousers.
    I’m sure your pithy comments feel really hot to you!
    For the rest of us, they’re just rather sad and embarassing.
    Other than the usual arguments from “authority” (“science done by the professional scientists”, “lack of credentials for most skeptics”) it is you have absolutely no point to make.

  98. I have read the emails – and I could find very little that was truly damning. Skeptics tend to read a great deal into the illegally released emails where there is very little actual smoke. Climategate has become something of an obsession with the skeptics even as the scandal (created on sites like this one) is slowly beginning to simmer down.
    And yes, Smokey, I am very well aware of Dr. Lindzen. He is usually trotted out at a point like this, almost as if he were a talisman of sorts or perhaps the big brother that is gonna get everyone after school. I was not aware that he worked for the CRU, however, and I am aware that he is one of the relatively few qualified voices (very few qualified voices, actually) in the climate science world to doubt the effects of CO2. I am also aware that there is a great deal of criticism about his version of the science (essentially that he cherry-picks his data and arguments) which is something that the skeptics tend to overlook while charging Mann et al with exactly this sort of malfeasance. There is, I suspect, good science that counters AGW theory, but that is not necessarily what one finds in the skeptic camps.
    And what is juvenile about the skeptics is not necessarily that they doubt the prevalent science – and there is a prevalent scientific viewpoint – it is the manner in which skeptics attack and malign the scientists which is rather distinctly anti-scientific and very much a mob-mentality.

    REPLY: read these related to Mann and Briffa, comment on them, and explain yourself

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
    Also since your posts are coming from with a University network, tell us: student or faculty? -A

  99. “Jules, your contributions here are a bit like urinating in your trousers.
    “I’m sure your pithy comments feel really hot to you!”
    As I posted earlier: juvenile.

  100. Jules,
    Re-framing the argument is typical of the alarmist crowd. You originally stated that no skeptics were called to testify.
    Now you have moved the goal posts, and say that no CRU skeptics were called. FYI, CRU has no skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist, BTW]. They only have varying degrees of alarmists on staff.
    Since you’re now talking about the CRU, Dr Kelly was on the MR committee, and he wrote:

    I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data.
    This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.

    The Muir Russell committee completely disregarded Kelly’s input. Why? For the very same reason no skeptical scientist was allowed to give any input: the Russell report was a whitewash.

  101. Jules, considering whats at stake, wouldn’t you say that just the smell of improper conduct warrants an investigation? Or are you suggesting the general public should give scientific authorities a pass?

  102. Jules, whether you are a student or a real, “professional climate scientist” academic, chances are that I’m old enough to be your father.
    If you think I’m juvenile then.that’s OK with me.
    I don’t have to hide behind a pseudonym whilst preening my enormous ego.
    Student or Academic, there is a very high probability that you are happily taking tax payer’s dollars or pounds whilst you attempt to prop up the cAGW scam, not only despite any evidence (NOT computer models) that CO2 is a problem and despite clear evidence from real observations that CO2 levels are NOT a problem and that the models upon which you rely are fatally flawed.
    Nonetheless you are seemingly quite content that both the US and Europe will press on spending trillions on “solving” a non-problem by pouring resources into “alternatives” which simply don’t work. The waste is mind- boggling. The effect on the lives of the poorest and most disadvantaged in Society will be devastating. Let alone the effect on the people of the third world.
    But, hey, being really important and grown up as you obviously are, no doubt you couldn’t care less.

  103. Even if the new globe were Mann made some day, there is a God!
    … oooarchestrated by PIGGG OIL AND TUBBACCEOU ??…
    It’s the old Oreskes Mantra, of course. But now, the ivory tower really stinks while “big oil” of the real world may have a good laugh at this video since they market “global warming solutions” themselves … Anyway, I managed to watch it till the end before I took some fresh air.
    Here are some facts regarding vindication and denialism:
    “independent” CRE Review
    Chapter 1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis
    The vindication:

    21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described
    and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In
    particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we
    found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions
    that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of
    uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this
    respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment

    Report (TAR).

    That was after the remake of Mann, take 1, HOWEWER,

    23. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick‟ and to
    „hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of
    intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third
    Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was
    misleading.

    AND

    35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the
    most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the
    blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand
    alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned
    conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized
    critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance.
    This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. The
    Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work
    in ways that the public can access and understand.
    That said, a key issue is how
    scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space
    can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms,
    where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised.
    36. Openness and Reputation.An important feature of the blogosphere is the
    extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise
    this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by
    feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide
    no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has
    to be conducted in this century.

    Welcome to the new world, Mr. Mann!

  104. I am extremely childish at times. And I probably have a little too much time on my hands.

  105. Jules since you’ve removed the gloves and the banner of peace and decency, I must say that you are quite the moron.
    You say that you have read the crutape emails and don’t find anything damning in them.
    You have proven that you are an AGW religion zealot by your ignorant words and ad homonym attacks.
    Go play in your sandbox and leave us alone. Go skip pebbles on a lake or play with your marbles or play your nintendo or whatever modern day children do when they are bored but just go away.
    You haven’t said one intelligent thing since you’ve been in here.
    At least when I go to AGW sites like Skeptical Science when they disagree with me they quote from papers and make logical arguments that are wrong but well thought out.
    You are just spurting garbage from your keyboard.
    If you think you are going to impress us by your ad homonym attacks and slinging of red herrings you are sadly mistaken.
    You are getting your 15 minutes of fame. 1 of 2 things will happen…
    1. you will settle down and begin discussions in a logical, critical thinking manner and we will partake in intellectual intercourse with you. One thing you will find here is that Anthony Watts (Aka Great Bwanna of scientific reasoning) lets everyone talk. He may argue with you if he thinks you’re wrong, but he’s the blog owner and it’s his right to do so. I’ve tried to comment on blogs like realclimate.com and they are so insecure and smug they snip every comment and most AGW zealot sites are like that.
    2. you will continue in your ways and we will just ignore you for the troglidyte that you most likely are and you will slink back into your cave.
    Since we are avid researchers, seekers of the truth and some actual scientists, we (speaking for myself and most likely everyone here) would rather you be intelligent and discuss in a crticial thinking manner. I have actually learned things from the AGW side.
    Knowledge is Power, use it wisely.

  106. One thing that no one (Mosher and Fuller in the Crutape letters) or Mann or Jones or Briffa or even WUWT have ever talked about is the validity of the email evidence.
    Mann et al. forgets one very important fact here.
    Even if a burglar had broken into a hotel room and reported to the police the strange behavior of lights in the Watergate offices and then the Watergate crew had been arrested and then Nixon fell…. It would make no difference who it was that made the police report on the phone, they were still caught red handed, still guilty, still prosecuted. Chuck Colson never complained about someone squeeling on him, he admited he was wrong and guilty and did his time, he’s a man.
    Mann, Jones et al. have never denied the emails. They have made the email’s validity real by saying that they have been taken out of context and never should have been made public, and the terrible evil hacker made them public. So the focus has been made on the hacker rather than the illegal, immoral, unethical practices that went on within them.
    Personally I think they know full well who released them, but the admission that one of their own saw the light and couldn’t stand the guilt, and the lies, and the stress any more, and desired freedom from the opression of secrets and lies, would be far worse than the embarassment of them being released in the first place.

  107. Jules,
    By the By,
    “Nothing personal against Mr. Lindzen, but we don’t need to trot him out to make a valid case for ourselves.”
    I am a student myself. However, I have been studying things for a very long time before I entered the University level of education.
    The difference between me and you is the fact that I am 50 yrs. old. I have been around the block a time or two and I have been through the school of hard knocks.
    It would appear that you are one of those half armed opponents in a battle of wits, who chronically have nothing better to do than go to the opposing side and cause problems and distract. The problem with attempting that with people like us is that we are multi-taskers. We can still focus on the important things while engaging in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.
    So you are not only being incredibly foolish and appearing ignorant, but you are wasting your time as well.

  108. An interesting CNN video on “Life After Climategate” that includes more smarm from Mann, a hint of balance from CNN and a cool quote, “And to the point of scientists being more open, one thing stressed in this week’s report is the influence of blogs, and the way its transformed how science is done, with lots of challengers and critics. And like it or not, this report states, to challenge its existence would be foolish.”
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/07/10/pkg.snow.climategate.report.cnn?iref=allsearch

  109. “tell us: student or faculty? -A”
    Neither. I am a staff person – I run a small office on campus. I do not know what this has to do with anything, however.
    Brad, you and I are approximately the same age and I too have been knocked about a bit. I am sure you can multitask with the best of them but this has not saved you from defaulting to the ad hom attack. You are perhaps not as well armed (or as streetwise) as you think.
    And the point about Lindzen is that he is the perennial poster-child for the skeptic-camp – no matter what the situation, trot out Dr. Lindzen as proof that the climate scientists are wrong. He did not work for the CRU so he really has no part in the investigation which was to establish if data was fabricated – yet, once again, Dr. Lindzen is thrust forward as if he is the magic charm used against all climate evil.
    The point is, folks, even if we allow that climate science has become a personal campaign for some (even if we allow it) and politicized for others (which it undoubtedly has) the good people here are just as politicizing and polarizing as anywhere.

  110. Mr. Watts, above you posted some links which you wanted me to respond to. I’m not sure what you wanted me to do. You have cross-posted a couple of blogs about the Yamal tree ring construction controversy.
    I suppose I could respond with a cross-posting of my own which also talks about the controversy.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

    REPLY:
    or…you could just read them. But I think you won’t get the salient points, you seem quite averse to other views. -A

  111. I did read them, Mr. Watts. I believe the Real Climate blog answers a great many of their charges. And it’s not “other views” I am worried about – it is misinformation, which I believe is your concern too. Have you read the Real Climate post? It would seem to factually invalidate McIntyre’s critique. Specifically, Real Climate charges:
    “McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. ”
    Is this true?
    In all honesty, sir, are YOU open or averse to other views?
    REPLY: Yes, you get to post here don’t you? McIntyre simply used the entire Yamal dataset (gathered by Schweingruber, not Briffa or Mann) , not just the 10 trees Briffa chose post facto. The results speak for themselves. I’m gobsmacked that you can’t see this. -A

  112. “you get to post here don’t you?”
    Fair enough.
    But here we have a problem of belief, Mr. Watts.
    According to Real Climate:
    “The target de jour [of the skeptic camp] is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record.
    “A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.”
    And, according the Real Climate, McIntyre only used 12 trees (not the entire data set as you are gobsmaked to point out) apparently gathered by Schweingruber (Mann and Briffa did not gather the data themselves, obviously).
    And the Real Climate post points out that the Yamal tree ring reconstruction is only one small fraction of the data collected and that it does not appear to alter the overall hockey stick conclusion.
    I guess my question, Mr. Watts, would probably be better phrased as: Are you open to other science that might counter your views?

    REPLY:
    No, we have a problem of facts. You have it backwards. I’ll post a graph later. RC is not about truth, its about CYA. Try posting a comment there like the one you have done here, but in reverse. snipping/deletion is the MO for inconvenient questions. And, RC is funded by a green communications company, with an agenda. Research Fenton communications.
    Yes, I used to believe Dr. Hansen (I even did a nationwide tree planting project to offset CO2 because of his 1988 speech before congress) Dr. Mann and Dr. Briffa, I don’t believe them anymore because they have oversold their positions, and because of the data issues I’ve seen. CRU’s refusal to even share data for example. And, like McIntyre, I have the courage to speak out and put my full name to my findings. I don’t really care much if I convince you or not, since your position isn’t at risk due to anonymity. But, if you want to argue on the terms I face every day, come forward. – A

  113. Very good, Mr. Watts, but as always one is forced to choose who one believes – I suppose we could actually locate the Briffa study and see how many trees he actually uses and then do the same for McIntyre – that would answer everything, yes? I believe I will do that. May take a little time, but it should be interesting.
    In the meantime, I look around your blog to find a great many denigrating cartoons, graphics and plain old pejorative commentary – so for someone such as myself, it looks like an extended campaign simply to smear the scientists and anyone who disagrees with the skeptics (ironic that), something I believe Mann charged in his video. So why, or perhaps how, should I believe the “facts” you post here? (That’s obviously a rhetorical question) You do, respectfully, appear to be an extremely one-sided, highly contrarian source who attracts mostly people who already agree with you, and you do not show both sides of the argument (as witnessed above) – something I believe you charge the climate scientists with being and doing.
    Well must be off – I’m sure we shall talk again.

  114. Jules,
    Anthony is correct, and RealClimate is outright lying when it says “McIntyre only used 12 trees.”
    If you are so credulous as to believe a blog run by serial liar Michael Mann, you will probably believe anything.
    What really happened — and you won’t see this on RC — is that Keith Briffa used a set of trees that he carefully selected to show a hockey stick. In fact, if you replaced only one single tree, YAD061, with a normal tree, the entire hockey stick shape vanishes.
    Here is a paper, only a couple of pages long, explaining what Briffa and his clique did. It’s an easy read.
    You simply can not believe RealClimate. The truth is not in them. This entire situation is well documented in The Hockey Stick Illusion. It shows exactly how McIntyre and McKittrick reverse engineered Mann’s algorithm, with the help of a Fortran directory he discovered, labeled “censored,” which Mann had missed while cleansing the internet of other similar files. It turns out that it was, in fact, Michael Mann himself who cherry-picked a limited number of trees to use, instead of using the entire series — which would have erased the hockey stick.
    The proof of McIntyre’s claim can be very easily tested. All Mann has to do is open the books, like any other scientist would do. But after more than a decade he still refuses to show other scientists the methods he used to arrived at his conclusions.
    If Mann were an honest scientist, he would show other scientists his data and methodologies. But he is not honest, and so he must keep hiding them to avoid being proved a charlatan guilty of scientific misconduct.
    If you want to find out who is lying, you should demand that Michael Mann must disclose his data and methods. These are not nuclear defense secrets being hidden. This is the weather. Old weather at that.
    Surely you must understand that the one who hides the information based on bogus reasons is the #1 suspect when someone is lying. The truth can be arrived at by simply ‘opening the books.’ The fact that Mann hides everything should tell you all you need to know about what’s going on here, and who is telling the truth.

  115. “You would be hard pressed to find a legitimate published climate researcher today who would deny that there is a detectable human influence on the climate now.”

    Mike, I agree. In fact you could make that statement stronger and say that it would be hard to find any climate researcher in the history of climatology who denies this. Since the 19th century the debate has always been about what the human effect is (warm/cool, wet/dry), how strong it is (+ive feedback), and whether the measured effect it is local (UHI?) or global. This and the whole interview is a lesson is spin.
    Ah’ and isn’t it is marvellous to witness the man talk live! There appears to be no twings of conscience, no feeling to make consessions or to back down just a ltttle (like: we need to communicate better etc). His resilience (compare: Phil Jones) makes him extremely important re-guard lieutenant in an offensive now in retreat. There must be thousands of funding programs linked to the AGW scare still to run their course over the next 3 years or so. The spin around these inquiries will buy time for the wise to steer the attention away from carbon-emissions and back to broader issues of sustainable resource use, pollution and other environmental damage issues.

  116. Smokey says:
    July 9, 2010 at 2:24 pm :
    //Jules….Since you’re now talking about the CRU, Dr Kelly was on the MR committee, and he wrote:
    I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data….
    The Muir Russell committee completely disregarded Kelly’s input.//
    Jules, the very first time I visited GISS’s unofficial[?] proxy blog, Real Climate, it was probably GISS’s own Gavin Schmidt who immediately performed a computer run he called an “experiment” in order to produce what he apparently thought were experimental results, in order to “test” an hypothesis. And I immediately groaned, because it appeared that either he was so irreducibly ignorant that he didn’t know that what he was doing was not an “experiment” according to the Scientific Method, and therefore could not instantaneously test anything relating to real world climate or weather events; or else he did know that his word use and practice was wrong, but was nevertheless going to dogmatically persist in using this now unscientific terminology anyway, specifically in order to try to fool the unknowledgeable into thinking that computer runs are truely Scientific Method “experiments”.
    So which one is the Muir Committee’s excuse for not admitting this sort of deception or mistake, and thus for even furthering the same scientific malpractice?

  117. Winston Smith,
    My opinion on ACGW and the ignorance of the believers of the dogmatic zealousness of religious nutjobs that are on the side of ACGW was formed long before I ever heard of one Mr. Anthony Watts.
    Shall I mention any one of a number of ACGW sites? Like for instance Science Skeptics or Real Climate where they were all slapping each other on the back and doing the happy happy joy joy dance over the white wash of Mann’s atrocious attacks on science and honesty and academic integrity.
    Your logic is sadly lacking, we all agree with Mr. Watts so therefore he has us brainwashed and we’re little Anthony’s running around like we have no mind of our own. Like we could not possibly all be nauseated by Mann while listening to his load of garbage.
    To use your logic…. numerous bears go poop in the woods…. I go poop in the woods when I go backpacking so therefore I am a bear and not only that, the leader of the bears and I have them all brainwashed.

  118. Jules, once again you show your ignorance.
    Have you ever seen any of the warmist sites? Ad Homonyms and insults flung right to left our way.
    One of us goes to realclimate.com and we can’t even leave a comment let alone expect respect… At least here even one such as yourself who thrives on ignorance is welcome.
    Who is really the darkside?

  119. Ahh Jules is an office worker at school. Which one I wonder Penn State or University of Virginia.
    I wonder if Jules has ever actually done any studying for his or her self.
    I would think probably not since all Jules does is slap a few honest poeple around with red herrings and ad homonyms and promote the glory and whit of Michael Mann.
    Do they pay you to be a distractor? If they do they should really get their money back because quite frankly you are pathetic.

  120. Brad , all I am saying is that alot of comments on this site could be interchanged with warmists site , your all trying to out do each other in say how much you hate Mann IE ; your “nauseated by Mann” comment .
    ” Like we could not possibly all be nauseated by Mann while listening to his load of garbage.” is imposing your view of the world on other and assuming becuase you and many others here dont agree with Mann everyone else must too , your bear logic ? . I read the comments and was expecting some ranting idealogue and all I saw was a cool calm civilise response to questions put to him he didnt name anyone or call them “overcooked prawns” .
    I just dont see many objective views here sorry . all i d like is facts not spin and at the moment the comments here are 20% facts 80% spin
    Dave

  121. Winston Smith says:
    “…alot of comments on this site could be interchanged with warmists site [sic], your [sic] all trying to out do each other in say [sic] how much you hate Mann IE ; your ‘nauseated by Mann’ comment.”
    C’mon, Winston, get with the program. This site allows contrary views like yours. But the alarmist blogs all seem to delete any opposing opinions. You need to get on them and tell them to stop their censorship of different points of view…
    …unless you approve of their censorship.
    Do you?

Comments are closed.