Tom Nelson spots another Climategate zinger.
Email 2743, Sept 2009, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: “So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.”
Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre. Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response—if any—is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.
[Mann] Good editorial on #CRUHack2 in The Economist: emails actually show science working as it should (robust debate, etc.)
Bill Marsh says:
January 19, 2012 at 9:48 am
“minions”? McIntyre has “minions”?
Excellent!
Myrmidons surely?
Mike Mann will go down in history as the most anti-science scientist of the 20th/21st century. He is an absolute disgrace in so many ways.
“I’ve been trying to no avail to get some journalist to look into their funding, industry connections, etc. They need to be exposed badly!”
Yes Mike, in my very hand…I hold a complete list of the COMMUNISTS in the Skeptic movement…
Wait, that sounds familiar, “Joe…JOE? Where did you get that LIST?”
Ooh, ooh, where do I apply to be a “McIntyre Minion”??!?!
Are there T shirts?!?!?
Do we get some of that Big Oil Funding?
How insulting. I am not a minion. I’m a Henchman!
Sam the First says:
January 19, 2012 at 10:05 am
////////////////////////////////
Sam
Since this site has been voted the best science blog on the web, one would expect any serious MSM science writer/journalist to look in on this site on a regular basis as part of their job (keeping up to speed on science issues on which people are talking about).
I suspect that many science writers/journalist do have a look at this site but notwithstanding that, it has little impact on what they write. Perhaps this is due to the own ideology or due to editorial policy of those higher up. It does make one wonder since there truly is an investigative journalists story of note just waithing to be reported upon.
“….it is very hard to learn from very big mistakes.”
Karl Popper
ZippyChick says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:19 am
“Ooh, ooh, where do I apply to be a “McIntyre Minion”??!?!
Are there T shirts?!?!?
Do we get some of that Big Oil Funding?”
LOL! Sign me up!!!!
If McIntyre is such a ‘fraud’, why don’t the gang at Real Climate welcome the opportunity to expose and humiliate him in a public forum? How can somebody be ‘off topic’ on an open thread?
What seems pretty clear by these emails is that Micheal Mann and the rest of the “team” think that McIntyre is a fraud and they think (and aren’t shy about saying so in private emails) that responding to him in public only gives him credibililty that he doesn’t deserve. Why is this so surprising? Ignoring those who you feel are way out there is standard PR practice by many groups and individuals.
BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “teams” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.
For some reason I am still tolerated on the RC (3 posts in the last thread).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-dog-is-the-weather/
Alan Statham says:
Well goodness me. He deleted comments he didn’t like on his blog. What a zinger that is!
Wow.
And they call us deniers …
Both O/T and on-topic to Alan Statham:
I think it is a test of the integrity of a website/blog that they allow reasonable dissenting opinion. If I tried to post any anti-CAGW comment at RealClimate, it would disappear faster than a March hare on the first day of rabbit season. Anthony and moderators here at WUWT have allowed (as far as I can tell) your comments without restriction or editing. If I am wrong on that information, I apologise to all.
On an earlier thread, there was an assertion that, ‘as CO2 increases, the atmosphere becomes more opaque to outgoing LW radiation [ie, infrared], therefore the atmosphere heats up’. It may not have been by you (I have read so many comments in the past day or so that I may be confusing postings).
Let us assume that this is a 100% true statement. If it is, just exactly HOW did Rodinia have those three episodes of glaciation when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was some 13%, give or take?
Best regards to all,
Mark H.
Alan Statham says:
January 19, 2012 at 9:33 am
“Well goodness me. He deleted comments he didn’t like on his blog. What a zinger that is!”
===========================
Lucky for you that doesn’t happen at WUWT.
Given that the two leaks of emails have both contained messages which suggest that, er, other scientists have “issues” with the way Mann conducts himself – I seem to recall words like “defensive” or “reactive” in the emails – I have to wonder what those other scientists now think of Mann, or indeed what he now thinks of them.
Robuk says:
January 19, 2012 at 10:37 am
The UK independent, sister paper to the UK Guardian.
Michael Mann: The climate scientist who the deniers have in their sights.
Mann believes the theft of the emails was not the work of a random hacker, but part of a sophisticated campaign. “It was a very successful, well-planned smear campaign intended … to go directly at the trust the public had in scientists,” he insists.
Read the comments,
licensed_to_chill
oppugner posted this below…I’m just moving it to the top because it is a thing of beauty.
Collapse Climategate 2.0 e-mails;
Fudge. Sweet!
Email 636 Solution 1:fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything.
Email 5175-Tom Wigley – 2004but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor……………………
___________________________________________
Convenient, Twitter-size comments. Maybe that’s the way to publicize the real travesty.
Pin the “tale” on the donkey… Mann gets pinned.
By “Robust” perhaps he was referring to Al Gores waistline?
R. Gates says:
What seems pretty clear by these emails is that Micheal Mann and the rest of the “team” want to think that McIntyre is a fraud to preserve their delusions of competance and they think (and aren’t shy about saying so in private emails) that responding to him in public only gives him credibililty that they don’t want him to have
he doesn’t deserve.”That version is consistent with the facts before us.
Why is this so surprising? Ignoring those who you feel are way out there is standard PR practice by many groups and individuals.
Uh …because it is a standard PR practice. The people doing this are supposed to be scientists, not PR agents or propaganda ministers. Scientists are supposed to address criticisms of their work, not bully and censor. Also, you need to get a grasp on the difference between “ignoring” and “suppressing”. Both are decidedly unscientific, the latter is particularly egregious.
“BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “teams” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.”
No it isn’t, and no it doesn’t. Their internal comment regarding McIntyre’s criticism of Yamal is “[We] are wondering what to make of this.” Their response is to just delete the scary thing they dont understand, to keep anyone else from finding out about it. That is not internally consistent with the view that they hold of themselves or of Mcintyre
McIntyre was, and remains, right about Yamal. He was, and remains, correct about a lot of other criticisms of the Team’s work. They knew quite well that, whatever the a priori merit of any individual criticism they find themselves faced with is assumed to be, he is right about enough of what he says that he deserves to be taken seriously.
And they did take him seriously. Unfortunately, their approach to serious criticism is founded in political manuevering, not scientific reasoning.
I realize that these men (for the most part, interesting in itself) believed they had privacy in their communications. Why they held that belief, I do not know as they seemed quite comfortable forwarding/copying/cutting and pasting the ‘in confidence’ or personal communications of others, to others, at the drop of a hat. They certainly didn’t seem to believe that private emails in their possession were worthy of their protection, even when confidence was clearly at issue.
In any event, the willingness to counter challenges to their expertise with ad hominems and charges of nefarious connections as a first reaction is quite telling. From what I can see there are two or three major serial offenders in this respect, with Michael Mann coming out the clear winner in the level of vitriol. Even his ‘pals’ complain about his tendency to overreact and to do so too quickly. Keith Briffa’s assessment of him to a potential employer is in itself very interesting.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3144.txt
What I truly find saddening about their reactions, is that they simply cannot seem to wrap their heads around independent, intelligent and concerned citizens wanting to verify for themselves the truth of their scientific pronouncements. Are these not university Professors? Are these the educators of the next generation? To my way of thinking, they are the very people who should welcome challenge, be open to questions, accept and therefore become the midwives to new ideas with novel approaches even if these serve to destroy a personally cherished theory. Should they not teach that entrenched dogma in any discipline, particularly at a level of higher learning is a very dangerous thing? Frankly, I expect better of my child’s kindergarten teacher than I have seen in the responses to challenge of these educators and researchers.
Those of us who have been taught to think for ourselves, not to believe everything one reads and to practice caution in taking for granted that experts always know what they are doing, have both the right and the obligation to ask pointed questions until satisfied with their proofs. Especially when their pronouncements could lead to a radical restructuring of our system of government and our way of life. Especially when these scientists are supported, in the main, by dollars collected through the very same citizenry (for which, BTW, I do not have any objection). That they demand we do so only within the confines of their vaunted, minimally supervised ‘peer review’ process is beyond the height of arrogance. We have the technology to do better than that as is evidenced by discussions about the science being presented on sites like this and others contained in the blogroll – Skeptic, Lukewarmer and pro-AGW alike.
I’m sorry, but:
Having seen every post and many of the comments at WUWT in the last 2 years, I get the jist of this post but can’t tell who is saying what, or when.
To a new reader, or a senators aide, it must read like Hieroglyphics.
Just a thought.
R. Gates says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:58 am
BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “team’s” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.
Bold mine. @ur momisugly Gates: your use of the word “necessarily” is quite telling.
Regarding the (now disliked) word ROBUST, my supposition is that it’s a word that was/is used very often by Choo Choo Pachauri, and since it is safe to assume Mann became a “favourite” of Choo Choo after the Hockeystick, the two of them would have spoken regularly e.g. “Well done my boy, you have a very bright future in our robust organization, keep up the robust work.” etc and Mann picked up the terminology.
But of course, my supposition may not be robust.
(my most disliked word after “whatever”. I have teenagers at home. 🙁
Nigel S says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:01 am
Bill Marsh says:
January 19, 2012 at 9:48 am
“minions”? McIntyre has “minions”?
Excellent!
Myrmidons surely?
____________________________
I would have thought “McMinions!”
If Real Climate gets Taxpayers money through direct funding or indirect through government funded sysops, no censorship should be allowed..
that violates the First Amendment explicitly…