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.)
The Universe is a soccer ball God created. The big bang is God kicking the ball. The ball has curve from spin. Ball goes where it may. God starts again.
=========
can anyone disprove this statement..?
Michael Mann is a fraud, liar, bully, coward and a fool. Did I miss anything?
Re The Independent article posted by Robuk (January 19, 2012 at 10:37 am) above, this quote stuck out:
I don’t suppose Michael Mann actually believes that independent web sites like WUWT which broke the Climategate story are “completely funded by the fossil-fuel groups.” Doubtless this is just the party line that you have to tell any gullible ‘journalist’. At the same time, it is scandalous that miscreants like Mann can spout such patently obvious falsehoods and remain completely unchallenged by the commercial media. Where are the investigative reporters (not ‘journalists’) of old?
/Mr Lynn
From RC’s Comment Policy:
“…5. Discussion of non-scientific subjects is discouraged…”
In that case, how can ANYTHING done by Mann ever be discussed?
and this one:
“…6. No flames, profanity, ad hominem comments are allowed. This includes comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others, or which otherwise try to personalize matters under discussion…”
No “…comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others…” Just read RealClimate and try to find one posting that DOESN’T impugn the motives of others.
Just today, you can find comments like this:
“…Fred Singer, for instance, has a long history of taking money from industry groups in exchange for producing “made as instructed” polemics…The fact that he is “sincere” is really of no moment. After all, a whore is a whore even if he or she enjoys the work…”
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=10297 (under “Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference).
And yet the “signal-to-noise” ratio is increased by deleting certain replies.
ZippyChick says:
Ooh, ooh, where do I apply to be a McIntyre Minion??!?!
Are there T shirts?!?!?
——
Zippy – you cannot be that obvious, or you will be macerated by those Minion-munching maniacs at sKs.
Rule 1 about being a Minion – NEVER talk about being a Minion
Rlee 2….
David, UK says:
January 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm
R. Gates says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:58 am
BTW, I am in not necessarily agreeing with the “team’s” perception of McIntyre, but it their perception of him is internally consistent and makes sense.
Bold mine. @ur momisugly Gates: your use of the word “necessarily” is quite telling.
———
It is the best choice of words as I don’t know enough of the actual details to say if I agree or not. The “team” might be dead right about McIntyre, or they might be simply trying to cover their bad science. Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.
Bill Marsh says: ““minions”? McIntyre has “minions”? Excellent!”
Where do I apply to be a minion? Do there have to be ten* or more of us? Do we get badges or little lapel thingies? Bumper stickers? Josh cartoon?
* obscure joke. either you get it or you don’t.
Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.
And this is of concern, because . . . .
jorgekafkazar says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I can see a Josh or Fenbeagle cartoon. McIntyre and his minions storming the bastions of paleoclimatology. Hansen the Mad pouring climate change induced boiling sea water down upon the marauding heathens and calling for the seas to arise and swallow the unwashed. Other noted “realists” firing down from the ramparts with Polish dueling pistols. Al Gore high tailing it out the back door with crown jewels. St. Judith looking down from a cloud in dismay at the scientific carnage.
R. Gates;
Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.>>>
What? What are we doing to the climate? Exactly what are you referring to R. Gates? Exactly what are you referring to and what evidence can you show that your position has merit? You babble on in thread after thread mumbling about the truth while never actually saying what it is while also implying that whatever it is, it must be bad. Vague inuendo and a distraction from the facts.
The facts are that the most highly regarded “scientists” in the climate science community have falsified their results. Tell me Mr. Innuendo, if we were actually “doing” something to the climate, why do they have to fake their results? If we are actually “doing” something to the climate, then why don’t your prescious scientists which you don’t “necessarily” disbelieve do some actual science and who some actual results that are actual truth?
and since they haven’t….
Why don’t you?
@R.Gates:
The entire bloody point of ClimateGate is that CAGW IS A MADE-UP PHENOMENON.
It’s as real as the Great Pumpkin.
Mann, Jones, everyone involved in this fraud should be put in the stocks and be made to pay back every bloody cent wasted on this chicanery.
We should embrace “McIntyre’s Minions”: tshirts, bumper stickers, etc. Make Mann own it.
R. Gates – I read all of your comments posted on this site, because you almost always offer a different view, and it is good to read both sides of an argument; however, for Mann to purposely avoid debating expert statisticians like McIntyre and Wegman seriously degrades his reputation and integrity and calls into question his pronouncements. Mann is consistent and makes sense!? You are spinning a negative into a positive.
When Freeman Dyson, one of the century’s heavyweight thinkers, questions the basis of CAGW, I sit up and pay attention, for that by itself tells me the science is far from settled.
I can remember, not long ago, when Anthony cautioned participants here against using “the F word”. That was before the Climategates. Now the partisans on the Realist side of the debate are freely accusing the Alarmists of perpetrating science fraud. What is interesting is that these extremely serious charges are still ignored by the scientific establishment, which if anything has closed ranks behind the clique of self-proclaimed ‘climate scientists’, against what it likes to characterize as the rag-tag “minions” (see above) of “the fossil fuel industry.”
Is there any way of bridging this gap? Probably not until someone high up in the inside is willing to step up and blow the whistle on his colleagues. If the Alarmists in academia and government really are falsifying results, there is no way this can continue forever. Someone is going to rebel and break ranks.
/Mr Lynn
McIntyre’s Minions… I like, we canadians should push for formal appointment of Special Auditor McIntyre to oversee the official AWG science claims made in Canada
Vincent Nunes says:
January 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm
@R.Gates:
The entire bloody point of ClimateGate is that CAGW IS A MADE-UP PHENOMENON.
———–
Nope. This should not be the “bloody point” of Climategate. The science is far bigger than “the team”, The emails say a great deal about human nature, and almost nothing about the human effects on nature.
R. Gates;
Nope. This should not be the “bloody point” of Climategate. The science is far bigger than “the team”, The emails say a great deal about human nature, and almost nothing about the human effects on nature.>>>
More innuendo. Spell it out R. Gates. What are the human effects on nature?
R. Gates;
Nope. This should not be the “bloody point” of Climategate. The science is far bigger than “the team”, >>>>
And yet world wide governments are implementing policy based exclusively on the opinions of the team. You can misdirect everyone’s attention using the NLP techniques of Milton Dilts (chunk up in this case) but the fact remains that the effect on us humans of economic policies influenced by “the team” is pretty substantial while human influence on the climate is neglible.
Stuff your psychological tricks up your wazoo, I for one am sick of them.
R. Gates,
To this very day not one piece of scientific evidence has been found and proven to back AGW.
One positive change that has been shown and proven is that higher levels of CO2 are having a beneficial effect on the flora of the entire planet. This is good for animals, people and the health of the planet. Belief in Unicorns does not make them true.
The likes of Steve McIntyre and others like him, who devote personal effort to discover scientific truth, deserve respect. Montford’s book reveals an astoundingly thorough, patient, respectful man on a quest. McIntyre has changed climate history. In my eyes he is a hero.
Tom, I thank you too for the patient work you are doing with these emails. I guess you find it fulfilling in some way. I think it great that what you discover shows the characters on this surreal play in true light. Keep up the good work. The climate shenanigans is being corrected by your efforts.
Robin
Vincent Nunes says: January 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm
I think that a more apropos comparison would be — It’s as real as South Park’s Mr. Hankey. Both are complete cr*p.
The deletions were not because they didn’t “like” McIntyre.
They didn’t want any attention, especially competent attention, on the Mann Yamal work.
Because they knew it was crapulous.
Bill Marsh:
The same email was highlighted by Dennis Wingo on Climate Audit on 25th November, leading to the following classic interaction:
Richard Drake: Love the alliteration – in fact, love everything about this phrase. But how does one know that one has become a minion. I mean, really made the grade?
Craig Loehle: You get a decoder ring and a secret handshake.
Jean S: Yes, but only after you have retired. All minions are retired and have therefore infinite time. #4986 (Phil Jones –> Bruce Tofield):
Phil Jones’s plaintive comment stuck in my mind and popped up during the important Index on Censorship debate on openness in science in London last month, as recorded on Bishop Hill. Index on Censorship indeed. Such ‘liberal’ organisations (using that word in its most optimistic sense) need to realise that Professor Michael Mann isn’t ‘one of them’ but the very essence of the authoritarian they were founded to resist. Just give it time.
@Anthony
The free internet really threw the good old boys club in academia and peer reviewed literature for a loop. I don’t think many academics appreciate the fact that the vast majority of highly intelligent people don’t become professors nor do they appreciate the fact that for the last 15 or more years everyone has had all the information at their fingertips in virtually any subject under the sun for free. In fact the true modern academic can go to school without getting out of bed. It just get easier and easier. If I’m curious about something or need to check a fact these days if I’m not near a keyboard I can ask my smart phone using my voice like I’m talking to a human assitant and it’ll consult Google about it. Amazing. The old Academy is quaint. Anyone with a vested interest in the old Academy would be justifiably distressed and more than a little interested in protecting the old school ways.
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. OBVIOUSLY, facts “muddy the water” over there so they must be removed from the comments.
This is how all propaganda machines work.
Sheesh…