Mann of the people

English: Michael E. Mann
Image via Wikipedia

Tom Nelson spots another Climategate zinger.

Email 2743, Sept 2009, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: “So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.”

Email 2743

Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre. Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response—if any—is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.

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

[Mann] Good editorial on #CRUHack2 in The Economist: emails actually show science working as it should (robust debate, etc.)

===

And yet, somehow, there are still people who think Dr. Michael Mann is simply misunderstood. He seems pretty clear to me when we look at his own words. There’s no “out of context” defense for this one.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kohl P
January 20, 2012 12:55 pm

R. Gates replies to a comment in the following terms:
“It is the best choice of words as I don’t know enough of the actual details to say if I agree or not. The “team” might be dead right about McIntyre, or they might be simply trying to cover their bad science. Either way, it doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate.”
What a strange comment!
Since the argument between McIntyre and the “Team” is precisely about the impact of human activity upon the climate it seems just silly to be stating that no matter what the truth of the argument is, nevertheless it (meaning the truth of the argument one way or the other) ‘doesn’t impact the truth of what is actually happening with human impacts on the climate’.
If you get any more circular in your comments you will find yourself disappearing up your own…..
Kohl P

JohnWho
January 20, 2012 7:07 pm

jorgekafkazar says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Bill Marsh says: ““minions”? McIntyre has “minions”? Excellent!”
Where do I apply to be a minion? Do there have to be ten* or more of us? Do we get badges or little lapel thingies? Bumper stickers? Josh cartoon?
* obscure joke. either you get it or you don’t.

Well, if we can get “fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day”… well “friends they may think it’s a movement.”
Oh, and the t-shirts should have some sort of oil stain on them, in honor of all the Big Oil support for the McIntyre Movement.
🙂

Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2012 10:06 pm

cui bono says:
January 19, 2012 at 10:53 am
It’s like a Spartan phalanx with shield walls up against external enemies, but inside the wall there are mumblings about irreproducable hockey sticks, conflicting data, and climate sensitivity.

And “why is the guy in front of me wearing a thong?”
Seriously though. None of the RC crew have engaged in a robust debate that I’m aware. I would pay good money to see McIntyre and Schmidt or Mann engage in a debate with no input from anyone else.

Doug Jones
January 22, 2012 10:49 am

Alan Statham, yes, WUWT often deletes or trims comments- but those deletions are typically of the form:
[snip – personal appearance isn’t a valid issue. -A]
Policing the comments section, and slapping *skeptics* for being rude to warmists, is the exact opposite of the actions at Real Climate. It’s called integrity.

Doug Jones
January 22, 2012 10:51 am

Correction- WUWT does some trimming, but “often” doesn’t really apply. Preview Is My Friend…