Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has taken note of the Shakun et al takedowns here here here here here here and here at WUWT, linking it in with Michael Mann’s earlier proxy publications.
(h/t to EU Referendum and REP) Mann as usual, was not amused by anything using his name (unless laudatory), and launched this Twitter tantrum (h/t to Tom Nelson):
Twitter / @MichaelEMann: @MichaelEMann @Telegraph ” …
@MichaelEMann @Telegraph “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Booker even starts out w/ tired smear against Ben Santer I debunk in intro of #HSCW
Twitter / @MichaelEMann: @ret_ward Would think that …
@ret_ward Would think that even they might be put off by the deficiency of intelligence & honesty reflected by Booker’s hit pieces/polemics
Twitter / @MichaelEMann: @MichaelEMann @Telegraph H …
@MichaelEMann @Telegraph How much lying/libel/deceit will Telegraph allow before “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Chris Booker canned? #HSCW
Twitter / @MichaelEMann: I guess “Patron Saint of C …
I guess “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Booker of @Telegraph disliked (tgr.ph/IFXN76) light shined on him by #HSCWbit.ly/sRasaq
=============================================================
Meanwhile, Climate Depot reports that Mann may be asked to chair a school of something back at UVa. Word has it on the academic grapevine that his “sabbatical” at Penn State may be the beginning of a never ending story.
One wonders though, if this just isn’t an exit strategy that Mann has engineered himself. As we’ve seen though his many writings, he’s very good at self promotion.
The image captioned “A scientist examines a core sample taken from the Icelandic ice cap” should be labeled “A scientist exposes a delicate ice core sample to Icelandic sunlight”. I’d add adjectives about the power or damage which sunlight can do to his sample, if I had found any papers which study how such handling can damage ice cores. Such handling seems to have been ignored.
cui bono says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:41 am
Mann and criticism: bristle, moan, whine.
—————————–
I thought it was bristle cone and pine.
I’ve seen two interviews of this whining, wheedling, petulent little Mann child.
His attitude that his papers are beyond critique because he’s a scientist makes me of the opinion that if he told me the Sun was going to rise tomorrow, I’d have to check!
DaveE.
JohnWho says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:21 am
“Uh, he’ll probably send in a proxy vote.”
He will probably read the ballot upside down and vote for the Republican. He will then say that multivariate ballots are insenitive to which ever hole you punch.
The Mann is a legend in his own lunchtime.
It is good that the AGW-scare began its demise in the COP at Copenhagen and continues to fade away. But a sad effect of this is that Michael Mann will disappear into obscurity with it.
Yes, it is sad because otherwise the Mann and his antics would be a source of amusement for decades to come. e.g.
You want to see how statistics can be invented to show any desired result? The Mann is your man.
You want to erase the MWP? The Mann is your man.
You want science sliced up to support a political agenda? The Mann is your man.
You want to see a temper tantrum on demand? The Mann is your man.
You want to see a skin as thin as tissue paper covering an ego as large as the Moon? The Mann is your man.
etc.
Richard
A suggestion, until Mann issues the retractions and corrections for the upside down tiljander data, please post his photo upside down.
Patron Saint of Charlatans?
Presumably Mann is nominating himself.
Michael Mann, Patron Saint of Charlatans.
Love it.
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
Oh dear, it feels SOOO bad to be losing doesn’t it? Whining narcissistic egotists with no actual arguments seem to be the standard for you warmists and you fit the mould very well. Are you sure you’re not the Mann himself?
John B says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
“Check back in September.”
Will do. I’m sure there will still be ice there. Like there will be the next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and …
Also, there is NOTHING that humans can do that will alter the natural sea ice cycle…
My recent post hasn’t got through. Funny that…WUWT clearly doesn’t like dissenting voices!
REPLY: Dear Mr. Smith. Do you mean this one at 8:12AM? Or is it one of the other 23 comments you’ve made here? Please learn to use the scroll bar before complaining about non-issues that exist only in your mind, we expect better of Oxford staff. – Anthony
I can’t imagine Mann returning to UVA. The attorney general who is after UVA is going to run for governor and he has a good chance of winning. Cuccinelli is not beyond holding up UVA’s funding if he can.
what on earth happened to the photo ?
I hate ad homs
but I think we should put Gollum on danger money. the competition for his job is growing
Wasn’t the character Vizzini in the Princess Bride based on Michael Mann? Or maybe he played him? (I guess I have to say sarc.)
While we have religion, fiscal opacity, and lobbyists there will never be true democracy.
dave turner (@cmdocker) says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:42 am
While we have religion, fiscal opacity, and lobbyists there will never be true democracy.
=====
You mean Republic? In Democracy, 51% rules over 49%.
OT, but I think someone should establish an Anti-Twitter message system with the following charateristics:
1. MINIMUM message length of 140 characters.
2. Built in spell checker, with messages rejected until corrected. (Would eliminate 2 for to or too, 4 for for, cuz for cause, etc.)
3. Replies subject to the same criteria.
4. Acronyms must be defined on first usage.
5. Thumb typing prohibited (if someone could figure out how to enforce it).
I think this would substantialy increase the literacy level of the internet.;-)
6. No emoticons
Gollum for UVa
Mann for Mt Doom
it’s got a bit of a ring to it
Thanks for the Marxism lesson Dave, we checked it by running some tests on the Soviet Union and China.
Religion, fiscal opacity, and lobbyists win.
Hands down.
Booker has really touched a raw nerve here. The fact is that Willis has so easily and thoroughly debunked the Shakun paper, that it has left Mann speechless. Speechless, that is, if speech is measured by the content of ones argument, but not when expressed by the output of mouth-foaming apoplexy.
And along come the usual trolls, stamping their feet and shouting “it ain;t so, it ain’t so.”
No…I pointed out in another post that the Soon and Baliunas paper that was so poor was their 2003 one in Climate Research. Isn’t it strange that you ‘skeptics’ are so eager to be skeptical of Mann et al but somehow fail to be skeptical of the rubbish put out by Monckton, Plimer etc.
After all…if someone with a degree in classics and no publications in the scientific literature (like Monckton) was talking about AGW you and your acolytes would be the first to cry foul. Strange that your ‘skepticism’ only seems to work one way!!
I wonder if you’ll let this post through?
REPLY: I don’t see such a post. There’s nothing in que nor in the spam filter. Perhaps you simply failed to submit properly in the form. Isn’t it strange that you “academics” whine about censorship when the fault might simply be your own? Feel free to resubmit it, being mindful of course of our policy page
While you are at, please explain why someone at Oxford has to be dishonest by making a fake name? If your views are so pure and so fact filled, you’d think someone of your stature would be willing to stand behind it. – Anthony
Following twits, twitterati and facebook fools does not fall into the plan of my day-to-day life. So I am mistified at the meaning of the original posting.
Please translate twitter, if you wan’t people with a life to live, to understand it.
EternalOptimist says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:34 am
I think we’re justified in making an exception in this case.
DaveE.
Anthony
Well I’m glad you let that post through. Can you explain, then, why your ‘skepticism’ only seems to fall onto the anti-AGW side? Surely you can see that relying on the likes of Monckton, Plimer, Ball etc is unbelievably damaging to your arguments. Or is that all you have got? After all, ALL the world’s major scientific bodies accept the ‘IPCC consensus’ and NONE support the ‘skeptic’ view. Doesn’t that concern you at all?
REPLY: Ah, so you admit now that your post wasn’t censored at all. Like I said, we expect better from an Oxford academic.
How do you know my skepticism falls only on the AGW side? You’ve cited nothing. You obviously don’t look around much, for example I’m critical of some alternate theory that I think is unsupportable. This tactic seems typical for people like you, looking to pigeonhole so labels can be applied. News flash there professor – I used to be wholly in favor of the CO2 theory…but you haven’t bothered to look at the bigger picture. Kind of like these guys who used to be just like you who did in fact look at the bigger picture, and found it wanting.
And why do you duck questions? Again, if your opinion as an academic is so pure and so factual, why can’t you stand behind it? No more posts from you until you answer my question – sorry. – Anthony
As soon as i mention The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Im vilified.