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.
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:57 am
If I remember correctly, that was a meta study, a sort of compilation of studies. I do seem to recall a lot of people criticising it but no meat. Just people saying it was crap.
Are you new here? I see loads of people, both sceptics and believers criticising both Monckton and Plimer here.
Anyway, what qualifications are required to cite and quote as much of what Monckton does is?
Given your spelling of sceptic, I’m assuming that’s a different Oxford to the one I’m familiar with.
So do you think Mann might be working to secure a position at UVA to try and take away the FOIA argument tha UVA gave the emails to one outsider (Penn State’s Mann) so they have given up the right to deny them to others? Not that it would work in any sane court, but they might try it anyway if the results of a release are that damaging. Remember Mann said that letting lawyers or the judge review his emails will seriously damage the reputation of a large number of scientists.
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:33 am
Why is it that Oxford based warmist academics want to remain anonymous? What is it that you have you to hide?
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
“So, these ‘takedowns’ of the Shakun et al paper are going to be submitted to peer-review are they? Or are they just a typical post on WUWT where someone like Pat Frank or Willis Eschenbach writes a critical review of a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which is automatically cheered to the rafters by a bunch of skeptics who don’t understand it?”
What I did understand is that the timing of the volcanic explosions mentioned in Shakun doesn’t quite match the timing of the cooling. If that is a misunderstanding, you are free to argue Shakun’s case here.
” How about a review of some REALLY bad science (you know the stuff produced by Soon and Baliunas etc).”
I’m sure you could link to one. Why didn’t you do so? The CAGW orthodoxy must have produced dozens of takedown; you are awash with funding for that.
“By the way, is it true that Willis Eschenbach has only ever published papers in Energy and Environment …the non-ISI rated journal that will publish anything so long as its skeptical of AGW?”
Might I point you to the ClimateGate 1 e-mails that show the lengths to which the CAGW occultists in the formerly scientific institutions go to to keep journals in line, get editors fired and suppress opposing views in the literature?
BC Bill April 16 at 11:40, Inconceivable!!!!!!
These twits, in order to be taken seriously, should be published first in a peer reviewed mainstream climate science journal. Go ahead resolutely, Mike, no doubt it is doable. You’ve already had exploits more substantial than that.
Well I say Mann’s doing a good job , just not the one he is paid too nor the one he thinks he is doing , but nevertheless a ‘good job’
When Mann fails I think we will be surprised to see who lines up to give him a kick on the way down, such is nature of Mann and his approch to working with others .
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/16/veteran-german-meteorologist-nature-journal-a-comic-book-climate-modeling-a-playground/
Via Climate Depot.
It would appear that “Monty” hasn’t been taking his Vitamin B. Just like Mann, it seems that he can’t respond to rebuttal/refutation of weak climate ‘science’ with anything of substance at all. Why might this be, I wonder?
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“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?”
===========================================================================
I can’t speak for Anthony, or the other bloggers on this site, but personally, the fact that all the major scientific bodies appear to accept the “IPCC consensus” with unquestioning obedience, concerns me a great deal.
Monty repeats the old false charge from the warmer contingent that the skeptics are only skeptical of one side. Saying this just underscores his own ignorance. The AGW-skeptics have shown themselves quite willing to turn their fire on their “own side” when they believe it is warranted. The G&T theory has been dismissed out of hand here and on other related blogs. You will not see much support for the skydragon crowd either. The WUWT reception given to Nikolov and Zeller was beyond harsh. Scafetta’s papers have attracted significant criticism. Even Loehle’s first climate reconstruction took a severe beating from the skeptic group (admittedly mostly on Climate Audit). And there are plenty other examples.
If you are looking for the group that wears blinkers, it is Monty’s friends. In his infamous 2008 PNAS article, Mann used a sediment series upside down. An obvious, clear mistake. Yet, not a single mainstream climate scientist has acknowledged the mistake. Not one. Four years later. They have let him get away with the nonsense reply that “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.” Until we see some intellectual honesty from Monty and his friends, they are in absolutely no position to complain that “‘skepticism only seems to work one way”.
“twitter
[twit-er] Example Sentences Origin
twit·ter
[twit-er] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to utter a succession of small, tremulous sounds, as a bird.
2.
to talk lightly and rapidly, especially of trivial matters; chatter.
3.
to titter; giggle.
4.
to tremble with excitement or the like; be in a flutter.
5.
Digital Technology . tweet ( def. 4 ) .
verb (used with object)
6.
to express or utter by twittering. ”
That says it all really. Does anyone know how the term ‘twitter’ came to be applied to this form of communication?
monty’s stopping by here is appropriate, considering Twitter is part of the story, and Monty Python was all about Twits.
rgb
Call it “The Warm Is Turning.”
A portrait photo is worth a thousand words ugh!
Enough forehead for four heads.
Concerning Monty;
Please Anthony don’t cut Monty off. I do enjoy the wrasslin and the take downs
put on Monty by the commenters here. I hope you’ll reconsider.
cheers
Bart
This guy Monty is a real winner… for the skeptic movement please let him stay, Great find Antony!
johnmcguire says: Inconceivable
You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you?
I’ve heard their mindset and antics referred to as “malignant altruism.”
I agree, let Monty stay and make an even bigger fool of himself, especially since we now know where he (anonymously) is writing his crap from, which makes it even funnier!!
Aahh Antony let Monty show everybody here once more the modus operandi of the better warmist ivory tower troll? 😉
Wow, Mann is a plaintive in a defamation lawsuit because he claims he was defamed, and then posts this kind of stuff up on twitter?
One can surmise one of three things:
a) he is an idiot
b) his lawyers are idiots
c) both a and b apply
Yes, yes, let us have Monty back! Panem et circenses(Bread and circuses) we want! We’ll make a gilded cage for him and pamper him with reruns of Inconvenent Truth. So few Warmies make it out here; over the months I’ve even tried to challenge and entice a few from other blogs, but their bluster didn’t translate to courage. Can’t say I blame them.
Anthony:
This is your blog so only your decisions should count. However, I write to support those who have asked you to allow the “Monty” character to post here so his own words can be used to demonstrate his true colours.
Indeed, I put it to you that “Monty” probably wants to hide behind a false name because he fears that his posts on WUWT would expose him in similar manner to how the words of Jan P. Perlwitz exposed him for what he is in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
(I suspect that all WUWT readers who are sceptical of AGW would want to read that ‘debate’ with Perlwitz and would enjoy it).
Exposing Perlwitz was easy because he was too arrogant to recognise he was being encouraged to put his feet in his mouth. However, exposure of “Monty” would probably require a little more effort because his refusal to use his own name indicates he has more sense and less courage than Perlwitz.
Richard
REPLY: He can post, but since I’ve addressed his accusations, I simply expect him to address my question before we continue. – Anthony
BC Bill April 16 at 2:29 You cannot malighn Vizzinni and get away unscathed! Anthony, I hope Monty answers your question. But , I do hope you continue to allow him to post as he seems an easy target. I have yet to see him say anything substantial.