Booker mentions Mann – Mann has a Twitter tantrum

@Monty
I think you labouring under some mis-conceptions, many of the denziens of this and other sceptical blogs are highly educated people, who seek only to uphold good science and it’s proper practice.
If your side’s responses to any criticisms of both their works and their methods, were to be.
“Okay we’ll go away and do some more research and address these concerns that you’ve raised”
You’d be a lot further down the road to the apparent consensus that you seek, not that a consesus, is ever a useful scientific concept 😉
But, No….. You and your ilk would rather just attack people, as one might in a school playground – Can I ask what you think this usefully brings to a debate of any description, scientific or otherwise?
Surely, if one is unable to rationalise one’s argument, then one will be unable to convince rational people… those of us, who might consider to call ourselves scientists, are on the whole both rational and logical, who tend towards the idea that science and the truth(obviously, for a given value of truth) will out. You, don’t think that engaging into debate with us would be more productive? How do you think all other scientific fields move forwards? When was the lastime you heard a string theorist called a quantum loop gravity denier?
Your sides antics, simply confirm to the rest of us that you know you’ve already lost the scientific argument, so please feel free to continue, you only hasten your own decline 😉
Personally, if I’d ever treated any of my own data sets, in the same way that Tiljander’s Data has apparently been treated, then I’d be in trouble, as would any work that I’d published as a result.

Monty says:
April 17, 2012 at 2:55 am
Hi Everyone
Thanks for providing me with ammunition. For instance….Arno Arrak (8.37pm) says: “I have personally studied the relevant data and can tell you that this thing called carbon dioxide greenhouse effect does not even exist”.
Really? This Arno Arrak has ‘personally studied’ the GHE and can say that it does not exist? When will he be collecting his Nobel Prize in Physics I wonder?
And not a word of skepticism from any of you!

Whatever for!? This is a thread about Mann’s twitter tantrum tweets and being a general twit. Yet you woud have us challenge people’s personal statements about themselves and their general opinion.
Decorum, courtesy and pleasant manners are necessary in discussions. The louder one side bluffs, threatens or descends to cheap personal attacks, the more sure we are which side is wrong. If not in the science as that part of the discussion is generally ignored by the noisy childish side, then definitely in their methods of practice.

Mike (One of the Many) says:
April 17, 2012 at 7:22 am
@Monty
“But, No….. You and your ilk would rather just attack people, as one might in a school playground – Can I ask what you think this usefully brings to a debate of any description, scientific or otherwise?”

Mike: You’ve proposed and identified some excellent points, but this one perfectly describes my thoughts when reading monty’s blusters.
monty the schoolground bully! Challenge people loudly and publicly and maybe they’ll back down without a fight. Therefore nobody will realize how ignorant and cowardly the schoolground bully really is. And you would think people would have grown out of this childish approach by adulthood. Reaching a period known as maturity, that is if one has matured.
I certainly don’t think this monty creep, (cheap insult, but you’ve earned it), is from Oxford University. We’ve been led to believe that scholars from Oxford are urbane, civil, educated and well, proper about things like science and scientific discussion. I’m more inclined to think he’s, (assumption of gender, should I challenge him to prove it?), from oxfordclimate.com.
His whole method of cheap slanderous challenging of anyone here, failing to keep on topic, yet not putting anything forth of a real scientific discussion. Reminds me of that wikidelete cconneellyy chap.