Steve McIntyre is back blogging and writes (links mine):
I had also spent some time considering a response to Mann’s book. It amazes me that a reputable scientific community would take this sort of diatribe seriously. Mann’s world is populated by demons and bogey-men. People like Anthony Watts, Jeff Id, Lucia, Andrew Montford and myself are believed to be instruments of a massive fossil fuel disinformation campaign and our readers are said to be “ground troops” of disinformation. The book is an extended ad hominem attack, culminating in salivation in the trumped up plagiarism campaign against Wegman, arising out of copying of trivial “boilerplate” by students (not Wegman himself). Wegman’s name appears nearly 200 times in the book (more, I think, than anyone else’s).
Virtually nothing in its discussion of our criticism can be taken at face value. Mann begins his account by re-cycling his original outright lie that we had asked him for an “excel spreadsheet”. Mann’s lies on this point had been a controversy back in November 2003. The incident was revived by the Penn State Investigation Committee, which had (anomalously on this point) asked Mann about an actual incident. Instead of “forgetting”, as any prudent person would have done, Mann brazenly repeated his earlier lie to the Penn State Investigation Committee. Needless to say, the “Investigation” Committee didn’t actually investigate the lie by crosschecking evidence, but accepted Mann’s testimony as ending the matter. In the book, instead of leaving well enough alone, Mann once again re-iterated the lie.
Steve’s full essay is here.
One only has to read Mann’s latest whine over at Climate Progress to know that Steve McIntyre is spot on.
Related articles
- Jolis Reviews Mann (climateaudit.org)
- Mann of the people (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Ambler’s rebuttal to Mann in the Wall Street Journal (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Booker mentions Mann – Mann has a Twitter tantrum (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
Well…That is comforting to know that Tim Ball can find arguments so silly that he will belatedly disassociate himself from them. However, the question remains why he ever allowed himself to be a co-author of such a book in the first place!
I applaud you for not giving the Slayers coverage beyond that cartoon. However, it is not like the work of people like, say, Lord Monckton is so serious either. It may be better than the Slayer’s work…but that is setting the bar awfully low!
REPLY: Well, I often wonder why I allow you to comment here, with your own “low quality” work, so I guess that makes us even. Your arrogance about people you disagree with is not amusing, so have a nice weekend and we’ll see you on Monday. – Anthony
Joel- I noted that you changed your post (or had it changed for you). never the less, I am curious as to what “99%” of the skeptic arguments they are to abandon, and how ad hominem attacks further the warmists scientific arguments? Please note this is a 2 part question, so an answer to either or both would be appreciated.
joeldshore says: April 25, 2012 at 8:59 am
(2) While it may be technically true that one can find “AGW skeptics” from all political persuasions, in my experience the overwhelming majority of them come from the conservative or libertarian political persuasion.
———————————————–
No surprise there. People who tend to think for themselves (skeptics) and people who need verifiable data before drawing a conclusion, tend to be libertarian and conservative. You seem to be saying that blindly following appeals from authority figures is a *good* thing? I’m sure that the
posters on this website can give a dozen excellent historical examples of authority figures being horribly wrong in politics, science, and economics.
Friends:
I have read the above contributions from warmist trolls with interest and admiration for their gall.
The indisputable facts are as follows.
1.
Michael Mann is famous for only one thing.
He incorrectly used an inappropriate statistical method which he applied to data he selected to generate an apparent climate reconstruction which showed the LIA and MWP did not exist. This remarkable finding refuted much history, archaeology and paleoscience. And the finding is denied by inclusion in the analysis of data which Mann possessed but Mann had hidden in a file which he labelled “censored”. He failed to report the existence and/or the effect of including the “censored” data in his analysis.
2.
Steve McIntyre is also famous for only one thing.
He proved the analysis method invented by Mann is incorrect and cannot provide a reliable indication of past climate as Mann asserted it did.
3.
Mann provided an extreme example of scientific fr@ud in his reports of his remarkable finding. In the emails leaked from CRU, Mann and his colleagues call this fr@ud “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline”.
It is precisely the same type of scientific fr@ud as the Piltdown Man in that in each case
(a) parts of two different items of scientific information were selected,
(b) the two parts were spliced together to construct an artefact,
and
(c) with an intention to mislead, the constructed artefact was presented to the scientific community as being scientific information.
4.
Mann resents McIntyre having pointed out his analysis method is plain wrong, and he has attempted to smear McIntyre.
5.
Warmist trolls know the reality of the MWP and LIA are an embarrassment to their agenda and they attempt the impossible; i.e. they attempt to defend, Mann, Mann’s work and Mann’s behaviour.
Richard