ClimateBites Tom Smerling writes:
…I would have preferred that Mann had stopped with the quote above, but he added
“I will call people who deny the science ‘deniers.’ I won’t be deterred by the fact that they don’t like the use of that term and no doubt that just endears me to them further. It’s frustrating of course because a lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do.”
And he adds his own opinion:
While sharing Mann’s frustration, we now avoid using the term “denier” at ClimateBites. Though accurate and concise, labeling people “deniers” simply shuts many more doors — and minds — than it opens. I have heard several anecdotes about partially open-minded skeptics, including meteorologists, taking offense at the label, which they associated with Holocaust denial. No doubt, at least some undecided onlookers feel the same way, and that’s our real audience. Bottom line: In most situations, the costs of branding people “deniers” simply outweighs the benefits.
He’s right, the label is offensive, and I believe Dr. Mann uses it for spite and to denigrate his opponents. Dr. Mann doesn’t want debate at all, and that’s not the behavior of a scientist, but rather, an advocate.
h/t to Tom Nelson
The believers tossed civility out the window along with their credibility a long time ago.
When his models and interpreted data match what is currently happening he might have a case, but there can be no consensus when the models and data are clearly not following the current trend and he has no explanation for why.
Right now he is just an arrogant writer of fiction.
Get back to doing science Michael and figure it out!
As time passes, and more data rolls in, Mann looks ever more foolish and desparate; as do his followers. Even the politicians realise they are now flogging a dead horse. Hitting people in their pockets makes them take notice and what they notice is the utter b*lls**t that makes up the claims of cAGW. I look forward to laughing at the contortions that Mann, Hansen et al are going to be performing in the future.
Dr. Mann (or anyone using the term “deniers”) needs to stipulate just what he thinks people are denying.
Kurt in Switzerland
Next, Mann needs to agree to remove the term climate scientist to describe himself and replace it with ‘climate scientist’.
“Nonsensical debate?” First of all, we need an actual debate with well-informed sceptics, but that will never happen because all the ‘climate scientists’ like Mann are rightly scared of having the logic and procedures behind their distorted version of ‘science’ shredded in public. At the end of such a debate, it would be clear to all who advocates nonsense and that is something the CAGW cult, led by the Team, would never allow. So, that means no debate.
“Get back to doing science Michael and figure it out!”
Didn’t know he’d ever done any, Goldie! Do you have a citation?
“I will call people who deny the science ‘deniers.’ ” – then Mann is a denier. There is a circulus in probando there, they failed to prove that their pseudo-science is a science. They deny physics with the ‘global temperature’ which is no temperature, according to physics.
Hey, Mr. Mann: There’s absolutely no justification to pursue any engineered solution if the problem is so ill-defined or fictitious that those proposing it hide their work.
There’s no straight-thinking engineer that would even get near such a task. (There is this little matter of liability, you know–something you apparently don’t understand.)
So whatever you’ve got in all your emails, your algorithms, your playbook–whatever; divulge it all first and we’ll see whether it even warrants a solution.
Or just keep quiet and go away.
Quite simply; Mann can’t accept that he could be wrong.
His is certainly not the position of a scientist.
The important debate is not with the scientists, but with the general population who have only a passing interest in the detail. They hear the big picture stories and decide how much to complain about energy bills and transport costs. Having a nice benign scare story is as good for politicians as it is for the researchers.
Demonstrating how these researchers are engineering themselves out of an open debate is the first step to showing how they are denying the relevance of the new science which is starting to emerge.
‘taking offense at the label, which they associated with Holocaust denial.’
True but he should also have said that some heaters are now publicly linking the two in their writing !no doubt to cause offence.
The lesson here is: when you have the high ground, don’t give it away.
Smerling is correct in that the undecided onlookers make up the audience that needs to be convinced.
It won’t matter how good the realists’ arguments are, if they’re lathered with mud slinging they’ll be ignored.
When I first came across this debate it was the absolute certainty, religious in its righteousness, of the warmists’ beliefs and the contempt they showed toward their opponents, firebrands-and-pitchfork strength, that made me take pause. Add in their complete lack of a sense of humour and I wanted no truck with them. When a bit of study showed them to also be wrong, I was elated.
But had they, in Maxwell Smart’s words, used niceness, I’d have probably shrugged my shoulders, not become involved . . . and the good guys would have lost a soldier, however puny my efforts.
Seeing as the subject is Dr mann I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the post I made elsewhere yesterday?
“.I have been looking at the 13th and 14th Century records in the archives of Exeter Cathedral today and came across a tree ring study made by English Heritage (a Govt Body) of the timbers of this thousand year old building. The study was from around 1999. It said that tree rings were good for approximate dating (which I accept and was the prime purpose of the study) and that it could tell us years that were worse or better than average climatically (moisture etc during the growing season) but cautioned against trying to determine any more precise details than that.
Somewhere between today and 12 years ago the study of tree rings became highly elevated in importance and scope and diverged from its original purpose of dating. I can only think it was Dr Mann who gave it the undeserved celebrity it enjoys today.Tree rings are not a precise science however much they are promoted as being so.Tree rings can not give us the means to calculate precise temperatures.’
I can well imagine that many tree ring practitioners like the additional Kudos that elevating the importance of their activity has provided them, but equally there must be some that secretly think its importance in climate science has been over promoted. Believing this sort of stuff to be ‘data’ that is accurate enough to affect the thinking of gullible Western Govts is a relatively recent development which I can only assume happened when the hockey stick took pride of place in the IPCC assessment. To me it appears to be cappucino science-more froth than substance.
tonyb
Mann denies that the climate changed between 1000 Ad and 1900 AD. If that’s not a “head in the sand” climate change denier, I do not know what is!
As for Tom Sterling, he is correct that we need to get away from petty name calling and return to respectful debate about the science and the data.(I make a special exception for Michael Mann and Dr “death train” Hansen, as I do not consider them to be scientists in ANY meaningful interpretation of the word).
I suspect the reason that Mann et al do not want to debate the science and the data, but only enforce their narrow and incomplete dogma, is because they do not accept any scientific study, or data, which happens to challenge their beliefs. The hockey team have been shown to be cherry-pickers and deceivers. Their side of the debate descended into lawless fraud (fakegate) bullying, harassment and lying to several public inquiries (who were rigged to allow such lies to go unchallenged) and have lead to grotesque propaganda in the form of shock videos which do not tell the truth, but instead have polar bears falling from the skies into bloody messes on city streets and of children being blown to pieces.
Perhaps, a good and responsible and rational idea would be for them to stick . to . the . science! IF they fully, openly and honestly stuck to the scientific method, then they would have a lot more credibility. However, if they stuck to the scientific method, they would also be forced, by that strict scientific discipline, to acknowledge a total lack of evidence of runaway global warming and that there is no cause for undue alarm.
I have never had an issue with being called a denier. The word existed a long time before the holocaust and I don’t feel offended by it’s use now, even when the likes of Mann try to conflate two seperate issues. What does annoy me is that while Mann might call me a denier of science, it is he whose abuse of the scientific method has done more to cause this whole stinking situation than anyone else on earth.
At 12:22 AM on 18 May, Kurt in Switzerland observes:
Why, didn’t you read what Dr. Mann had written? We’re denying “the science.”
Of course, that begs the question: “What ‘science,’ Mikey?”
When a warmista declares all exchanges with skeptics of the crippled conjecture that is the AGW contention to be “nonsensical debates” while such discussions are flop-sweatily evaded, there’s the undeniable manifest of intellectual duplicity on the part of Dr. Mann and his correspondents such that my personal opinion inclines toward a cessation of all efforts to enter “debates” with Dr. Mann and his ilk in favor of pursuing ever more vigorously investigations of apparent theft of value through the deliberate utterance of falsehoods in their government grant funding applications.
If he lacks confidence in his ability to debate “the science” (whatever in hell anyone is supposed to think his “science” actually is) with those of us genuinely critical of his methodology, observational data, and professional integrity, then perhaps we should oblige him and leave the matter entirely to prosecuting attorneys and the plaintiff’s bar.
“Kurt in Switzerland says:
May 18, 2012 at 12:22 am”
In debate with many here in Aus…we apparent deny climate. It’s one of the funniest terms I see used constantly by alarmists here when talking about climate *change*.
Ermmmm, I’m undecided, and I think most people here are actually undecided rather than “denialists”. I think man plays a small part in global warming through deforestation, land change use etc, but I don’t follow the CO2 is evil meme. This doesn’t mean I won’t change my mind if something changes.
According to author Paul O’Shea denialism is “the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event“.
Since the CO2 meme has not been shown empirically to be correct and we are not denying a historical event, how can we be referred to by the derogatory term “denier” and lumped in with the bloody idiots that actually do deny the holocaust?
People interested in honest and open discussion do not “label” others with a term that the interlocutors regard as offensive. “Deniers” is in fact highly offensive, and unquestionably meant to associate challenges to CAGW dogma with “Holocaust Deniers”….
We could term Michale Mann and his ilk “climate change scumbags” and it would be less offensive and more accurate (considering the behaviors displayed in the Climategate emails etc.), but of course it would not be conducive to a constructive discussion. On the other hand, given the scorched earth rhetoric of a lot of the Mannian camp, maybe it is time to fight back…. gee, guess that’s what Heartland was doing! (I still don’t want to emulate the Mannian rhetoric, but I can understand the temptation to reciprocate).
Mann’s Q&A with the Guardian, ten days after the Suzanne Goldenberg article in Slate which ClimateBites links to for the quote, and 3 days after the ClimateBites piece:
27 Feb 2012: Guardian: Live Q&A: Climate scientist Michael Mann on the ‘hockey stick’ controversy
Question:thefandango 28 February 2012 4:47PM
Micheal
Given that the term “denier” has obvious holocaust denial connotations, do you think that your use of that word is:
1. unacceptable for a scientist to use
2. one that could incite certain elements to violence against people who question the concensus
Or do you consider it a reasonable term?
Answer: michaelemann
Frankly, I think those who complain about this are often just producing crocodiles tears. As someone who lost relatives to the religious persecution of the jewish people, I would be as sensitive to anyone if I really though the use of the term has anything whatsoever do do with the holocaust. I find that argument quite disingenuous if not downright dishonest. For those who are denying mainstream science, the logical thing to call them is “deniers”. they are certainly not “skeptics” and even “contrarian” doesn’t always fit the bill. Given that some of the fiercest of our detractors have proudly declared themselves deniers (one such individual even wrote a book “The Deniers”) I find that this argument has no currency at all. I suspect its often used as a somewhat disingenuous ploy to get journalists and other commentators to grant the highly undeserved term of “skeptic” to those who are nothing of the sort.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a
“ploy” to get journos to call sceptics “sceptics”? duh!
I am reading Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed at the moment. It was published in 1995, but is valid today. I will forever think of Mann and his ilk as ‘the anointed’ now.
I have formerly used the term AGWer, or CAGWer, which is polite, but I have noticed there are several articles (as mentioned above) that have come flat out and played the holocaust card lately. I believe that ‘the anointed’ is a perfect description for these people. It sums up their hubris nicely.
(Mind you, Sowell says that ‘the anointed’ tend to think of the rest of us as ‘the benighted’!)
The problem is not so much with those who deny science because, in truth, there are not many who knowingly do that. The real problem is with those who corrupt science. Those who forsake the scientific method, hide their data, refuse to disclose their methods and computer code and instead promote their corrupt science by seeking to discredit and abuse any with alternative opinions.
At 1:52 AM on 18 May, MikeB opined:
I believe that those critters warrant the descriptor charlatans, don’t they?
Thoughts of these goniffs gives me much to recall The Flim-Flam Man (1967), in which the title character claimed for himself a constellation of academic degrees I think suit Michael Mann even more appropriately:
(Hrm. Just what kind of “science” is it that they’re supposed to have made “corrupt,” anyway? Only in some kind of duplicitous illusory sense does it even approximate the truthful application of scientific method.)
Sticks and stones will break my bones but a lying man’s words will never hurt me.
A Mickey Mouse view from a Mickey Mouse data handler.
When a scientist emails the suggestion to a colleague to “Hide the decline” something is rotten in the State of Denmark or even Yamal……
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick is the correct shape for Hockey but sadly/ashamedly not for honest science.
In most situations, the costs of branding people “deniers” simply outweighs the benefits.
BENEFITS??? HMMMM
What Mann doesn’t seem to understand is that the sceptics aren’t the ‘deniers of science’, it’s the observational data that is the ‘denier of Mann’. So the title of this piece should really be “Climate: ∞ Mann: 0”.
I posted this on another forum;
“Denier” is meant to be a humiliating, derogatory, insulting, denigrating, demeaning term used to describe somebody who does not believe in the ideology and dogma of the committed climate change / global warmer or convert. [ “convert”;as in to the global warming meme. They seem to be a very rare species ]
However much more is revealed about the “user” of the term, “denier” than is supposedly revealed about the recipient.
Think about it a little;
The “user” of the extreme descriptive term “Denier” with it’s supposed underlying association with those who deny the “Holcaust”, quite openly reveals his / her total intolerance for other’s views.
The “users” of the term, “denier” are extremely self righteous and are often or are usually quite ignorant of the actual science so their standard refrain is to appeal to authority.
They are extremely hypocritical in that they want to be able to express their beliefs any time, anywhere but will do their utmost to prevent those who do not subscribe to their beliefs from doing likewise.
They are often / usually quite thuggish and bullying in their reactions to those who dare to differ from their beliefs.
They often seem to have very few scruples left in attempting to suppress any alternative views to their ideology and dogma.
Judith Curry, Climate Etc; had a post on this not so long ago.
There are five attributes of Ideologues
1 / Absence of doubt
2 / Intolerance of debate
3 / Appeal to authority
4 / A desire to convince others of the Ideological “truth”.
5 / A willingness to punish those who don’t concur.
And she notes; Note each of these characteristics is an anathema to science.
Have you seen this?.. http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/ it is a fund for legal defence against any charges made against climate scientists. I would have though that anyone in such a certain position as to be able to call others deniers wouldn’t need such a fund.
I’ve taken to calling the CAGW crowd ‘Collaborators’ as in those people who collaborated with the Nazis. Seems an appropriate term. Climate Collaborators.
Could not resist:
“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.” — Margaret Thatcher, P. 273
Mann is a man who discovered, invented, named, described and totally misunderstood the AMO.
Now I managed to outMANNeuver Mann himself and have reconstructed the AMO going back to early 1700s. 🙂
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R.htm
Ironically, the whole essence of the hockey stick is climate change denial. It seeks to show that there was no significant climate change before the 20th Century.
.
Of course, there’s another irony: people sceptical of AGW are labelled ‘climate change deniers’. In reality, a major sceptical argument is that the climate is always changing. Whatever else they may be, sceptics certainly can’t be labelled as ‘climate change deniers’.
Chris
Yes its curious to see where the denial lies, for those that liberally sprinkled this term around also try to smear others with accusations,but increasingly they end up with egg on their face, as their own denials and transgressions are exposed. Mann himself along with his cohorts “fit the model” of a denier so well from, hiding data, hiding from open debate with those that question what was once their kingdom, but a kingdom built like a house of cards and the truth of wind and weather tore their house of cards apart exposed, as a lie, just like that mythical consensus.
Mann, Trenberth and their cronies are yesterdays one trick ponies, a blight on science – takes real scientists to stand up and admit they got it wrong. His lot will always deny and hide the truth.
“lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do.” Pretty smart guys. I believe “what to do” involves their ability to control the climate. Some might deny they have this ability, but only those of little faith. How could anyone snipe at those powerful enough to control such things?
Of course I’m a little skeptical, having heard repeated skeers on the coming climatic disasters for decades and not seeing any of those disasters occur.
I’m going to keep saying it until he starts to realise the legacy he is leaving, History Mr Mann especially with the interweb recording everything you do and say is not going to show you as an open minded advancer of science but rather a nasty, closed minded fool.
Then again if that is what you where aiming for no one does it better .
This term, Denier or Climate Change Denier has never bothered me personally, I have been called far worse. However, I fully sympathize with those affected by the Holocaust and their descendants that must really get PO’d when it is casually thrown around by these brain-dead greenies and socialists.
The reason I dislike this whole argument though is completely different than most. It has to do with the upside down hypocrisy that is displayed when a eco-nut uses the term against someone other than themselves.
The only logical target of the term Climate Change Denier would be the eco-fools themselves. You see, *they* are actually the deniers as they deny climate change with their every breath …
‘The climate is always naturally changing’ :: this is what I and most sane people say
‘When the climate changes it is unprecedented and our fault’ :: this is what the eco-tards say
So are the actual deniers? The hypocritical fools are! It is stunning that the word ‘denier’ would even cross their lips. Attacking them for their insensitivity to the Holocaust (read Mann above) is fine and all, but they also need to be kicked in the shins for hypocrisy and the complete reversal of logic and the clear meaning of words.
Mann is a special case. Mann cherry picked tree ring data (finding trees in a region where precipitation is reduced when the planet is warmer and increased when it is cooler, so tree rings width for the trees in that region is inversely proportional to temperature) and then used a analysis technique enables the cherry picked incorrect data to make the cyclic warming and cooling go away.
The climategate memos indicate Mann and others are working to push an ideological agenda. There is no global warming crisis based on the science. The science does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The planet warms and cools in cycles. The warming and cooling cycles show up in the climate record in both the interglacial periods and in the glacial periods. The warming and cooling cycles correlate to long term solar magnetic cycle changes. That is a scientific fact, an observation. It is obvious from the correlation of cosmogenic isotopes with long term climate change cycles (warming followed by cooling and in some cases abrupt cooling) that the sun forcing the cycle. The scientific questions are how and why is the sun changing and how do those changes cause the cyclic climate changes.
The earth’s response to a change in forcing is negative (clouds increase or decrease in tropics to resist the forcing change) rather than positive (planet amplifies forcing changes). If the planet’s response is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming, not 3C to 5C. The IPCC computer models have assumed the planet response to the CO2 forcing change is highly positive which amplifies the CO2 forcing change to create the extreme warming prediction.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
“On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE…
1) The models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE.
2) The (negative) feedback in ERBE is mostly from SW while the (positive) feedback in
the models is mostly from OLR.
Finally, it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics. Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
“On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.”
Mann’s book climate science on the front lines and Hansen’s book storms of my grandchildren is propaganda to push the ideological agenda. The irony is that Mann, Hansen, and their cohorts have not considered the true consequences of their propaganda and campaign. Western countries are spending billions of dollars of scams (such as carbon trading, wind farms, conversion of food to biofuel) which will not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “Green” energy is a scam, the deficit spending on “green” energy scams by the Western countries will lead to either financial collapse of Western countries due to the deficits and the higher and higher energy costs or a burst of the scam bubble.
If he wants to refer to us as Climate ‘deniers’ then what’s wrong with us referring to his ilk as ‘abusers’? Or ‘believers’? Or ‘adjusters’? Or ‘profiteers’?
They ‘adjust’ the study results to agree with their ‘belief’ that this is necessary to allow them to ‘abuse’ any opposition that might interrupt the ‘profitability’ of their new religion.
Mr. Mann is poorly named.
Mann is front and center in the climategate fiasco. The extreme AGW paradigm is based on a lie.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/cg.pdf
Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists
by John P. Costella | December 10, 2009
The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.
The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.
The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well-known study that characterized the state of the Earth’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest
Figure 4. World Climate History after AD1,000 according to ground borehole evidence. Vertical axis: average anomalies in oC, with range indicating Bayesian probability boundaries. Source: Huang et al. (1998); data supplied by Huang. Huang
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
… At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing…
…The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.
Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts.
Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is that if you fit a model using random numbers you can see how well they do at “explaining” the data. Then the “real world” data, if they are actually informative about the climate, have to outperform the random numbers. We calculated significance benchmarks for the hockey stick algorithm and showed that the hockey stick did not achieve statistical significance, at least in the pre-1450 segment where all the controversy is. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …
I deny that there is enough scientific evidence to support the case that continuing to produce anthropognic CO2 will be dangerous to humankind, in fact I’ve not seen any such evidence and I have been looking for years. I do believe that it is self evident that to not continue to most effectively utilise the earth’s resources will slow human progress.
I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not deny that H2O and methane are greenhouse gases. I do not deny that there has been a slight increase in global diurnal average temperature in the last century because of anthropogenic CO2. I do not deny that ocean energy has risen very slightly in the last 100 years though by much less than expected by highly respected scientists. I do not deny that there is no increase in hurricanes in the last 100 years. I do not deny that climate models have been shown to be woefully inadequate in predicting the flattening of global temperatures in the last 10-15 years. I do not deny the evidence that cosmic rays can modulate cloud formation. I do not deny that the world’s constantly changing climate is chaotic, multicyclical and influenced by natural phenomena like the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic oscillation, the moon, changes in orbit and albedo, jet stream movement…..
I do not deny that books have been written predicting the earth burning, flooding of biblical proportions, polar bears dying, plague, pestillence, extinctions, droughts and wars caused because of anthropogenic CO2, but they are not scientific predictions. I do not deny that there is evidence that there has been a dishonest collusion, evidenced by Climategate in such items as ‘hide the decline’, conspiracy to prevent papers being published, deliberate refusal to publish data for validation. I do not deny that upside down data and subsets of data, conveniently spliced with temperature data, when not conforming to belief in AGW, have been used to create a, now discredited, hockey stick shaped graph as a posterchild for the IPCC message. I do not deny that IPCC was seriously predicting Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035, and only after repeated attempts by sceptics, despite being accused of voodoo science, was the prediction removed.
I enjoyed that.
And am I a Denier or a Sceptic?
Kurt in Switzerland says:
May 18, 2012 at 12:22 am
“Dr. Mann (or anyone using the term “deniers”) needs to stipulate just what he thinks people are denying. ”
Most likely he is afraid we will be denying his funding.
Intergrity Score – ClimateBites 1, Mann 0, Anthony Watts -1
He’s right, the label is offensive, and I believe Dr. Mann uses it for spite and to denigrate his opponents.
So it’s ok to post Monckton doing the same thing in reverse, by linking consensus (and by extention AGW proponents) with WWII and the death camps?
The Versailles consensus of 1918 imposed reparations on the defeated Germany, so that the conference that ended the First World War (15 million dead) sowed the seeds of the Second. The eugenics consensus of the 1920s that led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka (6 million dead). The appeasement consensus of the 1930s that provoked Hitler to start World War II (60 million dead).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/
It’s probably not a view shared by many people on the climate realist side, but I consider such people to be real assets in our struggle. The number of ordinary people they can totally alienate with their wild claims is extraordinary, not to mention the rather guilty pleasure I take in watching their own supporter’s sharp intake of breath, every time one of them gets anywhere near a public podium. You can nearly read their thoughts – “Oh God, what are they going to say now.” I think of them as liabilities best left in place, to wreak the damage, which both their egos and personalities will inevitably compel them to do.
ie Michael Mann
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
Pointman
It has been my contention for some time that Mann is a bully. If you attack viciously at the smallest slight or question, you reduce the questions going forward.
You can see this in the Climategate emails with his interactions with the other players and in their discussions about him.
This is why the legal process for his emails in Virginia is important. This will be the playground “punch in the nose” that bullys deserve.
Mann is the true denier…he denies the observable scientific evidence in favor of models and fantasy theories.
Daveo says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:52 am
“So it’s ok to post Monckton doing the same thing in reverse, by linking consensus (and by extention AGW proponents) with WWII and the death camps?”
Enviro-Alarmism has a long tradition that cannot be denied.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nazi-father-of-global-warming.html
The quote that Climatebites likes from Mann (and get’s a “Bravo”) is “When it comes to climate change, true skepticism is two-sided. One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all.” and then he adds the bit about deniers.
What exactly does that mean? Skepticism can only exist if both sides are skeptical, otherwise it’s denial? So if I talk to my friends that believe in Bigfoot, and I say that I am skeptical of the evidence, since they aren’t skeptical of the evidence then I’m not a true skeptic but rather a Bigfoot denier?
Tucci78 (May 18, 2012 at 1:08 am)
Patrick (May 18, 2012 at 1:12 am)
Thank you for your input. Yes, Mann states that “deniers” are those who deny “the science” (whatever that means). But as you pointed out, Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW, CAGW, or Anthropogenic Climate Change, ACC, CACC (or whatever) are not established facts of “science”. Indeed, much is the realm of conjecture.
Sure, all things being equal, additional CO2 should result in some additional warming. The problem is the extent of such warming (as well as its supposed irreversibility and its supposed ability to overwhelm natural oscillations). The problem here is in actually carrying out an experiment (or separating the anthropogenic “signal” from the natural signal). We shouldn’t forget that Climate Science is a very young discipline. All the doomsday projections about excessive heating / flooding / drought / etc. on earth result from computer models which have to date not been accurate in their short- to mid- term projections.
I am not satisfied with the assertion that IPCC proclamations (e.g., that late 20th C warming is > 90% probability due to mankind) reflect “science”, nor, IMHO, are many in the W. World –(incidentally, the only countries which are scrambling to “do something” about runaway climate catastrophe are Western. All others pay lip service only, and/or participate solely for the purpose of obtaining handouts).
So a level-headed debate is needed, establishing what is “science” and what is extrapolation / guesswork / conjecture. This needs to take place with mutual respect between the opponents. If the protagonists of CAGW can’t field some hard questions, they most definitely do not represent “SCIENCE.” For that matter, what is the value of “Peer Review” if the hard questions are withheld?
Kurt in Switzerland
Roger says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:12 am
If he wants to refer to us as Climate ‘deniers’ then what’s wrong with us referring to his ilk as ‘abusers’? Or ‘believers’? Or ‘adjusters’? Or ‘profiteers’?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
It’s wrong because every time a realist stoops to name-calling, his superior interpretation of data gets lost and the debate shifts from whose science is best to who is the more smart alecky.
When I became interested in this subject, the realist voices were few and hard to hear. Because of that, and to make themselves heard, those speaking out for the good guys had to rigorously stay on topic. And because they did stay on topic and left the ad homs and other nastiness to the warmists, they seized the high ground and eventually the message got through.
Sadly, I now see, because the realist cause is in the ascendancy, the same smart-arse, smug, know-all attitude – the sort of thing we used to hate the warmists for – creeping into realist rhetoric. It’s the sort of attitude that could lose the war.
Believe me, this is a political fight. Politicians aren’t particularly interested in gold-plated scientific truth. If they were, the warmists would have been vanquished years ago. Politicians are merely looking for an excuse to levy taxes and play the saviour. To do that they have to be able to sell their programme to the majority, who have no fixed belief either way, by showing that they’re on the side of the angels.
Keep slinging mud at the warmists and you’ll turn them into victims; downtrodden, misunderstood servants of mankind.
Treat them as fellow human beings who just happen to be totally astray in their thinking and they’ll have to rely totally on their findings – which, as we know, are complete bollocks.
It can’t be stressed enough – that Heartland billboard was an own goal of galactic proportions. It was the equivalent of two years of good news down the drain.
Daveo says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:52 am
So it’s ok to post Monckton doing the same thing in reverse, by linking consensus (and by extention AGW proponents) with WWII and the death camps?
The discussion was about the fact that consensus was a political phenomenon and not a scientific one. You lifted it out of context and implied an extension that wasn’t in the original, then you tried to thwack Anthony with it as an example of *his* lack of integrity.
Hypocrisy much?
“I will call people who deny the science ‘deniers.’ I won’t be deterred by the fact that they don’t like the use of that term ..”
It amazes me how many people actually think ‘denier’ is an offensive term. I don’t find it offensive in any way, in fact I welcome and enjoy being called a climate denier. For me its fun.
When someone calls me a denier, it tells me I’m on the right track, it tells me I’m getting under their religiously alarmist skin. It means I’ve won. I like to win.
cheers
The denier situation is getting worse, the world is now full of alarmist deniers.
Tom Sterlin may be right in that we need to get away from petty name calling and return to respectful debate . But his way to late for when all was rosy in the alarmists grade and all seem to be going their way the dehumanizing and insults which included linking AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers ,the were just as readily used.
Its only now that the tides turned on them and the political will and the science goes against them, that some of now want to be more civil and have a dialog . But eve n now its still on the basis of their right and anyone else is wrong , although now not perhaps ‘bad and mad ‘ too.
Sorry Tom don’t piss on my feet and tell me its raining .
Oh, stop being so sensitive!
I have no problem being referred to as a ‘denier’ by twisted fanatics like Mann, it’s a badge of honour to be insulted by him and his ilk, it proves we’re winning the argument.
In fact, with the political climate very much going against the Warmists, this epithet can be turned back onto them, in the same way as various other maligned groups such as homosexuals and pigmentally challenged persons have reclaimed various derogatory references, such as ‘q*eer’ and the ‘n’ word.
Say it loud! Say it proud!
These boys have it right.
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2012/02/im-a-denier—one-more-time.html
The English language is such an impure, almost sentient entity. The meaning of a word oscillates from good to bad to good, from bad to good to bad, and from funny to serious to funny as often as the seasons change. What was hot is not cool, what was good is now bad.
I am skeptical of today’s research methods, and a complete denier of anthropogenic global warming. Who’s bad.
@ jacksplaceagain “I’ve taken to calling the CAGW crowd ‘Collaborators’ as in those people who collaborated with the Nazis. Seems an appropriate term. Climate Collaborators.”
Ooooooohhh…. good one!
I try not to be offended when I am referred to as a “denier.” I know that the CAGW people who use the term only do so because of their deep concern over the type of world which we will all leave for future generations. They are motivated by their love “for the children.” Considering their great love for the children, I do not understand why they become angry when I refer to them as “climate pedophiles.”
For the life of me, I cannot fathom why Mann fails to understand that nothing is being denied. All that is being done is questioning, which is the scientific way. I guess when you lose the argument, your last refuge is petty ad hominems.
Kurt in Switzerland says:
May 18, 2012 at 5:18 am
“Sure, all things being equal, additional CO2 should result in some additional warming. The problem is the extent of such warming (as well as its supposed irreversibility and its supposed ability to overwhelm natural oscillations). The problem here is in actually carrying out an experiment (or separating the anthropogenic “signal” from the natural signal). ”
A clear prediction of the CO2AGW theory is that positive water vapor feedback should occur AND that the radiating top layer of the troposphere that radiates most of the IR to space should rise.
Both predictions can be tested, have been tested, and fail:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html?showComment=1332558067400#c2031512486689428024
It is now time for the CO2AGW scientists to accept this failure, come up with a new theory, and make new predictions.
Dirk: thank you for your message.
Clearly water vapor does different things at different altitudes and times of day (or night). For example, daytime clouds essentially dampen the solar heating, while nighttime clouds essentially reduce the heat loss to the atmosphere.
I’d like to see Carl Brehmer’s experiments repeated on a larger scale and at higher altitudes. Perhaps he could bring a summary to a willing skeptical atmospheric physicist at his local university.
The intricate coupling of increased Carbon Dioxide together with increased Water Vapor is what the warmists/alarmists say is dangerous/irreversible/exceeds natural oscillations. So that is what needs to be tested.
Kurt in Switzerland
You read here folks, Mann said that the debate about man-made global warming is settled science.
The use of the term Denier is quite infantile. I use Warmists for want of a better word. I don’t mind being called Cool, Coolist, Doubter, Sceptic but I’ll damned is I accept M. Mann’s bogus hockey stick.
Using the term actually backfires on Warmists and they don’t really know it. Reasonable intelligent fence sitters read ‘denier’ and wonder whether Warmists are engaged in science or a PR campaign. They they look for information from both sides of the debate then BAM! Skepticism cranks in.
I guess that if I am a “denier” then Mann must be a climate “crusader”.
[snip – over the top, sorry – Anthony]
Actually, ClimateBites is lacking integrity too. He should have stopped before he got to the “Though accurate and concise” part. He wants credit for not using the term while telling us it still fits. Nope, in my book that still doesn’t cut it.
[snip – over the top, sorry – Anthony]
Rather than respond the the term “denier”, why not respond to the action? Don’t look to the term ‘denier”. Rather, look the action, which is “name calling” and address it for what it is. A tool to promote propaganda, not science.
When someone resorts to name calling, there is a reason they are doing this. Wikipedia says the reason is:
“Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling
“Name calling” is not the action of a scientists, it is the action of a propagandist. By their actions, so shall you know them.
Heckeling, unfortunatly, is a part of open debate. Both sides point at the other as guilty.This debate can be won if we stay focused on the important issues
Mann nullifies nature’s natural variations.
His hubris heavily humps human impacts.
Mann’s curious calculations erase evidence.
Denier Mann deceptively denigrates discerners.
Refusing reality, Mann returns to recursive rhetoric.
Might Mann mull a mournful man’s musing?
Here comes a list of good names for those who belong to ClimateScientists (TM):
Scholastic
Cathedratic
Climate Priests
Apostles
Canonists
And there is the whole group of people who supports them:
Zealots
Proselytes
Adherents
Acceptors
(You know, my mother had taught me it is wrong calling people names…)
I posted the following at ClimateBites:
the climate collaborators are weather corroborators
they want us to shower less so they can jet more to fancy outskirts in the world for freshly spawned concillia of their new religion
I posted the following at ClimateBites:
\\Question for Dr. Mann: Is Steve McIntyre a “denier?” If he is under your definition, then the term needs to be re-evaluated and re-defined. His carefully detailed work has exposed yours as flawed and the dubious conclusions based on your work as unsupported. If Steve McIntyre is a “denier” then we should all be proud to be labeled as such.
I remember in the 60s when the “silent majority” turned loud and began calling young people who grew their hair and protested against all manner of things “freaks.” At first the term was viewed as derogatory. Then it was embraced by those at whom it was directed. “Let your freak flag fly.” It became a badge of honor. In that spirit, I would welcome being called a denier, based on what I see as the thrust of so-called “consensus climate science.”
But the reality is that too many people find the term to be a smear. Based on that, I’ll offer you a deal, Dr. Mann: I won’t call you a “fraud” (a term I’ve never used and one Mr. McIntyre forbids on his website) if you don’t call me a “denier.”//
@DirkH
“A clear prediction of the CO2AGW theory is that positive water vapor feedback should occur AND that the radiating top layer of the troposphere that radiates most of the IR to space should rise.
Both predictions can be tested, have been tested, and fail:”
+++++++++++++
Exactly the facts to raise, tiem and again. The ‘catastrophe’ of AGW is predicated upon a belief that these disproven speculations are actually true.Hi Shanshan
What a straw man! “One-sided skeptics”? Does the man have any self-awareness at all any more? What about the “one-sided skeptics” on HIS “side”?
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
The hockey stick represents a perversion of science. There is a name for people who pervert. The “Team” are science perverts. I would hate that the “Team” might falsely accuse me of association and would find such a response “crocodile tears”.
[not interested in your snarky questions – Anthony]
Pamela Gray says:
May 18, 2012 at 6:14 am
I am skeptical of today’s research methods, and a complete denier of anthropogenic global warming. Who’s bad.
But Guess Who was cool back when they were hot.
klem says:
May 18, 2012 at 5:47 am
Exactly!
There is a large number of people that make a very good living from Dendro-Thermology. Of course they will take offense to anyone that shows the holes in their “science”.
What is being “denied” is that the “science” of Dendro-Thermology is science.
Dendro-Thermology maintains that “selecting” trees that correspond to modern temperatures from a larger sample provide a reliable proxy for historical temperatures. This is the “science” behind much of modern climate science.
While this may on the surface appear reasonable, Lucia shows why it is not.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/
In trying to select trees that are good proxies for temperature, the selection process itself creates statistical bias. It is a subtle form of cherry picking that leads to type I errors. It makes trees appear to be reliable proxies when they are not. It makes Dendro-Thermology appear to be valid science when it is not.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
When will people stop questioning the claims I refuse to substantiate so they can be reproduced and start talking about the trillions of dollars that need to be spent? This is how science works- I make a claim and you do what I say.
The problem with Dendro-Thermology is that if trees were good proxies for temperature, there would be no need to select only those samples that correspond with modern temperatures. You could simply use the larger sample and filter for noise.
However, when you select a small sample out of a large sample (as is done routinely in Dendro-Thermology), because only the small sample shows correlation, this indicates what you are selecting is those samples that correlate by chance. This will lead to erroneous conclusions. the appearance of statistical significance where no significance exists.
As science is based upon observed and measured facts, not hypothesis, then the person denying the science is Michael Mann, as he ignores those facts. Welcome to the “Denier” club, Mike!
There is no correlation between CO2 and warming for the last 13 years
because CO2 went up considerably and warming stagnated, at best.
correlation is a prerequisite to causality, so the premise FAILS.
warmistas back to the design boards, with a demotion on top.
Learning to accept the term “denier”.
In recognizing that:
1) No one denies climate exists.
2) No one denies that climate changes.
3) No one denies that man has influenced the climate to some degree.
4) No one denies that climate science is a valid discipline.
It then stands; incorporation of term “denier” suggests the user fits one of these categories or combination of.
1) Uninformed.
2) Ignorant / Illiterate
3) Has a propensity for being untruthful.
4) Emotional rather than logical / scientific.
Hence to me, when “denier” is used, the term will more accurately describe the user rather than me.
( NOTE: I do NOT suggest that Mann fits into category 1 or 2. )
Somebody should ask dr Mann if and where there is any room for skepticism wrt the AGW hypothesis and if so, whom he considers to be legitimate skeptics. If he cannot allow for any doubt, then clearly he is an anti-science fanatic.
Mann’s admittedly ready use of ad hominem slurs, combined with his reluctance to debate, draws a picture of a man unwilling to put his dearly held doctrine at risk.
This is NOT a sign of a man with empirically verifiable evidence on his side, or faith in the infallibility of his theory.
To the true scientist, *all* ideas are at risk, and the only way to discriminate good from bad ideas is trial by fire in the empirical universe.
Even General Relativity is still being tested, despite the fact it has never failed.
A bad theory only needs to fail once.
Dr Mann, following John Cook of Skeptical Science, believes that mastery of climate science also gives mastery of the English language. The reason that he no longer uses the term “skeptics” is because they have redefined the word differently to a consensus of the world’s leading experts.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/
I share Mann’s sentiment.
“It’s frustrating of course because a lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do.”
Yes Mr. Mann we need to have the debate about what to do about the great fraud that you and the IPCC have committed. Should we file criminal charges or should we handle this via class action civil law suits for damages and the recovery of costs incurred? That is the real question that needs to be answered now.
I think what we are seeing is the defense mechanism called “Projection” in psychology.
It is also quite obvious when the Climate Collaborators (great term) keep insisting skeptics are receiving big bucks from evil oil when the opposite is the actual truth.
The climate industry wall of money: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/
Big Oil fund Warmists confusing attack machine: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/big-oil-money-fund-warmists-confusing-attack-machine/
Skeptics Handbook II
Exile for non-believers http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exile-for-non-believers/
It is far better to be truthfully called a Denier than truthfully called a Liar.
To the tune of The Monkees’
“I’m a Believer”
Mann’s Hockey Stick’s just a fairy tale,
Fooled a bunch of folks, but not me
“CO2 was out to get me”,
S’what he made it seem,
Hard-baked farmlands, rising seas.
Then Climategate!
Now I’m a “Denier”
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
He made it up
I’m a “Denier”
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
He thought cores would add to his lone tree ring,
Almost pulled it off but he got caught.
What’s the use in trying?
All you get is pain.
Honest science scrutiny still remains.
Then Climategate!
Now I’m a “Denier”
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
He made it up
I’m a “Denier”
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
SOLO
Ah, “CO2 was out to get me”,
That’s what he made it seem,
Hard-baked farmlands, rising seas.
Ah, Then Climategate!
Now I’m a “Denier”
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
He made it up
I’m a “Denier”
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
Then Climategate!
Oh, I’m a “Denier”,
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
Then Climategate!
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Said, I’m a “Denier”
scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny
Well I personally have never denied, and still do not deny, that those loosely termed GHGs; greenhouse gases, of which, H2O, O3, and CO2 can be considered typical examples, do in fact, and have for eons , while in the earth atmosphere, absorb(ed) some electromagnetic radiation energy propagating through the atmosphere.
That is true of so called long wave radiation, in the region from 5.0 to 80 microns wavelength, corresponding to the general nature of so-called black body (thermal) radiation, characteristic of a source Temperature of about 288 K (15 deg C), with a spectral peak at about 10.1 microns, that is generally sourced by the earth surface, due to its Temperature, and also to resonant spectra from atmospheric molecules, including those GHGs. It is argued that this is a “warming” effect, or at least a slowing of cooling.
It is equally true of shorter wavelengths typically in the range of 0.25 microns, to 4.0 microns wavelength, corresponding to an approximate 6,000 K black body thermal radiation source, such as the sun, which constantly bombards the earth’s atmosphere and surface. Absorption of this radiant energy, whose spectral peak is at about 0.5 microns wavelength, by those very same GHG molecules in earth’s atmosphere, is generally regarded as a net cooling process; because about half of that absorbed energy is subsequently lost to planet earth, instead of getting stored in either rocks or the deep oceans. More of these GHGs in the atmosphere results in less energy captured by earth from that source.
I have never even thought that these demonstrably observable phenomena were even controversial, let alone deserving of the label of “denier” of the science.
I haven’t read the other comments so apologies if this has been posted.
If some are beginning to doubt the “denier” term then maybe we could also start to reduce the term watermellon, of the left and alarmist ? People on both sides of the debate have genuine views, name calling just means they (we – me) ignore you.
in an earlier age, michael mann would wear a feathered headdress and dance around with rattles or a bullroarer.
he is a witchdoctor. his function is to justify the predation by his masters.
“The consequence of the epistemology of religion is the politics of
tyranny. If you cannot reach the truth by your own mental powers, but must
maintain obedient faith in a cognitive authority, then you are not your own
intellectual master; in such a case you cannot guide your behavior by your
own judgment either but must be submissive in action as well. This is the
reason why, historically, faith and force are always corollaries; each
requires the other. ”
it’s not about climate science and never was.
chrismorph says:
May 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I haven’t read the other comments so apologies if this has been posted.
If some are beginning to doubt the “denier” term then maybe we could also start to reduce the term watermellon, of the left and alarmist ? People on both sides of the debate have genuine views, name calling just means they (we – me) ignore you.
=================================================================
“Denier” implies someone is refusing to believe proven science. It does not fit.
“Watermellon” implies someone who isn’t so much concerned about the environment but will use environmental issues (or any issue for that matter) to further their socialist agenda. “Green on the outside, red on the inside” does fit.
There are many on both sides who are genuinely concerned about “the environment”, whether their concerns are groundless or a real issue. The “deniers” of CAGW just want to keep the facts straight.
Gunga Din says:
“Denier” implies someone is refusing to believe proven science.”
———
No, it’s WAY more than that. The term denier is association to holocaust deniers. Skeptics have almost unanimously rejected the Heartland Institute’s use of billboards associating alarmists with terrorists, yet people like Mann still insist on associating skeptics with holocaust deniers. The Left’s hypocrisy shows a clear political agenda where they don’t care about the facts.
Since Mann chooses to call people who disagree with him such things, there is no reason to not return the favor. He has chosen not to be civil, fine, return the favor.
Since his hockey stick has been conclusively disproven, the fact that he has presented these to congress and is thus guilty of lying to congress, further shown by his emails, and his deliberate violation of FOI laws, I suggest the simple, one word title, FELON.
Considering all that, the best way to greet him should you see him is to say “you are under citizens arrest”. Perhaps if he keeps hearing that wherever he goes, he will get the hint, shut up, and go away (preferable to prison).
Should we call Michael Mann, “Michael Yamal” and all warmists then become Yamallers. That sums up their cherry picking, fear mongering, post normal, magazine blurb in 1 word.
Warmists gives them some credence, when in fact everyone accepts the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age finished.
Further if, Yamaller was acceptable, it would immediately signal that post normal science was not open for discussion but true climate and environmental issues are not only open for discussion/debate but desirably so. Too much time and energy -renewable lol- has been wasted on climate alarmism and not enough on understanding climate to feed the world.
B.S. Nothing to do with “integrity”. Just a tactical decision: “In most situations, the costs of branding people “deniers” simply outweighs the benefits.”
Cost-benefit analysis and ethics have very little overlap. Purely coincidental that they align here.
Nah. ‘Watermelon’, ‘left’, and ‘alarmist’ are all accurate, whereas ‘denier’ is not. Not a fair exchange.
If you read carefully, it uses words like ‘likelihood’ and so on instead of terms like “probability” that might have some defined meaning. The ‘90%’ figures are “experts’ ” ratings, by its own inhouse staff–the only experts they recognize.
one denying that is a bank-robber or a rapist; doesn’t make him a Holocaust denier. Warmist are playing extreme political correctness and any trick they can think off, against the gullible, apologetic Skeptic.
The best is; to confront the accuser or accusation with: what’s your real problem? That’s how I got my name. If you dance on their tune – they will always look for new inspiration, to restrict and silence you.
I don’t deny that the climate is constantly changing – I, and everybody with eyes can see / prove that climatic changes are constant. I DENY that is any GLOBAL warming – and I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, that will NOT be any GLOBAL warming in 100y – localized warmings / coolings are constant – GLOBAL warming will be zero, ZERO!!! Not little bit, not 0,5C. as the phony skeptics are saying, but ZERO! Same laws of physics will be in 100y, as they are today. Anybody is got a problem with ”denial of the phony GLOBAL warmings; inform yourself on my blog. (I have mustaches also; should I shave, to make the Swindlers happy?) You cannot make one happy, if he / she is after taking people’s happiness away; don’rt bother even trying. If Michael Mann likes to know where to shove up his cheap tricks, he should buy me a 6pack first, for me to give him the advice
@ Brian H (May 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm): re: likelihood vs. probability
From the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, Ch. 2.4 Attribution of Climate Change (p 39):
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
If you read the introduction, you will see that the IPCC does use the term “probability”; from AR4 Synthesis Report Introduction, Treatment of uncertainty (p 27):
“Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence:
virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%;
very likely >90%;
likely >66%;
more likely than not > 50%;
about as likely as not 33% to 66%;
unlikely <33%;
very unlikely <10%;
extremely unlikely <5%;
exceptionally unlikely 90%) that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y can be attributed to mankind (specifically the increase in GHG concentration due to human activity). This is somewhat odd, since we are not discussing the probability of a future occurrence, but correlation of the record to supposed drivers (“…based on expert judgement and statistical analysis of a body of evidence”). The text of the report even goes on to underline that the confidence level (of the IPCC gate-keepers) has grown since AR3.
What is apparently not obvious to the authors is that there could be an as yet poorly-understood or poorly-modeled climate forcing responsible for said warming. The conclusion that since their models (using “natural forcing” alone) do not account for the warming measured, “there must be a strong human component” is thus flawed. The “expert judgement and statistical analysis” is nothing more than an exercise in self-aggrandizement and hand-waving.
Kurt in Switzerland
Follow-on to previous post: I think something got inadvertently shortened:
It should have read something like this:
“…exceptionally unlikely 90%) that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y…
Kurt in Switzerland
Happened again! Must be due to quotation marks, parentheses or other punctuation.
One more try:
… exceptionally unlikely 90%] that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y…
Kurt in Switzerland
Wow. Still getting clipped in the middle after exceptionally unlikely.
Final effort:
exceptionally unlikely = less than one percent.
So the IPCC expert consensus is a probability assessment of attribution – greater than 90 percent – that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y…
Kurt in Switzerland
As the author of ClimateBites, I appreciate the accuracy of the excerpt in your post and the relatively civil tone. However, I find the post title misleading. My disagreement with Michael Mann over use of the term “denier” has nothing whatsoever to do with integrity. It is simply a difference of views on the best terminology for effective communication, and on that score there is plenty of room for honest differences (even among WUWT readers, as witnessed in comments above). In fact, my own view changed only recently, after discussions at the December 2011 AGU meeting.
To be clear: Michael Mann is an accomplished scientist of the highest integrity. No climate scientist’s work has undergone more scrutiny by multiple, independent investigative bodies. Their findings: Even those most eager to find wrongdoing — such as Attorney General Cuccinelli — have failed to produce the slightest shred of evidence for deception or unprofessionalism. Case closed.
A final point: Disagreement over use of the term “denier” was a relatively minor, secondary point in my ClimateBites post. My main point was in the headline and opening passage, pasted below so WUWT can see the full context and judge for themselves. Posted 2/24/12:
“‘One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all.’”
“Many defenders of science have tried to clarify the difference between skepticism and denial, but nobody has nailed it as succinctly as Dr. Michael Mann, author of The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars, in a recent interview in Slate:
‘When it comes to climate change, true skepticism is two-sided. One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all.’
“Bravo! It’s long past time to reclaim the term “skeptic” from true-believers who are only skeptical about things that conflict with their pre-existing beliefs.
“One-sided skeptics scrutinize climate science for the tiniest flaw or uncertainty, but usually swallow whole any cherry-picked fact, anecdotal “evidence,” logical fallacy or wild conspiracy theory that supports their worldview.
“True skepticism — questioning all claims, consciously putting aside one’s biases, insisting upon seeing all the evidence, and subjecting it all to equal scrutiny — is too central to scientific inquiry to let it be hijacked.
[see next two paragraphs excerpted in WUWT post above.]
“And whenever possible, it’s usually wiser to avoid labeling people altogether, and focus instead on the psychological process of denial — to which we are all susceptible. Since we all do it, we can even find some common ground there.”
Tom Smerling
Even those most eager to find wrongdoing — such as Attorney General Cuccinelli — have failed to produce the slightest shred of evidence for deception or unprofessionalism. Case closed.
====================================================
So the UVa files have been released and examined? I hadn’t heard.
climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:19 am
When I read that, I first burst out laughing, literally rolling on the floor. But when I settled down I realised there are people out there who believe that. That made me sad, a tear rolled down my cheek.
Gunga Din —
Two courts have thrown out Cuccinelli’s subpeona, because — fortunately — we still are a country under the Constitution, where law enforcement officials cannot go on fishing expeditions through your records with out showing evidence to suspect criminal activity.
Cuccinelli had to show the judges that he had some evidence that suggested wrongdoing. He failed. Why? Because he had nothing to show.
My quesiton for you: Shouldn’t all of us who don’t want government spying on its citizens, who are suspicious of over-zealous prosecutors, and who cherish our freedom from search-and-seizure without due cause, applaud this decision? Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?
Anthony Watts:
Did you see the e-mail I sent you in March? I never heard a response. That’s ok. After engaging with Tom Smerling and others at AGU, I have stopped using the term denier also, since you do find it to be so offensive. Just trying to find a way that those of us that disagree about climate change can engage each other without being disagreeable and resorting to name calling. I cannot speak for Dr. Michael Mann, but I can speak for myself.
However, I was very intrigued by your quote in the May 12, 2011 Slate article by Brian Merchant, “Do Climate Skeptics change their mind?” Merchant asked you could lead him to accept climate science. A “starting point for the process,” he said, wouldn’t begin with more facts but instead with a public apology from the high profile scientists who have labeled him and his colleagues “deniers.”
I saw this as an opening for dialogue and I immediately tried to e-mail you on this website. I never heard back from you. No problem. I did try to blog about the experience: http://begreenstartingnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/extending-olive-branch-to-climate.html with my e-mail to you copied in the blog posting.
Frankly, I was more shocked at the response of people who agree with me about climate change, but yet refused to give up the term “denier.” I found their responses to be discouraging to say the least. Apparently, there are offensive statements being made by both sides.
I have been in contact with Dr. Mann in the past. I do have a lot of respect for him and his science. He has been very gracious in his correspondence with me also. Any chance if I could contact Dr. Mann and encourage him to drop the term “denier,” you would still be start the process of listening to the science and engaging directly with Dr. Mann? My offer still stands.
I am still very concerned about the impact of human caused climate change for my nieces & nephews, future generations, indigenous peoples across the world, poor people in coastal areas, etc. It is so important for me to do what I can to communicate my concerns about climate change, including engaging you.
Just want to wish you peace.
Sincerely,
Brian Ettling
@@ Tclimatebites
May 19, 2012 at 8:19 says: Michael Mann is an accomplished scientist of the highest integrity
Tom Smerling, that is the biggest overstatement you produced,since Homo Sapiens invented the language. Everything I say – I can prove; so here are only 2 small examples:
1] just using / attempting to use tree rings, to discover what was the temp on the WHOLE planet = is admission of person with NO INTEGRITY / zero, zilch integrity!!! A] 2/3 of the planet’s surface area is water – where trees don’t grow. B] agronomist, even a lumberjack can tell that; 101 factors affect the thickness of the tree rings. C] if you and Mann did know the things that effects tree rings – you would have known that: the tree rings from an individual tree, cannot tell the temp correctly in the 10feet radious around itself – Man was talking GLOBAL temp – you believe Mann – he should have taken your temperature – you must be halucinating
2] a month ago, Mann said on the Australian ABC: ”now the temp is one degree warmer than 1000y ago” (the clowns in Melbourne university picked on it, to indirectly support Mann’s lies)
A] nobody knows what was the planet’s correct temp for last year; to save his / her life – one cannot compare one unknown with another unknown. B] 1000y ago, people were scared to sail more than 50miles west of Portugal – not to fall off the planet. Who was monitoring the temp for you and him 1000y ago on Patagonia, Oceania / over 650y before the thermometer was invented. At that time the planet was flat and 2/3 of the surface area didn’t exist
Mann is not ashamed of being one of the biggest liar, why should I be ashamed off being a denier?! I deny that is any GLOBAL warming – I never denied that the climate is constantly changing. Mann making connection between the constant big / small climatic changes with the phony GLOBAL warming; is the precursor of the biggest organized crime… I’m PROUD TO BE A DENIER!!! Gullible Apologetnics as you, Mann is targeting. Would you let me; on your blog, to present some truth, for your visitors?
Only 2 weeks ago my sister innocently called me a denier, in my kitchen when she was round for dinner. I explained that its offensive in so many ways, to call me a denier. She countered that she’d found out that the deniers cherry pick data and make false claims.
I need to explain that this is from a sister who “alerted” me to the danger of global warming in the early 2000’s, and had me scared witless about the claims. It was in early 2009, when I found various sceptical sites that I discovered the Phil Jones excuses for not releasing data. I was amazed that these people had gotten away with it for so long without their claims being scrutinised!
Now these people get to somehow define terms so we can be neatly pidgeon-holed for their convenience! Am I a sceptic? Can I hope to live up to Dr Mann’s lofty definition of a sceptic? Will I pass the test? Or am I a denier in my kitchen, cherrypicking data?
climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:40 am
Gunga Din —
Two courts have thrown out Cuccinelli’s subpeona, because — fortunately — we still are a country under the Constitution, where law enforcement officials cannot go on fishing expeditions through your records with out showing evidence to suspect criminal activity.
They can and do — they’re not supposed to, but they do. Remember the happy chirping coming from the port side of the aisle in 2005 when the Palm Beach County sheriff’s office confiscated Rush Limbaugh’s medical records from his doctor without any evidence of wrongdoing?
Bill Tuttle — I don’t recall the Limbaugh case, but no doubt you are right that it happens on all sides. And all of us who care about personal freedom — whether “port” or “starboard” (as a boater, I like the nautical reference!) — should loudly condemn all these intrusions, regardless of who’s being targetted. Because next time, it could be us! Hey, maybe this is something that “port” and “starboard” could actually agree on.
climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm
@ me: Bill Tuttle — I don’t recall the Limbaugh case, but no doubt you are right that it happens on all sides. And all of us who care about personal freedom — whether “port” or “starboard” (as a boater, I like the nautical reference!) — should loudly condemn all these intrusions, regardless of who’s being targetted. Because next time, it could be us! Hey, maybe this is something that “port” and “starboard” could actually agree on.
There are probably more things than you’d imagine. I have friends who firmly believe that FDR pulled us out of the depression with his own two hands and that voting for a Republican would condemn them to an eternity of hellfire and brimstone, but who also send boxes of goodies and toiletries to troops over here and agree with me that Nancy Pelosi is proof that botox destroys brain cells.
[SNIP: Oh, a justification for using the term “denier” from a real holocaust survivor. Not impressed and not giving it exposure. Take the hate speech elsewhere. -REP]
from Stefanthedenier — “Tom Smerling, that is the biggest overstatement you produced,since Homo Sapiens invented the language.”
Wow. Now that’s a keeper. Like the old bumper sticker that declares: “Eschew obfuscation.”
What do I deny Dr. Mann?
Do I deny it’s ok to hide declines? Yes.
Do I deny it’s ok to invert data in order to support a preconceived outcome? Yes.
Do I deny it’s ok to slander your critics while avoiding debate? Yes.
Do I deny it’s ok to engage in Zohnerism in order to advance a political goal? Yes.
Do I deny the possibility that a 0.6% increase in heat flux could result in a 0.9% increase in temperature that in turn will be catastrophic? No, but I’m
veryextremely skeptical.climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:40 am
Gunga Din —
Two courts have thrown out Cuccinelli’s subpeona, because — fortunately — we still are a country under the Constitution, where law enforcement officials cannot go on fishing expeditions through your records with out showing evidence to suspect criminal activity.
Cuccinelli had to show the judges that he had some evidence that suggested wrongdoing. He failed. Why? Because he had nothing to show.
My quesiton for you: Shouldn’t all of us who don’t want government spying on its citizens, who are suspicious of over-zealous prosecutors, and who cherish our freedom from search-and-seizure without due cause, applaud this decision? Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?
=======================================================================
You had said this implying that evidence, the UVa emails and files, had been examined and there was nothing found, when in fact they had NOT been examined.
“To be clear: Michael Mann is an accomplished scientist of the highest integrity. No climate scientist’s work has undergone more scrutiny by multiple, independent investigative bodies. Their findings: Even those most eager to find wrongdoing — such as Attorney General Cuccinelli — have failed to produce the slightest shred of evidence for deception or unprofessionalism. Case closed.”
Not the “slightest thread of evidence” was produced. That alone is evidence of deception and unprofessionalism. I work for the government. It wouldn’t take more than a Freedom of Information Act to see them. FOIA request HAVE been made. They’ve been fought tooth and nail. Motives, data, schemes to silence valid scientitic scrutiny of this novel and costly hypothesis were in the Climategate releases. Were those files compiled to comply with or fight an FOIA request? Mann’s work was not in the private sector. It was and still is on the taxpayer’s dime.
“Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?”
Why would he keep his “personal records” on a government computer? But, no, hies records are are truly “personal records” should not be made public. Should someone representing the taxpayers look at them and the emails and make public those things related to the hypothesis were expected to spend trillions of dollars on? H*** Yes!
We’re supposed to be talking about SCIENCE! All this legal cloak and dagger stuff on his part certainly looks like he’s trying to hide something.
(Please give me some credit here. I resisted the temptation to end that last sentence “hide the decline”.)
The Constitution. Yes, it was a governemnt set up by men who believed that the the only just purpose of any Government is to secure the rights of the individual that come from a higher authority. That’s why I despise those who use CAGW to try and usurp those rights and hide behind the Constituion as they try to do so.
“But, no, hies records are are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
I should proof read my comments before I psost them.
That should read, “But, no, his records are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
Gunga Din says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“But, no, hies records are are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
I should proof read my comments before I psost them.
That should read, “But, no, his records that are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
Kurt;
Notice the paired words/phrase: “likelihood” and “probability assessment“. Pure opinion, with little or no substantiation. It’s a travesty!!
Brian H –
Yet such sloppily-formulated statements get a free pass as “thoughtful science” or “expert opinion” arrived at through painstaking analysis of reams of data, without the slightest hint of bias of course / sarc. — and are passed on as such by a compliant media. And believers follow like rodents in tow of the pied piper.
Any detractors, “false skeptics” / “deniers” / “denialists” are subject to ridicule, moralizing, etc. Meanwhile, the silent majority (in free societies), afraid of personal attacks, pliantly allows valuable public funds to be wasted chasing the Sisyphuian task of somehow reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to 350 ppm. However, the de-facto majority (emerging economies in Asia) continues to increase its GHG emissions year on year.
One can only hope that citizens will come to their senses and demand of their leaders to demonstrate some effectivity in the billions spent thus far (which would result in a massive reduction in subsidies).
Kurt in Switzerland
@climatebites says: May 19, 2012 at 9:40 am
Why lie about a matter that is public record? 2 courts did not throw it out because it was a fishing expedition, and it has nothing to do with the US Constitution. One court remanded it back for more specificity, the second said he was using the wrong statute. But both were based upon the VIRGINIA laws and State Constitution, not the US Constitution.
I am totally astounded that someone – who obviously agrees with the Mann defense – still must lie about the court outcome. Do you hope to fool some people here who perhaps have not followed the case? Are you trying to create a talking point meme? Or are you just lying for the fun of it? I am curious – why lie when the truth is both easy to obtain and agreeable to your side of the debate?
Tom Smerling, can you please answer a few questions …
(1) Do you have evidence that Cuccinelli was spying on Mann?
(2) Are you breaking news here that Cuccinelli subpoenaed Mann’s personal computers and private email accounts?
(3) The available information says Cuccinelli is looking for access to Virginia TAXPAYER OWNED equipment and emails. Are you obfuscating these differences intentionally or out of ignorance?
If Cuccinelli were doing the above, no-one here would be backing him, believe that because it is true. The government would be out of line doing such things although it certainly *is* done from time to time, ironically at the probable urging of Mann’s sycophants. Perhaps you have heard of Tallbloke? Shouldn’t you be fretting over this ACTUAL case rather than your complete fictional account of the events in Virginia?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/23/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/
The Tallbloke case actually is a useful distinction. In that case, there’s much obvious evidence that a crime was committed, hence the justification for a search warrant (whether the police were justified in targeting those individuals, and whether they went too far in their search-and-seizure are separate questions. I haven’t followed it closely; but its very possible they they violated those other limits, in which case I would oppose that action.
But in Mann’s case there is no evidence — not a shred — that Cuccinelli could show the judges, to suggest a crime had been committed, and to justify a search warrant in the first place.
that’s the difference, not “who’s side are they on.”
On your other questions, let’s set the record state since you misquoted me twice:
1) I never said “Cuccinelli was spying on Mann.” I simply suggested that anybody concerned about “government spying on its citizens,” should oppose this, because that’s where I believe over-zealousness by ideological government investigators leads. Indeed, spying already goes on for many citizens, but I have no reason to believe Mann is among them.
2) I never claimed “Cuccinelli subpoenaed Mann’s personal computers and private email accounts” I simply asked a rhetorical question: “Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?”
Again, actually believe that once your breach the Constitutional protections against search and seizure, that’s where it leads. However, you have a valid point about the word “personal;” if I were to write that sentence again, I would delete the word “personal.”
—
PS thanks for shouting in UPPER CASE. That’s always enlightening in online communication, and helps inculcate receptivity among your readers.
Ah, so we’re to believe that in the midst of your diatribe against Cuccinelli, the highlighted phrase in your sentence …
… actually had nothing to do with Cuccinelli at all! Very slippery Tom. Sounds like classic propaganda design, blending two mutually exclusive subjects by proximity in a single text, leaving it to the reader to make the intended incorrect association.
Ironically, that is your response to my own patently obvious (and rather funny) rhetorical question: “Are you breaking news here that Cuccinelli subpoenaed Mann’s personal computers and private email accounts?”! Miss the point much? You could have just said no. Then, instead of simply admitting your mistake of attacking Cuccinelli for things he has not done (things he or someone else might do in the future perhaps?), you choose to battle the phantom strawman of ‘you misquoted me’ …
Well, a point of fact here: that is false. It is either a reading error or a deliberate lie. You were not misquoted. The only quoting of you at all was very clearly double-quoted in HTML BLOCKQUOTE in indented italics. Scroll up and read it again, there is no excuse for sloppiness in both reading and writing, especially when you are pimping your blog link in your user handle to millions of readers on this site.
Throwing everything up against the wall there but nothing sticks. The Fourth Amendment?!? I’ll tell you something. You better hope that a precedent isn’t set that federal or state employees have immunity or expectations of privacy at work on the public dole. The meaning of oversight will have been flushed right down the toilet. Assuming you are a USA taxpayer I cannot imagine you hoping for Mann and UVA to be successful in thwarting taxpayer scrutiny and accountability.
Lol! Two words were in caps. Two! Two words that you somehow managed to leave out of all your comments and innuendo. Those two words were “TAXPAYER OWNED“. There was a good reason for writing it like that. That reason is that you chose simply to *not* mention “TAXPAYER OWNED” in your diatribe. You see, the Attorney General for the great State of Virginia is concerned about the use of “TAXPAYER OWNED” property. He doesn’t care a wit about Mann’s Facebook or Twitter or eHarmony or iPhone or iPad or anything else not connected to UVA and taxpayer dollars. That is unless Mann was stupid enough to mingle devices in an attempt to be clever. Then all bets are off.
Finally, I guess we really know the answer for that ‘shouted’ question which shocked you so much that you completely dodged it: “(3) The available information says Cuccinelli is looking for access to Virginia TAXPAYER OWNED equipment and emails. Are you obfuscating these differences intentionally or out of ignorance?”, clearly the answer looks to me like intentional obfuscation. I know this because your are still doing it, even as you replied back. Why don’t you just come clean and admit it was a sloppy hit piece on Cuccinelli, smearing him with things he has not done? Has it even occurred to you that you yourself are doing exactly what you Mann defenders always cry about: smearing a public servant. Now that is ironic.
P.S. to moderators, if I screw up the HTML again it is because of the stupid little WordPress form box. It is 2 sentences tall and the scroll bar scrolls like 3 sentences at a time. What on Earth are those idiots doing over there? Tell them to stop messing up the software!
[Reply: I’ll tell them. But they won’t listen. ~dbs, mod.]
Blade —
Lol! Two words were in caps. Two! Two words that you somehow managed to leave out of all your comments and innuendo. Those two words were “TAXPAYER OWNED“.
For the record, since quantitative analysis is so central to evaluation of climate studies, the number of upper case words in your initial comment was three, not two. Check “…ACTUAL case?”