In this priceless yet disturbing Twitter exchange with American Meteorological Society president Dr. Marshall Shepherd, Bishop Hill points out another case of Mann Overboard!
It started out innocently enough:
[Shepherd] learned n strange emails/blogs some disagree with my #Tedx Talk, @MichaelEMann HockeyStick discredited (hasn’t), & wx varies-gee “who knew”
[Bishop Hill] @DrShepherd2013 I attended a debate with a paleoclimate guy a few months ago. In q&a he was asked about hockey stick. He said “it’s broken”.
Here’s the full exchange:
Source: [ http://twitter.com/DrShepherd2013/status/343338700379389952 ]
– Bishop Hill blog – Sheep or shepherd?
Moments later, Shepherd blocked me.
JFD
Problem is you can’t tax the sun.
So how is Mann v. Steyn progressing, anyway? I hope it wasn’t simply dismissed as a SLAPP, because it’s the discovery that is going to prove Mann and his allies committed fraud.
Sounds like a good opportunity to check the integrity of the scientific community. No 30 questions required. Ask them point blank. Is Mann’s hockey stick valid?
@ur momisugly Jimbo,
Absolutely. The thing which drew me to look at the skeptical view of AGW was the intense vitriol directed at those who voiced the slightest criticism.
I could not believe that a well-founded theory would require such name-calling and pejorative diatribe.
Having thus looked into the matter, I came to realise that it is precisely because there are gaping holes in the theory that proponents find a need to lash out. But argumenta ad homines do not substitute for evidence.
I think a more moderate approach to their critics would have been more successful. Censorship, attributing opposition ideas to psychological problems, appeal to a special cohort of leaders as the only ones who can know the ‘real’ truth, ridicule and resort to the sanction of laws…… all this is redolent with the tactics used in one party states and dictatorships.
And often, these things seem to come from the left-leaning side of politics, that is to say, the very people who we might look to for the defense of our freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas.
This is the kind of intellectually anomalous behaviour which first brought a different view of AGW to my attention.
You may be engaged in sarcasm, but anything is possible in California. So, I ask in all sincerity, is this an actual sign on a California beach?
@Kohl
“The thing which drew me to look at the skeptical view of AGW was the intense vitriol directed at those who voiced the slightest criticism.”
I can assure you that sort of thing doesn’t happen here.
I think that’s the smell of another unwilling public figureteer
*chuckles* I am also in Southern Ontario, in one of the areas where they desperately want to build the most Massive wind turbines on the continent…
We’ve had our heat on several times the past week. I should Not have to be wearing a jacket to work outside!
Say btw, my wife chimed in: ‘Be grateful for all the gas we have for heating, it is cheaper than electricity!’
Especially when ‘green’ energy is set to rachet up electricity prices by 40%, if those turbines get built.
Bill Parsons says:
June 8, 2013 at 1:21 pm
“Bishop Hill blog – Sheep or shepherd?
Moments later, Shepherd blocked me.
Ewe should be ashamed.”
Mann and Shepherd are more bellwethers than sheep.
Perhaps a bit elliptical my last comment – I was being literal, having raised sheep in an earlier life:
“A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.
The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) leading his flock of sheep. The movements of the flock could be noted by hearing the bell before the flock was in sight.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether
Mr. Shepherd’ s world is going to become very small when all he has left to tweet to is Mann’s echo chamber. Maybe there’s a causal link between the AMS corporate attitude and the observation that meteorologists don’t seem to display their affiliation so much any more…
Thank you Margaret.
As an occasional commenter here over 2 or 3 years I am aware of that.
To expand: my curiosity was piqued when I read continuing comments made by some apparently eminent scientists.
As I read more widely and became aware of attempts by some such scientists (not all) to actually block contrary views (in the scientific literature no less!); to restrict access to their supporting evidence; and to censor comment at blogs such as Real Climate; well then I became very skeptical indeed – scientific knowledge stands or falls on the evidence. And from the time of the ancient Greek Philosophers the discourse of ideas is at the very centre of Western culture and science. That is what has made it so successful.
Then came ‘Climategate’ and it revealed an intellectually bankrupt coterie of scientists who had gone over to ‘the dark side’.
Having been discovered, what did they do? Simply, more of the same.
Here, manifest for all, was a fundamental abandonment of scientific principle in the most intellectually dishonest manner which it was possible to imagine.
As much as Mann enrages me with his antics I can’t help shake this sickening pity for him. I don’t know why but it’s a little like watching Gollum argue with himself.
Sickening pity? It’s kind of the ‘Magic Christian’ question – what’s your price?
WTF says:
June 8, 2013 at 1:31 pm
JFD
Problem is you can’t tax the sun.
###
O ye of little faith.
The Alarmist side essentially needed to, and does so even more now, shut down debate altogether. The rallying cry was “the debate is over, now we must act”. Towards the end of ’07, I very innocently went in search of the official arguments showing manmade warming, in order to better reply to what I saw as nothing but a crank in some letters to the editor of a local paper. I just assumed it was true, since it was all I heard. My one saving grace was that I did not go to see AIT. I hate to think it, but seeing that bilge may have altered my path toward truth-seeking greatly. Then again, perhaps it would have raised more questions than answered. In any case, one thing I noticed with the pro-CAGW arguments was a marked tendency to shut down even innocent questions. That, combined with their cry of “the debate is over” actually spurred me to look more closely at the skeptics arguments. I was shocked to see that they more closely followed principles of logic, and their science was in fact very sound. It blew me away, as a Democrat (a party I now despise.)
By refusing to debate or listen to “trolls” as he calls them, Mann reveals a very wide streak of rank yellow cowardice. So does that other blatherskite, Shepherd
It sure looks like Mann knows his stuff is feces, and is desperately afraid of having his nakedness exhibited to the world at large. It’s as obvious to him as it is to anyone that if he does debate, he’ll get his head handed to him.
In the same vein, our new Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, purportedly a nuclear physicist, says “I don’t debate what is not debatable”. And our new Secretary of State, John Kerry of Swift Boat fame, likewise. Sanctimonious hypocrites and cowards all.
The bad part is that these are cowards with power and the ability to do enormous harm. Der Fuehrer and Obersturmfuehrer Kerry are poreparing to negotiate a treaty with the UN that will subordinate the sovereignty of the developed countries to the dictators’ convention that is the UN, require them to renounce free speech and property rights, and hand over the wealth we created to people who have had absolutely no part in creating it and deserve zero credit for creating it. Where the hell does Kiribati’s few thousand ignoranuses (not a typo) get off thinking they have the right to rip us off and tell us how to live? I’d say that for whatever good things the people in Kiribati have, they are indebted to us, not the other way around. Tyranny and slavery as la mode.
It is incredible that anyone would want to undo all the progresswe have made towards high standards of living, and yet not so incredible. We have had two generations of this wealth redistribution feces drummed into our schoolchildren and college students. And of course, lurking in the shadows are the crony capitalists and other elitists who expect to get richer as this de-development process goes forward.
I can see us fighting a Second War of Independence if these people aren’t stopped.
History will not treat the likes of Mann and Shepherd kindly. Since they had the opportunity to embrace skeptics and refused, the failures will come right back to their feet. They will become known as scientific buffoons.
Reminds of the George Bernard Shaw quote, which shortened goes:
. . . . . “All progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Full quote, shedding light on the reason why:
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
.
Gary, WRT “Mann and Shepherd are more bellwethers than sheep.”
Yep. And since their bell goes off in pretty much all weathers, wouldn’t that make them… sheep for all seasons?
A peer-reviewed lamb-basting called for.
The “you can’t handle the truth” segment comes to mind … but rather with the Bishop coming from Defense counsel’s (Tom Cruise) POV rather than Col. Jessup (Mann would be Jessup in this case, and notable for the ‘wrongs’ he believes are ‘right’):
Defense: Colonel Jessep, did you order the code red!?
Judge: You don’t have to answer the question.
Jessup: I’ll answer the question. You want answers?
Defense: I think I’m entitled.
Jessup: You want answers?
Defense: I want the truth!
Pardon me if I indulge …
.
I don’t understand what the headline has to do with it. We all know that some left wingers can be just as intolerant as some right wingers, but the same goes in any situation where people hold firm opinions.
Post modern science meets … those who fund them … The State.
Lysenko Lives in the USSA!
They will become known as scientific buffoons.
Oh, I think that ship sailed a VERY long time ago. They ARE scienfitic buffoons with the intellect of children. Even children can learn the concept that the scientific method is absolute and not open to interpretation….and these “intellectual children” are simply the products of an education system that rewards copying of methods directly without thought into what those methods means. So no, they are buffoons who yes are intellectually stunted and the saddest thing of all is that they simply do not realize it!