Mann tries to revive his dead hockey stick with a press release

warrenlb mentions ‘Dunning-Krueger’ so very often that there is no doubt it is based on his psychological projection: imputing his own faults onto others.
warrenlb plays a lay psychologist here, too, stating that RACook:
“…REJECTS the findings of Science with respect to AGW, NOT because he’s analyzed the Science, but BECAUSE…”&blah, blah, etc. But how would warrenlb know? Is warrenlb a Psychiatrist or a Psychologist? Or is that comment just more insulting commentary because warrenlb cannot refute what RACook wrote?
Everything that readers have been saying about warrenlb is turned right around by him, and directed at skeptics. RACook has analyzed these issues far more thoroughly than warrenlb could hope to. Cook reads literally hundreds of relevant papers, both free and paywalled — but when he recently asked warrenlb how many papers warrenlb reads each month, the answer was… *crickets* As usual, warrenlb ignores questions that he can’t or won’t answer.
Another question that neither warrenlb, nor Rodney Molyneux, nor Gates, nor any other of their ilk can answer is: where are the measurements quantifying AGW?
That question is central to the entire debate. Because if they cannot answer it [and they can’t], then everything they write is nothing more than conjecture. When push comes to shove, they collectively fall on their faces. All they are doing is trying to rationalize their opinions, without credible facts.
This site has always had a few good, intelligent warmists who try to support the cAGW conjecture, such as Nick Stokes, Phil., John Finn, Nevin, Joel Shore, Steven Mosher, and others. They are critical thinkers, who never stoop to name-calling, insults, or pejoratives [with the exception of Shore, who routinely labels those he disagrees with as “right-wing ideologues”]. They use facts and testable data. But those were the old days.
Recently, we have been infested with the likes of warrenlb, rodmol, Gates, and a few others like them, who don’t think. They just stir the pot. They never answer questions, while incessantly asking questions. But when those questions are answered with data and evidence, they either nitpick and cherry-pick — or if the answer is irrefutable, they change the subject. They deflect. Misinformation is their stock in trade. Even more despicable, they constantly bad-mouth our host, and other skeptics here on blogs like Hotwhopper, SkS, and other no-account, censoring venues.
The original warmists here were always willing to discuss science, without the name-calling. But this new bunch are disciples of Saul Alinsky, who wrote:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it… isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Thus, any article written by Lord Monckton is filled with ad hominem attacks. The alarmists named here cannot refute what he writes, so they play the man, not the ball.
Speaking for myself, I’ve been called “stupid” recently more times than I can count. I’ve been personally criticized for my grammar — even though the critic [rodmol] was flat wrong, as many other readers showed him. I have been repeatedly labeled “dishonest” as a vicious tactic; posted repeatedly when the Alinsky acolyte cannot refute my facts and evidence.
Saul Alinsky was right, name-calling is cruel and effective. For one thing, they are trying to goad skeptics into responding the same way. But again speaking for myself, I’m not giving them that. I don’t have to; I have the facts and evidence that they lack. That’s all I need.
warrenlb has been commenting a lot lately, saying that skeptics are victims of the Dunning-Kreuger effect. He does it again here. That isn’t just nonsense; that is psychological projection, as anyone who understands the DK effect can see.
If it were not for warrenlb’s projection, and his endless Appeal to Authority fallacies, and the ad hominem fallacies that most alarmists use constantly, warrenlb and the others wouldn’t have much of anything to say. They certainly do not have adequate facts or evidence to back up their arguments. Planet Earth is showing their beliefs to be foolish. The global climate over the past century and a half has been extremely benign. It’s crazy, but they are unhappy about that!
The old warmists here made people think — a good thing. This new crowd doesn’t do that, because their arguments mostly consist of insults. They are losing the debate, and they know it. But rather than being stand-up guys, they continue to incessantly argue, using pejoratives and fallacies. I won’t copy their name-calling; skeptics generally are not haters like they are. But I will point out the plain fact that they are arguing like that because they cannot refute what skeptics say. Alarmists have lost the debate. They cannot overcome skeptics’ data and reasoning. So they are just being bad losers. But losers, nonetheless.

@rodmol:
You’re busted?? You could not be more lame. YOU look at the chart again. You don’t even understand what you don’t know. And you’re still hiding out from answering my questions. I know why: because you are not capable of answering.
You say:
Do you realize that science is not done on blogs?
I’ll answer that question, because I’m a nice guy. But that’s it. You always tuck tail and run away from answering any questions of mine — while you incessantly pester me, demanding that I must answer your questions. That is immature and childish.
First off, you’re still not wearing your bigboy pants. You are an immature noob. A novice. A know-nothing. Worse, you are not interested in learning anything at all. If you were, you would have a ‘polite’ discussion, instead of impotently trying to dominate the conversation with your baseless assertions. You’re not a big boy, so you fail again.
As a matter of fact, science is done on blogs. If not, why are you here? To emit your lame propaganda? You clearly are not here to learn anything.
FYI: there is much better and more honest peer reviewed science being done here than at Scientific American, or lots of other propaganda outlets. Eminent scientists are discussing facts and evidence. But as we saw in the Climategate email dump, the pal review process is hopelessly corrupted. If you don’t know that, then you know nothing.
Regarding your other inept, lame questions: I have answered every one of them, chapter and verse. I have posted corroborrating links verifying all my statements. You, on the other hand, post only your bogus assertions. That’s why you fail.
If the CAGW scare had not colonized your mind, you would see that. But you keep asking the same ignorant and lame questions over and over. I keep giving you numerous links from various credible sources DEBUNKING your Chicken Little nonsense, but your response is always the same. You are incapable of learning anything.
When you grow up and put on your bigboy pants, come on back. With maturity will come the understanding that if you answer my questions, I will answer yours. Keep in mind that you owe me some answers. I asked you first, remember, Mr. “Polite”?
So instead of hiding out and running interference, try to man-up and post some answers — if you can. It’s the first step toward getting your bigboy pants.