Friday Funny – Bonus Edition: Josh on Mann’s call for “trench warfare”

Readers may recall a story from earlier this week where Lewandowsky and Mann called for “trench warfare” with climate skeptics related to a new slime attack paper against Dr. Susan Crockford and climate skeptics where Dr. Judith Curry opined:

This is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.

In the press release, they said this:

To counteract the blogs’ pernicious effects, the authors argue that scientists must now engage in the “trench warfare” of public debate: “We strongly believe that scientists have a professional and moral obligation not only to inform the public about the findings and implications of their research but also to counter misinformation.” This fight, the authors caution, may require an adaptation of tactics: “Many scientists mistakenly believe that debates with deniers over the causes and consequences of climate change are purely science driven, when in reality the situation with deniers is probably more akin to a street fight.”

Josh weighs in:

The reference to “no more money” comes from this finding.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 1, 2017 2:08 pm

“Dr. Judith Curry opined: ‘This is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.'”

Gotta disagree with this. The stupidest paper I saw was the one that concluded that its results “could not be trusted, precisely” but said that the value of publishing it was that the graphs from the model looked scary.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Kurt
December 1, 2017 3:19 pm

Kurt, that paper at least presented the junk honestly.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 1, 2017 4:25 pm

The paper did, but the press release and the public statements of the co-authors did not. The press release flat-out lied about the conclusions of the paper, when it stated that “[t]he research team found that deoxygenation caused by climate change could already be detected in the southern Indian Ocean.” The paper made no such finding, only inferring that if the real oceans behaved as their runs from a single model did, trends in oxygen loss would meet the statistical significance threshold of 5%. This statement was doubly false – not only did the verification test of the model fail, i.e the evidence was that real world variability in the oxygen content of the oceans was much greater than the model, but because the model had the causal element baked into it by its programming, nothing in the model’s output says anything meaningful about causation in the real world.

One of the coauthors said this on his blog: “What did we find? We likely to observe widespread anthropogenic ocean deoxygenation by 2030-2040s.” Try to square that with the admission in the study that the results “could not be trusted.” .

Gerry, England
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 2, 2017 3:42 am

The publicity always seems to lie but that is what gets you in the legacy media and by the time anyone has actually read the report the media attention span has ended. And even if you do get a correction, it is printed so small nobody notices. The legacy media is retreating online and in the case of the Guardian, pleading for cash on their website to avoid charging for access.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Kurt
December 1, 2017 8:10 pm

I would go for a tie at the bottom. You cannot go lower than rock bottom, so there will be more than one there. But if they keep digging…………….. Who knows?

Reply to  Kurt
December 3, 2017 12:32 pm

I disagree with you both. THe most stupid publication was the one that told us that plastic in the ocean will weigh more than the fish in the ocean.
It is like we all husband our plastic waste and then drive to the ocean and set the plastic free.
Like all my rubbish. I just put it in the bin and it goes to recycle or land fill.
I’m pretty sure my recycler surreptitiously in the dead of night drives to the coast and sets my plastic free. Maybe I am naive?

Jacob Frank
December 1, 2017 2:13 pm

I do love the use of the word “pernicious”. It just smacks of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Jacob Frank
December 3, 2017 6:01 am

Jacob Frank: [ I do love the use of the word “pernicious” ]

Reminds me of the line in the Frank Zappa song “The Slime”: “I may be vile and pernicious” – and now that I’ve reread those lyrics, much of that song is eerily apropos of the CAGW movement:

I am gross and perverted
I’m obsessed ‘n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I’m the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can’t look away
I make you think I’m delicious
With the stuff that I say

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don’t need you
Don’t go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

Phil R
Reply to  Thomas Homer
December 3, 2017 3:27 pm

Have you guessed me yet?
I’m the slime oozing out from your TV set.

(from memory, hope it’s close).


Myron Mesecke
December 1, 2017 2:15 pm

IF the money dries up and IF the media stops talking it will be amazing how quickly the climate problem will fix itself.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Myron Mesecke
December 1, 2017 3:20 pm

The MSM will never stop talking and twisting to forward their owner’s agenda.
What might change is that Mann’s “Hockey Stick” will no longer be a useful lever.

They might even sacrifice a few of their own to further their agenda?

Reply to  Gunga Din
December 1, 2017 5:53 pm

The media?
comment image

Tom Halla
December 1, 2017 2:19 pm

I think the global warming hysteria will end like eugenics at worst or Nixon’s War on Cancer at best.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 1, 2017 3:20 pm

Tom Halla

Sorry to disagree with you but I suspect the battle lines will just shift for a generation or so until the media grasp another opportunity to terrify the populace and sell papers.

My fear is that the shift will be towards population control, precisely what the Club of Rome wants, and many others.

It might not be Eugenics by definition, but by application, Eugenics by any other name.

Leo Smith
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2017 5:18 am

At least there is SOME evidence that on a planet of finite resources, living standards are somewhat inversely related to population levels when you have all the tech you need to replace the manpower that used to extract them…

Reply to  HotScot
December 3, 2017 8:32 am

As long as human ingenuity exists, resources will never be finite.

Reply to  HotScot
December 3, 2017 7:04 pm

Yes, I agree MarkW. Leo, there is no evidence that living standards are inversely related to population. Indeed, as the population has risen, so have living standards.

December 1, 2017 2:19 pm

Still one of the best blog posts in the ‘Climate wars”

if it is ‘trench warfare” then Lewandowsky, Mann et al are saying they are bogged down, the big battalions going nowhere..

via Pointman

“The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at. They had the equivalents of the big guns and the massive air support but there never was a skeptic HQ to be pounded, no big central organisation, no massed ranks of skeptic soldiers or even any third-party backing the resistance. Every one of the skeptics was a lone volunteer guerilla fighter, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some massive hidden organisation orchestrating the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that only existed in their head, each of the guerillas chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way.
The closest thing they had to a target were the skeptic blogs but these were invulnerable, because they weren’t owned or funded by anyone and were run by unpaid volunteers. The best they could do was vilify the bloggers and send occasional waves of trolls to disrupt the debates, which gradually but inexorably tore the heart out of the pseudo-science, which underpinned global warming.” – Pointman

Now, it seems they are trying to pick each sceptic off, in the “peer reviewed” literature

Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 2:51 pm

Poetry. Superb observation.

Reply to  cephus0
December 2, 2017 7:13 am

The Pointman piece was written in march 2012 so 5 yrs on & still in the trenches;
we’ve had 25yrs, are we headed for another 100 yrs war ?????

Reply to  1saveenergy
December 2, 2017 8:44 am

5 yrs on and we’re still a nebulous volunteer ghost army and still impossible to hit. Had Trump turned out to be an avid alarmist it would not have made a scintilla of difference to us. We would have carried on exactly as before – fighting for what we know to be true in whatever ways we can.

The converse is not however true. The alarmists are utterly dependent on massive government funding to keep propping up their idiotic pseudoscience and PR campaigns. It is finally beginning to dry up and that is why fr@uds like Mann now describe the situation as ‘trench warfare’. But who amongst the alarmists are going to put their own time, money and effort into defending something so completely bonkers and indefensible as CAGW?

They are down in the dirt with our ghost army and in the terrain where we have decades of experience in fighting this war. If it is indeed a trench war then the alarmists will lose it – and I doubt it will take 100 yrs.

Reply to  cephus0
December 3, 2017 12:57 pm

“1saveenergy December 2, 2017 at 7:13 am
The Pointman piece was written in march 2012 so 5 yrs on & still in the trenches;
we’ve had 25yrs, are we headed for another 100 yrs war ?????”

All we have to do is fight them to a standstill. Which we have done and are doing. Then let Mother Nature tell us what to do next. If AGW is a real problem, a signal that exceeds natural variability will emerge. If not a problem, the data will be there for the world to see. If they are truly tampering with data, it gets harder and harder every year they do it. And eventually will backfire massively.

Another decade of inaction should do the trick.

Can you imagine if they had been able to enact all of their decarbonization plans? They would have claimed massive success the moment natural variability turned things cold. So yes, sceptics have won the day, the year, and the last few decades.

Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 2:55 pm

Thanks Barry, new site to check out and a very good observation. Yay Friday!

Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 2:56 pm

Pointman hit the nail on the head. Well done for re-posting Barry. There is no ‘Big Oil’ funding of skepticism of climate alarmism. The big oil companies are happy to reap the subsidies by indulging in green clap trap whilst still pumping the black stuff out but have been frightened off defending themselves publicly or indulging those who support them. When the mood changes they will abandon the green crap and revert to what they do best. In the meantime, they are happy for ‘lone guerillas’ like your Watts, Homewoods, Crockfords, Currys, Christys and Soons etc to strike at the heart of the beast. What a shame they didn’t have the balls to stand up for themselves a generation ago and this alarmist bandwagon would have been strangled at birth when Maurice Strong shuffled off his mortal coil.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Mack
December 1, 2017 11:53 pm

“There is no ‘Big Oil’ funding of skepticism of climate alarmism.”

In my guest-thread, Notes from Skull Island: Why Skeptics Aren’t Well-Funded and Well-Organized, at , I listed 22 things that would be happening (but aren’t) if contrarians were in fact well-organized and well-funded.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 3:22 pm

Thanks for the pointer, Barry. Gotta give that one a +0.97. I have added it to my list of shortcuts.

Reply to  Barry Woods
December 2, 2017 2:19 am

Spot on!

December 1, 2017 2:36 pm

It is actually an honor to be singled out for attacks by the warmists. I got a post at Tamino’s blog attacking me. Everybody that comes to internet with an open mind to find out about the global warming debate, soon finds the skeptics, and can check the arguments and decide by himself. There’s no way to stop that. This debate can’t be won without Nature showing what she’s got. Their slimy tactics are useless.

Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2017 4:42 pm

One visit to “RealClimate” sufficed to reveal the malicious nature of Warmists and their probable lack of useful information.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
December 1, 2017 6:36 pm


Stephen Richards
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
December 2, 2017 1:02 am

one visit, one comment, one reply. END OF

Reply to  Javier
December 2, 2017 6:30 am

I agree Javier: “Everybody that comes to internet with an open mind to find out about the global warming debate, soon finds the skeptics, and can check the arguments and decide by himself. There’s no way to stop that. This debate can’t be won without Nature showing what she’s got.”

When a skeptic is reasonable and civil and can articulate legit questions which are then shouted down in some shrill, dismissive fashion, then what else else would an earnest seeker of evidence see? The difference between someone operating from blind faith and another from honest intellectual curiosity becomes clear. I made statements to this effect in the comments section of the Guardian a couple weeks ago under their story about the latest official climate report. That is, of course, until my contributions were finally started getting scrubbed out all together. That too should tell an observer something.

December 1, 2017 2:36 pm

Oh, so NOW they’re going to engage in trench warfare because, and others weren’t already actively countering “misinformation” for several years. It never occurs to them that THEY are the ones spreading misinformation. Whoops alarmists, your bias is showing. And it’s blocking the light.

DeLoss McKnight
December 1, 2017 2:39 pm

Here’s another Friday Funny, about the astonishing recent sea level rise:

December 1, 2017 2:54 pm

Obviously the global warmingguys don’t knowmuch about war tactics either. “Trench warfare”
only occurs when neither side has the ability to go on the offensive against the other. I wonder what the all around imbecile Mann thinks trench warfare is?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  arthur4563
December 1, 2017 3:14 pm

Sounds like they have a bad case of trench mouth! Let me know when they feel like taking their original, unadulterated, raw data “to the public”.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 1, 2017 5:33 pm

I think they meant something more like “hand to hand combat”, which to them seemed something like going down into the trenches . . when of course in this case it meant something more akin to~ Float like butterfly, sting like a bee ; )

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 2, 2017 1:15 pm

john, hand to hand combat,if only. there would be no more climate war. mann might just about be able to knock the skin off a rice pudding. lewpaper looks like a bully that would run a mile if he got some back.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 2, 2017 6:32 am

Maybe he just enjoys crawling around in dirt?

Reply to  arthur4563
December 2, 2017 9:42 am

You should be ashamed of yourself suggesting that *’distinguished professor’ * Michel Mann is an imbecile.

…imbeciles have never been so insulted.

[**his words not mine ]

December 1, 2017 2:56 pm

The follow up was good to and very prescient

The Climate Wars revisited or No truce with kings. – Pointman

“The alarmists have always thought of it as a war and us as the enemy, to whom no mercy is to be shown. As far as they’re concerned, it’s total, unrestricted warfare. It’s as simple and savagely direct as that. As I said in the original piece, if you don’t have a clear understanding of the nature of the beast you’re fighting against, you’ll be destroyed by it. I don’t do dumb, I don’t do wishful thinking and I don’t do helpless victimhood – I do fighting back. If you don’t like that, then you’d better find a more comfortable blog to read.
They’ve accused us for years of being anti-science, paid lackeys of big oil, climate criminals, despoilers of the environment and being drones of some shadowy organised conspiracy against them. We long ago wrote off such accusations as propaganda stereotypes, designed to dehumanise and marginalise us but what you have to take on board is that in a very real sense, they’ve become victims of their own propaganda. The lies have been repeated so often that they now believe them themselves. That is now their operational worldview and their understanding of us and it’s a false one. Essentially, they went to war against and are still fighting, a phantasm figure who is a patchwork product of their own spin machine’s memes. They simply have a false understanding of us and that works in our favour.” Pointman

If Lew and co want ‘trench warfare”.. I might even come out of blogging retirement and write some thoughts on his total breach of his fields ethics, and email every psychology department the evidence (and every journalist I know -) .. “might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb” – ie “no quarter” – I tried, I really did to be ‘nice’ ..

There is a pattern, use peer reviewed ‘science to discredit, because ‘science says’ look at this ‘science paper.

The Lewandowsky – Moon Hoax paper, was written to discredit sceptical blogs in general, with a direct reference to Steve McIntyre (alluding to WUWT as well)

Prof Lee Jussim – writing in peer review on the Moon Hoax paper, a myth essentially concocted by the researchers, .. and their political motivations clear.

This paper on Polar bear blogs, is nothing but an attempt to smear/discredit Dr Crockford and her blog by FOURTEEN authors. It would only need one author guys (remember Einstein’s response to a 100 scientists, and yes, you are the bad guys) .

Lewandowsky’s Recursive Fury paper, sought to name/label several key sceptical bloggers, as the source of things with conspiracy ideation at play.. Despite Anthony himself saying he came late to that particular debate (six seeks after, criticism of the Moon Hoax paper started. Lew and Co, just choose the research window, to exclude earlier criticism, so that WUWT/NOVA, etc could be the “source”, named in peer review science, Not me and a couple of dozens others a month earlier on minor blogs.

But the plan is so look public/politicians, peer review science says these guys are nutters, ignore them, look at this ‘science’ paper that proves it

THAT paper was withdrawn, the journal seeing sense, that they were blindsided by activists.. To quote Prof Henry Markram (journal founder on the authors actions “activism abusing science as a weapon” and he told me personally they were political activists not to be trusted (you’ll have to take my word on that)

There was another personal attack paper.. this time on Prof Ian Plimer (and Anthony Watts) with the Alice in Wonderland paper, again trying to smear named living people as contradictory incoherent conspiracy theorists.. in a philosophy journal this time, blindsiding the journal, no way would he have got away with it in a psychology journal

If Lew and co want ‘trench warfare”.. I might tempted come out of retirement and write some thoughts on his total breach of his fields ethics, and email every member of his psychology department the evidence, and a dozen more. He’ll say he is under attack, I’ll say I’m whistle blowing his utter breaching of the ethical standards of his field.. and here is the evidence… hey guys, this makes you look bad, what are you going o do about it. Everyone will read for themselves, they can decide… One Bristol Uni. academic once told me, that people found Lewandowsky odd and slightly worrying….. (again you’ll have to take that on trust.)

But again, I have a day job, children, elderly(very unwell relatives), and real life to deal with, so maybe they’lll dodge that again.) I don’t have research grants to write dross papers like this, only to be met with ‘a smug’ you submit a comment to the journal then…. Tried that, got treated like trash, data refused.

If this new paper is not seen to be an embarrassment to all concerned, and apologies an to Dr Crockford and corrections/retractions made. Well then science really is dead. All those scientist that stood by and did nothing, despite reservations, you are as bad as those that enabled Weinstein. (harsh, but I DON’T CARE)

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 4:55 pm

Harsh, but true.

Everyone needs to stand up and be counted, just do something, even ONE email or ONE letter to your local paper helps. Some of us can do more but if ALL of us do something it will be like a pop concert full of camera phones. Each with a tiny little light but the overall effect of thousands is impressive.

December 1, 2017 2:57 pm

I just attended the play “All is Calm” about the 1914 Christmas trench truce between the Germans and the British. Very moving, based on actual letters. My grandfather nearly died of the flu in France during the war. They might be careful of what they wish for or at least study a little history before they use labels.

Gunga Din
Reply to  hdhoese
December 1, 2017 3:41 pm

I just attended the play “All is Calm” about the 1914 Christmas trench truce between the Germans and the British.

If I remember correctly, that was a local “truce” initiated by the troops themselves. Their respective higher ups were not happy.

December 1, 2017 3:14 pm

Some thoughts on fanatics and how to fight them. – Pointman

“I’ve always liked Churchill’s definition of a fanatic. “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Once you get past the witty aspect of the definition, there’s a deep truth in it too. They simply can’t change their mind.
I’ve seen a lot of debates in the blogosphere, where earnest attempts to show a fanatic not just a line of reasoning but the publicly documented facts about something, have failed utterly. They were never going to listen or be persuaded; they can’t change their minds. It’s as simple as that. Rational dialogue with them aimed at somehow converting them to your viewpoint is a losing strategy because it’s a waste of your time and does absolutely nothing to stop them anyway………..”

“…….Any fanatic is potentially dangerous but it’s when they band together into a movement that they become truly dangerous. We have to fight them because if they ever get their way on whatever insane idea is driving them, then we’ll be the ones who’ll get hurt.” – Pointman

FOURTEEN authors to go after Dr Crockford – all that scientific “authority” – scientist in numbers.

One would do. If they had any ‘evidence’

No SI, no data, no method. misrepresentation of her academic field/papers/background.

Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 4:57 pm

Those who slander others are evil. More and more I see this hoax as a Good vs Evil confrontation on a much larger scale than just Climate Science. Evil has gained control of much of academia and the media. Good is curently winning in the US political arena, but I’m not sure whether it can hold.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Barry Woods
December 1, 2017 8:18 pm

The doughheads call it consensus – with no evidence as usual.

Reply to  Barry Woods
December 2, 2017 7:55 am

It can be useful in that it demonstrates to earnest truth seekers how poor the alarmist arguments are (and how unhinged they can sound) when put up against an earnest truth seeker (like themselves) asking honest questions. A “good example of a bad example” type of thing. As for M. Mann…he seems like the kind of person who took a lot of beatings as a kid…perhaps from his dad.

J Mac
December 1, 2017 3:18 pm

A trench can become a tomb…. Keep digging, Mikey!!!

December 1, 2017 3:21 pm

When in a street fight, any weapon you bring could be used against you.

December 1, 2017 3:24 pm

It really is an indictment to “climate science” peer-review that this paper was EVER accepted by any journal..

except maybe Rolling Stone, Cosmo or Mad.

Do any of the resident trolls think this is a “scientific” paper worth publishing?

Should it have EVER passed peer-review.?

Nick, crackpot, etc etc can you each answer, please.

Just a “yes” or a “No” from each of you…. if you have the GUTS and the INTEGRITY.

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  AndyG55
December 1, 2017 3:46 pm

It is in BioScience, a junk journal since it was created. This just adds to its status.

Too bad for all those who had more serious papers published in it. They just lost more credibility.

That said, this is the worst ‘scientific’ mobbing since the so called Scientific American attacked Lomborg for his ‘heretical’ book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Reply to  AndyG55
December 1, 2017 4:27 pm

Funny how they all just RUN and HIDE from a simple question. 🙂

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  AndyG55
December 1, 2017 8:19 pm


Reply to  AndyG55
December 1, 2017 9:03 pm

“….. if you have the GUTS and the INTEGRITY.”

December 1, 2017 3:25 pm

In a world where sometimes up is down in the minds of climate catastrophists, they assert that they are the victims of “denier” obstruction. The custodians of science that deny any dissent. They still can’t convince me that any small warming is nothing but natural.

Wight Mann
December 1, 2017 3:35 pm

Anyone who knows anything about WW1 knows that trench warfare didn’t work out well for anyone involved.

Reply to  Wight Mann
December 1, 2017 3:44 pm

Nor should the term be used frivolously.

Reply to  Wight Mann
December 1, 2017 3:59 pm

One of history’s great underachievements. Two of science’s great underachievers, in Mann and Lewandowsky will be right at home in the trenches.

Reply to  gnome
December 1, 2017 6:55 pm

Quick, someone get a bulldozer!

Reply to  Wight Mann
December 2, 2017 7:57 am

So let him have his trench then.

Reply to  Wight Mann
December 4, 2017 5:48 am

So Mikey is calling for a tragic stalemate that decimates both sides with poisonous weapons, disease, and hardship?

John in Oz
December 1, 2017 4:51 pm

From Wiki:

The first law of holes, or the law of holes, is an adage which states that “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”. Digging a hole makes it deeper and therefore harder to get back out, which is used as a metaphor that when in an untenable position, it is best to stop carrying on and exacerbating the situation.

As at other times, the CAGW-troubled crowd are merely changing their wording when a tactic is failing.

‘Global warming’ morphed into ‘climate change’ then John Holdren says this should be ‘global climate disruption’ and many others have their favoured terms.

This drive-by assassination attempt is merely redefining ‘digging a hole I can’t get out of’ to ‘trench warfare’ then trying to persuade all and sundry that it is something new.

Rick C PE
December 1, 2017 5:37 pm

I totally agree with Judith Curry’s assessment.

What I have never understood is the warmist’s insistence that “peer review” matters. Academic literature of all fields is full of peer reviewed papers that contradict each other. If one is right, the other is wrong. In fact, perhaps a majority of published peer reviewed papers are written specifically to challenge the conclusions of a previously published peer reviewed paper. e.g. “We replicated the experiment described in so-and-so’s paper and got different results”. Nothing makes the career of an academic like proving some other highly regarded academic is wrong. There’s a Nobel prize awaiting the first physicist to prove Einstein wrong on relativity. Peer review is a lot like proof reading and grammar editing. I has never been about verification of truth. I have written papers the were peer-reviewed and received both helpful suggestions that made it better as well as comments that demonstrated utter ignorance.

In engineering, it is routine practice to have designs reviewed by another professional engineer (4-eyes policy) before they are submitted to the client. Everyone makes mistakes and no one should be comfortable that they have not missed something that could result in a serious problem. In fact in many areas of engineering where life safety is involved, a great deal of time is spent in multiple levels of review and sign-off before a project is approved.

In terms of this particular discussion I can think of no more effective review process than publishing research findings and supporting documentation on line in a publicly accessible form and allowing anyone and everyone to review and critique it. I cannot imagine doing this unless I was very certain that my work would stand up under such scrutiny. For this reason alone, I have tremendous respect for Dr. Crockford.

Reply to  Rick C PE
December 2, 2017 12:01 am

I think peer review does matter, but not in the way that most climate scientists try to use it. Peer review is a procedure by which someone not steeped in the field relevant to the study can find some assurance that the paper is methodologically sound, but it gives no assurance that the conclusions are, in fact, correct.

Climate scientists take that further though in two related respects. First, they use peer review as a logical “appeal to authority” fallacy, i.e. the conclusions of peer reviewed papers should be given weight, regardless of whether those conclusions have been (or even can be) replicated or otherwise verified. Second, is that they try to flip the peer review process around and use it as an ad-hominem attack (sword instead of shield), saying that papers that have not been peer reviewed, or scientists who have not had many peer reviewed papers, ought to be dismissed or marginalized for that reason.

Finally, I’d note that the entire genuflection to “peer-reviewed” papers rests on assumption of the competence of the peer reviewers. Take the hockey stick debacle for instance. Mann and others published a paper using a screwed up principal component analysis where the hockey stick shape was a result of the methodology and not the data, i.e. their technique produced hockey sticks using random noise as an input. A third party caught that error, explained it to them in excruciating detail, and the climate scientists still insisted that the paper’s methodology was correct. It took a congressional hearing and two independent analyses (Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences) to settle the issue, where both panels agreed that the methodology of the hockey stick paper was not sound. This doesn’t look good for the competence of peer review in the climate science community if this kind a mistake not only didn’t get caught, but the climate scientists didn’t even recognize the error when it was explained to them.

December 1, 2017 5:54 pm

If I remember correctly the trench warfare of WWI was a wasteful, horrific bloodbath for both sides. The punishing stalemate was only broken by tanks using internal combustion engines and the hard driving aggression of an ‘amateur’ army so devoid of modern technology that it had to borrow its machine guns, tanks, helmets, and field artillery from its allies. Even though the bad guys had the most modern, elaborate, complex, well supported trenches the good guys, including the ‘amateurs’ still won. Go ahead and hunker down boys the barrage has just started. By the way Mann and Lewandowsky, you ain’t anywhere near as good as Ludendorff and Hindenburg so go set on a pickelhaube.

Reply to  JustAnOldGuy
December 1, 2017 8:07 pm

The doughboys carried rifles that were borrowed technology also. Most people don’t realize that the vast majority of US troops were armed with the M1917 Enfield. For the most part only the Marine units were armed with the US designed M1903 Springfield due to the Springfield Armory having difficulty mastering the metallurgy for the extractor among other reasons. Alvin York earned his MOH with an Enfield.

However the US did use the M1911 automatic pistol, M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, and the M1917 Browning water cooled machine gun, in combat during WW I. And towards the end of WW I introduced the Browning M1919 air cooled light machine gun and the M2 .50 caliber heavy machine gun. All outstanding weapons.

When the 1st Marine division landed at Guadalcanal in August of 1942 the M1903 was their standard rifle. The M1911A1 their standard sidearm. Their machine guns were the M1917 and M1919 modified by the troops to have an increased rate of fire. Their heavy machine gun was the M2.

The M1911A1 and a newer version of that design and the M2 machine gun now modified to eliminate the need to set head space and timing, still serve today as front line weapons in the US military. I can’t think of a single piece of standard issue equipment in the US military arsenal that has been in service longer than the M1911A1. (Though that 9mm M9 Beretta became the standard issue sidearm the M1911A1 never went out of front line service. We in SF knew the M9 was a POS and stuck with our M1911A1s. And the Army and USMC have finally realized what any experienced troop could have told them and are now going back to the future.)

Tom Halla
Reply to  RAH
December 1, 2017 8:17 pm

Both the 1903 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield were modified Mausers. Both the US and the British had fought wars against foes armed with 1893-95 Mausers, and tried to improve on the basic design.

Reply to  RAH
December 2, 2017 2:46 am

In my student’s days we had, for two academic years one hour/week, practical military training which included taking apart cleaning an putting together automatic weapon M53, re-designed version of German Mauser MG 42 calibre 7.9mmcomment image

Reply to  RAH
December 2, 2017 5:30 pm

I qualified with the MG3 which I believe your referring to and the other standard issue German firearms to earn the German Gold Schutzenschnur back in the 80s. I also fired the MG 34 and MG 42 at different times. The MG 42 was just a war time version of the MG 34 that used more stamped parts thus reducing the requirement for more expensive and difficult to produce machined parts. There is virtually no difference in the way the 34, 42 and current 3 operate and fire.
Spent an entire morning at a house H&K used to demo their weapons that sits near their underground factory. Walked down into the basement of the place that was set up with a 25 meter range and two lanes at 200 meters in a trench that led out of the basement. Laid out on tables was every firearm H&K made at the time that was not still in development with exception of grenade launchers. They even had the Mp5K that shoots from a briefcase. Stacked against one wall were the cases of ammo. The H&K rep took us down there and said “Have at it boys”.

December 1, 2017 6:24 pm

Should a Nobel Peace Prize winner, as Michael Mann frequently has claimed to be, be calling for trench warfare?

Wim Röst
December 1, 2017 7:21 pm

Josh: Great!

Reply to  Wim Röst
December 1, 2017 10:49 pm

And I love those pants (English meaning).

December 1, 2017 7:50 pm

I have a suspicion that in the year 2074 a couple of holdouts will emerge from the jungle in the Philippines having only recently discovered that the war ended decades earlier.

Reply to  LewSkannen
December 2, 2017 8:07 am

Like this guy, who scared the heck outta Gilligan and Skipper when he popped out of the jungle?

December 1, 2017 8:29 pm

Mann has been behind barbed wire and in his trench and never came out. He refuses to come out and fight. Just hides in his trench and snipes.

michael hart
December 1, 2017 9:21 pm

I’m still trying to rationalize why even Michael Mann would put his name to this paper. I credit him with the ability to sense that the manuscript is one that that would have less than zero benefit for his academic standing, among both friends and foes.

I’m sure the political requests and demands from the big swinging patrons for messages to rally the troops and strike at ‘the enemy’ have maybe become more intense recently, but this one does seem extraordinary. I can only conclude that the reasons are probably financial, one or both of the following:
1) A new or continuing grant/award requires a specified number of literature publications as prove of work done. A renewal date is perhaps arriving, so something had to cranked-out quickly.
2) A wealthy benefactor, private or public-office, has requested a bit more action to keep the pot boiling. The reasons could be various. Such as the continuing absence of new carbon taxes or “carbon investment products”, the increasingly gloomy prognosis on the free-money-for-wind-power plant, maybe just the Tesla stock price.

Separately, I wonder if someone, somewhere, is hurting badly because they assumed a cash injection from that big Paris climate fund. Sure, the French and Californian governments might utter the sweet Parisian nothings, but they can’t deliver the promises, and Trump won’t stump. Keep an eye open for a bit of climate slush-money in the Brexit divorce bill.

Roger Knights
Reply to  michael hart
December 2, 2017 12:15 am

My favorite suspicion is that polar bear alarmists were miffed at Rockford and attempted, sucessfully, to recruit a third-party hitman (presumptively, at first glance, non-partisan) to strike back at her.

December 2, 2017 2:13 am

is this another Friday funny or Nikola Tesla’s revenge
250,000 lightning strikes overnight felled power lines and cut supply around the (Australian) state’s Tesla battery on the day it was switched on.

p.s. Nikola Tesla was born approximately at midnight, between July 9 and July 10, 1856, during a lightning storm.
Nikola Tesla in his Colorado lab, 1899 (image from Rockefeller University website)

Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2017 8:36 am

Basically they built the battery in the wrong place.

As previously reported on this site, a major problem is that the remote wind turbines are connected to the consumer by a flimsy power grid. Building a battery where the wind turbines are may reduce the problems of variability in the wind but they do nothing about the grid.

They should have built the battery as close to the consumer as possible. I know that there are land price issues in cities, but a site somewhere on the outskirts should have been possible.

Alternatively put it next to the large transformer station that served the, now demolished, coal plants. That has multiple power lines connecting to it giving a measure of redundancy.

Reply to  BillP
December 3, 2017 9:43 am

The logical place for the battery is next to a large fire house with a 24/7 staff and lots of heavy fire fighting equipment, foam, and water on hand.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  vukcevic
December 3, 2017 6:43 am

(The Australian wants $4/week? I was born at night but it wasn’t last night. Goodbye Australian!)

She (Ms Zibelman) said AEMO could deliver 800 megawatts of additional power from gas generators. The regulator is also planning to ask big power users and utilities to cut their use of power when demand rises.

AEMO said that would allow them to pump more than 1,000 megawatts of power into the system if needed.

We take a look at the process of load shedding and why it takes place. Still, AEMO is not guaranteeing the lights will stay on when temperatures soar.

The operator’s summer readiness report said demand could be “precariously tight” if any major power generators are taken offline for maintenance.

December 2, 2017 8:08 am

here is one more from genius-entrepreneur Elon Musk
The SpaceX chief executive has revealed the company is due to put its first Falcon Heavy rocket into space next month, taking Tesla car into orbit around Mars.
more here

Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2017 3:56 pm

It’s amazing what you can do when you have billions of dollars of government money. I wonder if it was his money if he would be so generous.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 3, 2017 1:45 am

You get the feeling Mr Musk is fast running out of other people’s money-
But Tesla BIG BATTERY fans have more to worry about long term than their car deposits-

Reply to  vukcevic
December 3, 2017 2:09 am

The cobalt cliff problem for the true believers in large scale lithium battery solutions to their perceived problems is explained well here-

Reply to  observa
December 3, 2017 9:47 am

For what a tesla powerwall will cost, one can buy a huge whole home back up generator, a huge propane tank and thousands of gallons of propane.
An average medium sized home will need at least 4 powerwall battery packs at a cost of over $20,000, and these will run that house for a day at most.

Nick Werner
December 2, 2017 1:42 pm

I think these fourteen co-authors have mistaken their gutter for a trench.

Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2017 3:54 pm

May they all come down with a severe case of trench mouth.

Kevin Schurig
December 2, 2017 7:55 pm

Interesting choice, “trench warfare”. It was made obsolete.

December 2, 2017 7:55 pm

“To counteract the blogs’ pernicious effects, the authors argue that scientists must now engage in the “trench warfare” of public debate…”

Well perhaps scientific controversies are a bit of a contact sport. (:

The Original Mike M
December 3, 2017 6:17 am

What Michael calls a “trench” is what the the rest of us call a place to hide from accountability given his propensity to block twitter accounts of anyone he is unable answer.

Robert B
December 6, 2017 4:22 am

Watching the 5th wave while reading. A bad movie but interesting plot. Aliens want to eliminate humans because they want Earth for themselves. They con children into hating and fighting the Others until some realise that they are fighting humans for the Others in human form. Adults were killed because they would be too sceptical.
Publishing propaganda in a science journal is to create classroom material. No scientist would fall for it.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights