JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The Mann with no friends

In the case of the century Mark Steyn notes that not one climate scientist filed an amicus brief for Michael Mann, who has been lauded by some as “taking a stand for science”.

Mark Steyn:Gotcha. Michael Mann is not doing this for Michael Mann, or even for Michael Mann’s science, or even for climate science. He’s doing it for science. Mann is science and science is Mann.

Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.”

Today Michael Mann invited the world to do a Q & A on Twitter. How unfortunate. The twitter hashtag #AskDrMann is being referred to as a Mock-a-lanche.

Credit Scottie Mhic Leòid @variouspenguins  ·  15h

By TwitchyTeam @TwitchyTeam

 

 

 

Bob Ward is outraged:

Steyn sees an opportunity:

 

 Steyn is a hero, but he can’t do this on his own

He writes: “…thank you during this content lull for keeping up your support for my pushback against Climatollah Mann via our Steyn Vs The Stick trial merchandise, our new SteynOnline gift certificates and all the other stuff – books, CDs, and more – over at the Steyn store. As the absence of amici suggests, the tide is turning against Mann. That’s in part due to the way we’ve been able to shine a light on his mountain of misrepresentations. And we’ve only been able to do that because your support kept us in the game during a very rocky patch at the beginning of this year. I’m profoundly grateful, and determined to fight on.”

 A great write up at twitchy
Mann invites the tweets:

Are you blocked yet? I am. I tried to retweet Michael Mann’s invitation and got the message: ” You have been blocked from retweeting this user’s Tweets at their request.”

UPDATE: Indeed, the game now is to see who can get blocked for the politest scientific question? Send your entries in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (149 votes cast)
The Mann with no friends, 9.1 out of 10 based on 149 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kdkxuw7

142 comments to The Mann with no friends

  • #
    diogenese2

    This reminds me of something, oh yes -
    “I know thee not old mann, fall to thy prayers.
    How ill white hairs become a fool and jester.
    I have long dreamed of such a kind of man,
    So surfeit-swelled, so old and so profane;
    But being awake I do despise my dream.
    Know the grave doth gape for thee thrice wider than for other men.”
    Henry IV Part 2 Act V Scene V

    Looks like he will be checking in to Heartbreak Hotel.

    70

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I have a mental image of Dr Mann standing with his fingers in his ears, saying, “la-la, la-la, I can’t hear you”. Why do you suppose that is?

    460

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Mann’s Censured folder must be waaaay bigger than his Censored folder by now!

    70

    • #

      Indeed, the game now is to see who can get blocked for the politest scientific question? Send your entries in.

      461

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Can we use “shag on a rock”? Or does equating his intelligence with a birdbrain seem over polite?

        110

      • #
        the Griss

        ummmm, Sorry Jo,

        I really don’t think I could possibly manage a “polite” comment to, or about, little Mickey Mann.

        172

      • #
        Chester

        Wow. This is JoNova saving science, eh?

        Utterly, shamefully pathetic. You’re running a Group Think Hatefest.

        Could you be more childish?

        357

        • #
          the Griss

          No dear Chester, we don’t hate mickey.. we luv him cos he’s so funny. :-)

          Come on deary, join in the fun. ! :-)

          280

          • #
            the Griss

            And he has done SO VERY MUCH to help bring down the CAGW cause.

            He is on our side, he just doesn’t know it.

            Just like you. :-)

            340

        • #
          Peter Miller

          The wisdom in your words is so incredible that I have morphed into a true blue bolts-in-the-side-of-the-head alarmist.

          Thermadeddon is nigh, repent all ye who do not see the evil gas CO2 is the Devil’s work!

          Wow, you must be such a sad character.

          Sigh………

          171

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Chester,

          If the shoe fits, wear it. And it must fit because you seem to have picked it up voluntarily and put it on.

          80

          • #
            the Griss

            “you seem to have picked it up voluntarily and put it on”

            More like, put it in his mouth !

            Every post he make gives us more of a laugh :-) ..

            Thanks Chester, for the continued comedy routine :-)

            70

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Schadenfreude Chester…….sigh……I know…

          30

        • #

          But Chest(er)NUTS

          ARE for
          ROASTING

          40

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Chester,

          The “skeptics” here can guffaw all they like.

          “amicus’ briefs would be simply guilding the lily. Their lack can be seen as nothing more than expression of confidence that Mann can put his own case perfectly adequately.

          Exhibit 1 will be the report to the US congress by the US National Research Council into the hockey stick controversy, which supported Mann’s findings.

          http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

          115

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Climate Scientist John Daly provides a useful summary refutation of Michael Manns work here.

            For more detail, Steve McIntyre audits the Hockey Stick here.

            Read it only if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to do it with an open mind.

            150

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Ex warmist.

              The graph from the 1990 IPCC report relied primarily in not just records from Europe, but one particular site in central England.

              Unsurprisingly, it was superceded by more extensive data.

              To claim, as your link does, that Chaucer’s lines:

              “Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote –
              The droughte of March hath perced to the roote,
              And bathed every veyne in swich licour
              Of which vertu ungendred is the flour;”

              suggests temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today is utterly ridiculous, but I note that such is the standard of much”skeptic’ argument.

              113

              • #
                Heywood

                So Brian,

                Did Ross McKitrick get back to you yet?

                You did tell him how your calculations from your HP calculator proved his paper wrong didn’t you?

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                No Heywood he has not replied yet, but I only got around to emailing him a couple of days ago as I wanted to go through his paper thoroughly and decide just how much detail I wanted to go into so that his reply wold be comprehensible to others here, knowing how keen you were to read it. Here is the business end of my email regarding his paper:

                file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/user/My%20Documents/Downloads/OJS_2014082814175187.pdf

                Anyway, I have previously said on skeptic blogs that the requirement for statistical significance for warming or cooling (the error margins do or do not cross the zero trend line) is “unfair” as far as a hiatus is concerned.

                By definition, a hiatus means that the trend is (or is very close to) zero, so any error margins no matter how small will include positive and negative trend values. It is difficult to see how you can get a “statistically significant” pause by this criterion.

                So I was wondering whether your calculations are a way of dealing with this problem.

                I would like to point out similarities and difference in your results from those obtained using Kevin Cowtan’s algorithm for the calculation of trend and 2 sigma error margins, which take into account autocorrelation of the data. For Cowtan’s trend calculator I have input the year from your tables (inclusive) for the start date and 2014.25 (up to but not including April 2014) as an end date, which I understand to be the period you are covering.

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

                The data in tables 1-3 appear to be very similar to the results returned by Kevin Cowtan’s trend calculator, which calculates the 2 sigma values taking into account autocorrelation of the data. The results here use the year and the endpoint of 2014.25 (up to but not including the month of April).

                I will examine the years you have put in bold on tables 1-3 of your paper, which are the years furthest back in time for which the CI lower bound includes negative trend values.

                Table 1 of your paper deals with Hadcrut 4 data:

                19 1995 −0.0063 0.0925 0.1913 36.8666 19.8734

                Which to 3 decimal places give the trend and error margins as

                0.093 ±0.0.99 °C/decade

                Which is essentially the same result as Cowtan’s algorithm:

                Trend: 0.093 ±0.100 °C/decade (2σ)

                Table 2 of your paper (UAH data):

                16 1998 −0.0586 0.0609 0.1804 10.9176 5.6454

                0.062 ±0.120 °C/decade

                Cowtan’s algorithm gives essentially the same trend but almost twice the error margin:

                Trend: 0.062 ±0.221 °C/decade (2σ)

                Table 3 (RSS):

                26 1988 −0.0005 0.1184 0.2373 41.6345 35.4573

                0.118 ±0.119 °C/decade

                Cowtan:

                Trend: 0.121 ±0.109 °C/decade (2σ)

                The trends and error margins are very close.

                Again the years for which Cowtan’s 2 sigma error margins cease to include a cooling trend for Hadcrut4 and RSS are 1995 and 1990 (your dates 1995 and 1988) but Cowtan’s year for which this occurs for UAH data is 1994, commensurate with his larger error margin (your date 1998).

                So, are you able to explain why Cowtan’s and your results are very close for Hadcrut4 and RSS, but UAH data has almost twice the error margin?

                How are the results of your analysis different from saying that when there is no longer statistically significant warming, there is a statistically significant pause?

                Thank you if you have the time to answer.

                116

              • #
                the Griss

                ROFLMAO.. what a load of meaningless waffle. Phillip. !!

                You really have outdone yourself in the tiresome stupidity stakes this time… :-)

                121

              • #
                ExWarmist

                Hi Phillip,

                You pick on one point (a first hand eyewitness report) from John Daly’s site and ignore the rest of his argument – was it too hard for you, or are you just intellectually lazy?

                You ignore the entirety of Steve McIntyre’s work, is that because you feel ashamed of what you actually believe, and reading his material would generate too much cognitive dissonance for you?

                If you keep ignoring refutation of your pseudoscientific dogma you will never come to your senses.

                BTW: Just to be sure that Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) is indeed pseudoscientific dogma – I’m sure that you are not able to state three different, measurable, climate events – that if they were to occur would convince you that MMGW is a refuted hypothesis and that natural climate change is still in place.

                I.e. Something like, atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 40 ppm, over 20 years, and land, radiosonde, and satellites measure flat or cooling temperatures over the same timeframe.

                What would it take?

                Or are you no different from a religious fanatic that will never change their mind regardless of what empirical evidence they are presented with?

                (Note – Computer models are not evidence – that would be circular reasoning…)

                111

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                I add that on close viewing of the paper, I withdraw myearlier accusation that McItrick was “cherry picking”.

                13

              • #
                the Griss

                ” I withdraw my earlier accusation that McItrick was “cherry picking”.”

                ROFLMAO.. !!

                You seriously have foot-in-mouth disease don’t you, child-mind… quite funny :-)

                Your comedy act continues. :-)

                Its almost as though you were mocking yourself. (which I would completely concur with)

                And there’s you, barely able to produce meaningless 3 dp (lol)garbage with someone else’s algorithm.

                You are what I would call “mathematically inebriated” !!!

                You can walk…….. straight into poles !

                61

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Phil, do you mind if I call you Phil?

                People are still responding to your comments which is kinda strange given the rubbish content.

                I guess they just want to keep you going to probe your mynde and sea what might kum out neckst.

                (0.0045 – 0.0035) + 0.00?? Help Phil I’m lost.

                Please give me a reference for that or the world will overheat by Friday next week to a certainty of 75%

                95% of climate scientists who were present agree that 43% of them are incompetent; or is that incontinent.

                This is all very confusing Phil and I feel embarrassed that science is no longer about the three Rs’ of Measurement. Observation and Recording of results.

                KK

                60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Ex warmist, when the first point is simply demonstrating an ignorance of the history of these graphs, and the second is simply ludicrous, why waste any more of my time?

                05

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                KK,

                As I wrote, I have reproduced part of my email to McItrick about his paper.

                He knows what the data lines in his Tables I am discussing represents.

                The link to the paper I gave does not appear to work in this window, but if you copy the line and paste it onto the url line, you will get the paper.

                Or you can try this link and click on the pdf for the paper in the contents page.

                http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojs/

                The fact that those with such definite opinions on this paper have not read it at all and do not understand the points I am making about it does not surprise me at all.

                I will explain my argument in more detail.

                McItrick appears to me to have performed complex statistical operations on data which in the end gives the same trend and error margins which give the same results as a simple Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis, except in the case of the error margins for the UAH data. (I have asked him about this discrepency.)

                So why all the extra complicated operations? What do they achieve?

                It appears to me that he is claiming that the point at which the warming trends cease to be statistically signficant becomes the point at which the pause is somehow statistically significant.

                [All warming trends become non statistically significant if you keep shortening the time frame for the simple reason that the signal - the slope of the line, which may not have diminished at all, or even increased - will be overwhelmed by the "noise".)

                For instance, note how for Hadcrut 4 data the trend for the last 19 years (from 1998)according to both McItrick and OLS is 0.093 ± 0.100 °C/decade.

                This warming is not statistically significant for warming becaue there is a probability of less than 95% that the data iscompatible with a cooling trend (the error margins are larger than the slope.)

                But the OLS of Hadcrut4 data for the last hundred years, from 1914 (McItrick does not go back that far) is 0.073 ±0.011 °C/decade

                That is the warming trend is actually smaller than for 19 years, but in this case is statistically significant, all values within the error margins being positive, because the signal to noise ratio is much better.]

                But to return to my problem with Mcitricks apparent claim.

                Not statistically significant warming does not mean a statistically significant pause in Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis.

                I cannot see how this is any different for his own results.

                Tables 1,2 and three and Figs 4,5,6 show, like the data from the OLS treatment, that trends after the dates he nominates have a 95% probability of being warming or cooling or possibly a pause in between.

                This does not mean a statistically significant pause.

                For instance, note how for Hadcrut 4 data the trend for the last 19 years (from 1998)according to both McItrick and OLS is 0.093 ± 0.100 °C/decade.

                This warming is not statistically significant for warming because there is a probability of less than 95% that the data is compatible with a cooling trend (the error margins are larger than the slope.)

                But the OLS of Hadcrut4 data for the last hundred years, from 1914 (McItrick does not go back that far) is 0.073 ±0.011 °C/decade

                That is the warming trend is actually smaller than for 19 years, but in this case is statistically significant, all values within the error margins being positive, because the signal to noise ration is much better.

                Mind you when Watts picked up this paper he was clearly worried about how a graph which showed according to McItrick’s results, the WFT trend line and the OLS calculation of 0.093°C/decade could be used to sell his readers on the idea that this constituted a pause. (I sympathise)

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1

                So he ditched the WFT trend line to go with his WFT graph, which I repeat, represents McItrick’s actual results, for this data and substituted an arbitrary slope, based on who knows what, that shows a negative trend and declares- Ta da! A Pause.

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/01/new-paper-on-the-pause-says-it-is-19-years-at-surface-and-16-26-years-at-the-lower-troposphere/

                Much better for the punters who don’s understand stats even if it was a blatant misrepresentation of McItrick’s results.

                And clearly some of you also struggle with statistics. In which case you should refrain from complaining about discussions of a statistical analysis simply because you do not understand it.

                Never mind, I am sure McItrick follows it.

                I have suggested to McItrick that perhaps I am missing something here, that perhaps his results, although virtually identical with the OLS treatment, (with the exception of the UAH error margins)somehow manage to make these apparently inconclusive results statistically meaningful in terms of defining a pause.

                But frankly he seems to have gone through a lot of maths to produce the same results which are no different to OLS results which show no evidence of s statistically significant pause.

                Perhaps he will be able to explain this, which is why I await his response.

                15

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                I note that Watts has been forced to fess up to his bit of chicanery with the graph by adding the following note, which was not there when I first noticed the deception.

                The question remains, why put in statistically meaningless line in a discussion of McItrick’s statistics paper which is all about trend lines and not use McItrick’s data line?

                Because it is really hard to represent McItrick’s own data as a pause when the trend line is a warming slope of 0.093°C/decade, and Watts saw it plainly so put in a bogus cherry picked peak to peak line using a noise spike at one end to define a non existent “plateau”as demonstrated here:

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2014.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1

                Typical Watts shameless pea and thimble trick.

                That was the genesis of my original complaint (now retracted) that McItrick was cherry picking. It is Watts not McItrick who is fudging McItrick’s data:

                NOTE: (added) Some people saw the green line in the figure above as a trend line. It is not. It is a comparison line to show the similarity of global temperatures 19 years apart in relation to McKittrick’s paper. It simply shows the “plateau” of temperatures has not changed much since then. To see more about the pause in trends, this essay will be informative.

                15

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Ex Warmist,

                BTW: Just to be sure that Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) is indeed pseudoscientific dogma – I’m sure that you are not able to state three different, measurable, climate events – that if they were to occur would convince you that MMGW is a refuted hypothesis and that natural climate change is still in place.

                I.e. Something like, atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 40 ppm, over 20 years, and land, radiosonde, and satellites measure flat or cooling temperatures over the same timeframe.

                Honestly if I were not so used to this, it would be beyond belief that this tosh is served up on a regular basis.

                Where oh where have climatologists in general, or AGW theory in particular EVER STATED that CO2 ALONE affects atmospheric temperature?

                Have you NEVER taken the time to inform yourselves of the most elementary principles of climate science?

                Are you people so UTTERLY IGNORANT of the basis of climatology that you do not know that many, many mechanisms, “natural” and anthropogenic, have an effect, some cooling, some warming on atmospheric temperature at any given time?

                EG solar radiation, ENSO, volacnic eruptions, anthropogenic particulate polution, CO2 concentration etc.

                If you do understand this, why oh why do you think that according to AGW, temperatures must rise perfectly in line with CO2 concentration only, irrespective of what warming or cooling contributions other forcings may have on the net temperature?

                I mean it is a really simple concept to grasp. Yet “skeptics” seem totally unable to do so.

                That said, here is UAH data for the net atmospheric temperature due to all forcings, with a trend lines for that 20 years, and 39 and 15 years thrown in for good measure, superimposed on the rise in CO2 concentration.

                http://tinyurl.com/njthcd9

                On this basis I am supposed to conclude that what AGW says about the contribution of CO2 to global temperatures is falsified?

                RUBBISH!!

                Just as logically, I would be required to reject the idea that the 11 year solar cycle plays any part in atmospheric temperature, because observed temperatures do not follow a sinusiod with an ll year period with no increase in temperature over the period of a cycle.

                14

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Pardon the editing and typing errors in my reply to KK (and elsewhere) and referring to 1998 instead of 1995. It was late when I was typing.

                13

              • #
                ExWarmist

                Bingo!

                Philip says …

                Where oh where have climatologists in general, or AGW theory in particular EVER STATED that CO2 ALONE affects atmospheric temperature?

                Have you NEVER taken the time to inform yourselves of the most elementary principles of climate science?

                I am very well researched on this topic. Your creating a straw man – I refer to CO2 in my example – as it is the focus of attention within the MMGW hypothesis. Obviously MMGW does claim that there are multiple factors impacting global temperature. However the emphasis of the MMGW hypothesis is on human emissions of CO2 as driving changes to global temperature, and that increases in CO2 concentration will, over time, increase the global temperature.

                It is, after all, called Man Made Global Warming. (Not Man Made Global Cooling, or Natural Global Warming…)

                Are you people so UTTERLY IGNORANT of the basis of climatology that you do not know that many, many mechanisms, “natural” and anthropogenic, have an effect, some cooling, some warming on atmospheric temperature at any given time?

                What you would like to believe? I understand your position well. There are “facts” that you hold dear – which are nothing more than wishful thinking and untested assumptions.

                EG solar radiation, ENSO, volacnic eruptions, anthropogenic particulate polution, CO2 concentration etc.

                If you do understand this, why oh why do you think that according to AGW, temperatures must rise perfectly in line with CO2 concentration only, irrespective of what warming or cooling contributions other forcings may have on the net temperature?

                I wrote nothing of the sort. I used CO2 as an example (see below), which should have been clear given the context of the rest of what I wrote. Your projecting your own expectations of what I’m thinking – which is not equal to – what I’m actually thinking. (Compare “Must rise” with “Something like”???)

                ExWarmist: I.e. Something like, atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 40 ppm, over 20 years, and land, radiosonde, and satellites measure flat or cooling temperatures over the same timeframe.

                What would it take?

                I mean it is a really simple concept to grasp. Yet “skeptics” seem totally unable to do so.

                Not a relevant comment – your shooting at a straw man.

                That said, here is UAH data for the net atmospheric temperature due to all forcings, with a trend lines for that 20 years, and 39 and 15 years thrown in for good measure, superimposed on the rise in CO2 concentration.

                http://tinyurl.com/njthcd9

                On this basis I am supposed to conclude that what AGW says about the contribution of CO2 to global temperatures is falsified?

                RUBBISH!!

                Not what I asked for – you really don’t seem to have a working definition between confirmation & falsification. I have no issue with the close correlation between CO2 concentrations and UAH temp data over the timeframes that you point out.

                Just as logically, I would be required to reject the idea that the 11 year solar cycle plays any part in atmospheric temperature, because observed temperatures do not follow a sinusiod with an ll year period with no increase in temperature over the period of a cycle.

                Philip – you have completely misunderstood my question – or you have understood it, and deliberately avoided answering it. I’m assuming the first – I.e. giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                I contend that what you believe is pseudoscientific dogma – and that a critical test of that would be your ability to specify the concrete, specific, measurable climatic events that – if they were to occur – would convince you that MMGW was a false and refuted hypothesis.

                You have not done that.

                You argue like a creationist who believes that the world is 6000 years old -and will not credit as evidence anything that might refute your dogma.

                You have been put on the spot, and basically responded with a bit of a rant – rather than with reason – revealing the emotional, and unreasoned basis of your dogmatic belief in Man Made Global Warming.

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Ex warmist.

                In a pigs eye it’s a straw man.

                It’s YOUR example:

                “Something like, atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 40 ppm, over 20 years, and land, radiosonde, and satellites measure flat or cooling temperatures over the same timeframe.”

                And it is plain wrong, not the least because data does not support it.

                http://tinyurl.com/njthcd9

                And it is exactly this rubbish that is repeated by “skeptics” over and over again. As if CO2 is the only factor affecting atmospheric temperatures or climate in general, which would remain the problem even if there was no good correlation between CO2 increase and temperature for a decade or two.

                The “something like” refers to something like this example. Do not attempt to conflate and confuse it with “must rise” which is the basis of the “skeptic” claim of ‘CO2 has risen, temperature has not, AGW falsified.’

                I understood your question perfectly well, and I understand your responses. The rest of your arguments are of a similar quality the the one I have answered above, and I decline to spend further time and effort in pointing out where they are just as wrong.

                As a skeptic, I waited until the growing evidence that AGW was real caused me to adopt that position. I did not beforehand write myself a list of hypothetical conditions which would need to be satisfied before I adopted that position. I looked at the evidence as it was presented.

                As a skeptic, I will continue to assess the evidence for and against climate change. If and when the weight of evidence causes me to change my mind again I will let you know.

                But the fact that the entirely bogus argument I refuted above is the one that “skeptics” keep banging on about, and is therefore what they consider to be one of their best arguments, means you may be in for a long wait.

                You say I don’t have a working definition of confirmation and falsification.

                As if it is that simple.

                I took a post graduate qualification in the History and Philosophy of Science while working full time as a research scientist precisely because I am interested in such questions. Unlike “skeptics” who have seen the words “Popper” and “falsification” on “skeptic” blogs and regurgitate the words as if they know all about it.

                When they have read or even skimmed Popper’s “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” and a fair number of critiques of his position by equally eminent philosophers of science, they can get back to me.

                Popper’s book is a little pricey, Mine was $52.95 when I bought it which was about 20 years ago, but a good library will have it.

                I stand by the rest of my comments as well.

                02

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                By the way ex warmist, here is a sure fire way to tell when when someone is ‘a religious fanatic that will never change their mind regardless of what empirical evidence they are presented with’ and having ‘an emotional and unreasoned basis of [their] dogmatic belief.’

                They counter opposing argument by declaring it a as a ‘rant’ and accuse their opponent of being a religious fanatic that will never change their mind regardless of what empirical evidence they are presented with’ and having ‘an emotional and unreasoned basis of [their] dogmatic belief.

                03

              • #
                ExWarmist

                Hi Philip, you say …

                It’s YOUR example:

                “Something like, atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 40 ppm, over 20 years, and land, radiosonde, and satellites measure flat or cooling temperatures over the same timeframe.”

                And it is plain wrong, not the least because data does not support it.

                I said …

                ExW: BTW: Just to be sure that Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) is indeed pseudoscientific dogma – I’m sure that you are not able to state three different, measurable, climate events – that if they were to occur would convince you that MMGW is a refuted hypothesis and that natural climate change is still in place.

                I.e. Something like, atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 40 ppm, over 20 years, and land, radiosonde, and satellites measure flat or cooling temperatures over the same timeframe.

                What would it take?

                Yes: You are right – it is an example – and that is the point – it is an example of what a falsification criterion would look like.

                I never said that it was backed by current evidence/data – that is a notion that you are ascribing to me, and then shooting down – precisely a straw man.

                The point I am trying to communicate to you is the necessity of having defined criteria that would test to the breaking point any given hypothesis.

                Here is another example from 20th century science for you.

                Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]

                the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit
                the deflection of light by the Sun
                the gravitational redshift of light

                In the letter to the London Times on November 28, 1919, he described the theory of relativity and thanked his English colleagues for their understanding and testing of his work. He also mentioned three classical tests with comments:[2]

                The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the

                conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible

                So far you have dodged my simple question and attempted to discredit it as a valid question. General Relativity and it’s tests provide a shining example of what I am attempting to point out to you and of real science in action.

                Are you able to provide three such tests for your hypothesis of Man Made Global Warming – such that the failure of any of the tests would be sufficient to refute the hypothesis of Man Made Global Warming.

                Please be, specific, measurable, and quantified in your tests – and if you have the information at hand, please define the instruments necessary to make the required measurements.

                BTW: History & Philosophy of Science; been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. Thomas Kunh’s work is my favorite

                Philip – being a student of science methodology – you must have been shocked and dismayed by the content of the climate gate emails? Such unprofessional, seedy and underhanded conduct. The Climategate issue is a key (but not only) reason why I’m now an ExWarmist. – Climate Science just isn’t science.

                20

              • #
                Skeptik

                If he could spell, he might (a word beloved of climastrologists) be more believable.

                10

            • #
              the Griss

              “Read it only if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to do it with an open mind.”

              This is Phillip you are talking to.. None of that applies.

              61

          • #
            the Griss

            “The “skeptics” here can guffaw all they like.”

            Thanks, but we don’t need your permission! :-)

            The monkeys have let you out of your cage for a day or two again, I see.

            Hope they hid the straight edge, that was getting REALLY tiresome and boring :-)

            61

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              G,

              I noticed you were struggling with the content of my email to McItrick.

              I should point out that it is McItrick and Watts who have introduced straight edges into the discussion.

              Heywood will give you McItrick’s email address so you can complain about it to him.

              And as for this comment:

              “And there’s you, barely able to produce meaningless 3 dp (lol)garbage with someone else’s algorithm.”

              Yes, commenting on what you must consider McItrick’s meaningless (lol) garbage, which is 4 dp as opposed to the 3 dp output of Cowtan’s algorithm.

              And yes I actually use someone else’s OLS algorithm. Shockingly, I am failing to “reinvent the wheel” so to speak by writing one of my own from scratch, or for that matter, using a computer to type this on which I failed to construct myself from scratch, using a language I did not invent.

              Call me Lazy.

              Anyway, to keep things really, really simple for you so you can understand my objections to Mcitrick’s paper, here is what my complaint about his straight edge 4 dp garbage boils down to.

              Please explain to me why I am wrong. This challenge is open to any of the other critics out there.

              McItrick’s paper says that Hadcrut4 temperature data from 1995 to the end of March 2014 inclusive has a trend (to McItrick’s 4 dp) of 0.0925 °C/decade.

              Watts helpfully graphs this using WFT. So far so good. Then Watts realises that putting McItrick’s trend line on the graph makes McItrick’s claim that this period constitutes a pause, well, unconvincing to put it mildly. So Watts puts in a bogus line of his own.

              I mean,Watts may be sneaky but he is not entirely dumb and though most of his fans are, he was not going to try to sell them on this data showing A PAUSE.

              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1

              Just to add a little perspective on this pause, here is “the pause” compared with the trend from 1914:

              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:2014.25/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:2014.25/mean:12/trend

              So you explain to us how it is a pause, while I wait for Mcitrick to get back to me and give me his expalanation.

              12

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, you usually have so much to say about my comments. Within milliseconds of me posting.

                Yet there is silence on this one.

                I am concerned.

                Are you ill?

                Please, I really want you to help me out here and explain where I got it wrong.

                01

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Dear mods,

                It has been a whole half hour now and I have not received a single denunciation from the Griss. Not even the automatic thumbs down.

                I am deeply concerned for his well being. On occasion he tells me that I am wasting my life posting on this blog. I have replied that I suspect he has a potty under a hole in his chair as he never seems to leave the keyboard. He has never denied this, although he automatically disagrees with everything else I write.

                I fear he may have run out of food and no-one has kept him supplied.

                He declined to give me his real name as he feared I might go around to his place and do him harm, so I cannot alert the authorities.

                Perhaps you will be able to do so with extra information you have on his identity such as his email address.

                I am sure other commentators here would be as distressed as I am should illness or worse lead to us no longer having the benefit of his valuable insights.

                [Dear Philip, I'm happy to see that you are getting the feel for the value of humor. It is an important step to recovery since one trait of a devout warmist is a distinct lack of good humor. I've never seen a jolly warmist and am so happy that there is hope for you. Sincerely, ED] ED

                11

              • #
                the Griss

                You poor old thing, dementia seems to be closing in fast.

                You really don’t understand the difference between presentation of calculated computer values in a table and the crap you put forth, do you !

                Oh well, I knew you were incompetent, but why do you keep revelling in that fact.. :-(

                And no, I don’t follow your juvenile OCD rantings on back threads, I have far better things to do with my time.

                I only look if I happen to notice you in the “recent comments”, and want a laugh, which you invariably deliver, thanks. :-)

                Oh and……

                “there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the
                lower troposphere.”

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                GRISS!! So relieved that you are still with us.

                But you have not answered my question.

                How does this trend of McItricks constitute a “trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series”.

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:2014.25/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:2014.25/mean:12/trend

                01

              • #
                the Griss

                “But you have not answered my question.

                So what ! :-)

                Just because YOU have zero understanding of McKitrick’s work, its not up to me to explain it to you !

                And why would I waste my time on your meaningless pap. ?

                How’s the OCD/NPD going ?

                What treatment are you seeking ?

                00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            No, sorry. Their lack means no support. Period. It means no one can find a source of law to support his case.

            Stick to your phony science. You are ignorant in law on 2 continents.

            21

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              M Jourdan,

              And how many times have you successfully represented yourself in court?

              The judge congratulated me on my cross examination and opposing counsel said to his offsider, under his breath, “How good was that?”

              That was in two separate court appearances to do with my whistleblowing activities at the University of Sydney. I had quite a bit of time on my hands to look up the legal procedures, and I am very good at presenting arguments based on evidence.

              And how many of you actually knew what an amicus brief was. Looking it up now does not count.

              It has nothing to do with finding a source of law to support the case.

              The source of law in this case is very clear and simple.

              And how many of you actually knew what an amicus brief was?

              It is true that defamation cases in the US much more difficult to win in the US because of the first ammendment than in Britain or Australia and he may well be unsuccesful, but that does not mean he does not have a case to put before the court.

              Here is Mann’s filed complaint

              http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

              Again the complaints are certainly contestable and will be contested by Mann and his “amicus” allies, but that does not in any way mean he does not have a case.

              I was perusing the usual defamatory assaults on Professor Ian Chubb over on Bolt’s site the other day, and reflecting that if the Chief Scientist was of a litigious mind and could be bothered with these pipsqueks, Mr Bolt could find himself in another court case along with the the people putting up the posts.

              And I had discussions with Mr Bolt’s lawyers about giving evidence for him in his last one. He signed a book for me.

              13

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Sorry, that should have been “contested by Steyn and his “amicus” allies”

                03

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Still ignorant in the law on 2 continents.

                “Oh look, I represented Scopes back in the day! See how I can lie with impervious-ness?”

                We sure do! Your ignorance of the law lays bare your lies.

                As far as successfully defending myself, 4 times so far. None in a multi-million dollar suit however, since most people are not as stupid as you and Mann and do not bring frivolous suits.

                And yes, that is what Amicus Briefs are. Not your friends saying what a great guy you are (Mann would lose that in any case). The LA Times and ACLU are NOT friends of Steyn. It is about interested parties filing documents addressing points of law relevant to the case. Period.

                And your ignorance of that simple fact lays bare your lies as well! Geez Sheehan, try to at least lie convincingly! I am sure in your own mind you are superman. To the rest of us you come off as stuperman.

                Many here are aware I am not an expert on Australia. Never pretended to be. But I ask a lot of questions which have been answered by the kind and knowledgeable people here.

                You on the other hand, are a know it all. You think you know everything, so you have nothing left to learn. Well, you are partly right, you are a “know it all” but all about nothing. Because yours posts demonstrate you would rather spout ignorant statements, and brag about non sequiturs that never occurred, using lies and fairy tales, than something as simple as learning.

                And you do that very well.

                31

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Dear paranoid, delusional, garlic reeking, Galios puffing, quiche eating surrender monkey Frog who went absolutely off his trolley once, calling me someone who hated all things French because I had dissed his heritage when I inadvertently left the “u” out of his name.

                What is it I am supposed to have lied about?

                You wrote:

                “It means no one can find a source of law to support his case.”

                This is absolute rubbish.

                The “source of law” is to be found in the document I provided, as lodged in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Find an English speaker to read it to you or translate it from the French.

                No the LA times and the ACLU are not friends of Steyn.

                The ACLU raison d’etre (Did I get the spelling right this time. You also claimed I was dissing your mother tongue when I inadvertantly misspelled a French phrase.) is to defend civil liberties, in this case the First ammendment to the constitution from any perceived threat.

                It is loathed by the American right, and even some of those on the left have trouble with its stances. It, like Senator Brandis, believes that people have the right to be bigots. The worst kind of bigots, and shout their views, however odious from the rooftops.

                It would defend the right of Nazis to goose step past a synagogue and the KKK to burn crosses on Martin Luther King Jr day.

                The LA times also has, as the Americans say, “skin in this game.”

                As a media organsation, it backs this case not because it has any necessary agreement with Steyn’s view point on climate change or even the truth his constant abusive personal defamatory denunciations of Mann, but because a success by Mann in this case would impact his ability without fear of costly litigation or possible damages payout, to publish what it likes about people.

                And the thing about these organisations is that they have very deep pockets.

                People do not lodge amicus briefs on a whim or to show solidarity for their mates. It is a very serious, very expensive thing to do. Especially of you lose and are forced to pay the other sides costs.

                And I can tell you from personal experience, fighting in the courts is also extremely time consuming and psychologically debilitating process.

                Yesterday in Australia there was a Federal Court ruling on a very high profile case brought by the Essendon Football Club and it’s coach James Hird. For all the fanatical support for Hird and Essendon in some quarters from Bombers fans, not one amicus brief was filed in this case.

                The fact that Hird and Essendon’s legal costs over this lengthy process are estimated to be in the millions, not counting the fact that they have been ordered to pay the other sides costs goes only part of the way to explain this lack of courtroom, as opposed to popular support.

                Amicus briefs are a very rare occurrence in legal proceedings for precisely these reasons.

                Apart from the fact that generally, What’s the point? What extra evidence, arguments points of law etc can the amicus parties introduce that lawyers for the principle parties can not?

                They are something of an indulgence except for large organisations like the LA times (and even then note that there are a multitude of other media organisations in the US who are sitting this one out, though no doubt wishing Steyn well.

                Or the ACLU which exists to fight these cases.

                So the fact that Mann’s many friends and supporters are wishing him well and offering any practical support they can short of actually filing amicus briefs (including offers to testify, as I made to Mr Bolt, who I disagree with on practically everything else but not his article on aboriginal identity because, garlic breath, I have “skin” in that game and don’t insult my aboriginal heritage you racist) but are not filing amicus briefs because he has no friends and supporters,as Ms Nova and the other legal ignoramuses here claim is complete nonsense.

                13

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Garlic Breath,

                On the basis of no evidence whatsoever you accuse me of lying.

                Which just about sums up the “skeptic’ attitude to factual argument and reasoning.

                The book signed by Mr Bolt is “Aboriginal self determination – The White Man’s Dream” by Gary Johns. I bought it at a dinner launching the book at the Celtic Club in Melbourne organised by the Institute of Public Affairs.

                Mr Bolts writes in my copy:

                To Phil,

                Thank you so much for your kind support.

                Andrew Bolt.

                The book is also signed by Gary Johns, a former Labor Federal Minister.

                The court cases in which I defended myself were in the Downing Street Local court and the District Court of NSW, Sydney, in the late 90′s and 2000.

                I was prepared to fight the University of Sydney, rather than take the offer of a good reference and a financial settlement to go away for the same reason I offered support to Mr Bolt who I regularly disagree with on most matters.

                That reason, merd head, is that I actually have a concept of intellectual integrity, which you clearly are incapable of understanding.

                14

              • #
              • #
                the Griss

                “in the late 90′s and 2000″

                ahh.. how far the once self-mighty have fallen !! :-)

                You really do need to step away, Phillip.

                You are going downhill fast. You only have you, and what you once thought you were.

                Your sanity is starting to erode. !

                But please feel free to continue with your meaningless rants.. they provide humour. :-)

                32

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                The only one off the trolly is you. And I have no desire to read any further on your hate filled bigoted diatribe, so whatever you said is wasted. Just as most of your comments are a waste.

                You are a sad pathetic little troll. I am sure your hatred keeps you warm. No one else cares about your ignorance, lies and stupidity.

                10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Philip Shehan
                September 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm

                More juvenile ad hominems from the professed and admitted liar himself. As soon as I read one, Sheehan, I ignore the rest of your drivel as it is worthless, but representative of your pettiness, childishness, and lack of maturity.

                Continue all you want. This is not my forum. But I can laugh at you every time you wallow in your self made mud pit hoping to catch a fly or 2.

                10

          • #
            Ron Cook

            Oooops!!!!! that was meant to be a thumbs down. Stupid tablet keyboard.

            00

        • #
          sophocles

          Utterly, shamefully pathetic. You’re running a Group Think Hatefest.

          Could you be more childish?

          Proverbs 17:28

          11

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Could you be? So where is the hate? Only in your post.

          Where is the laughter? In almost every other post.

          But I guess when your shibboleth is mocked and laughed at – all you see is hate! So that is all you return.

          pathetic troll. You have no sense of humor. Just your hate to keep you warm. And your ignorance to guide you by.

          31

  • #
    warcroft

    At first I was thinking it was Marc Morano and I though “Well, thats what happens when you use a teenagers social media tool for a science discussion.”
    Then I realised it was Michael Mann (must have been the MM that threw me) and I thought “Yeah, he deserves it.”
    God Im an a*****

    60

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Mann Overboard?

    Or have his pronouncements been overboard for several years already?

    160

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Note that trolls & those engaged in bad faith will be blocked & reported.

    Who are they going to be reported to?

    Does the IPCC have its own Police Force, staffed by IPCC PCs?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

    500

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      You might think those police constables of the IPCC are just being politically correct, but they have another serious and heavy workload. Not only do they have to look out for Mann’s intellectual property being infringed, such as illegal reprints of his journal diagrams, but they have to watch for his Personally Identifiable Information being passed around without his consent too, such as stolen emails or details of his home address and phone number.
      So you see they are really PC IPCC PII IP PCs.

      250

  • #

    “… engaged in bad faith …” ie regarded as heretics by the Church of Climatology.

    Pointman

    381

  • #
    Nathan

    Love the hockey shtick graph.

    120

  • #
    Fox From Melbourne

    Remember when “Dr Mann”(I’m trying to no laugh) turned offer the air conditioning off and opened the windows on that hot day when he gave testimony about Global Warming. This is just a idea that I would very much like to see happen. What if when this matter goes to Court that some one did the same thing but in reverse ha. Turned the air conditioners way up so that there was snow or ice in the court room. Opened the windows to night before and let the snow in. Its just a thought that I just had. Who else would like to see that happen to Dr Mann, please don’t be shy and if you have any improvements on that please share with the group. Please.

    110

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Losing the suit would be sufficient. His reputation and credibility with his peers is in tatters and the suit is without sufficient merit to convince a jury. He may try to stick around relying on hard core believers for whatever he tries to do. But really, this is the end of the Mann as a credible scientist.

      It would be comical to watch if it wasn’t so tragic.

      60

    • #
      hunter

      It wasn’t Mann. He was not a Dr. at that time. He was still looking for a schtick to grab him some moolah.
      It was a US Senator, the disreputable Sen. Wirth, who heated up the room for Dr. Hansen’s over top apocalyptic claptrap testimony.

      160

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Mummy, what’s a hockey stick graph?

      20

  • #
    NielsZoo

    Mann is reaping what he’s sown.

    170

  • #
    ROM

    It is truly surreal.

    Let the cliches roll !

    The creator of that great symbol of the Global Warming faith, the “Hockey Stick” stands alone before his judges.
    His friends have faded away.
    His supporters have decamped and left for more salubrious pastures.
    Mann against the odds
    Oh how the Mighty Mann of old has fallen
    We are indeed in the End Times.
    The Huns, the Vandals and the Skeptics are at the gates.
    Hell [ or a colder version of it ] and the Hokey Schtick will not prevail against them.
    Oh ye of little faith, where art thou ?
    They turn their backs
    [ just ask Germany's Bild "Apocalypse No" ]
    As their eyes open they all now see what that little skeptic saw all along. the Hokey Schtick Emperor has no clothes.
    ________________

    Somehow Mann’s situation seems to be a watershed for science for which Mann is a vivid symbol of how deep are the depths that science has fallen to today.

    Science particularly western science now either reshapes itself and again powers on into the future or it slowly declines in respect and influence until it reaches it’s nadir sometime in the decades ahead and from there again finds it’s roots in true science and returns to doing “Science”.

    As a tribute to all those truly dedicated Skeptic bloggers and their equally committed supporters who against all odds took on and fought the good fight against against all the nefarious powers that a corrupted science and totally corrupted anti humanistic green ideology with the backing of immense material, human and financial and political forces could throw at them over the last two decades, they persisted and fought on in the interests of the “truth” and true science through great trial, tribulation and personal suffering.

    And they can now see that the end is drawing near and they will at last be fully vindicated.

    Was it all worth the price?

    Only those who fought and still fight in the heat of the battle in the front lines, the Skeptics who own and run the Skeptic blogs, can tell.

    And who better to quote than that remarkable leader of Britain during it’s darkest hours, Winston Churchill whose world vision was shaped by the great conflicts of his time for like the skeptics of today he and his nation were seen by all to be the eventual losers destined for elimination by immense forces that had harnessed all the deadly powers of evil to do their bidding;

    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

    Winsrton Churchill

    240

    • #
      PJB

      Sen. Joe McCarthy?

      30

    • #
      ROM

      On a somewhat more serious aspect of the Steyn / Mann court case.

      Nowhere have I seen any commentary on the role that Steve McIntyre [ refer to Climate Audit ] and some of his very smart side kicks on the CA site who have been running Mann and his court brief claims through the wringer with a number of usual carefully and forensically researched CA posts on what they are finding.

      It ain’t looking good for Mann at all with numerous false and potentially fraudulent claims by Mann about his science and his awards and qualifications being revealed with a lot of these in Mann’s court submissions, something that judges apparently take a very jaundiced view on.

      Whether Steve Mc is working with and for Steyn, nobody is saying but the can of worms in Mann’s court claims that S.Mc and Jean S and other prominent Climate Audit denizens are opening up sure makes Steyn’s case look much more water tight and throws a very serious cloud over Mann’s integrity and honesty as potentially seen by the court..

      Plus of course, the influential sections of the MSM have now come on board for Steyn as they finally realised somewhat belatedly and to their horror apparently, the huge impact on the freedom of speech and the debilitating strictures that the media would face if Mann succeeded with his case.

      90

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        From what Steve McIntyre is saying, he is not working for or with Steyn. But he is providing Steyn with a lot of documentation and ammunition! His series on the Mannian lies is pure gold!

        20

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          So why is he not filing an amicus brief?

          02

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Because he is not challenging or supporting any point of law. He is providing EVIDENCE that blows holes in Mann’s case (through his dissection of Mann’s lies). But that is EVIDENCE, not an Amicus Brief.

            Your question lays bare your total ignorance of the law, and the lies you continue to spread. Or at least try to.

            Really, get back on your meds. You are hallucinating. And stop lying about imagined feats of daring do that you cannot even support with your fairy tales Sheehan.

            10

  • #

    yes very silly but I am sure that in 2101 when “things of the century” are actually assessed, no one, including most historians, will remember who this Mann person is, or for that matter what was Twitter.

    92

    • #

      Just like no one remembers the Piltdown Man either eh?

      201

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I thought we were discussing the Piltdown Mann right here. ;-)

        160

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          No, this is the Declinedown Mann.

          90

        • #
          Dan

          No it’s the PutDown Mann

          20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Phil, Dan,

            Any way you slice it, he’s destroyed his credibility and reputation. I hope that takes him out of the climate change game as a serious player because there are other fish to fry.

            00

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Destroying something implies there was something to destroy. reputations are built. He tried circumventing the process and inventing one. It did not work.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Phil,

                I think you’re right, there wasn’t much there to begin with. However, at least when I started my career you began with the assumption of a good reputation and credibility based on whatever credentials got you started. So there’s some initial good will to live up to. You then needed to demonstrate accomplishment in a reasonable time or face the need for a job search. So I think “he destroyed his reputation” is a pretty good description of what happened.

                10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Yes, Good will. That is a good term for it. You assume it, and then once proven, you are building your reputation.

                00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Jo that is a silly response. No. Not like that at all. More like something that happened in 1910 that neither of us have cited as it has been forgotten.

        01

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    It’s pannedmannonium I tell ye…….:o)

    170

  • #
    A Lovell

    I haven’t had so much fun since Turney got stuck in the ice!

    330

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Not even Phil Jones? Keith Briffa? Et tu Brute all the way.

    80

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Where’s Nature?

    30

  • #

    It was fun, though bit childish, kicking balls into the open goal.

    Steyn has a post about #AskDrMann,
    http://www.steynonline.com/6566/the-barbra-streisand-effect-on-steroids

    What is so amazing is that Mann thought this was a good idea. It shows how utterly clueless he is.
    One of my questions was
    “On a scale of 1 – 10, how successful would you say this twitter Q&A hashtag is?”

    I was already Mann-banned, so I didn’t get an answer, but I did get myself onto Greg Laden’s climate denier list

    181

  • #
    realist

    With apologies to Shakespeare:
    Hamlet Act 3, scene 4, 202–209:
    There’s letters seal’d, and my two schoolfellows,
    Whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d—
    They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
    And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
    For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
    Hoist with his own petard, an’t shall go hard
    But I will delve one yard below their mines
    And blow them at the moon.

    Hoist with his own petard means injured by the hockey stick graph device created to gain the position of an unassailable expert intended to attack any denier injure others. And also might question a loud appeal from the church of climate catastropharians authority, but instead found himself up s..t creek sprung without a sound paddle hockey stick to help keep the truth seekers at bay as the rest of the rats his supporters quickly move upwind away from the inevitable odour that arises when a lie is exposed.

    80

  • #
    Tim

    As a Twitter posted above…

    Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
    Looking forward to #AskDrMann questions. Note that trolls & those engaged in bad faith will be blocked & reported.

    “Bad Faith”? – I thought ‘faith’ involved following without question. Did someone say that they sounded like a religion? I ponder these and other questions.

    51

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    It was indeed poor timing on Mann’s part, but then he is not the brightest bulb in the socket, just the most vindictive.

    I saw one clown whine about Mann being picked on. I reminded him that Mann was doing the suing and defamation. But since Mann is a god to the idiots, he saw no problem with that.

    230

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In spite of how funny the end of Michael Mann really is, I’m struck by the tragedy of the whole thing. Here’s a man with a lot of talent and ability who chose to use it dishonestly and stuck to the mess he created until it completely destroyed his reputation.

    I wonder what good solid research he could have done if he hadn’t been seduced into trying to make a big name for himself instead of doing honest work. We’ll never know what science and the human race may have lost.

    I can’t feel a bit sorry for him. He’s received the natural outcome of the deceit he chose to do. He was a volunteer when he started it. No one forced him into it.

    190

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      In jail again.

      Why this one?

      Mods — need a little help here.

      20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I haven’t posted on this one because of the content.

      Despite his stupidity it is very sad.

      Still we all have freedom to examine and change and he, after manny prompts, just hasn’t bothered; that’s the problem.

      KK

      50

    • #

      Roy, you are too kind. If Mann was really that bright, don’t you think he would have managed his research better to hide his failure? He left a wake visible from space…

      I think it is precisely because he is really a B-Grader that he was swept inexorably onto this path. The red carpet was rolled out, and if he knew he could have earned that red carpet place properly, through good work, why would he have bet double or nothing on defending the obviously dreadful work.

      I do feel sorry for him too (momentarily*) as the tragedy unfolds — it will not be fun. He’s fallen into a trap few b-graders ever face. The average unremarkable brain is not normally given such wild temptation, accolades, and elevated far beyond their abilities. But if the man had a single bone of selfless integrity he could have stepped off that red carpet anytime.

      I doubt he would ever have contributed anything of note. Though I hear he is very good at playing the piano.

      *Think of his pathetic use of namecalling, deceit, failure to answer questions, and not supplying data. He deserves no mercy.

      190

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Jo,
        I think it is a sad outcome because of the size of the group attack by many who do not know the details and are in it for the blood sport.
        Good scientists should exhibit decorum.
        The dangers of the bad science presented by Mann were picked up very early by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They adopted the conventional and effective approach of publishing dissenting, careful papers about the science and statistics in particular. And Steve started Climate Audit.
        If M and M has not done this, Mann would be less prominent a public figure, but his bad science might have been quietly more corrosive.
        I’m trying to say that the best way to correct bad science is to formally publish better science. I do not have much time for name calling and I think twitter comes with acne, so I am a cranky old fart.
        There are grave societal consequences when bad science mixes with radical policy making. To prevent this, we must spend our scarce time not on jokes but on proper, serious effort.
        Having said that, did you hear this one -

        There was a young student, no gent,
        Whose stick was exceedingly bent.
        To save himself trouble
        He stuck it in doubled -
        Instead of coming, he went.

        30

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Geoff, here is what the NRC report to Congress said about McIntyre and McItrick’s criticism of Mann’s methods:

          http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=112

          Page 112

          “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed…

          As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press)… “

          02

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Geoff,

          Twitter is what birds do. It’s hardly a substitute for personal contact, much less personal character with some substance to it. Yet even one of the Fox News hosts I have considerable respect for is using it. Facebook is the same thing. Instant but many times substance free communication. I think some would announce every potty break to the world if they thought their friends would tolerate it.

          The limerick is priceless. But I’m surprised Jo didn’t delete it. :-)

          10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Jo,

        I respectfully disagree. :-)

        Barack Obama is a very bright man. No one I know denies that he’s quite smart. Yet he chose to bluff his way through life and is another who as you said, “He left a wake visible from space…” He’s now literally coming unglued at every seam. Yet he persists in his delusion of superiority and continues to bluff his way along.

        As far as I can tell, there’s no correlation between innate capability and what actually happens. The thing that counts is the wisdom necessary to make being smart a useful thing.

        As I said, we’ll never know. But someone saw something capable enough in him to put him in a university position. You’re probably right, the red carpet was rolled out to him and he fell for it. But so also for Obama. I don’t see a difference between them regarding how they handled it. Many celebrities handle the red carpet treatment quite well and others don’t. What makes the difference? I don’t know.

        Feeling sorry for someone is tempting but accomplishes nothing. I finally learned not to do it, especially feeling sorry for myself if I’ve screwed up or have a problem. Would I be happy if Mann would admit his fault and straighten out his life? Certainly! But he has to decide to do that. I can’t make him do it. Only Michael Mann can make decisions for Michael Mann and on those decisions he stands or falls just like the rest of us.

        As you can see, I offered him no mercy, just regret that he wasted his career.

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          PS:

          I suppose the lack of wisdom does make someone a grade-B. But it’s not at all necessarily for lack of innate ability to do better. Perhaps it’s nurture. I’d call it a character flaw when someone wastes his effort as Michael Mann did. But I still don’t understand what actually makes the difference. Is it laziness or the temptation of the path of least resistance? Is it parenting gone wrong? … …

          20

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          I think you confuse “bright” with “opportunistic”. Obama is very opportunistic, but his intelligence (other than his failure in his current role) has never been tested. When he is talking, off prompter, he comes across as a very shallow and mediocre person. Not bright at all. He is principled (which if he ever stated them would never get him elected dog catcher), but firmness of beliefs should not be confused with intelligence.

          In that way, he is very much like Mann. He avoids, at any cost, any situation that would cause him to be tested in his intelligence.

          10

  • #

    How ironic!

    The most notorious of The Dancing Marionettes can no longer dance. He dared to try to be a Puppet Master. His prophesy of The Apocalypse of Fire has failed.

    He struggles alone while desperately trying to continue the dance. His strings are draped limply over the stage. His Puppet Masters no longer pull his strings.

    He cries out into the night: “Hello. Is anybody there? Does anyone care?” Silence is the reply from the darkness. Soon, the Struggling Marionette will be alone on a darkened stage in front of an empty and dark auditorium.

    Even the janitorial staff won’t be watching. They have gone home and didn’t care all that much from the beginning.

    It is not a good time to be the Mann.

    140

  • #
    Stuart Elliot

    Meltdown Mann.

    The Greek drama model had hubris punished inevitably by nemesis. I am all for it, and Mark Steyn has the steyns to do it.

    Strength to Steyn’s arm.

    150

  • #

    All I will say is, couldn’t have happened to a nicer schmuck. Totally humorous how few people seem upset on his behalf.

    Aw well, I expect that it simply shows his lawsuit of Steyn and others is not about defamation. Starting the lawsuit is about the only way for him to remain relevant. After all, if he does any serious research, all he will do is visibly contradict himself.

    If your ego will not allow you to admit when you are wrong, or when you have made a mistake, it then becomes very easy to paint yourself into a corner you can’t find your way out of. And hiding in corners is not any way to be relevant to any issue.

    130

  • #
    mpcraig

    “UPDATE: Indeed, the game now is to see who can get blocked for the politest scientific question? Send your entries in.”

    Unfortunately, I can’t participate because I was blocked by Mann last year. Here is the exchange that got me blocked:
    ___________________________
    Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 25 Jul 2013

    Saw that yesterday. Apparently its summer in both hemispheres right now… RT @pmagn @mikeseidel http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/winter-is-the-new-summer-melbourne8217s-hottest-ever-july-day/story-fni0b4w0-1226681388802 … #ClimateChange
    ________________________________
    OttawaSlim ‏@OttawaSlim

    @MichaelEMann @pmagn @mikeseidel And yet Tasmania is “like walking into a freezer” http://t.co/eJ9MTzcdh1

    70

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    Mann has sued just about every person who questions his climate science research and so far Mann hasn’t won one case because during the discovery stage of his lawsuit where he is asked to produce his results, he dropped his defamation lawsuit!!!!

    130

  • #
    Aaron M

    POW! Right in the Kisser!!

    I only read a few scroll buttons worth, but its like the scene from Dazed And Confused, where all the grown-ups are waiting with their paddles to give the little turd(s) the flogging of their lives!!

    40

  • #
    leon0112

    #AskDrMann – Which climate model predicted record levels of Antarctic sea ice? Probably not polite enough to avoid getting blocked.

    What can you tell us about the interaction between CO2, clouds and the sun? Better, but probably won’t work since he doesn’t know anything about the subject.

    What is your “Nature trick”?

    Aw. I give up.

    40

  • #
    leon0112

    For fun, please help out Mark Steyn by tweeting the questions you would like to see him ask Dr. Mann if the suit were actually going to trial. Use the #AskDrMann hashtag.

    Keep the fun going.

    60

    • #
      HK

      I’m not a fan of twitter, but this would be mine:

      When Richard Muller said “What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice” was he talking about you?” #AskDrMann

      30

  • #

    [...] Nova has the story. This entry was posted in Humor, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And [...]

    00

  • #
    hunter

    The amazing thing is how many people who are generally described as smart did not even wonder why it just so happened that a new science just happened to find that their focus of study just so happened to hold the key to world destruction.
    And Dr. Mann, an obscure perennial student, pushed the most radical, history-rewriting, massively interpolated, guesstimated obscure proxies and just happened to discover *the* key to this destruction.
    But it is a world destruction so subtle that unless you have good faith you might miss it.
    And if you miss the destruction, you are obviously in bad faith.
    Yet to the tune of thousands of educated people, Mann’s pile of garbage has been embraced. To the tune of tens of billion$, this obsession has been funded.
    And nothing has happened. It is always ‘just over the horizon’, just after tomorrow.
    Screw Dr. Mann and his rent seeking kooks.

    140

  • #
    hunter

    Kudos to:
    Roy Hogue
    September 19, 2014 at 1:25 am · Reply
    *I thought we were discussing the Piltdown Mann right here.*

    Piltdown Mann indeed.

    That is the best new nickanme yet.

    80

  • #

    Please don’t kick the Mann while he’s down.

    It’s much funnier to watch him get up and trip over his own feet; over and over again.

    150

  • #
    Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

    That was FUN. When can we do it again?

    50

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    After reading Steyn’s essay I’m left wondering; if a true believer did ask a genuine question, would Dr. Mann recognise the question, or block it?

    80

  • #
    Liberty

    Hi Micky, Disney called. They want their Mouse back.

    20

  • #

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1973.html

    “Michael Mann – please watch my
    Greenland Hockey stick plot – How to make one the Mann way powerpoint slide show.
    For your convenience it is attached to this post.
    Sue me, if you dare.

    yours,
    Derek Alker.”

    00

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Just about time to make a kids clown book, with images of the Mann to colour in, that should help the future generation to learn some history and resist scammers.

    And when you think about it, he is acting like a clown, perhaps Steyn could sell that too with all the clown accessories and just in time for Christmas…

    00

  • #
    thingadonta

    Things wrong with Mann’s hockeystick.

    1. It hides the decline of modern >1960 tree ring response to temperatures.
    2. It heavily uses these same tree ring responses to produce a graph of past temperatures.
    3. It splices different datasets with different uncertainties.
    4. It uses a statistical method that fishes and weights for hockeysticks against noise, in other words, a method designed to produce a hockeystick.
    5. It is misleading about uncertainties.
    6. It completely ignores past climate research with well established MWP and LIA periods.
    7. It equates individual and regional data with northern hemisphere and world data.
    8. Data and code were not made available.
    9. Statistical methods and data were not checked during peer review process.
    10. It cannot be replicated.
    11. People who questioned it in journals were denigrated and discriminated against, the very purpose of what peer review is for.

    The person responsible, Michael Mann, has since shown an utter inability for objective and dispassionate critical analysis.

    Who knows what else is wrong with it, the above is just a few.

    40

  • #

    THIS DAY IN 2014: Talks break down between people engaged in bad faith and man engaged in bad science

    00