Comments on: Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006)

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:29:49 +0000

hmm I meant to post this info and link about Mann’s course utilizing Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” here on this thread, as it is the more recent one, but here is the CA link:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/calibrating-dr-thompsons-z-mometer/#comment-344395

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:36:19 +0000

AGU blogger says Mann's Hockey Stick extensively verified: AGU blog by Dan Satterfield says this about the Hockey Stick today: "...You may have heard about this image, it’s called the “Hockey Stick”, and let me say right here, that no matter what you may read on the internet, this image has stood the test of dozens of reviews and investigations. Every scientific peer group that has looked at it says it’s good science and if anyone tells you differently, they are giving you political propaganda. To put it in plain words- the graph is correct, get over it." [his emphasis]

By: Thompson Gets New NSF Grant « Climate Audit

Thompson Gets New NSF Grant « Climate Audit — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:59:49 +0000

[...] Under previous NSF grants, Thompson has collected a truly amazing amount of valuable data on ice cores. However, he has also been notoriously lax about providing definitive archived versions of his measurements. See, for example, IPCC and the Dunde Variations, Juckes, Yang, Thompson and PNAS: Guliya, Gleanings on Bona Churchill, and Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006). [...]

By: Tpaul

Tpaul — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:38:16 +0000

I guess I’m a little oblivious. I had read those posts, then completely ignored them when I made my comment. Mea culpa.

OTOH, I don’t think it can be overstated that this tactic of evasion followed by accusations of deception by omission seems to be widely adopted. Stieg used it as a defense against allegations of plagarism. A defense a high school history teacher would not have accepted!

I have no doubt in my mind that Stieg, had he cared to, could have received and answered email and, AND accessed this website. Not daily, perhaps, but often enough.

Mann has established his own reputation with respect to ethics and the adherance to the Scientific Method. It’s just one more crooked arrow in his already full quiver of tricks.

By: j ferguson

j ferguson — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:19:06 +0000

sorta like Richard Drake suggests, He’s hiding the declines again.

By: Tpaul

Tpaul — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:38:38 +0000

Well, this certainly seems to be the ‘Trick’ de jour for Mann and other members of The Cause. Claim he was never contacted when, in fact, he rejects or ingnores attempts to contact him.

Did he get his degree in a clown college?

I’m still a little irked at the Stieg explanation… he was in Antarctica with no REGULAR email. I’ve been there myself. All permanent bases have internet connectivity. If he went out to a camp for coring, he would still have opportunity to check his email often. By allowing this explanation to stand, I find Stieg guilty of a lie of omission.

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:28:34 +0000

One wonders if the intellectual superiority meme – superiority over Hu McCulloch for example – is coming across as much as required to anyone reading this thread.

But please don’t answer that – leave me an automated message.

By: Hu McCulloch

Hu McCulloch — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:19:17 +0000

Zits on climate science:

http://www.zitscomics.com/?date=03-28-2012#comic-image

By: diogenes

diogenes — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:24:55 +0000

the last resort would be a politely worded complaint in writing to his employers to the effect that he had not accorded you reasonable academic courtesy, Hu. Obviously, it is entirely up to you whether you want to go down that route – I would not, simply because it is already now all over the internet that Michael Mann is afraid to answer his critics. And we all know that the Team read this site and WUWT assiduously, if only to gripe at them and claim intellectual superiority.

By: Salamano

Salamano — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:29:04 +0000

I suspect he follows CA regularly, so I’m sure your comments have been heard (even if you don’t receive the benefit of acknowledgement).

As far as a reply is concerned, I do believe I’ve seen a number of different places that he’s ‘blocked’ various scientists with these sorts of auto-replies (and perhaps even specific email addresses too). One perhaps can only imagine the kind of mail he’s going to be receiving from around the world at a publicly available email account. In that regard, having alternate email accounts seems reasonable.

On the other hand, I bet one day we’ll find out that in order for ‘scientific discourse’ to ‘reasonably occur’, universities have determined they will have to provide scientists with clandestine email accounts that are unpublished and unknown to anyone besides those that use them “because of the debilitating spam and volume of irrelevant email arising out of public access/misuse”. When/If that happens, I don’t see a university having to come forward with such email accounts until getting caught with them– but they’ll just change to new ones, and so it goes…