May 7, 2014

“F-Bombing the Mann”

Oh. It is to savor! Skeptic Ink:

Following the Mann/Steyn lawsuit, my contempt for the Mann has increased to levels I had not thought possible.  Throughout this, however, I have insisted that whatever megalomanias float through the Mann’s head, whatever his weird and insular insistences on being a multiply exonerated Nobel laureate, I was not about to accuse a scientist of fraud until I had good evidence.  Such is scientific ethics and I insist on sticking to it.

Now, however, I find that I have been relieved of that weighty responsibility by Dr John Christy, climate scientist and contributor to the IPCC, who testified to the United States congress in the following manner:

Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author [Michael Mann] working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.

So, one of these two men is lying.  Both cannot be telling the truth.  So, is the fraud a) the serially dishonest, bullying, thuggish, delusional Michael Mann, or b) a contributing author to the IPCC who pioneered the development of the satellite temperature record?

Decisions, decisions…

One bit from the steynpost sticks with me:

I’ve been shocked to learn of the young scientists who are sick of living under the suffocating orthodoxy the climate mullahs enforce. My initial free-speech interest in this case was a personal one: I have the right to say what I said about Mann, because it happens to be true. But it’s broadened since then: climate science itself desperately needs free speech – which is to say the right to counter the Mann orthodoxy without having one’s career cut off as crudely as Briffa’s poor tree rings were when they had the impertinence to disagree with Mann.

I can sympathize there; he’s quite right about the fear of rocking the boat and the horrible antics that Mann and his goonsquad get up to.

In his previous tussles with enforces of orthodoxy, Mark Steyn, with his chum Ezra Levant, became one of the few people to successfully roll back Islamic imperialism by taking on the Islamic supreme council of Canada  (seriously) and their tinhorn state enforcers and making life too hot for them to handle.  […]

In a repeat of history, if he manages to put the boot into Mann’s backside, Steyn will have done a real service to climate science.  Not what he set out to do, but that’s his problem not ours.

It’s time to lash tree-rings to Mann’s feet and toss him into the nearest melted ice sheet (Yes, I know they float.  Think about it).

I eagerly await the civil disobedience that is bound to erupt when Obama tries by fiat to map our economy to the faux-scientific, partisan progressive anti-capitalist agenda.  Because while most Americans won’t understand what the hell it is I just referenced, what they will recognize is that their barbecues are becoming way more expensive, their gas prices are going up, rolling brownouts are disrupting their cable service, and, frankly, that the government bureaucrats snooping around looking for puddles on their properties are beginning to get a little too familiar.

(h/t Mark Steyn)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:43am
15 comments | Trackback

Comments (15)

  1. Always with the trees, again.

  2. If you can’t show all of your raw data and adjustment criteria — including empirical justifications for the reliability of the data sources, the accuracy of the data, and the coherency of the adjustment assumptions — then you are hiding something and your conclusions are suspect.

  3. then you are hiding something and your conclusions are suspect should be rejected out-of-hand.

    Fixed.

  4. Fixed.

    Yes, you are right, Scott. Thanks.

  5. I was thinking along the lines of “a bad argument does not necessarily prove the opposite of its conclusion, it just nullifies acceptance of the conclusion as made.”

  6. TaiChiWawa, it is not just that they are making bad arguments, but that we can see that they are making them in bad faith as well – the point isn’t to save the planet, but to assume control of all aspects of our lives. And let’s be honest, when you control my energy consumption methods and levels, you control all aspects of my life.

  7. Lefty-liberals seem to understand that if you exaggerate the dangers of drugs or pre-marital sex , that you may get the opposite results of what is intended. However, they see no problem with lying about climate change or guns.

  8. bu… buh… but… Scott, what about Solar Raydee Ayshun! The sun is like bombarding us with Nuke U larr Raydee Ayshun! And if we don’t do something about it, Godzilla is going to kill us all!!!! Why do you want Godzilla to kill us? You’re not some kind of repitllian fifth columnist are you?

    I mean, really, what’s your so-called freedom worth after wicked Godzilla wales on all our asses?

  9. F-bomb means drop the word “fuck” inappropriately, say, a sermon. Perhaps this is a pun. Some other inappropriate F word like “fake” dropped inappropriately, perhaps F-bomb refers to all the “Fuck fuck fuck this guy” that runs through one’s head while reading. I do not know. I stay confused regarding the title. Such is ever the case. No matter the language, people are prating away apparently understanding each other and I’m on the outside massively confused.

    Plus this: insistences on being a multiply exonerated Nobel laureate

    ?

    I get it, but still the “multiply exonerated” part stays unsorted.

  10. I get it, but still the “multiply exonerated” part stays unsorted.

    I believe it refers to Mann claiming his claims of being a Nobel laureate were proved true because the IPCC gave all the authors of their Nobel winning claptrap a participation ribbon in the form of a copy of the IPCC Nobel certificate. Clickez vous ici

    It would be rather like claiming to be a Nobel peace prize winner because you gave $500 to an Obama campaign, and got a thank you form letter for the donation.

  11. What Mann hates most is the V bomb.

  12. Following his whole smarmy immersion in Climategate, a few videos were made featuring Mikey and he threatened to sue over them, too.

    My favorite:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

  13. the suffocating orthodoxy the climate mullahs enforce

    bullshit

    raise your fucking carbon footprint

    you’re so so free to do it

    you’re as free as a bird now and that bird will never whatever

    you can do it right now

    in a million various and sundry ways you can produce a wee bit more carbon molecules of death and mayhem

    […]

    now sissy that walk

  14. happyfeet, sometimes your comments are even more incoherent than usual.

  15. I think Cervantes put it this way Scott: “Under my cloak, a fig for the king”. Nowadays we call the fig a flipping bird.

Leave a Reply