Can We Assume That Mann Reviewed Marcott?

Marcott’s hockey stick is turning out to be a complete disaster for the team, lacking any credibility and making a farce out of both climate science and the peer-review process. Can we safely assume that Michael Mann reviewed it?

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Can We Assume That Mann Reviewed Marcott?

  1. miked1947 says:

    That would be a reasonable assumption!

  2. Glacierman says:

    I would not be surprised if the changes in Marcott made, post thesis, were prompted by the Mann himself for the final published version! Maybe with a promise of a prominent role in AR5.

    Who knows, maybe Mann hinted that Marcott could also win a Nobel Prize.

    • hannuko says:

      If Marcott had the misfortune of having Mann as a reviewer, I do not believe he would have been able to get the paper published unless he produced a hockey stick. If this was the case, Marcott was in a very tricky situation.

      Mann’s comments to the media sound to me like he was a reviewer. They are too calculating. Calm, almost dismissive. Yet he seems to really like talking about the study. He also found it very important for everyone to know he hadn’t read the study when it came out.

      Like Joe commented in Climate Audit:


      “Remember Eric Steig’s reaction to Ryan O’Donnel’s Antarctic paper:

      “Back when Ryan O had written comments at RC, I said something like “I encourage you to submit this work for publication.” I’d glad to see that this work has gone through the peer review process, and I look forward to reading it.

      . . .

      Ryan, if you don’t mind sending me a preprint, and a link to your reconstructed data, I’d appreciate it.

      I will presumably have more to say after I get a chance to read the paper, but it’ll be a month or more as I’m simply too busy with current projects.”

      Steig, of course, had been Reviewer A on the paper. (He hadn’t seen the final draft, but still, I’d say this qualifies as a “pantomime routine.”)

      • Glacierman says:

        Based on some of Marcott’s comments, it seems he has embraced the Team, possibly as a career advancement methodology. Explains why his statistical methods are so bad. Look at who he idolizes:

        “Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully-mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had “gone through hell” before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists. ”

        “When Michael came along there was a lot more skepticism about global warming, but the public has come a long way,” he said. “I’m curious to see how the skeptics are going to take this paper.”

        When will one of thes dolts have the courage to have someone who actually understands statistics review their work? I would ask Steve McIntyre to review my paper if it involved this subject matter. Makes you wonder why you would feel comfortable putting something out that is so easily shown to be faulty. Do they really think their goal keeping is that good?

  3. Sundance says:

    Mann seemed extremely motivated in promoting the study the day it was released. When I read Marcott’s comments in an interview where he spoke of Mike Mann as some sort of climate warrior that was fighting the forces of evil, it seemed odd and out of place. Over at Appell Soup, DA didn’t address the validity of the science but rather he chose to write about the criticisms of the paper, which gives the impression that the science wasn’t worth defending. 😉

  4. Glacierman says:

    When I hear the following terms in a discussion of what is supposed to be science, but is really a psuedoscience, my first thougt is Michael Mann:

    Complete disaster,
    Lacking any credibility,
    Making a farce…

  5. kirkmyers says:

    Science has demonstrated that it is an advocacy magazine, not a science publication. It has embraced the Warmist ideology and those who propagate such junk. Its editors have made a colossal blunder and severely harmed what remains of the magazine’s reputation. How could the shoddy Marcott et al. research paper survive the peer review process without major changes? It’s pure balderdash.

  6. I would almost guarantee he had a hand in it. The crazy thing is, he’s taken it under his wing, and is STILL defending it, as if it was his own. Check his twitter feed lately, he’s upset that the paper is being attacked, and is still acting like the attack is coming from highly paid evil forces of denial! Like the devastating scientific issues that people are bringing up don’t even matter! If it doesn’t agree with his bad statistics, it must be evil oil funded propaganda. He seems incapable of understanding that attacks from ordinary, interested, volunteer defenders of science DO matter.

    “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations” – Michael E. Mann

  7. DarrylB says:

    We can be thankful that someone left a type of hockey stick pamphlet on the doorsteps of Steve McIntyre a number of years ago. If he hadn’t doggedly pursued the validity of the dendro science we may be looking at a much different situation right now.
    If Mann et al, Marcott et. al.. and the ‘gang’ were interested in the science and its repercussions on humanity, and not themselves, they would have engaged someone with McIntyres abilities instead of trying to stonewall his every endeavor.
    I feel betrayed that this collection of self-interest individuals have brought the character of science down to the level of spoiled children.—- Mann in particular is of such little substance, I feel that he may cry if things do not go his way.

  8. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  9. greg2213 says:

    As Muller says, “…I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore…”

    About 3:50 here:

  10. Bruce says:

    Did Mann also review Gergis et al 2012?

    I don’t think the question came up at the time, but hockey is a team sport.

  11. tckev says:

    Marcott-Shakun report was proof read, and then subject to “peer-review”.
    Given what had happened with Mann et al. and that whole mess, someone in this paper’s “peer-review” process should have realized that all the figures required checking.
    Surely now it is so obvious that the “peer-review” process is broken, and to any reasonable person the process is beyond repair. The whole process needs to be stripped away and a fully open system, with check and balances installed. Until then all parties involve in this paper’s “peer-review” process should be held to account pending dismissal.

  12. It’s interesting how small the core alarmist group is. Mann chats to Romm. Gavin Schmidt is drinking buddies with Mann. Phil Jones is probably god father to their kids. 🙂

Leave a Reply