“I would be surprised if he wasn’t”

ScreenHunter_247 Mar. 18 08.00

Twitter / RichardTol: @wattsupwiththat I would be …

About Tony Heller

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

15 Responses to “I would be surprised if he wasn’t”

  1. Edward. says:

    Hokey sticks are his thing, think how pissed off he would have been if he hadn’t been invited to fix it – he’s full of tricks is old Mike.

  2. gator69 says:

    This was obviously an ‘inside job’. Only the climate cabal, or kool-aid drinkers, would have rubber stamped such an apparent attempt at fraud. The shape alone should have set off alarms.

  3. Glacierman says:

    Why do they put up with this bully? He is so obviously an ideological zeolot. I guess they thought that maybe his messaging was right. Even though they knew his researcdh methods and conclusions were flawed and unsupported, if temps continued to rise, his message would have been right, so they all kind of went along with the establishment while waiting for the temps to rise. That kind of crap can only continue for so long.

    • miked1947 says:

      Someone taught him the tricks he is using and promoted him to where he is now! That goes back before he received his PHD! He is a hero for a few “Schools” because of the funding he drew to the institutions. Why else would they be defending and hiding his past. CG3 will bring out a lot about him.

      • Glacierman says:

        Mike you are right. Sometimes I forget that Mann is the ultimate Useful Idiot. He doesn’t even realize he is wrong so he keeps blindly fighting the “evil forces” working to keep him down……even though none exist.

        Whoever put this guy where he is really got a twofur for their money.

        • miked1947 says:

          I attempted to discuss the difference between climate and weather with this person at RC. I also tried to show him historical records that showed his errors. That got me banned from RC in 2006.
          He is now a Full Fledged member of the Chicken Little Brigade training all the wannnabe members that visit his henhouse at RC!

  4. chris y says:

    So if Mann was a reviewer of Marcott et al., does that make Marcott a proxy for Mann? Therefore, McIntyre has shredded Mann via the Marcott proxy…

    Also, Mann’s responses to Revkin were remarkable-
    “The key take-home conclusion is that the rate and magnitude of recent global warmth appears unprecedented for at least the past 4,000 years and the rate at least the past 11,000.”

    Both of Mann’s claims are unequivocal shit, and a sympton that he suffers from acute climate coprolalia.

    The paper states that the data is so temporally sparse that fluctuations faster than 300 years are not detected at all. It is therefore complete bullshit to claim that modern rates of change are unprecedented. And, because of this low pass filter, there is also no way to claim that modern temperatures are unprecedented, since temperature extremes are flattened by the filter. It is obvious to the most casual observer that Mann must have known these facts, if non-experts spotted them in a few days.

    On top of that, the authors fiddled with proxy dating to fabricate a hockey stick, then smeared it with Mann’s shit reconstruction, claimed agreement between the two, and also stated that the hockey stick they fabricated was not robust, otherwise known as crap. Then in a video interview with Revkin, co-author Shakun agrees when Revkin calls it a super hockey stick. Classic.

    It is impossible to exaggerate how damaging Mann has been to climate science. If I was a McKibbenesque climate catastrophist, I would suspect that Mann is a double agent hired by the Koch brothers to destroy the credibility of climate science and the IPCC.

    • Or it is an attempt to get him squashed, for the good of the rest of the group. This paper is so flawed, and so similar to MBH98 that it is almost like it was put there on purpose, to be “discovered” to be faulty again, so as to remind us of the same old tricks and finally let him self-trash his reputation beyond repair. Presumably the motivation would be so that they don’t have to have the self aggrandizement distraction and annoyance anymore… Marcott gets sacrificed in the process, but perhaps can be absolved with proper penance.

      It sounds plausible. About the only cheerleader I see is Mann, the rest seem to be silent, waiting.

      Ahh crap… Was that conspiracy ideation? Dang it.

    • Mann would say that even if he was wrong about every single claim he has ever made concerning historical climate reconstruction, it wouldn’t matter, because you’re still an evil denier. πŸ™‚

  5. tckev says:

    And all those hockey stick producers are destroying the respect and reputations of all honest scientist that do not willfully play games with data. The “peer-reviewers” that pass such a mendacious reports without conscience, loss of reputation, or loss of income are making science nothing more than game-play for the big-money men.
    These people calling themselves “scientists” are frauds that are costing everyone $Billions worldwide. They are nothing more than coprolitic egotists.

  6. Tom Harley says:

    Dr John Ray at Greenie Watch just posted this, which is relevant to the discussion: True believers

    Back in the ’50s, some psychologists led by Leon Festinger looked at believers in prophecies about the end of the world. He was particularly interested in what would happen when the due date for the end came and the world continued on as before. He found that most believers were unshaken. They modified their beliefs slightly but otherwise continued on as before. Below is what Festinger said about such believers in prophecy. We must expect believers in the prophecy of catastrophic global warming to be the same

    A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. –Leon Festinger, “When Prophecy Fails”, 1956

Leave a Reply