Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Coining it | Main | On my travels »

More tips

Via a reader:

#4101 - Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is "serious enemy" and "vindictive". Mike Mann had criticized his work.

#4091 – Phil Jones tries to teach a statistician to suck eggs, and gets his ass handed to him.

#4025 – Keith Briffa questions Mike Mann’s objectivity

#0497 - Jones falls out with Mann


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (2)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    This is an attempt to get an Instalaunch, so he will probably ignore it just to make the point that he doesn't do Instalaunches for anything that flat out asks for it, although, on the other hand ? Either way, two recent objects of linkage at Instapundit in recent times have ...
  • Response
    This is an attempt to get an Instalaunch, so he will probably ignore it just to make the point that he doesn't do Instalaunches for anything that flat out asks for it. Although, on the other hand ? Either way, two recent objects of linkage at Instapundit in recent times have ...

Reader Comments (118)

You don't need a statistician to realise how screwed this thing is. But as a stato I regularly get I'm not a climbitologist (Mikes creation), yest but scientific methodology trumps your modelling carp.

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterCamp David

In #4101 there is also this:

His grad student just submitted a
paper to The Holocene, with Mike and I as co-authors, that compares my
point-by-point method with his RegEM method (Keith should have received the
paper by now).

Is he indicating here that Keith should have received this as a referee or as a courtesy?
If it is as a referee then how does he know? Pal review?

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS


We are all trying to work together for the good of the 'Science'

Hehe. Even Phil Jones thinks science should have quotes around it when referring to climate 'science'.

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

How Science Works! Part 94: Pal Review


ate: Tue Sep 29 15:47:15 1998
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: reference
to: "Raymond S. Bradley"

Dear Ray
thanks a million for the reference. I am sending the proposal for your files. It is rather a large file ( only because of the Figures - the text is only 9 pages total ) so I am sending it zipped. If you have a problem reading it - assuming you wish to- I'll fax it. As for the reference to your book , I still await this as I am supposedly reviewing it for The Holocene. It is of course comforting to know that I will be able to give it the rich praise that I know it will deserve. Best wishes to you and I look forward to sharing a good bottle ( no , a very good bottle) of red wine with you - perhaps even at NERC's expense!

At 06:22 PM 9/28/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I sent the attached to as an attachment. Will mail the
>original tomorrow. Good luck with this!
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\briffa-nerc.doc"
>Raymond S. Bradley
>Professor and Head of Department
>Department of Geosciences
>University of Massachusetts
>Amherst, MA 01003-5820

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

Is Ed Cook the hacker that the Guardian is looking for?

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

@Buffy M

My jaw just hit the floor - the word 'gobsmacking' springs to mind.

Also smug, conceited, delusional and (expletive of choice) disgraceful.

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterSayNoToFearmongers

Oh oh.

Some serious embarrassment and falling out potentially.

Mike Mann is coming out to look like the biggest pretentious, self absorbed bully.

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

Eco-nomic murder - The lineup of usual suspects:

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterukipwebmaster

Goldman Sachs #4092

date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +0100
from: Trevor Davies <REDACTED>
subject: goldman-sachs


We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
energy futures market.

G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a 'strategic
alliance' with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
- he needs a date from us). Thanks.


Nov 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterGS


'G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a 'strategic
alliance' with'

Quiz question.

Why would that sleazy slimeball Trevor Davies be interested in a 'strategic partnership' with Goldman Sachs At the time of writing, he was Director of CRU.

What possible reasons could there be for such a guy to have any dealings whatsoever with 'a full service global investment banking and securities firm'. Such a bastion of capitalism as GS and a 'monument to academic integrity and independence' would surely have absolutely nothing in common to discuss.

I must declare an interest. I took an immediate and lasting dislike to Davies when I saw him oozing platitudes at the Climategate debate last summer. By comparison I rather warmed to Monbiot who at least showed he had some cojones - even if he was misguided.

But leaving this aside, WTF was Davies doing lunching with Goldman Sachs? Plotting to bring down the Cock Brothers?

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

I remember seeing a BBC program some years back where they had a guy who appears to not know the truth about global warming and is conflicted by skeptical views on the hockey stick. He goes around and speaks to people about these thougthts and at the end "discovers" the science is settled.

Email #1683 is dated Sept 2005 and is from the BBC Producer Jonathan Renouf to Keith Briffa:

" Hi Keith,
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we're hoping to get
out of filming tomorrow.
1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul
Rose, he'll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he's
understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he's discovered
lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate
changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he's come across this
thing called the hockey stick curve, and he's come to you to explain it to him.

2) Your essential job is to "prove" to Paul that what we're experiencing now is NOT just
another of those natural fluctuations we've seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a
crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is - the present
warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big
moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global

3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze
Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren't quite as
dramatic as he thought. They're there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you
work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the "natural"
fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it's down to changes in
the sun's output, volcanoes etc)

5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show
the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within
reason!) and elaborate the point that what's happening now is unprecedented compared to
these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and
point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and
shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals,
would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.

Hopefully this makes it clear what I'm trying to achieve."

This clearly shows the program for the sham it is - a thinly disguised piece of propoganda. I remember at the time thinking of the questions I would have asked about the Hockey Stick...

Can anyone recall the title of the program and when it was aired?

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

#1724 is a request from BBC zoologist Dan Tapster to Mike Hulme, copying the script of a BBC program and asking Mike Hulme fot his thoughts. The email contains the entire BBC script! I think I might ask the BBC to confirm whether they have ever sent an entire script to a skeptic for such a comment and input!

" Dear Dr Hulme,
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me this morning. As discussed, I'm sending you the
latest copy of the script for this programme. It would be great for me if you could read
it and let me know your thoughts.

My background is zoology, so I'm no climate change expert so there may be errors or
serious omissions in there which would be very useful to know about. I'd be grateful if
you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your
time and also advise you how long we can afford for you to help!!

At this stage I'm guessing that you will certainly question the sea-level rising by 55
metres if Antarctica melts. Remember that this is about the future of Britain - not just
the short term but also the long term (hence the piece about the arrival of the next ice

After getting your initial thoughts it would be great if I could visit the Centre and meet
various people whose advice is essential, but I can certainly arrange this through
Please do keep this script confidential for the time being!

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

#1883 Useful list of all the BBC environment correspondents in 2008:

"Thanks Tim. The BBC environment correspondents are:

Roger Harrabin (Today programme/World at One) -
Matt McGrath (BBC World Service) -
Sarah Mukherjee (BBC TV/Radio) -
Christine McGourty (BBC TV/Radio) -
David Shukman (BBC TV) -"

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

#2042 has an invitation to Mike Hulme about "forming an forming an 'exchange forum for climate change activities involving gov, ngo, acad.,media, business, museums, mainly to exchange info about activities, but where agreed to have meetings and events to explain and involve people in CC issues."

Interesting to note 2 names from the BBC are included in the meeting: Bill Giles and John Teather.

Further down is a bonus comment:

"I hope that the Tyndall Centre will help take a lead in this venture -we discussed its importance today, and appreciated the visit of TC to John Teather at the BBC recently.

We will be seeing WWF on Friday and explaining the concept to them; they were one of the organisations who supported the original idea."

So that's ok then. BBC employees copied on email addresses involved in organising forums from ideas proposed by WWF. Even a WWF email copied on the same.

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

#2245 is an email exchange, addressed to Alex Kirby at BBC where Phil Jones is proud to have stopped adverse comment from a BBC World Service journalist Julian Siddle. Also interesting to see how Siddle asks Phil Jones and colleagues to comment on a press release from a group fundamentally opposed to the conventional views of climate change. I wonder if this reciprocated - does BBC take press releases from CRU and ask McInyre or Watts for comment?

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

"Royal Society for a Special Merit Award for John Schellnhuber from the scheme operated by the Royal Society and Wolfson Foundation to attract outstanding scientists (back) to the UK"

from: Phil Jones <>
to: "raymond s. bradley" <>
We all agree on that !
I'll have a look when back on Friday.
At 22:02 17/01/2005, you wrote:

Ok, thanks--see what I posted at [1]
I just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn't know you got those for spouting
bullshit, but I guess that's how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing...

Tom Wigley:
"..You know I have no respect for this guy. My position is fully justifiable;
one just has to look at his background and training, and his publication and citation records. Quite clearly, he has contributed nothing of value to the science..."

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterFunnyIsntIt

#2315 An email from the BBC's Jon Stewart asking for CRU help in making another program.

I particularly like Phil Jones' comment in his reply

"Even though the issue has the prominence it has, not much has happened to reduce future impacts. Many govts are stalling and there is still a band of skeptics making lots of waves trying to muddy
waters. The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you're doing your bit."

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

> > following
> > stations were deleted in the sense that their normals were set to
> > missing:
> > ??? -2 -999 TIMIMOUN ALGERIA ??? 9
> > ..this was because the first only has a few values, with high
> > variability, and
> > the second consists of two decades of temperatures with one of missing
> > values in between, and the earlier decade is significantly warmer
> > than the
> > second.
> > </QUOTE>
> >
> > Sorry - I don't even remember WRITING this never mind the context! I
> > would note that the final sentence could easily be misinterpreted..."

2955.txt 2007/10/02 Harry and Phil

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterProf Jones's Mum

# 2780 is interesting to see later emails in the chain attached to the famous Kevin Trenberth "it is a travesty that we can't" comment.

The top of the email is full of doubt and uncertainty from Trenberth as he searches for his missing heat. More interesting is this is all threaded under the email title of

subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Following the article at BBC. Worth a read.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

Re #1683

My God. As jaded and cynical as I am, that is completely shocking. The closed mindset involved is breathtaking. Past BBC journalists must be turning in their graves at the complete lack of any journalistic integrity.

That is appalling.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

# 1349 (27 November 2007, "UN Secretary General's Reference to Slide Out Risks of Ice Sheets")

"Please find enclosed:

1. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's statement. He was persuaded to issue this strong
statement by the Chilean glaciologists who expressed their gut feeling that the Larsen B
disease was to spread to Ronne and Ross and ice on land as wel. This backs Al
Gore's hypothesis of sudden sea surges in 'An Inconvenient Truth' posing a massive risks to
modern society.
18 November 2007

"If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet broke up, sea levels could rise by six meters. It may not
happen for 100 years - or it could happen in 10. We simply do not know. But when it
happens, it could occur quickly, almost overnight. It sounds like the script of a disaster
movie. But this is science, not science fiction."

Ban Ki Moon

Secretary General of the United Nations,

King George Island, Antarctica."

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

The latest release of emails is tending to put the BBC in a bad light.

The release suggests that the BBC is not simply lacking impartiality when reporting news events (ie., not giving adequate opportunity for the skeptics to put the opposing case) but that the BBC is actually acting as an activist pursuing and promoting a particular green agenda. This goes far beyond news reporting and surely it is outside the terms of their charter.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

#3957 from 2009 appears to be Phil Jones showing John Walton of the BBC where he can get his graphs from, including among other things Mann's Hockey Stick.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

The BBC is now proven to be utterly bankrupt when it comes to science and politics! A true bunch of shysters and if Christopher Francis Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes had any balls he would sort out this shame on what was once a proud part of the UK! He has been in the post of chairman of the BBC Trust for some time now but appears to be scared of the left!

How can he watch "Question Time for even one week and not see the bias involved in the whole organization!

Jeremy Paxman's go at Huhne on Newsnight was a half hearted effort the other night! I thought he was going to rip him (Huhne) to bits at he start but he let a huge advantage go and then went light on the Gas owners!

Bloody shameful journalists who I expect more from! We live in shameful times as far as the 4th estate go! They are all in the "Cause" together and only seem interested in celebrities! ( apart from a few who know who they are).

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

1683 is killer.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

#4689 is from Mike Hulme responding to Philip Eden of BBC Radio 5 Live. Philip Eden says:

>> Nevertheless, the item did bring one sceptic out of the
>> woodwork.
>> Have you come across him? If you know where he's coming
>> from, any vested interests, etc, I would be very grateful ...
>> indeed, I would be interested in any list of sceptics you
>> may have.
>> Do you have, or have you ever thought of producing, a
>> rebuttal document outlining in simple terms the fallacies
>> in the various arguments that the sceptics use? I'm sure
>> weather forecasters, specialists journalists, etc, would
>> be very grateful to lay their hands on something like that.
>> Best wishes
>> Philip Eden
>> Radio 5-Live

BBC impartiality alive and well at Radio 5 Live!

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

#4959 Is one for the atheists, concerning Christan beliefs and the film The Day After Tomorrow..

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist


The BC programme you were trying to remember at 3:41 PM above seems to be "Meltdown A Global Warming Journey".

The Hockey Stick projection scene is in there but physicist Joanna Haigh is doing the pointing, it's at the start of this video.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterFergalR

re #1683

I have just re-read this one. When you re-read it you can see how biased it shows the producer to be. The program was about a "neutral joe public" being converted to the AGW view. The BBC producer Jonathan Renouf is writing in 2005 and specifically mentions in his item 5 (my emphasis in bold):

"5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what's happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records."

This is deliberately showing the Mann Hockey Stick at a time when the work to date had been thoroughly ciriticised by MM, no mention of the controversy concerning that graph and giving Keith Briffa a free pass to spout his views. Note the producer is telling Keith Briffa what views he expects to hear becuase otherwise his fictional program of "neutral joe public" being convinced by weighty science argument won't work. Imagine if this had been balanced by discussing the Mann curve afterwards with Steve McIntyre?

Does anyone know the program title and screening date? I can feel a complaint coming on...

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

@thinkingscientist #1683

A quick search for Paul Rose reveals he was in involved in Meltdown: A Global Warming Journey first shown in 2006

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterpy

Philip Eden; "I would be interested in any list of sceptics you may have."

This is getting worse and worse for the BBC. That question is telling and chilling.

Black, Harrabin, Kirby, Eden. All fall well below the standards we thought the BBC adhered to.

The key test will be what the BBC does now.

Also the BBC's new 'science editor.' Given this scandal it will be very interesting to see which side of their bread is buttered.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterPRT

We know what they did but the question is: why?

Perhaps the answer is within a study by Irving L Janis. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decision fiascos.

"Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals. You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it: overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes, demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leader(s), has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimty is maintained, and contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader(s) by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader(s)."

Of those 5 defining types of action, most of the emails I have seen so far fit in one or another.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Yes, Michael Mann is just an obnoxious bully. When (#0112) Curtis Covey an atmospheric physicist dared to suggest that Michael Mann results were outliers, Mann goes ballistic. Not only that, but he copies his response around to all the leading lights in the Team. The message is: if you speak out of turn and stop exalting me, I will blacken your name around the climate community.

date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <REDACTED>
subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
to: Stefan Rahmstorf <REDACTED>, Gavin Schmidt <REDACTED>, Caspar Ammann <REDACTED>, Ben Santer <REDACTED>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <REDACTED>, Malcolm Hughes <REDACTED>, Phil Jones <REDACTED>, James Hansen <REDACTED>

Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib earth are you thinking? ...I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this...and you must further know how your statements are going to be used...simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann
Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
Phone:REDACTED075 503
Walker Building
The Pennsylvania State University
email:REDACTED University Park, PAREDACTED

Now we know why Mann is so litigious - he's a horrible bully. We also know why he's desperate to stop his emails being released from University - because he will be seen as a foul manipulator and bully, and not a scientist.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

Answered my own question with an article by Richard North. The program was called Meltdown and was first broadcast March 14 2006:


"March 14 saw one of the first outings of what the BBC has promised will be a major set of programmes in May and the summer. Meltdown had Paul Rose, a polar explorer, address global warming. He pretended to be an innocent investigator of the issue – an honest working class naif whose discoveries on the web and elsewhere we could follow as they unfolded. Indeed, he was boldly disingenuous, pretending to be a sceptic for whom climate alarmism came as an unwelcome surprise. Surely the climate has always changed, he insisted? Hadn’t the Thames frequently frozen-over a century or so ago? Hadn’t the Vikings gone off to sunny Greenland and managed there until the 15th Century? Well yes, said his informants – but then there’s the ‘hockey stick’ world temperature graph which shows that previous variations are nothing to the current huge increase. Besides, Greenland’s melting. These propositions are all much more complex than pictures of dripping ice could convey – but anyway, what was so wrong with the Viking’s green Greenland?

Quicker than you could say Google Earth, we whooshed off to Rose’s old stamping ground, Antarctica, via the Cambridge HQ of the UK’s revered Scott Polar Institute. It was emerging that our chirpie friend was actually a geography establishment heavyweight. Indeed, he’s been around the places and people where and for whom climate change is all but an obsession: the chance that he hadn’t made up his mind about this stuff years ago must be very slight.

Paul Rose was still maintaining a sort of wide-eyed, pubbish reluctance to be conned by swivel-eyed white coats, but swallowed the Antarctica warming story wholesale. Wouldn’t a real sceptic have enjoyed remarking that though it is much remarked by the ‘consensus’ that one small part of Antarctica is indeed warming dramatically, the vast majority is as cold as ever, and with an expanding burden
of snow and ice?

By half way through the programme it was obvious that this was all leading somewhere and that we were not on a voyage of discovery but of exposition. We were being led to a disquisition on how important it is to reduce the very great uncertainty around climate. How true. The show’s answer – which we were for dramatic purposes allowed to suppose was a discovered surprise – is to run current computer models of the climate over and over again so that the variations in their outcome could produce a ‘cluster’ of results, the pattern of which would yield a better class of prediction. Please, said Rose, download a bit of software from and your desktop can partake in a vast, linked, People’s Computation."

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

Thanks to all others who responded about Meltdown. Anyone seen a reference to a list of contributors?

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

Re: ThinkingScientist

IMDB is your friend.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Re: ThinkingScientist
Oops. I was answering you original question (hadn't refreshed for a while) soI dont think IMDB is any good for other contributors.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

#1683 is a precis for the whole hoax. It encapsulates and makes accessible the scam.

I positively love the detail of projecting the graph on the person. Oh, these people. We will have to invent new words.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Over at WUWT, someone has posted a link to the link to the plain text of attachments to the emails.

"Reader Buffy Minton has done some cool work to extract file attachments with the emails. This was never done for the original climategate files to my knowledge.”

More and site at
Snip if already posted."

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

TS - Great find! I hope that some pressure will be brought to bear on the BBC and they will do the right thing...however, in light of the "Jones Report", I doubt it.

As for Rosie, go easy on the little fella. I've known (and worked with) him for a long time and he's a thoroughly nice bloke. Well, he was when he was Rothera BC / Ops Commander etc but, unfortunately, he's now a tool of the BBC. I'm sure that if you sat him down and presented him a balanced view of the global warming psyence, he would soon change "sides". Knowing Paul, he's probably never heard of climategate - he's a bit of a wide eyed innocent lamb and not exactly Mr Science.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

Re: ThinkingScientist

Here's Paul Rose's own site about the documentary program

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

This is something I posted at WUWT just now:

"Dennis Ray Wingo [November 25, 2011 at 12:19 am] says:

“Interesting one on Mann deleting McIntyre’s posts at Realclimate”

‘Phil, Tim,

Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre.
Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and
what sort of response—if any—is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted
all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.’

Well, well, well, here is Mann displaying a smoking gun and bragging to his “associates” that he is the killer. He and associates, probably including NASA employed Gavin Schmidt, are deleting posts from Steve McIntyre at RealClimate not because they contain poor science, not because they are off topic, but because they are criticisms of the Yamal reconstruction that Mann and “associates” do not know how to handle. In plain English, Mann is censoring a scientific topic, censoring scientific debate, because the very topic and the debate reflect poorly on Mann as scientist. Mann convenes his “associates” to come up with some sort of response to McIntyre. Mann’s primary concern is not to engage in possibly fruitful debate but to manage his public image. He expects that his “associates” will support his brazen and desperate cunning with regard to McIntyre’s posts. No doubt his expectation was fulfilled."

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Gavin should always be referred to by his complete title "Nasa Blogger Gavin Schmidt" - as used by Steve McIntyre.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

I have RealClimate to thank for making me a skeptic. Back in 2004/5 I had lots of questions relating to climate change skepticism and was quickly pointed to RC as the premier climate site.

What I saw there opened my eyes. The anger, non-scientific attitude to questions, vitriol at criticism of any kind was a revelation. I'd never met scientists like this before (and I've met and worked with a lot).

My primary thought was: "What the hell have these guys got to hide?"

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

#4101 "In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like "flawed" when describing my work and probably your and Keith's as well. This is in part a vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him."

Michael Mann should never be involved with science, and should never be trusted to do science objectively. All his work should be regarded as highly suspect until proven otherwise. We see again and again that Mann smears those who don't agree with him, and takes all contrary evidence as a personal attack or having a connection to oil shills. He is a complete liability, and a disgrace to the name of scientist. Why hasn't he been frozen out or given enough rope to hand himself with? Now that these emails are out, and everyone knows what everyone else thinks of Mann, and how he treats everyone else, I'm surprised I still can't hear the sound of knives being sharpened.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

I've worked in science for 28 years and have never previously seen contrary papers referred to as "attacks". Is that really how The Team view their "scientific" world? They see two types of publication, "The Truth" and "Attacks".

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

Joanne Nova links to a search tool that combines Climategate I and II.

On the EcoWho site he has helpfully placed all of Climategate I and II together into a combined searchable database. It’s fast, easy to scan, it copes with tricky search requests and provides a link to the full email from the results page of the search.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

The amusing thing to note is that, yes this is new to us, but these emails will also be new to most of the Team and wider Climate Science. They won't have known (until now) how they are talked about and references by The Team. i think these emails are less for us, and more designed to pull apart the fake loyalties within Climate Science itself.

And the fat spider sitting at the centre? Unscientific and over-emotional Mann, unable to receive criticism in a professional way, always quick with an accusation of dark motives. When the story of this is writ.... he'll be seen as the sick poison at the heart of it, and Climate Science would do well to rid itself of him at the soonest opportunity.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

The comments here about Michael Mann's character ring true with me as well, reading some of these emails. What is particularly remarkable about words written by Mann is how even when talking effectivley "internally" within what one presumes is his trusted circle of colleagues he still uses heaviliy politicised words such as "contrarian" and "fossil fuel deniers" etc. He comes across as a zealot, quite scary really, likes to strut and trumpet and always cc's large audiences as though he wants everyone to know how important he is. It is still a mystery to me how someone who had so little experience at the start of IPCC became to be so prominent.

On the other hand Gavin Schmidt (and I have had one or two exchanges on RC with him) has a very different style. He always strikes me as very bright, but also very careful how he phrases things, even in these internal emails. A clever strategist one suspects.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

The photos I have seen of Prof. Mann remind me of an old slogan used against Richard Nixon. "Would you buy a used car from this man?" The answer's a resounding No!

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPalantir

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>