Models Methods Software

Dan Hughes

NASA's Gavin Schmidt and Penn State's Michael Mann are Liars

Climate Science . . . The Science of Personal Destruction

In the RealClimate post linked above appears this statement:

“So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.”

These statements are false. And they are known to be a false by those you made the statements. The statements are lies and the persons who made the statements are liars. If Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann cannot point to where Steve McIntyre has made these statements, Gavin and Michael are liars.

By this action Schmidt, Mann, and RealClimate have taken the next step and moved to a higher level of promoting dis-information. That is, while always refusing to correct mis-information stated by commenters, and even RealClimate in-line responses, Schmidt and Mann purposefully lie. The purpose being to jump-start the peanut gallery’s, aided by RealClimate, usual attacks on persons while ignoring the technical issues. The Science of Personal Destruction; invented at RealClimate.

A post and 176 Responses ( and counting ) and not a single error on the part of Steve McIntyre has been identified. Not a single error !! This is reflective of the way RealClimate has of diverting attention from the real issues. In effect, the entire post hinges on becoming discussions of nothing that the subject of the post has said or done. Yet another naked strawman post. Additionally, the comments, with supporting responses from RealClimate, rapidly deteriorate to nothing more than de-meaning, unfounded attacks on people; shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.

To paraphrase, RealClimate continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that their supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations they have engendered.

RealClimate, having been unable to point to any technical errors, have continued the Climate Science policy of the Science of Personal Destruction.

They must continue to feed the small-minded, foul-mouthed labelers such as tamino and dhogaza. It’s interesting to me that those who chose to label with the most extreme and debasing labels chose also to remain anonymous. The, mostly non-scientists, peanut gallery at RealClimate seems to revel in this race to the bottom, cheering on tamino and dhogaza at every opportunity.

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and Penn State’s Michael Mann are liars.

Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann lied in the subject post, therefore everything they have written is suspected of being lies.

Climate Science . . . The Science of Personal Destruction

Advertisements

October 2, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized |

2 Comments »

  1. An astounding revelation over at RealClimate in gavin’s inline respones to this comment. gavin said:

    [Response: Fine. But that doesn’t mean that every idea from outside has merit. Quoting Carl Sagan (almost) “They may have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Ideas and contributions have to evaluated on their merits, not from where they come from. [my bold] – gavin]

    hmmm I wonder what has happened to; Peer-Reviewed Publications, Not a Certified Climatologist, High-Impact Factors, Properly Certified Climatological Journals, . . . etc, etc, etc. and the almost endless list of other stupidly applied false requirements. Not to mention the endless labeling and foul debasing characterization of persons and their contributions..

    I could hardly believe what I read. Apparently neither could Jonas N in this comment.

    To which gavin said:

    [Response: Apparently you did. This post is about the overhyping of technical details into critiques and false assertions about scientist’s integrity and the dramatic jumping to conclusions evident in the various responses. It is not, and never has been about the right of people to question or investigate the science themselves [my bold] (despite what you might read elsewhere). – gavin]

    It’s clear to me the gavin does not read the comments at RealClimate

    Comment by Dan Hughes | October 3, 2009 | Reply

  2. ok, finally, after 5 days and 403 comments, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt gets around to addressing some specific technical issues about Steve McIntyre’s post.

    However, note that Schmidt’s in-line responses contain not a single piece of data. Instead it is filled with wishy-washy assumptions and hypotheticals. In my career whenever there have been technical issues with models, methods, and calculated results you could only come to the table if you had theory and calculations in hand to support your points of view. Without these, discussions have no end and problems are not solved.

    Comment by Dan Hughes | October 4, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: