Saturday, October 26, 2013

Mann Attacks Fellow Warmist for Questioning Hockey Stick

James M. Taylor, J.D. October 22, 2013

Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann venomously attacked fellow warmist Rob Wilson after Wilson pointed out flaws in Mann’s “hockey stick” reconstruction of historic temperatures.

Wilson, a paleoclimatologist who is a post-doctoral research fellow at Scotland’s prestigious University of Edinburgh and an adjunct research fellow at Columbia University in the United States, delivered a two-hour lecture on climatology last week at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. While discussing historical climate, Wilson documented several major procedural and substantive flaws in Mann’s hockey stick. Taking care to reassure people he is not part of the “skeptic” camp, Wilson nevertheless emphasized the importance of sound, unbiased science. Wilson concluded Mann’s hockey stick was “ultimately a flawed study.”

The thin-skinned and vitriolic Mann quickly took to his Twitter account to lash out at Wilson. When a Twitter follower asked Mann if he was really calling such a respected paleoclimate expert a “denier,” Mann replied, “Not for criticizing my work, but for apparently regurgitating #denialist drivel by the likes of McIntyre etc.” ....To Read More....
 
My Take - So....what's really happening here?  It would appear the 'warmists' are becoming cannibals.  In nature this happens when food is in short supply.  In academia it happens when funds and acclaim are in short supply, and with all the facts coming out....it's going to get worse. 

This was totally predictable, since it was obvious to a great many that 'scientists' who jumped on the Anthropogenic Climate Change band wagon to attain grant money, and the acclaim of their peers, were going to have this come back to haunt them.  Now they're attempting to cover their behinds and guess who is going to get the blame?  The guy they all patted on the back; the guy they all praised; the guy who's coat tails they all clung to in order to be ....."one of the boys"!   And I predicted it....along with a whole bunch of others.   It's easy to be right when you know what's wrong.  It may take a while to develop the intellectual argument to prove you're right, but it always comes in the end. 
 
Everything has an historical foundation and context and everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.  If what is presented fails in either category....it's wrong.  Once you 'know' it's wrong then you can focus on why.  AGW was historically a failure.  Everything else then fell into place. 
 
Did I ever tell you about Col. John Boyd?  If not; let me do so now!
 
Boyd was a bona fide military genius with little patience with incompetent higher ups….and said so….and would have never made colonel if Reagan hadn’t been president.  Needless to say he was not one of the boys, but he had more impact on future generals than anyone in modern times.   Boyd "inspired people to challenge assumptions, to think things through and to fight like hell those who get in your way." "He was a creative genius ... who inspired a generation."

“Col. John Boyd, his biographer Robert Coram reports in his well-written book, had a speech he often gave to those who, like the fighter pilot himself, found that doing right did not always mean doing well. Known as the "To Be or To Do" speech, Boyd used it to rally flagging spirits of apprentices who, until they became involved as one of his Acolytes, had appeared fated to climb the highest rungs of conventional success. The tenets of this speech reflected both his spirit and values:
 
"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd] raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments."

Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference." He paused and stared.

"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

Academia has failed to stand up to the crowd, failed to challenge that which obviously needed challenged, and failed their friends, failed their professions, failed the very standards they put into place to prevent fraud and bad science...and they failed themselves. Scientific integrity has become an oxymoron for wont of courage and that wont of courage is due to a wont of personal integrity. They chose to "be", not to "do".
 

No comments: