Hockey Stick Data Tampering Investigation Concludes

The Inspector General of the National Science foundation has completed an investigation into falsifying research data, concealing or deleting emails or other data, misusing privileged information, and seriously deviating form accepted practices in relation to climate change research by climate scientist Michael Mann. This investigation, just completed, confirms what has been determined by other previous investigations:

An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials has unanimously "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities."
His work "clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field.... Dr. Mann's work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding."

This is the latest in a series of severe blows to the Anthropogenic Climate Change denialists such as Anthony Watts and others, though it probably won't have an immediate effect on their use of questionable tactics or their profusion of beliefs that are just too bizarre to believe that they actually hold. (Clearly, the anti AGW climate change lobby is just that ... a political lobby, bought and paid for by industrial interests and supported by people in the right wing and Tea Party who, very disturbingly, believe that our environment, our planet Earth, is something to be toyed with for political gain.

The details of this report are described here, where climate progress has broken the story. Also, has this: National Science Foundation vindicates Michael Mann and NSF IG report on Michael Mann investigation: "No research misconduct. Case closed." Don't bother telling Rick Perry over at Climate Science Watch.

The Policy Lass has this: Mann Vindicated -- AGAIN!. Also, Tangled Up in Blue Guy has "Hiding the Decline." Lousy Canuck presents: Mann vindicated yet again; no tampering with hockey stick graph. See also "Hockey Stick Conspiracy Expands!!!"

You can download a PDF of the report here.

Here's a video that goes over the "hide the decline" scam perpetuated by global warming denialists.

More like this

This obviously means the investigators are in on the conspiracy and their conclusions can't be trusted...

Also, in b4 someone whines about being called a denier.

They will latch on to the comments about questions concerning the statistical analysis. Since people always debate statistics that isn't really a major deal, but they'll jump on it like tea baggers on the President.

Welcome, but hardly even a small nail in the coffin of denialism. Too many folks & congress critters with a financial stake in the denial.

The NSF and NAS have to take the same kind of stand the Royal Society took with Exxon. - When someone walks into the office and does the whole song and dance and "it's unfair" whine, you polish your glasses, snort loudly, and enunciate slowly and clearly as to a 4 year old, "Ignorance isn't an opinion. Now if you have nothing else to say, go out and play."

By Bob Calder (not verified) on 22 Aug 2011 #permalink

Yes, Juice. It has.

Clue: if they misquote the email to say "Mike's trick to hide the decline", go back to the original and read it again. Because it doesn't say that. Sure, all the individual words are there, but there are a bunch of words in between. They're important too.

Obviously nothing ever happened and any atempt to say otherwise on most "scienceblogs" will be cenored with aded obscenities. You wouldn't expect anything different from ecofascists making money on this scam would you?

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 23 Aug 2011 #permalink


Right the quote is: "Iâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline."

Nothing fishy about hiding anything here. Non-story. Overzealous staffer.

Yes. It's very specific wording, in fact.

The "trick" is using real temperatures available by scientific instruments instead of the non-existent proxy data between 1981 and "present" (2001). That way the graph can be extended beyond where the proxies measured.

The "decline" they're hiding is in Keith's series. Which one is Keith's series? It's the one that measures temperatures from high-altitude dendrochronology -- trees at high altitudes started diverging from all the other temperature proxies (and most notably started diverging from REAL TEMPERATURE) around 1961.

To "hide the decline", they dropped the one outlier which stopped matching real temperature at the point where it stopped matching, because there was probably something special at play in the higher altitudes that they couldn't compensate for. That proxy became unusable at that point for some unknown reason. Could be all the CO2 up there.

So the "trick" was putting real temperature data at the end where they no longer had proxy data. The real temperature data overlaps the proxy data a good way before that, so we know it's real. The hockey stick is therefore real.

And you have to depend on misunderstanding a *lot* of words to lie. Of course, your lies are much shorter than my truth. So your lies will spread much quicker.

I strongly recommend you watch that video I linked, Juice. You'll especially like it how at about 14:00 Richard Muller testifies before congress (this is *after* the video you linked us, by the way!) that the team he put together to investigate temperature data actually basically proved AGW. You'll also notice that Anthony Watts did *not* follow through with his promise to follow Muller's team's data even if it falsified his belief that AGW is not happening.

A correction - Keith's series, which stopped matching real temperatures in 1961, used high-LATITUDE tree ring density to determine temperatures. So whatever caused Keith's proxy (out of the five listed!) to stop matching the other ones, it's probably not CO2 unless there's some mechanism by which it accumulates near the poles.

Mr. Swallow evidently does not read comment threads before posting debunked nonsense.

Mr. Swallow is evidently unaware that Richard Muller, after the talk linked by himself (maybe, because that's not where the link goes now), and by Juice, explained to Congress that the team of scientists performing the tests at his direction showed AGW probably correct and the hockey stick graph probably accurate.

It is possible that Mr. Swallow's links underwent some sort of transformation after his comments were first posted in order to keep those comments in line with this blog's policy of not being a link farm for anti-science activism.

Messr's Swallow and Craig should know better than to take on a conspiracy as large as the AGW on Scienceblogs. It's not safe. I am not my way to confiscate their cars and leave a couple of bicycles for them.

John, Swallow, how many times do you have to violate the clearly stated policy of this blog before I have to block you? For once could you please try to pay attention? There are other people in this world, you can't just make up your own rules that offend others and pretend that you did not notice. Are you twelve?

Studying worst case scenarios isn't a crime.
Studying the effects instead of the causes of a climate crisis that hasn't happened isn't a crime.
Being a lab coat consultant and calling yourself a saintly scientist isn't a crime.
Hyperbole isn't a crime?
Exploitation isn't a crime?
Being paid to have a conclusion isn't a crime?
Condemning billions of children to a CO2 demise just to get them to turn the lights out more often isnât a crime?
Climate Blame wasn't a lie or a hoax. It was thankfully, a tragic exaggeration.

By mememine69 (not verified) on 24 Aug 2011 #permalink

I love the Richard Muller story. Here's a guy who's putting his money where his mouth is. He's doing the science to try to disprove AGW. And what does he find? That the evidence really only leads to one conclusion.

Regardless of his motives, I'm glad he's doing this, and I hope he and his team keep at it. If anything can properly be called Climate Skepticism, this is it.

itzac: I thought the exact same thing. He made a hasty conclusion based on misinterpretation of the words in the memo, studied and bought into the same nonsense that the climate denialists peddled, made a good case for it. He then made a good case for putting together a study with methodology that he felt would convince him if it turned out to be true, and had the intellectual honesty to admit that he'd been convinced by the evidence his team's study turned out.

The darling of the climate denialists turned into the denialists' pariah overnight. And Juice and Swallow missed the internal memo that Muller wasn't on their side any more.

mememine69: that's very nice that you can put your denialism so lyrically. We're all very proud of you. Now, can you actually back any of your assertions (e.g. that there's no climate crisis, or that it's tragic exaggeration) with real facts? Data? Studies that agree with today's best science? ...Didn't think so.

Greg are you saying you don't ultimately get paid by the state If so you are the first scientist, worldwide, who supports catastrophic warming and isn't paid by them.

By comparison

"Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he'd be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun's role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century......And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby's path-breaking experiment -- seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal-- was put on ice."…

Clearly not a mistake any of the "sciencebloggers" would make but then he works at CERN and may not understand the complexities of the "post normal scientific method" as practiced by "climate scientists".

Greg, some intropsection might be useful for you before you condemn others for "questionable tactic" BTW, had you checked, you'd see that was in a guest post by Joe D'Aleo, his words, not mine. But Romm of course never allows linkbacks for anyone to find that out on their own.

For Greg's readers concerned about "questionable tactics" I offer Greg's own words of tolerance from his "about" page here:

I think D'Aleo's words are pretty mild compared to the policy that Greg has published.

Greg Laden writes:

I have two response to this, and you are now on notice. Take heed:

1) The "private" data I collect from you... your IP address, etc. is no longer private. I never promised you that it was private, but I prefer to keep such things private. But now, starting today, your email address, any private communications you send to me, all of it, is mine to use as I wish, if you do not start to behave. You can avoid this situation by behaving or going away quietly.

2) I urge you to click on this link and start your own blog.
Your Stupid State

Sometimes I'm hard on an entire state. Like Texas. Or, recently, West Virginia.

It's funny when the slack jawed yokels who live in these god-forsaken shitholes get annoyed at that.

But seriously folks. I'm hard on your state for a reason. I do it for your own good. A state is a democracy. If you have medical care that is second only to a despotic third world war torn failed state, that is because it is what you vote for, what you strive for. If you have a state with a system of education that produces high school graduates who couldn't pass the entry exam to Romper Room and have no chance of going to a good college unless they happen to be one of the athletes you raise up and systematically traffic, then you got that way because that is what you vote for, what you strive for.

While you were busy clinging to your guns and your gods and that watery piss you call beer, other states were getting their acts together to have positive growth, clean and stable industry, a clean environment, excellent education, proper infrastructure, humane health care, etc. You know this new health care bill? Actually, a big part of the change that will happen is pulling your stupid-ass nuts out of the fire, because those of us who live in the progressive states fixed half those problems you are living with a long time ago. Yet you are the states that seem to be sending more than your share of testicle dangling tea-baggers to DC to complain about the very progress that is going to keep your 11 fingered offspring from the misery that your created environment imposes on them.

Anthony, I find it interesting that you assume that you deserve some sort of tolerance. You don't. You are a scoundrel, a cheat, a liar, and you are responsible for considerable damage. I wonder how you sleep at night.

I do not tolerate you.

"...., if you do not start to behave. You can avoid this situation by behaving or going away quietly." He forgot to call you a "little boy". What a bully!

It appears my post answering Mr Laden's criticism by asking if he is really claiming to be the sole scientist, worldwide, to support the warming fraud and not be ultimately feeding out of the government trough, has gone missing.

How could that possibly have happened??

N.Craig, what are you talking about? 1) I do not work for the government and 2) I'm pretty sure you comment was not moderated even for a minute. Also, I'm you're not making your point very clearly. Please give it another go.

Michael Mann, leading climatologist and designer of the Hockey Stick graph, is under fire for allegedly misrepresenting data, deleting pertinent correspondence, or otherwise contradicting traditional procedures prevalent in his field. While he has been cleared of all alleged wrongdoing, this article, nevertheless, highlights the fact that global warming and other climate fluctuations are widely disagreed upon.

The Hockey Stick graph was a tool which, as stated by the UCS, âreflected average Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the past several centuries and was the first comprehensive study combining data from many different archives of temperature including tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs.â By designing such a graph, the climatologists who corroborated with Michael Mann hoped to reenact climate fluctuations as they have occurred throughout the development of the Northern Hemisphere and thereby prove that temperatures have been rising sharply during the last several centuries as opposed to prior temperature increases.
The Hockey Stick graph, so named for its resemblance to a hockey stick, was thought to be a fraudulent climate resource due to unverified information and proven scientific facts that had been ignored by the graph. For example, according to World Climate Report, the shape of the hockey stick graph ignored âthe Little Ice Age - a well-documented cold period lasting from about the 16th to the 19th century â as well as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)âa relatively warmer period extending from about 11th to the 13th century.â Since Mannâs graph lacked such fundamental scientific occurrences, attempts to discredit his graph were launched. It was during this time amidst a storm of scientific debate, according to Icecap, âthat U.K. e-mails (containing sensitive data regarding details of the Hockey Stick graph and the research behind it) were stolen and surfaced on blogs in 2009 which only proved researchers conspired to suppress studies and falsify information questioning the link between warming and human activity.â

Yet, countless investigations led by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation and other reputable professionals, found no offences had been committed and thus, Michael Mann was cleared of all allegations. However, as may be inferred from, the fact that Mann was found guilty actually proves nothing as the âorganizations who investigated him bore some responsibility in approving, funding, overseeing or hosting the research involved; thus, by clearing the researchers of any misconduct they were simply finding themselves innocent,â perhaps at the cost of verifiable science.

Works Cited:

Union of Concerned Scientists. Global Warming: Past, Present, and Future Temperatures: the Hockeystick FAQ. UCS, 2010. Web. 25 August 2011. <>

World Climate Report. Hockey Stick 1998-2005 R.I.P.. WordPress, 2011. Web. 25 August 2011. <>

Bloomberg. ICECAP. Climate Change Scientist Cleared in Closing of U.S. Data-Altering Inquiry. ICECAP, 22 August 2011. Web. 25 August 2011. <>

As you wish Greg.

What I actually asked was "Greg are you saying you don't ultimately get paid by the state"

You answered that you are not a formal government employee which is very much not the same thing, since it doesn't answer the "ultimately" point. The boss of the IPCC is not formally a government civil servant but his income comes from the taxpayer.

So perhaps you could give details of where your income comes from. As I said it has been impossible for alarmists, worldwide, to name any scientist supporting alarmism who is not ultimately paid by the state and it is a statistical impossibility for that to be a coincidence. Perhaps you will turn out to be the sole exception but you haen't so far.

Neil, I do not get paid by the sate.

So perhaps you could give details of where your income comes from.

Well, it doesn't come from he state. Not one dime of it.

Perhaps you should think about how you sound when you ask questions like that.

Hey, Neil, how about you go first. Got some tax filings Greg can post here to show who pays you? No? Then maybe you want to stick with the evidence instead of suggesting anyone who disagrees with you publicly needs to pony up their information.

Neil, are you actually saying that someone who "gets paid by the state" (directly or indirectly) is LESS credible than someone who gets paid by private corporations run by unelected officials who do everything they can to avoid accountability to the public?

What about the military, Neil? They're all paid by "the state." Directly. What does that say about their integrity?

Both my parents were "paid by the state" for their entire careers; and they're among the most intelligent, honest, and PATRIOTIC people I've ever known. They CHOSE that career track out of patriotism, even though they could have made more money working for an oil or tobacco company. Why is that suddenly a bad thing? They certainly have more integrity in their armpit hairs than you'll ever accumulate in your whole worthless life, you hateful sack of shit.

Oh, and speaking of the military, asshole, just remember that they ACCEPT the AGW hypothesis, and are incorporating global warming projections -- and their political consequences -- into their planning.

Neil, if you want to impeach the credibility of everyone who gets "paid by the state," just remember that includes cops, firefighters, the armed services and national guards, FEMA, the people who build the roads you need to drive on, the social workers you'll probably be begging to give you food stamps when your ignorance catches up to you, and that series of tubes you use -- prepaid -- to broadcast your stupid babyish hatred of people who get paid by the state.

You're nothing but a stupid, selfish, despicable, bigoted hypocrite.

Greg you should think how you sound when you claim to be the only scientist, anywhere in the world, supporting alarmism who isn't paid by the state and then refuse to say how you are paid.

You are clearly not even convincing your own supporters whose responeses are that just because alarmists are all paid by the same people doesn't suggest anything.

Stephanie if you had bothered to check you would have found that I make no secret of the fact that I run a science fiction bookshop.

Bee when you have placed your body in harms way in Afghanistan you will have earned the right to be contemptuous of soldiers. I have elsewhere objected strenuously to most recent western wars but that does not mean I do not respect the ordinary soldiers. My repect for social workers is more limited and you should remember that it is not they, but productive workers, who pay for food stamps.

Greg you should think how you sound when you claim to be the only scientist, anywhere in the world, supporting alarmism who isn't paid by the state and then refuse to say how you are paid.

You've asked me if I'm paid by the state. I said no. What more do you want? Who do you think is paying me?

Stephanie if you had bothered to check you would have found that I make no secret of the fact that I run a science fiction bookshop.

I didn't know that. You know that stuff is made up, right?

Bee when you have placed your body in harms way in Afghanistan you will have earned the right to be contemptuous of soldiers.

Excuse me, asshole, but YOU are the one showing contempt for people who get "paid by the state." That includes soldiers. And your lame attempt to turn the accusation back on me only proves you know you've been proven wrong, and don't have the guts to admit it.

Like I said before: You're nothing but a stupid, selfish, despicable, bigoted hypocrite. And you're complaining about how Greg sounds?

Neil, I went over to your blog and answered your question. Do I get a prize?

No you didn't. You repeated your assertion that you you are the sole alarmist scientist worldwide not paid by the state but you still refused to say who you are paid by.

Statistically extraordinary assertions require evidence.

Neil, if a soldier made a factual claim, would you reject it because he's "paid by the state?"

If hatred of public employees, merely because they're "paid by the state," is all you have, then you have nothing. You have no clue who you're insulting, so you certainly have no credibility on something really complicated, like science.

Neil, if you can't refute a single one of Greg's arguments, or any of the arguments he cites, then the source of his money is irrelevant. He's right, you're wrong, and spitting "paid by the state" like we're all supposed to be embarrassed about that doesn't change a thing. I'm paid by the state too, and I have no reason to be ashamed of it -- at least I'm not a stupid hater like you who can't face reality.

I believe all the arguments for CAGW have been endlessly refuted.

I have repeatedly asked these 7 questionms, each one of which would be easily answered supportively if it were true and nobiody has been able to give a responsive response that that was truthful and supportive. If anybody thinks they can do so feel free.

1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?
When Greg commented on my own blog I suggested he put on his blog the evidence that warming is (A) serious compared to the historic record & (B) damaging and I will comment if he tries to make this case.

Greg, you still haven't explained why being paid by the state is bad, or how it makes otherwise valid science invalid. If private interests can disprove the science of AGW, they can do it without crying about who's paid by whom. Where, exactly, is the peer-reviewed non-government-funded work disproving AGW? Citations, please, otherwise your "case" is based on nothing but mindless hatred of all things gummint.

Neil, did you not hear our radiobroadast in which I asked climate experts to address every one of those questions?

I actually brought your list to the studio with me. We addressed them all fully.

Greg, you still haven't explained why being paid by the state is bad, or how it makes otherwise valid science invalid.

I think you meant Neil.

Those questions Neil posted were also posted on Bad Astronomy (by Neil?? or someone copy-pasting?). I know I answered the first question re: Jones. That question is like asking do you accept that spring follows winter, and pretending like there is some conspiracy to hide that fact.

You'd think just reading the original interview would be enough to show a person how misguided this question is. In case it wasn't (or in case Neil or whoever wasn't particularly bright) I also linked to an explanation or two as to why the question is misleading. And then in case I was dealing with someone who had problems with reading comprehension I linked to a video that explained why it was misleading.

I also briefly tackled a couple of other questions too, but pointed out the answers to these questions are very easy to find, and that the only way you can keep repeating the questions is by refusing to read anything that refutes the original friggin' BBC interview with Jones. All this time and I'm still gobsmacked by the dishonesty (or willful ignorance--which can't be distinguished from door-knob stupidity) inherent in those questions.

Neil...go and read the original BBC interview, and stop claiming no-one can answer those questions. Jones already answered the first question in the interview and you'd know that if you were honest and/or if you'd actual read the interview (I suppose if you are completely ignorant of even the basics of stats, you'd also might have difficulty, but if you're that ignorant of something so basic, you certainly can't be trusted on more complicated matters).

By Daniel J. Andrews (not verified) on 10 Sep 2011 #permalink

I'm afraid I didn't hear the radiobroadcast. Presumably if this was done it will be easy for you to repeat the answers given here ir just repast the text & show how it holds up.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 11 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil has been asking the same bunch of inane questions all over the place and getting essentially the same answers that he refuses to accept.

I'll just comment on the first two (not that it will penetrate).

Jones was wrong when he first made his comment (if P<0.10 but he assumed P<0.05) and it is even more wrong now (P<0.05).

There is no evidence that crop yields have increased by 10% due to increasing CO2. The question is nonsensical.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 11 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil, what's your excuse for not answering my question above, which was: Where, exactly, is the peer-reviewed non-government-funded work disproving AGW? You don't have an answer, do you? I guess that means the argument is over.

Incidentally, if you hate people who are "paid by the state" so much, why don't you pack your shit and move to a place where there's no state -- like maybe Somalia? Write when you get work, and tell us how free and happy and prosperous they are without no stinkin' big gummint. If you don't want to move to Somalia, that's probably because you're too used to the benefits of big gummint, all of which is made available through the work of people who are paid by the state. You're welcome.

"The Science of Global Warming." Science V Denialism on Atheists Talk #126, July
Kevin Zelnio and John Abraham Discuss Climate Change

The National Oceanagraphic and Atmospheric Administration has released new temperature norms based on 30 year historical data. These are the "normals" that meteorologists compare the days' weather to the mean for any particular day. The temperature norms are higher than they were ten years ago, and ten years ago the norms were higher than those of the prior decade. Denialism has to be very strong in a person in order to pretend that the global climate is not getting warmer. The data accumulate in the air and in the sea, and on land and indicate with very little uncertainty that human activity is the leading cause of global warming. This is the scientific consensus. The seas are showing the effects of warmer water, as the level of carbonic acids absorbed into the water are having a dangerous effect on the biosphere under the waves. Reefs are bleaching.

At a time when solutions need to be discussed in the public, scientists are facing an increasingly shrill level of "debate" and denial from those who claim that they are alarmists who are crying fire in a crowded theater when there is no need to worry. Denialists claim the atmosphere is too big and chaotic for us mere humans to have an effect.

Those of us who are familiar with creationism's means and methods recognize the tactical similarities between creationism and global warming denialism. Our guests for this show are Dr. John Abraham and Kevin Zelnio.

John Abraham is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering (Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics) at St. Thomas University in St. Paul, He responded to a presentation made by Chrisopher Monckton at Bethel University. Monckton is a leading denialist who has many convinced that scientists are lying about global warming, but Abraham showed how this charge is false.

Kevin Zelnio is a science journalist and blogger at Scientific American Blogs and at Deep Sea News. He has written on the effects of the change in climate on the ocean (and our fisheries,) in addition to far-ranging subjects involving sea invertebrates . Greg Laden and Mike Haubrich will co-host today's show."

Clearly the proframme was not about my questions. If there was a 15 second soundbite making some slight reference I would spend enough time to look at a transcript of that part.

PS Greg I regret to say I find you were one of those, albeit the least thorough, to engage in what you correctly refer to as the tyranny of censorship.…

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

So you violated blog posting policies and you cry oppression? Watching you get a speeding ticket much be fun.

By Drivebyposter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil, we covered all or most of your questions during the interview.

Driveby perhaps you could say what part of "blog posting policies" I violated, bearing in mind the obscenities which have been used against me and apparently do not violate such policies. If your comment was honest you certainly must be able to do so.

Perhaps it is the old proverb "a man intent on telling the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup".

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil, where are those peer-reviewed non-gvernment-funded papers disproving AGW? Stop trying to change the subject; you're not fooling anyone here, you stupid bigoted crybaby.

Bee if you are saying McIntyre's dissection of Mann's Hockey stick doesn't count because Nature repeatedly refused to publish it, even though he was right, then your definition of "science" is quite opposite to the traditional one.

You must claim that the Pope was right and Galileo wrong about the Earth moving round the Sun because Galileo had not been published in a peer reviewed journal at the time.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

Driveby perhaps you could say what part of "blog posting policies" I violated, bearing in mind the obscenities which have been used against me and apparently do not violate such policies. If your comment was honest you certainly must be able to do so.

You typed it. You know what was in the message better than I do since it was apparently deleted and censored and you're being crushed under Greg's jackboot. Greg might be able tell you what caused your comment to be deleted, if you asked him nicely.

You must claim that the Pope was right and Galileo wrong about the Earth moving round the Sun because Galileo had not been published in a peer reviewed journal at the time.

Hilarious. Two things, peer-reviewed journals weren't really....a thing in Galileo's time.
This leads to the second part. If Bee disbelieved Galileo because he didn't publish in a peer reviewed journal, why would he believe the Pope...who also never published in a peer reviewed journal?

You either didn't notice the problems with the things I quoted or you didn't care. Either way it doesn't look too good.

By Drivebyposter (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

If Drivelposter is in any way whatsoever honest he must have some factual basis to his claim that I violated posting policies (something which, slightly to Greg's credit, he has not claimed.

In fact, of course, Drivelposter has now acknowledged he hasn't. This is why every honerst poster here acknowledges that he is simply a wholly corrupt, fascist liar. Let me be the first such honest poster here and probably the last.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

If Neil is in any way whatsoever honest he must have some factual basis to his claim that being "paid by the state" is, in itself, a strike against one's credibility. Where's that factual basis? There isn't any. Neil can't even see "honest" on the horizon from where he sits.

You want my evidence for you violating policy here?


From this.…

I was pretty sure you were aware of this already. But apparently not. I hope this clears it up for you, likely won't.

Also you ignored the rest of my post. Please, address that along with this post. It would be nice if you actually tried to hold a full conversation instead of responding (chlidishly) to one part of a larger comment that covered more than one topic.

By Drivebyposter (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Brivelposter thanks for pointing out that second instance of Greg censoring. I guess i must withdraw my previous expression that while he engages in what he describes as the "tyranny"£ of censorship he is more enlightenened than the other "sciencebogs" that depend on censorship.

Nonetheless "If Drivelposter is in any way whatsoever honest he must have some factual basis to his claim that I violated posting policies" and saying Greg said it on one of these occasions is not the same as saying exactly what thwe basis of that censorship was, on either occasion. If Drivelposter is honest he must know what the alleged violations were, in both cases yet cannot say.

Having disposed of the children:

I do know what the post you censored for "violating policy" was. It was the 7 simple questions which every alarmist clearly know must be supportively answerable if alarmism is not bith wrong and a deliberate fraud. Obviously not one of them can. So your "policy" is to censor even the simplest scientific questioning that might discredit your claims. Then you clainm to have gone on the radio to ask those same questions - well to ask some of them - and have a full discussion - well a few seconds answering nothing.

So if you aren't lying questions too outrageous to even by mentioned by anybody on here are so easily answered that you you are happy to ask them on radio! Right.

What sort of "scientist" could mangae that leap of illogic.

According to yourself a real scientist with expertise in the science of global warming who makes not one cent from the government. But still refuses to say who pats him.

I have asked and ask you again to answer that Greg.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 16 Sep 2011 #permalink

Okay, Neil is now focusing as narrowly as possible on the side-issue of "censorship;" which probably means he'll never actually come up with any peer-reviewed work debunking AGW; nor will he ever show us exactly why being "paid by the state" is bad. He's lost the argument (again), and he doesn't have the balls to admit it because his only purpose here is to hog attention by pretending there's still a "controversy."

(Incidentally, Neil, there's people on the denialist side who are also "paid by the state." Like the entire Republican Party, and the government of Saudi Arabia.)

I must be clear to the meanest honest intelligence that when ALL supporters of a particular position are paid from the same source and NOBODY paid by a different source agrees this is not only deeply suspicious but statistically impossible.

But Bee, being if not quite up to the meanest intelligence but still in some way honest must be on record as having disputed the claims of anti-smokers that reports funded by the tobbacco industry should carry less weight than those independently funded. I would be interested to se the links he, being something other than totally dishonest, can provide to him doing so.

Talking of which Greg you have yet to say, as a declared prominent climate scientist and the only one anywhere in the world who receives not one cent from government, who funds you.

I must be clear to the meanest honest intelligence that when ALL supporters of a particular position are paid from the same source and NOBODY paid by a different source agrees this is not only deeply suspicious but statistically impossible.

What are you talking about?

Talking of which Greg you have yet to say, as a declared prominent climate scientist and the only one anywhere in the world who receives not one cent from government, who funds you

Does this mean that you have finally accepted that I am not funded by the government? Good, now you can stop asking me personal questions.

Greg I was answering #72. If you read that the light should dawn.

No it does not. It means I have noted your claim to be a proper climate scientist who receives not a single cent from the government. I am forced to accept it as representing the standard of honesty to which you aspire. I also note that you have repeatedly refused to support the claim factually, which should be easy to do.

Neil, how exactly do you propose that I support the claim factually? And, in asking this question I am not changing my mind about the fact that you have absolutely no right to insist that I provide with documentatoin of anything.

In the mean time, since you have repeatedly called me a liar, you need to provide evidence that I am in fact lying, right away. Also, I need you to provide evidence that you are not somehow connected with an energy concern or political organization that is against climate science or pro fossil fuel use in some way. At this point, I can only assume that you are being paid off by someone. Who is it?

Greg, you are not the first person to ask for facts and proof from Neil. Since he has never supplied them to anyone else, I strongly suggest you do not hold your breath or stand on one foot while you wait for him to supply them to you.

I've started adding links back to his crazytalk blog sites for those who wish to know more. He certainly does have a political agenda and has actually run for office on a nuclear-industry supporting platform. I'm thinking he's a paid crazy, not exactly a spokesperson. Too much of a loose cannon to allow there to be direct ties.

"I'm thinking he's a paid crazy, not exactly a spokesperson. Too much of a loose cannon to allow there to be direct ties."

You may have more experience than I do with this type of thing, but I disagree with the "paid crazy" part. I'd be surprised if there were anything resembling a direct link to big industry: as wide-ranging as the crap on his blog is, any business or business organization backing him would (I think) be risking too much to have its name associated with him in any way at all. I think he's just a free-lance spouter.

I was thinking more of a political party which, in turn, enjoys the support of various donors. He is an active politician, having run for office on an energy technology platform. Or so it seems. But yeah, there'd be a few degrees of separation between his sponsors and his keepers, and his keepers and him.

So "Comment deleted for violating posting policies" is not a good reason for me to think you violated posting policies and that is why your comment was deleted?

What fucking conclusion should I draw from "Comment deleted for violating posting policies" ?

Or do you plan to ignore this also and just accuse me of being a lying fascist?

By Drivebyposter (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

You didn't claim you were merely accepting Greg's word you claimed to know, personally for a fact, that I had said something deserving of censorship.

Clearly, if you are in the remotest degree honest, you will be able to say what was objectionable.

This would be particularly useful since Greg has elsewhere given as the only reason that he cenosred that its his blog so there and anyway that him censoring things isn't censorship.

This, inecxplicably, does not appear to be listed in his deletion policy section.

I think this is a great example of borderline personality disorder.

"You didn't claim you were merely accepting Greg's word you claimed to know, personally for a fact, that I had said something deserving of censorship."

No neil, he said this:

"So you violated blog posting policies and you cry oppression? "

and noted that your message was deleted for violating policy. From that he concluded that you violated policy. Why do you think you can lie over this too, when the proof is available for all to see. A four-year old wouldn't try something so brazen.

So Dean you said "you violated blog posting policies" inj which case, if representing something better than the very highest standard of honesty of the warming alarmist you must be able to popint to the specific violation. Greg hasw not been, or to be fair, may simply have chosen not to do so. All he has said is its my blog and i'll censor if I want to, because when I censor it isn't censoring, which is not something mentioned in policy.

By neil craig (not verified) on 20 Sep 2011 #permalink

neil: really, you're going to keep playing the "nu-uh i din't" game?

I'm not sure how to respond to this latest bit of dishonesty on your part: you had a post removed because you violated policy, as stated above. others, and I, made note of this fact. your "oh yeah, well what did i say?" is a stupid comment, since the post is gone.

the rest of #85 is simply pure bullshit on your part. you seem to have the intellect and emotional stability of a 3 year old. one more year, when you reach 4, maybe you'll stop this crap. (Unlikely, as I think you are unable to learn how to function in polite society.)

I must be clear to the meanest honest intelligence that when ALL supporters of a particular position are paid from the same source... are aware that there's more than one government funding these studies, are you not? Or am I giving you too much credit?

"Bullshit", "crap","when you reach 4" being the height of debate to you eh Dean.

Fairly clear who is "unable to learn how to function in polite society". Fortunately for you Greg's moderating policy clearly does not have the limitations polite society expects. He just censors reasonable scientific questions.

nc, when you learn that there is no such thing as an ecofascist, and that your limited education doesn't let you understand science, then you'll realize that "reasonable scientific questions" have never sprung from you.

He just censors reasonable scientific questions.

He hasn't censored my questions to you. Which means you can't use that as an excuse for your failure to answer them.

So, Neil, were your "reasonable scientific questions" "censored" before or after they were answered on the radio and you refused to listen?

Holy crap, Neil is a candidate with the UKIP, and apparently close to the racist, anti-immigrant BNP. And his platform includes "no more wind-farms," in addition to a lot of pro-Scot, anti-immigrant horseshit. He claims to be all in favor of technological innovation as a driver for growth, while mindlessly and hatefully opposing all innovation in the energy field except for nuclear power. (This despite recent reports that solar and wind power are gaining traction in the US despite huge subsidies of fossil-fuel interests.)

In fact, it occurs to me that Neil's blind endorsement of high-tech capitalism, hatred of all forms of regulation, mindless cherleading for nuclear power, and his hatred of all the alternatives, sounds a lot like Lyndon Larouche. Might there be a connection here?

Thanks for pointing this out, Greg. Like I already said, this guy is nothing but a vulgar reactionary bigot, and his own blog proves I was right in more ways than I had thought. And the fact that a political candidate in Scotland would spend so much time making an ass of himself on a US blog, really says a lot about his priorities. Wassamatter, Neil, can't get enough Scots to take you seriously? Or are you really an American trying to export his right-wing lunacy to people who might not be wise to the BS?

Holy crap indeed. I am not actually a UKIP canditate currently, not serioisly into horseshit (or solid biofuel as it is known in environmentalist circles.

These claims merely represent the highest standardof honesty to which the "environmental" movement ever aspires (at least they do if their author does not apologise or the rest of the movement do not call him a liar).

Nor do I oppose any other form of power production - the exact opposire is true, I merely oppose impractical methods.

As for being "in favor of technological innovation as a driver for growth" - if you know of a better one I look forward to hearing it. Otherwise it must be simply that you oppose technology because you oppose growth. That hthjis nonsense is common on "scienceblogs" shows how totally opposed to the principles of science most here are. Of course nobody, remotely honest, could, by definition calim to be a supporter of science, or use the name, when they are bo9itter irreconcilable opponents of it, but this merely represents the very highest standard of honesty to which such aspite.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 23 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil, your quote-mining misrepresentation of what I said only further proves your cellular-level dishonesty.

...I merely oppose impractical methods.

Guess what, asshole -- the methods you oppose are NOT impractical, and they're getting more practical every year. For an arrogant technocrat claiming to be progressive, you sure are behind the curve on the latest technology.

Oh, and you'd better not complain about other people mistaking your party identity, when you approvingly paste so much of that party's platform (anti-immigrant fearmongering and all) on your own web page. Lie down with dogs, wake up smelling like one an ocean away.

"NOT impractical, and they're getting more practical every year"

Make up your mind.

In fact, while accepting both claims as representing the pinnacle of honesty to which alarmists aspire both statements are clearly totally dishonest and could never be said by anybody who was not a wholly corrupt lying ecofascist parasitic asshole (I see Greg's comments policy no longer has any restriction on such language(.

If windmills qwere "practical" they would not need subsidy. They do so they aren't. Or are you now claiming they don't with equal honesty to your claim that CAGW isn't a fraud?

" That hthjis nonsense is common on "scienceblogs" shows how totally opposed to the principles of science most here are."

Neil, I think people are opposed to YOUR principles of science, which seem quite different to those of actual scientists. Starting with the principle that, when asked for evidence to support a claim, one provides that evidence, or points to a source.

The Neil Craig version involves continued claims to the contrary, personal attacks and various attempts to change the subject, mixed with cries of "CENSORSHIP!!"

People on the Internet have seen this behaviour before, and it's diagnostic of a particular type of right-wing crank. This kind of person can be very difficult to communicate with because they are convinced that their opinions carry the weight of fact, when the reality is that they're simply wrong, but lack the intellectual maturity to change their views.

If windmills qwere "practical" they would not need subsidy. They do so they aren't.

Funny thing, Neil, you don't say that about oil or nuclear power, both of which depend on all manner of government assistance. You don't say that about the Internet either.

So in addition to being a moron, a liar, and a bigot, you've also proven yourself a hypocrite. And there's no good reason to waste time arguing complicated grownup policy stuff with someone of your demonstrably low character. Go back to Scotland and work on pretending to be a politician.

Still censoring eh Greg.
You clearly know that the ecofascist alarmist case cannot survive without it.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

If Greg were a real fascists, you'd be finding out how well you could mine salt without your head.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

So now Neil is copypasting the exact same dishonest comment over multiple threads? What a joke. No wonder your silly-assed "9% Growth Party" isn't getting any traction in Scotland.

I forget exactly when I first ran across Neil Craig, but take it from someone who has known him on line for 4 or 5 years at least and is aware of his blog, his bookshop and a little of his backstory, it is extremely unlikely that he is getting paid. He's just a bit nuts and there are plenty such people running around online.

You would think they might pay him to stop, then. Maybe that's what he's going for!