Michael Mann and his buds are extensively quoted on all the climate change articles thanks to his friend William Connolley, but what do his fellow scholars in the field of paleoclimatology think of him?
After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as
described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley’s
follow-up talk on how everybody but him has fucked up in
reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is
a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of
papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come
up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the
“Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are
The Greatest Uncertainties?”
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D’Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones
(??), Mann (infinite?) – I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too
personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is
probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley
hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they
can contribute without just defending their past work – this is the
key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table
and don’t start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than
Ah, so the two biggest names in Climategate, including “the Mann” of wikipedia are too personally invested to be honest?
Don’t worry, it gets even better with this snippet:
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).
The science is settled? I guess the part about them knowing “fuck-all” is settled.
And isn’t it odd how this scientist, a real scientist, doesn’t have an article on wikipedia, but our own “retired” William Connolley gets his own vanity article?
I’m sure the good folks at wikipedia will be able to “hide the decline” of Mann’s reputation a bit longer.