CLIMATEGATE BOOK - Exposing the Global Warming Scam

Hockey Stick creator can’t even take Twitter criticism

Michael Mann is the creator of Al Gore’s famous hockey stick graph. You know, the temperature graph charting the past couple thousand years, making it appear is if the past few decades are about to take off like a rocket ship?  I wrote about it in Climategate, and briefly touch on it in my new book Eco-Tyranny. As a bonus, I’ve included a portion of my chapter from Climategate farther below on this post.

Anyway, Mann’s hockey stick has been busted dozens of times by excellent researchers; his phony graph was at the heart of the Climategate email scandal at East Anglia University in the U.K.

Now, in order to regain his tarnished credibility, Mann has placed himself into the general marketplace with a book, The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars.

I was a follower of Mann’s on Twitter, until he blocked me today.  I guess he couldn’t take my criticism of his work.  This proves to me he does not have the courage to poke his head out from the ivory towers of academia.  When you release a book for consumption by the general public–especially on a topic like the environment–you should expect the heat of public opinion.

I can take the heat, because I am confident in my positions. Obviously Dr. Mann is not.

Here’s a complete recap of my twitter-tatter aimed at Michael Mann:

Not surprised at how poorly @michaelemann ’s book is doing on Amazon. It’s hard to play hockey with a broken stick.

I guess @michaelemann figured a book might repair his tarnished image.

@michaelemann yes you’re an honest scientist; an honest leftist scientist who’s willing 2 bastardize the scientific method 2 push an agenda

@michaelemann admit it sir, you love using the environment as a tool to hammer capitalism.

@michaelemann admit it, sir. You see the environment as the world’s best shot at instituting redistribution of of wealth.

@michaelemann admit it, sir. You and your cast of activist Ph.D.’s slaughtered the record of Dr. Hubert Lamb at East Anglia. Shame on you.

@michaelemann ’s reputation is only good in the sphere of left-leaning academia. In the real world, he’s a green charlatan.

At this point, I noticed that Mann blocked me as a follower! So, I continued so others could watch:

Well, another coward has blocked me as a follower: @michaelemann . Can’t handle criticism, Mr. Mann? I’ve been very civil.

@michaelemann this is the problem: guys like you refuse critique. That’s now how science works, sir.

@michaelemann you need to win your arguments in the arena of ideas. Let’s debate.You’ve got the Ph.D. I’m just a lowly soul who writes books

Thin skin, a broken hockey stick, but a big block of me on twitter. @michaelemann : Whattaguy.

Here’s my point: the left does not want to debate global warming, climate change, or any of the environmental issues at large; and the latter is really the focus of my new book. Out of the 14 chapters, only one discusses global warming–because I’ve already done that in my first book, Climategate. In Eco-Tyranny, I trace the history of the eco-movement, expose it’s radical roots, and illustrate how its branches are reaching into every facet of American life, and then I explain how we can cut the whole damned thing down to save this country.

I’ll debate anyone, anywhere. I’m not an attorney, not a Ph.D., just a journalist–turned meteorologist–turned investigative author, who respects the facts. Period.

As  bonus, here’s a portion of Chapter 2 from Climategate (this is taken from my personal files, prior to seeing the eyes of a proof-reader, so it may be a word or two different in the book):


According to the National Academy of Science:

The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science.  Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors.  Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position[1]

The initial chief skeptics of Mann’s work were Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.  McIntyre entered the fray as a curious mathematician; McKitrick as an equally interested associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario.  Curious to see how the hockey stick graph had been created, in the spring of 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick contacted Mann, requesting his raw data.  Such requests are quite common in the world of scientific research and clearly are welcomed by adherents to the guidelines procured by the National Academy of Science.  Mann obliged.

As soon as McIntyre and McKitrick began reassembling Mann’s data, they noticed a variety of sloppy errors, including mislabled and obsolete data and unexplained truncations (invloving numbers with decimal points).  When these errors were corrected and run through the computer, amazingly the sizzling blade of the hockey stick  dissapeared.  A report noting their astounding results was published that October.[2]
Nature was informed of the now published glaring errors, and, after their own investigation, ordered a list of corrections from Mann, which were not supplied until years later.[3] Attempting further to uncover Mann’s methodology, McIntyre and McKitrick requested Mann’s computer codes.  Mann refused the request.  Acting on an earlier suggestion from Mann that the University of Massachusetts’ computer archives housed his orignal data, they went through the archives for a month, only to discover that they had been led on a wild goose chase—the data they were originally working with was the same information found in the archives.  Mann seemed to have purposely provided a bad lead.  However, as is often the case in investigative work, the relentless McIntyre and McKitrick got lucky and stumbled upon some buried computer codes in the archives that turned out to be the very ones Mann had used to create his original analysis.

After correcting the striking errors in the data, and using Mann’s own data-mining algorithm, the hockey stick model was broken—there was no longer a spike on the right side of the graph, and the centuries of past warming and cooling became evident.  When the bad data was re-added, the wild, misleading hockey stick again appeared.

The lobotmizing hockey stick had been snapped like a cheap pencil.

McIntyre and McKitrick contacted Nature with their extensive results, requesting the opportunity to show the world their findings.  Despite the journal’s own admission that bogus information had been presented by Mann in his original paper, after an 8-month reviewing process, Nature refused to publish the damaging report.  The reason, according to Dr. McKitrick, was that “[t]hey concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give us, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers.”[4]

The frauds working at CRU have been so hacked-off at McIntyre and McKitrick that in one October 2009 email to Phil Jones excuses are made for withholding data:

the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.

Numerous others have debunked Mann’s hockey stick model, yet the Stick continues to be touted by global warming advocates as the gospel.  Check your kid’s science textbooks, it’s sure to be there as well—underscoring the fantasy that this is the hottest weather ever, because the inconvenient facts are being left out.

[1] “On Being a Scientist:  Responsible Conduct in Research,” National Academy of Science, 1995

[2] McIntyre and McKitrick, “Corrections to the Mann, et al., Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series, Environment and Energy 14 (6), pp. 751-771, 1998.

[3] Mann, Bradley, and Hughs, 2004, Corrigendum, Nature, July 1, 2004, p. 105.

[4] McKitrick, Ross , “What is the Hockey Stick Debate About,” APEC Study Group, Australia, April 4, 2005.

  • Share/Bookmark

2 Responses to “ “Hockey Stick creator can’t even take Twitter criticism”

  1. Jack Savage says:

    Love it! But, really, you cannot be toooo surprised at being blocked!

  2. Henry Bowman says:

    “admit it sir, you love using the environment as a tool to hammer capitalism.”

    “this is the problem: guys like you refuse critique.”

    “you need to win your arguments in the arena of ideas. Let’s debate.”

    I have no love for global warmists; but the Twitter feed exhibited resembles debate insofar as “debate” is practiced in the third grade or by the more vitriolic and mindless progressive meat puppets (e.g., the kind of folks who think that screaming “denier,” “birther,” or “racist” immediately wins all arguments). What I see here is a spate of name-calling and insults. This isn’t debate or critique, and is criticism only in a lexicological sense. I would have blocked you myself.

Leave a Reply

© 2014 Climategate Book   |   Brian Sussman | Eco-Tyranny Book


WordPress Web Design Portland