I know it's a bit late to be on the Assassin's Creed hatewagon, and that's not really my
intent here — it is, though, one of the better
bad examples.
Here is why I think it matters: 1) Actively subverting FOIA
intent 2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty
bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message 3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author 4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern) 5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting «the cause» — Mann especially All the above subverts the official messages of «overwhelming consencus» and «science is settled», world's best scientists just doing their science, and that it would be «absurd» to see a conspiracy.