Good news: Stephen G. McIntyre , whom I prefer to call “the Auditor” for obvious reasons, has started to “promote” (in a technical sense ) the concept of ClimateBall ™. Better yet, he distorts it by labeling an indefinite group of commenters with it; compare and contrast with what he did so many times to those gyrating in the extended circles of the Kyoto Flames . Yet again, the Auditor celebrates the spirit of ClimateBall ™.
Here’s one instance of distortion where AT (hereafter Anders) is implicated:
From time to time, Anders of the ATTP blog has attempted to understand the dispute, but uncritically accepts ClimateBaller doctrine, as for example, his following comment at Brandon’s:
People, however, clearly interpret the results of MM05 as implying that random red noise typically produces hockey sticks, rather than random red noise sometimes (probably quite rarely) produces hockey sticks.
This is completely untrue. MM05 did not imply that Mannian PCs “typically” produced hockeysticks: it stated it.
While his usage clearly excludes himself from being a ClimateBaller, “paying due diligence”  to this excerpt suffices to show that the Auditor channels the ghost of present ClimateBall ™.
Let’s commit some facts.
0th, the Auditor uses “from time to time” without substantiating this marker.
1st, the Auditor fumbles his link under “ATTP blog.”
2nd, the Auditor abbreviates the name  of a blog without mentioning it first.
3rd, the Auditor judges Anders’ attempt to understand as being “uncritical”.
4th, the Auditor calls “ClimateBaller doctrine” an unidentified set of beliefs.
5th, the Auditor quotes, as an example, a claim related to the Climate Wars .
6th, ClimateBall ™  is independent from any claim in these wars.
7th, this Auditor’s usage of “doctrine”  may look like a slur.
8th, the Auditor quotes Anders without citation to the correct editorial  at Brandon’s.
9th, Brandon uses that quote in at least two other editorials [9, 10].
10th, Tom Curtis has covered that episode on his blog .
11th, the Auditor calls a comment one sentence from Anders’ comment.
12th, the Auditor quoted the last sentence of a long paragraph.
13th, that paragraph reads:
As far as your criticism of MBH98 is concerned, I don’t dispute the issues. It may also be true the using the MBH98 data to produce the red noise is largely irrelevant. It does, however, seem odd – as a physicist – to see people claim to produce independent random red noise, but to do so using the data they’re trying to compare to. Maybe that illustrates my ignorance with respect to what actually happens here, but it still seems a little odd. What seems indisputable, though, is that the 10 hockey sticks presented in MM05 (one of the papers, you probably know which one) were not selected randomly from their sample of 10000. They were chosen to be most hockey-stick like. People, however, clearly interpret the results of MM05 as implying that random red noise typically produces hockey sticks, rather than random red noise sometimes (probably quite rarely) produces hockey sticks.
14th, this paragraph is a part of a long comment, with many more paragraphs.
15th, this comment is followed by other comments by Anders on that thread.
16th, the exchange between Brandon and Anders rejoices the ghost of ClimateBall ™ past.
17th, the sentence we emphasized contradicts the Auditor’s accusation of lack of criticality.
18th, Anders’ comment ends up with a plea that is not in the spirit of ClimateBall ™.
19th, the Auditor’s proposition “this is completely untrue” starts with the pronoun “this”
20th, this “this” could refer to the results of MM05b  or how people interpret them.
21st, the Auditor claims that “this” is untrue because “MM05” stated it.
22th, Brandon ridiculed  Anders for conflating MM05a  and MM05b; cf. above.
23th, there is one “typically” in MM05b, and it is unrelated to the purported statement.
24th, MM05b does not state that “Mannian PCs “typically” produced hockeysticks.”
25th, even if we could reconcile the Auditor’s misspecification with a paraphrase like “that’s what we said,” to say something does not always mean that we imply it .
26th, to be relevant in rebuttal, “that’s what we said” implies what was said in MM05b.
27th, the claim that Anders’ claim is “completely untrue” is untrue.
28th, the Auditor’s neglects that Anders’ claim was about how people interpret this result.
29th, the Auditor’s untrue claim is irrelevant to what claimed Anders.
In that episode alone, the Auditor misrepresents both Anders’s, who tries to stay above ClimateBall ™, and ClimateBall ™ itself. This should be enough to show that the Auditor is one of the fiercest ClimateBall ™ players around. Well played!
Let’s end this note by correcting a belief proffered by one of my favorite ClimateBall ™ players, Brandon, whom I nicknamed Chewbacca  for less obvious reasons, unnecessary to recall at the moment:
It’s a term stemming from “Climateball,” a word I believe was invented by the user willard. […] While I believe the term was originally conceived as a way of referring to people on the skeptical side of the debate, it fits people like Nick Stokes and Michael Mann quite well.
As this very “user,” I will attest not having “originally conceived” ClimateBall ™ “as a way of referring to people on the skeptical side of the debate.” I use contrarian  for that. The word ClimateBall ™ refers to the moves played in hurly burlies like the very one, by whatever side there could be, as long as the spirit of present ClimateBall ™ is channeled, just like the Auditor does in our episode.
: http://past.is/fP3EW (Business Week)