Claiming scientific fraud is slander, which you have done repeatedly based only on your own inability to understand statistics and not, you know, evidence of fraud. Or I suppose it might be libel - I’m open to correction.
Mann more than anyone else I know of in science has been called out for wrong-doing again and again, investigated again and again, and exonerated again and again. Vultures like Watt who casually accuse him have been caught lying again and again, but Mann is the one who gets death threats. And the slander continues, because assholes would rather see someone honest disgraced than admit that when nearly all climate scientists agree on something, it might have merit. It’s infuriating.
Not hosting someone on your blog is not the same thing as censoring them; they can always find their own platform. BoingBoing has an admirable don’t-spam-talking-points rule that I think they’ve been very generous on, and if they do decide someone has violated it, it’s their prerogative.
You didn’t give a link for this one. It’s available here from NASA (pdf), for those interested in looking at the significance of the apparent lack of warming, what might have been learned since the 1980s, or who generally prefer to see quotes in context rather than mined.
