“… there are plenty of climate science deniers here to vehemently argue for the defendants’ case [in Mann v. Steyn]…. It is profoundly saddening when you realize that the platform I am writing this on would most probably not remove these people’s posts in the form they were written had somebody reported them.” – Gunnar Schade
Readers at MasterResource already know about Andrew Dessler, chair professor in Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, who morphs from scientist (his job) to biased, emotional advocacy. Lawyer-like, Dessler makes the best case for alarm rather than honestly considering other views and weaknesses in his argument. His emotional outbursts at his critics and utter distain at the general population (“assholes“) who reject his uber-Climate Alarmism marginalizes him outside of the Church of Climate. Suffice it to say that Andrew Dessler is not a scholar or trustworthy as an expert.
Enter Gunnar Schade, a second bad apple in Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He is overtly political  and Michael Mannish in his hate toward those who do not buy into the “climate crisis” and need to let “experts” remake capitalism.
Consider our following exchange on social media on the “ExxonKnew” debate:
Bradley: At Enron, it was the opposite. Telling the public there was a problem and arguing that it was not internally. ExxonMobil was right: affordable energy should not be sacrificed on an alter of climate alarmism.
Schade: Thanks Rob Bradley for coming here to confirm Exxon’s (and by extension your) lies.
Here is what Schade stated at LinkedIn on the recent Michael Mann verdict. As he has blocked me from commenting, a public reproach is appropriate:
If anybody thinks this jury decision is going to make a difference, please think again.
1. As the response of the sued bloggers reveals, most deniers are way too arrogant. They cannot be expected to actually act like the “skeptics” they’d like to be viewed as.
2. The decision will be appealed and likely not survive. So celebrations of “justice” are premature as usual.
3. We are left with the notion that fighting back can be useful to expose the climate counter movement, showing ordinary people like this jury (and the interested public who watched) the nastiness of the people running it.
It is profoundly saddening when you realize that the platform I am writing this on would most probably not remove these people’s posts in the form they were written had somebody reported them. And as you can convince yourself easily by finding posts reporting on the verdict, there are plenty of climate science deniers here to vehemently argue for the defendants’ case.
Michael Mann clearly cheated with his Hocky Stick, the center of the Climate scandal that is still discussed and debated 14 years later. It was an episode that inspired Schade’s colleague-in-arms to state:
“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” (Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009)
Schade’s 165-word verdict on the verdict is weak and vague. The response of the “sued bloggers” is the same being echoed across the blogosphere. A who-knows-what jury of Washington, DC residents being deep thinkers about the issues, legal and scientific? Nope. But yes, the verdict will be overturned, and the Michael Mann embarrassment will continue to haunt the alarmists.
Schade speaks to “the nastiness of the people running … the climate counter movement.” What is “climate counter”? That’s weird. So I am a “nasty person”? Same for the thousands of “talented amateurs” who can/have unmasked the errors, exaggerations, even cheating by politicized climate scientists urging alarm? There is a reason why WUWT is the most studied climate site in the world, filled with perceptive posts and interesting comments. Dishonest scientists like Dessler and Schade (and Mann) just do not like competition!
Schade ends by stating his “profound sadness” that his critics are not banned from social media. Censorship from an academic? What an embarrassment to his profession and the Texas A&M community. But like Dessler, he is an outlier in his own department and to be endured like the socialists and Marxists in academia.
 On his faculty page, Schade states:
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, specifically its Working Group I that evaluates climate change science … is likely to convey a message of increasing risk under the current global business-as-usual increased fossil fuel use scenarios.
It is therefore also to be expected that contrarian voices outside the field of science, particularly in the US, will continue their attacks on science and scientists – possibly with increased vigor….
While it cannot be our task as scientists to convince the unconvinced, or run a media campaign to reach a large number of the citizenry, we should feel obliged as scholars and are often mandated by federal law to reach out and communicate important findings to a broader public.