Guest Commentary by Paul Driessen
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
Carr and 809 other Virginia scientists and academics signed a petition launched by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, protesting Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. The American Association of University Professors likewise opposes Cuccinelli, who is seeking documents from UVA, to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute Mann for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, by presenting false or misleading information in support of applications for state-funded research.
Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”
It’s time to clear a few things up.
Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann. Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”
The Climategate emails revealed another deliberate “trick” that Mann used to generate a late twentieth-century temperature jump: he replaced tree ring data with thermometer measurements at the point in his timeline when the tree data no longer fit his climate disaster thesis.
Not surprisingly, he refused to share his data, computer codes and methodologies with skeptical scientists. Perhaps worse, Climategate emails indicate that Mann and others conspired to co-opt and corrupt the very scientific process that Carr asserts will ultimately condemn or vindicate them.
This behavior certainly gives Cuccinelli “probable cause” for launching an investigation. As the AG notes, “The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere. The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process, will take place.” Some witch hunt.
There is simply no room in science, academia or public policy for manipulation, falsification or fraud. Academic freedom does not confer a right to engage in such practices, and both attorneys general and research institutions have a duty to root them out, especially in the case of climate change research.
Work by Mann and other alarmist scientists is not merely some theoretical exercise that can be permitted to “play itself out” over many years, if and when the “academic arena” gets around to it. These assertions of climate crisis are being used right now by Congress, states, courts and the Environmental Protection Agency to justify draconian restrictions on energy use and greenhouse emissions. They would shackle our freedoms and civil rights and hammer our jobs, economy, health, welfare and living standards.
If the science is wrong – or far worse, if it is manipulated, fabricated, fraudulent and covered up – then grave damage will be done to our nation, liberties and families, before the truth gets its boots on.
As to “scientific debate” over global warming, there has been virtually none in the academic arena. The science is viewed as “settled,” debate has been squelched, and those who seek to initiate debate are attacked, vilified, harassed and shipped off to academic Siberia.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, another former UVA climate researcher, was fired as Virginia State Climatologist by then-Governor Tim Kaine for raising inconvenient questions and facts on climate science. When Greenpeace demanded access to Michaels’ emails, UVA promptly acceded – before contesting AG Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s.
The 810 protesters and their UCS and AAUP consorts were silent. Their principles and objections do not seem to apply to shrill activist groups infringing on the academic and scientific freedom of “politically incorrect” researchers, even when there is no suggestion of dishonesty. Other “skeptical” climate researchers have met with similar fates. The pungent scent of hypocrisy fills the air.
No surprise there. The massive US government climate change research gravy train alone totaled some $9 billion in grants during 2009, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. IPCC, EU & Company climate grants – plus billions more for renewable energy research – fatten the larder still further. Now that money, prestige and power are threatened.
Climategate and other revelations about the lack of evidence for the “manmade climate disaster” thesis have sent belief in AlGorean gloom and doom plummeting. Global warming consistently comes in dead last on any list of environmental concerns. Three-fourths of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $100 a year to prevent climate change. China, India and other developing nations properly refuse to sign a carbon-cutting economic suicide pact.
The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University (Mann’s current institution), East Anglia University (home of Phil Jones and the Climategate emails) and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct – which may be rare but must be dealt with when it happens.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. Britain stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But meanwhile, a lingering stench remains over double standards; World Wildlife Fund press releases and rank speculation masquerading as peer-reviewed science; computer models enshrined as “proof” of looming climate disasters; and billions being squandered on research purporting to link global warming to nearly every malady and phenomenon known to man.
We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price – in soaring energy bills, fewer jobs, lower living standards and lost freedoms – for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.
We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)
It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.
We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.
“45 degrees F per century” …I don’t think so (and does not agree with the graph). And there’s nothing physically impossible about 4.5 degrees F per century.
REPLY: I agree, and I think it’s just a misplaced decimal point. Removed it until I hear back from the author -A
Damn right!
As a Virginia citizen and thus a co-funder of the institution involved, I want its science and integrity to return to a place of respect … and full disclosure is the only way to regain it.
Right On ! Academics who suppress dissent and debate in any field on any level should be taken to task , especially when the stakes are as high as they are in this case .
I note that UVa is properly contesting the AG’s action.
The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century), but that aside, the question is, where does the Va AG come in? Cna any state AG make similar demands?
The claimed basis for the AG’s demand is a possible breach of state FATA – misuse of Va taxpayers funds. But as the UVa response points out, of the five grants cited, four were from federal bodies, and the one state-funded grant had nothing to do with hockey sticks, was awarded to a different principal investigator (with Mann as a co-investigator), and pre-dated FATA anyway.
Wow! Brilliant essay! Lays out all the points unanswerably. Which doesn’t mean it will prevail in a politically controlled forum, of course. Thank you, Paul Driessen.
DR,
Mr Dreissen refers to the 4.5° per decade prediction, and extrapolates that to 45° per century. As he explains, “During [Mann’s] UVA tenure, he employed other sly statistical tricks to generate a purported, and truly unprecedented, CO2-driven warming of 2-4.5 degrees F per decade (1-2.5 degrees C).”
But you’re right, the graph does not agree. Somewhere there’s a typo.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,”
Oh! if only this had been true. But as soon as policy is based on the (interim) conclusions of such debate, it is clearly right that it become subject to the most rigorous scrutiny – in and out of academia.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
—–
Unfortunately this has become a religious debate first for “real” scientists and a scientific debate only for those referred to as deniers, skeptics, atheists and agnostics. Its clear that the unspoken guidelines of good scientific inquiry and robust challenge has been hijacked by a morally superior belief that we are on a mission – keep the faith.
It is still politically infeasible to openly challenge AGW in any public setting without being vilified and belittled. Very few of us have the credentials to avoid being tarred and feathered. So how many years of cold weather does it take to become climate? And by-the-way, look who controls the data, at least what is left of it. The same team that was implicated by the climategate data release. When will someone like Carr or the 807 letter signers challenge the homogenization (manipulation) of data points supposedly to deter the UHI affect, but which instead consistently makes remote locations appear warmer. The same team of individuals that destroyed the original unmodified historic data record to avoid allowing scientific critics from ever eventually demonstrating the mistreatment and misuse of base data.
I agree with the post’s basis that criminal activity is possible and that there is a line to define it. Remember that criminal fraud is usually considered to be a knowing misrepresentation or omission of a material fact with the intent to mislead. Mann’s tree-ring/temperature trick could be a good example. If I were a trust fund climate scientist I would welcome the efforts to ID and remove the bad actors from the game before all trust fund scientists are painted with the same harsh brush in the future. The field of climate study is already being looked on askance by other science based inquiry systems as cowboys who don’t want their work criticized and so hide the data and model codes.
I regret that I don’t live in Virginia so I could vote for Cuccinelli.
That’s not true. We showed that Mann’s PC algorithm generated a hockey stick-shaped PC1 even when fed autocorrelated random numbers, which biased the benchmarking for his test statistic, that is, it overstated the significance of the model fit. It also mines a data set for hockey stick shapes and promotes them to the PC1 even when they are minor attributes of the data set, thus falsely representing the (in his case) bristlecones with their outlier shape in the 20th century as the dominant pattern in tree ring records. That allowed Mann to conclude that the hockey stick shape was the major pattern in his data set, even though it is only associated with a small regional subset of data that most observers (including the NAS Panel) caution should not be used for temperature reconstruction.
Mann’s algorithm won’t produce a hockey stick-shaped PC1 if fed white noise, or for that matter, his own data set with the 20 bristlecone pine series censored, which is what he had demonstrated in the famous “CENSORED” folder. Since phone numbers are likely uniform iid random numbers, I doubt they would produce a hockey stick either.
Also, the “trick” in the climategate emails was used by Jones. He attributed it to Mann, but Mann didn’t actually do what Jones attributed to him. Since Mann’s PC algorithm gave him an upward-sloping tree ring record he had no need to “hide the decline”.
There’s plenty to criticize in the world of IPCC science, but you have to be prepared to make the effort to go into the details and get them right. Nothing I have seen yet suggests that Cucinelli has done so, and I have yet to see any credible basis for his inquiry. I expect it will be thrown back in his face by a court. At the same time, UVa’s treatment of Pat Michaels’ privacy rights has been disturbing–I agree their double standard is loathsome and the silence of the UVa faculty is alarming. I hope they understand the precedent their university is thinking of setting, regarding the privacy of faculty emails.
But for those who hope for legal remedy for perceived damages arising from illegitimate climate science or faulty regulatory processes, they better be prepared to invest the time and effort to master the details before taking such actions public.
A Scientology ad has been generated by Google :/
Excellent essay.
Union of Communist Scientists – or did you not notice the defence of the USSR’s policies (prior to its collapse)?
Like all the rational Warmists I know, they have given up on facts and are using irrelevant argument, conjecture, name-calling, and willful blindness to cover up the fact that the hated ‘Deniers’ appear more right than wrong. Particularly in view of the massive ideologically based fraud uncovered that went to the very core of the Warmists hypothesis. The progenitors of AGW: Hansen, Jones, Briffa,Mann are all liars and hoaxsters .
It’s wrong to politicize (or, worse, criminalize) the science on either side; as imperfect as the peer review/funding process has been, at least we can expect that eventually the science will work itself out based on the preponderance of evidence. I really love your site, Anthony, but you can’t really believe that politicians should be given free rein to investigate results that they don’t agree with. And that’s surely what you seem to be suggesting.
If there has been malfeasance on MM’s part, it should be handled within his profession. If his profession won’t deal it with, then the profession will fall into disrepute (as appears to be happening). To turn this into a question of criminality (which implies “beyond a reasonable doubt”) strikes me as ultimately counter-productive. Do we want a liberal AG in Massachusetts to investigate Dr. Lindzen?
There’s a very slippery slope here; I agree with R Pielke, Jr. that this is a very dangerous precedent and that we skeptics should fight against it.
Best regards,
Marc (a liberal skeptic)
Hopefully, Steve McIntyre reads this.
A direct (verbatim – cut & paste) quote from the Royal Society’s latest statement:
“Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect “
Now that’s a backtrack!
It looks like the University claims to operate above the law. In some ways. I ccan picture a judge laughing at the university. This is exactly one of the resons to force us to be suspicious.
I understand the University of Virginina has petitioned the court that the SG’s subpoena be set aside on the grounds of academic freedom, and lack of grounds under state law.
“…FATA does not authorize the Attorney General to engage in scientific debate or advance the Commonwealth’s positions in unrelated litigation about federal environmental policy and regulation. This is particularly true where, as here, the information requested goes to the core of academic research otherwise protected by law. Unfettered debate and the expression of conflicting ideas without fear of reprisal are the cornerstones of academic freedom; they consequently are carefully guarded First Amendment concerns. Investigating the merits of a university researcher’s methodology, results, and conclusions (on climate change or any topic) goes far beyond the Attorney General’s limited statutory power. The CIDs at issue thus exceed the limited investigative authority granted to the Attorney General under FATA. Permitting them to be used in the sweeping fashion attempted here would impair academic freedom in the Commonwealth.”
Clearly what happened here is that Cuccinelli was disappointed to see that none of the mud slung around in recent months has stuck. The stolen UEA emails revealed no conspiracy, no malpractice, no revelations casting doubt on the truth of global warming. The manufactured scandals over misinterpreted and out-of-context quotes have evaporated. So, Cuccinelli has started this unfounded and unjustified ‘investigation’ to try to invent some new ones. It’s that simple, and the only right thing to do is to quash it immediately.
Oh – citation:
commences in the eight line from the end.
Diddun work
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/
It will be a breath of fresh air to have a truly independent examination into the manipulation and misinterpretation of climate data.
The recent whitewashes by warmist committees of alarmist activities and publications are simply no longer acceptable to an increasingly sceptical public.
No wonder the alarmist camp will put up procedural and any other legal hurdles they can think of to try and stop any real investigation into their bad science.
“As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.” -Richard Lindzen
Lindzen’s quote rings more and more true the more I look into it. I recently read a Climategate email between two paleoclimatologists where it is basically stated that Mann is too personally involved to be honest about his work anymore:
http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/mann-is-the-man-at-wikipedia/
Best of luck to Mr Cuccinelli – although, of course, luck should have nothing to do with it. But this is not just”Ken Cuccinelli versus 810 academics” – this is Ken Cuccinelli versus 810 academics, the US Government, the UN(IPCC), the MSM, and a zillion other organisations with a vested interested in the official status quo. They know that to bring down Mann and all his questionable papers would be a seriously big nail in the AGW coffin – not that they’ll admit it when that happens. So we know this is gonna get dirty. Interesting times.
Ross McKitrick says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:56 pm
“Also, the “trick” in the climategate emails was used by Jones. He attributed it to Mann, but Mann didn’t actually do what Jones attributed to him. Since Mann’s PC algorithm gave him an upward-sloping tree ring record he had no need to “hide the decline”.”
——
Thank you for participating in this post. The information above that you provided is excellent insight that is not apparent based on Jones’ email. I don’t know how any of us would have known what Mann actually did. You are intimately familiar with the stick issue and I have no doubt that you are correct. I wonder what Jones may have been referring to.
I also agree that Cuccinelli had better have his facts and law straight. Criminal fraud is particularly difficult to prove because it requires proving that the person charged, purposely mislead individuals with the mental intent to do so. Virginia is a fairly sophisticated state. I would expect that the AG’s office attracts high talent. I would also expect that he would use his best talent to work on this issue. Granted, he’s using the issue for personal name recognition, but I doubt he wandered into such a high profile controversy of state vs. science without having his staff thoroughly research the facts and the law. The stakes are too high for a ready, shoot, aim approach.
Moving the goal posts. The “pretend scientists” are outraged.
This is an AG that has the audacity to question science.
No. He is a hero. He is questioning funds obtained by potentially false pretenses.
Science willl find what it finds. Don’t give false conslusions to a fabricated hypothesis and claim you are untitled to unlimited funding and moneys without accountibility.
I’m afraid that this is a poorly researched article, and undermines rather than adds to any action being taken by Cuccinelli. Ross McKitrick has pointed out the same, Mann’s errors are at least reasonably well understood by those who take the time to study them, but they don’t include (in the context of MBH98 & 99, 2003, & 2008) substituting instrumental temperatures for proxies or using a statistical method that generates “Hockey Sticks” from white noise.
Junk, from any side, should be called out, and this is junk; sorry.
Scientists do not make good lawyers. Cuccinelli is not attempting to settle a scientific debate. And he is not trying to put Mann in jail. He is attempting to get back money for the state of Virginia. No doubt Cuccinelli read the CRU emails and their discussion of research funding and was not impressed. And he knows Mann was closely associated with the CRU5. This is not guilt by association but it is suspicion by association, a tactic with a long tradition among prosecutors. Cuccinelli probably also read the excellent article in the Dutch science journal about the Hockey Stick and learned Mann had failed to disclose the failed R2 verification statistic. If he can Cuccinelli can find something like that on one of the five studies published funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, he can get some money back from Mann. Cuccinelli is well within is rights to investigate Mann.
” … The CIDs at issue thus exceed the limited investigative authority granted to the Attorney General under FATA. Permitting them to be used in the sweeping fashion attempted here would impair academic freedom in the Commonwealth.”
Well, no.
Academic freedom is not the issue here. Academic freedom and First Amendment protection of academicians remain untouched. They can do that on their own dime any time they want to.
What we are talking about here is fraud, falsity, and using public grant monies to advocate, as trusted authorities, sweeping national and global policy changes not justified by the facts … grant-funded facts that we paid for, and that are being kept from the rest of us.
Also, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, these scientists are self-interested in this issue. If Mann can be investigated and forced to pay money back to Virginia, then they also could be investigated and forced to pay money back. This is not a precedent they want to see set. But I do not hold to the view researchers are above the law. I wish Cuccinelli every success in his efforts.
Cuccinelli may or may not win his case, but he has certainly brought the issue to the public. The problem with “letting the peer review process do its work” is that it is both chancy (it may or may not happen) and slow (even if it does happen, by then the laws imposed on us as a result of the bad AGW “science” will be in effect). Too late. Cuccinelli may not be a scientist, but he is right to bring action now. I hope he is informed of the matters brought up in this thread.
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
“The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century)”
Even 4.5 degrees F per century is of questionable possibility.
The known world coal reserves at the current annual extraction rate of 7 billion tonnes per year will be exhausted in 122 years. The IPCC A1F1 scenario requires tripling CO2 emissions by 2,100. If we triple our extraction rate we run out in 2050.
Same goes for oil, same goes for natural gas. The A1F1 emissions scenario’s depend on magical discoveries of fossil fuel reserves extractable at magical prices.
If he made the same with account reports he would rot in a jail. The fact the report wasn’t substantiated by the source documents and methods of creation would be the poof enough. If it was an accounting the only millions or billions of dollars would be in stake. In case of the fraudulent hockey-stick report there are at least trillions in stake. Why the swindler should have softer conditions then a normal report maker?
Aren’t those emails a “public record” as they were paid for by government grants?
Thanks
JK
Icarus says:
May 30, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“The stolen UEA emails revealed no conspiracy, no malpractice, no revelations casting doubt on the truth of global warming.”
=============
It’s not so much the global warming part, it’s the “catastrophic” part, that is in dispute. Also, the rush to implement changes that will bolster the “new economy”.
Green energy/Green jobs/Green taxes, it’s the new business model.
Only one problem, everybody is broke.
The E.U., and the Euro are hanging by a thread, the rest of the world is buried in debt.
Spending “money” on climate change is just another tax.
Subsidies (taxpayer supported) make unprofitable ventures, profitable.
Sooner or later, the taxpayers will not be able to pay for the “giveaways” made by their elected officials in order to get re-elected.
Government has turned into a giant Ponzi Scheme, god help us all.
O.K. I’m done.
Icarus says: “Clearly what happened here is that Cuccinelli was disappointed to see that none of the mud slung around in recent months has stuck. The stolen UEA emails revealed no conspiracy, no malpractice, no revelations casting doubt on the truth of global warming. The manufactured scandals over misinterpreted and out-of-context quotes have evaporated. So, Cuccinelli has started this unfounded and unjustified ‘investigation’ to try to invent some new ones. It’s that simple, and the only right thing to do is to quash it immediately.”
“Clearly,” Icarus has read the leaked Climategate papers with his eyes closed. They provide overwhelming evidence of at least the desire to subvert science via a full spectrum of “tricks,” including thwarting of FOI requests.
If “academic freedom” (a dubious concept in the real world) gave no protection or support to Dr. Patrick Michaels, then it’s apparently a dubious and politicized concept in academia, as well, so let it die a quiet death. It’s already been mortally wounded by silence.
Ross McKitrick is clearly right when he says that the post has some factual discrepancies. They’re rather obvious to anyone who has been following these threads. It’s vital to get the science right FIRST, then do the politics.
Icarus says:
May 30, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Clearly what happened here is that Cuccinelli was disappointed to see that none of the mud slung around in recent months has stuck. The stolen UEA emails revealed no conspiracy, no malpractice, no revelations casting doubt on the truth of global warming.
…
Several lies (er, deliberately incorrect and exaggerated statements) in just those two sentences:
The emails were RELEASED apparently by a university inside source from a folder deliberately created and named explicitly FOR the FOIA files being dumped into it from the university computers, program source files and email. Thus, the released emaiils were NOT “private” because only ones released by the whistleblower were related to the climate research coverups and deliberate throttling of other research by skeptics. Nothing was “stolen” – except our money for bad research, and the time spent covering up the bad research.
Skeptics do not doubt global warming – The world appears to have been warming itself the past 400 years all by itself very successfully . What is being debated is the amount of actual temperature increase, the rate of that increase, the basic cause of that 400 year increase in temperature – because man COULD NOT have caused the previous 350 years.
However, to score political points and allow politicians and his fellow academics to control the world’s economy to the deliberate harm of billions, Mann decided he would falsify data to make it appear that (1) ALL of the increase had occurred in fifty years, and (2) man’s CO2 caused all of that increase.
Note that ALL of who have signed this petition have benefited directly and indirectly from the AGW funds going to Penn State and UVA and the other academic groups who have received 79 billion in tax-payer monies.
To claim there is no malpractice is simply and deadly wrong. CO2 limits and taxes based on AGW hype are deadly threats.
Marc …
Yes, it would be wonderful to have a liberal AG in Massachusetts investigate Dr. Lindzen. On the record, cross-examination and all.
BRING IT ON!
With the press there, having to report the facts as they emerge, as they are. In public.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
The problem is in this portion. What the public, and many it seems in the science world, are seeing is that the scientific debate is stifled and or controlled with bias. While Mann’s work may eventually be universally discredited what is the time span for that to happen? Before or after we straddle this nation with economically destructive policies? Before or after Mann receives 10’s of millions of more dollars in research money which may well be a waste?
There exists, today, reasonable question to his methodology and results. Should his career be further advanced via the public dole? Should other, more ethical, scientists be squelched out of funding while Mann continues to bathe in a dubious limelight and masses of public funds?
The problem is the scientific community is NOT addressing the problems it has regarding the broken peer-review process, the silencing of real scientific debate, the credibility and ethics of participants, etc. The IPCC, the Mann, Jones, Schmidt, Hansen cult, and others with them do science no favor. They do mankind no favor. I see little movement in the science world to correct that.
Cuccinelli may not have a solid case, he may not have a case at all. However, the public is getting frustrated with the conduct of many in the climate science sphere. The public wants answers. The science / academic world is not properly addressing their concerns. I mean really…. a Penn State review of Mann? They have a vested interest to the tune of millions of dollars in research funding to guide their opinion of exoneration.
The pubic is providing massive amounts of money to climate science. They deserve credible work in return. When it is not delivered they deserve answers. When neither are provided they deserve a path of recourse.
I appreciate Ross McKitrick clarifying / correcting incorrect comments. Truth is essential … for both sides of the issues. It is time for everyone in the climate science arena to strip away the hidden walls (including pay walls). Get rid of the over estimations, the over confidence levels, and the cloud of hysteria over things they truly have little understanding of.
If science will not do it…. sooner or later public and the courts will. That event would leave the science world hard pressed to find future funding and all of mankind will be the poorer for it.
Ask people who they trust the least:
Politicians
Lawyers
Bible Salesmen
and now the latest addition:
Climate Scientists
Perhaps David Carr and Michael Mann will stand up and advocate a new openness and restored ethic to the field? Perhaps they won’t.
“Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.”
While I fully agree Dr. Mann should be investigated, please provide links and quotes to back up the potentially libelous statement regarding Dr. Wakefield quoted above from the article. It has never been shown Dr. Wakefield “falsified studies”; the GMC charges regarding Wakefield involved allegedly unethical practices in his recruitment of subjects for the study.
I have no desire to hijack a thread, but if you are going to casually trash a man’s reputation, you better get your facts straight.
Ross McKitrick said:
“…. for those who hope for legal remedy for perceived damages arising from illegitimate climate science or faulty regulatory processes, they better be prepared to invest the time and effort to master the details before taking such actions public.”
Thanks Ross, for your comment. I hope you will keep being an active part of the discussions here.
IMO, taking bad science to court is immensely important. And it had better be done very, very carefully or it will seriously backfire.
Has the post been amended? (If so it isn’t marked) Several commenters are quoting phrases purportedly from it that do not appear for me. It appears that there is a minor disagreement over a typo — but that typo appears to have been expunged.
As for the point in contention, Driessen does not appear to claim the authority to pronounce the impossibility of Mann’s claims about temperature change — he merely cites three authors who DO have such authority, including Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon. They may be right or wrong in their assessment, but I have seen no comments that address their argument as it is posed — namely in terms of the laws of physics and known properties of the climate system.
On the matter of the court case against Mann, Stephen McIntyre, on his blog, gives pretty good reason to believe that it is misguided, overzealous and counterproductive. While his points are worth considering, I think a lawsuit like this might be the only way scrutiny of the climate alarmist behavior can be forced. It is too bad it has to be Mann, who is not the worst in the alarmist camp, and whose behavior is probably not criminal, though in my opinion at times it has verged on being unethical, and until the discovery phase we will not really know whether or not the case has sufficient merit. I suspect Mann and UVA’s lawyers, however, will do anything to avoid submitting to discovery, which is really the main point of the case.
I might also add that Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper that was the subject of the GMC inquiry had nothing to do with mercury, but involved the finding of the measles virus in the intestines of autistic kids. It was also not “vaccines” but a single “vaccine”; the MMR vaccine.
This is an embarrassment. As someone who has studied the autism issue in detail, that single sentence in rife with errors and potentially libelous. I’m a strong AGW skeptic, but it makes me wonder if the rest of the post was as poorly researched.
I agree. Initially I supported the AG’s request, but that was when I thought he had a tipster who had given him info. about a purely procedural No-No. Even if Mann had committed “scientific fraud,” prosecutors should not get involved. It’s too dangerous a precedent. What’s needed instead is a massive, year-long court of inquiry by some scientific body that can hear debates on the 1001 topics and subtopics in this issue and try to clarify and/or adjucicate matters.
Here is the original graph. The one in the article one has a mistake.
Here is the original graph:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p72/brownthundertx/mannvssoon.jpg
I just want him to find out how Mann went from obscure, wet behind the ears PhD with no background in Climatology to poster boy and senior IPCC dude in such a very, very, very short time frame.
Maybe he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall, realize he could become a “star” if he could produce the right research and the rest is history.
Or maybe he just figured out how to milk the R&D Gravy Train and ended yup getting made famous beyond his plan. Which would explain why he can’t release his data & methodologies to independent scientists for verification,,
Until there is independent verification, he is a suspect.
With responsibility and power comes accountability. Either the courts or reality will enforce it. Once the Warmists began to claim they had justification for a wholesale takeover of the planet’s economy, everything became fair game for challenge. And the data do not support CAGW. Plus, physics denies even the possibility of making the kind of forecasts of chaotic non-linear systems that the tinkertoy video-game CRU models purport to generate.
Scenarios (illustrations of pre-cooked conclusions) are not projections. Periods.
Erratum: that would be “Period.” Unless multiple periods add emphasis ….. 😉
As a lawyer I can tell anyone who is interested that anything is better than going to court and that if someone takes court action then Voltaire’s dictum that “it is a rare litigant who recognises his own case” applies.
My first recommendation is always mediation, which in most jurisdictions can be an alternative not just a precursor to court proceedings. It seems to me that some sort of mediation has occurred in this matter with the various enquiries over two continents into the e-mails. How did everyone find those?
Four years ago I somewhat believed in AGW as it had been warmer. Then I began to investigate and started to get skeptical. When I found that Mann, Hansen, and the team was hiding data and methods, I became alarmed. I do not understand how this could be allowed, especially by the true believers of AGW. Hiding the data and methods just reeks of fraud. The true believers should have been all over this. Supposedly, catastrophic changes were going to take place and these apparent fraudsters were delaying action by not allowing their work to be replicated? The warmists not only allowed this, they covered for these guys (and turned me totally against them.)
I doubt that Cuccinelli will be able to find much against Mann because the people handing out grants have been so lax that I doubt they put any definitive language in the contracts. I do have hope that he finds something strong enough to cause future grant applications to have stronger requirements. Suggestions:
A. All data and methods used for work under this grant application are required to be open to the public within one year of any publication and upon the end of this grant. The location of where this information will be made available must be included in the grant application. No fees are allowed and this information must remain available for ten years.
B. All previous work done under grants from this foundation must have all data and methods open to the public. Please provide documentation that this has been done.
C. Please list any and all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that have been filed in regards to any work that pertains to this grant. Please explain why a FOIC request was required by the requester if the information and methods were related to previous grants. No grants will be made to any organization that has unresolved FOIA requests pertaining to work funded by previous grants. Organization specifically includes entire universities and not just departments.
Marc Blanck : “If there has been malfeasance on MM’s part, it should be handled within his profession. If his profession won’t deal it with, then the profession will fall into disrepute (as appears to be happening). To turn this into a question of criminality (which implies “beyond a reasonable doubt”) strikes me as ultimately counter-productive. Do we want a liberal AG in Massachusetts to investigate Dr. Lindzen?”
Marc: There is no reason to investigate Dr. Lindzen. He has not manipulated any data that could make anyone contend or believe his research data was constructed or used in any manner inconsistent with scientific methods and principles. There is a huge difference between finding errors in research by peers or review vs. finding manipulations that were done that are so blatenly wrong they raise the suspicion of scientific misconduct. Such is the case of the climate record constructions used by the IPCC to convince the world that the earth’s climate is warmer now than in anytime in history, and that the recent warming was alarmingly rapid due to GHG emissions. Public money and resources paid for this climate research and data.
There is not only that but along with it came vicious attacks by these groups that control the money and power in climate research that was used to systematically destroy and ruin the careers of anyone who dare questioned these assertions about AGW. And now we find as much legal resistance by academics defending AGW to turn over their work for examination.
This stinks to the max and is unnaceptable. I am glad Cuccinelli is leading this charge and he needs to continue to persue it full throttle. If Mann, Hansen, Jones and Briffa were deliberately and falsely constructing the climate record so as to tout their AGW theory, (which proposes huge tax increases and energy fees be implemented on the free world in a manner that can make them the largest taxes and fees levied in human history in the name of a false science ) and Cuccinelli can prove this, then they all need swift criminal prosecution and stiff prison sentences should be meted out to all of these guys and ANYONE the trail of deceit in the investigation can lead to. To let this go uninvestigated is ignoring one of the potentially biggest white collar crimes in theft against the public ever conceived next to Wall Street and people like Bernie Madoff.
Nick says:
“The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century)”
I think that should be 4.5F.
professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
I think that has been demonstrated time an again already it’s high time these guys faced the same sort of accountability that doctors, nurses and engineers do.
““Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.””
This sort of argument is perfectly fine if this were a private entity using private funds to do private research. The research is not done using private funds, but public. The Research is not being done for private use, but for public use determining laws that will take away extremely large amounts of our freedom and our money. Thus, this is not something that a few friends can discuss over a beer and come to mutually understood conclusion without affecting anyone else in the process.
cohenite:
Nope…45F per century is right. The title in the graph should say 1 to 2.5 c degrees per decade.
One assumes that the UVa thinks that allegations of church misconduct should be dealt with in house too, And allegations of police misconduct, corporate governance….. After all none of this misconduct affects the public at large
This is pretty shocking as (mentioned above)
http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/mann-is-the-man-at-wikipedia/
Icarus should have his charts updated so he flies A LOT CLOSER TO THE SUN next time.
Jeff C. says:
May 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.”
…(P)lease provide links and quotes to back up the potentially libelous statement regarding Dr. Wakefield quoted above from the article. It has never been shown Dr. Wakefield “falsified studies”; the GMC charges regarding Wakefield involved allegedly unethical practices in his recruitment of subjects for the study.
_________________________________________________________
Below is a pair of links with brief exerpts from each. If Dr. Wakefield can get a libel award out of anyone after this week’s decision, I’d be shocked.
Nailed: Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR – autism fraud
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
(NOTE: this is a summary from Lancet) But, as journalists queued to report on parents’ fears, Brian Deer was assigned to investigate the crisis, and unearthed a scandal of astounding proportions. He discovered that, far from being based on any findings, the public alarm had no scientific basis whatsoever. Rather, Wakefield had been payrolled to create evidence against the shot, and, while planning extraordinary business schemes, meant to profit from the scare, he had changed and misreported data on the anonymous children to rig the results published in the journal. Before Deer’s inquiries, Wakefield had appeared to all the world to be an independent, if controversial, researcher. Tall and square-headed, with hooded eyes and a booming voice, he was the son of doctors (a neurologist and a family practitioner), had grown up in Bath, a prosperous, west-of-England spa town, and joined the Royal Free in November 1988, after training in Toronto, Canada. His demeanour was languid – he was privately educated – and, born in 1956, he was a lingering example of the presumed honour of the upper middle class. But the investigation discovered that, while Wakefield held himself out to be a dispassionate scientist, two years before the Lancet paper was published – and before any of the 12 children were even referred to the hospital – he had been hired by a lawyer, Richard Barr: a jobbing solicitor in the small eastern English town of King’s Lynn, who hoped to raise a speculative class action lawsuit against drug companies which manufactured MMR.
‘Dishonest and irresponsible’: Doctor who triggered MMR vaccine scare is struck off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280840/Andrew-Wakefield-Doctor-heart-MMR-vaccine-row-struck-off.html
Andrew Wakefield, 53, whose research claimed there was a link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella jab, was yesterday branded dishonest, misleading and irresponsible by the General Medical Council. He has been banned from practising in Britain after being found guilty of more than 30 charges of serious professional misconduct. In the longest, most expensive hearing in its 148-year history, the GMC accused the doctor of ‘bringing the medical profession into disrepute’. The five-strong panel, which began its investigation in July 2007, concluded Dr Wakefield had behaved unethically and ‘abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner’.
***********
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I note that UVa is properly contesting the AG’s action.
The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century), but that aside, the question is, where does the Va AG come in? Cna any state AG make similar demands?
The claimed basis for the AG’s demand is a possible breach of state FATA – misuse of Va taxpayers funds. But as the UVa response points out, of the five grants cited, four were from federal bodies, and the one state-funded grant had nothing to do with hockey sticks, was awarded to a different principal investigator (with Mann as a co-investigator), and pre-dated FATA anyway.
******************
Nick – anyone or any organization that takes government money is making a deal with the devil. The devil isn’t predictable. If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens. Why is this so hard for you to understand. It isn’t about science, it is about law.
Lee Kington says:
May 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm
“…What the public, and many it seems in the science world, are seeing is that the scientific debate is stifled and or controlled with bias. While Mann’s work may eventually be universally discredited what is the time span for that to happen? Before or after we straddle this nation with economically destructive policies? Before or after Mann receives 10′s of millions of more dollars in research money which may well be a waste?….”
___________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for putting it so well.
I would like to add this.
What happens if Cuccinelli is silenced, and the nation implements the economically destructive policies already on deck? We already see the results of these type of political policies in California’s insolvency
Iceland, and Greece, and Switzerland and Spain are bankrupt or close to bankruptcy and others such as the UK and Japan are facing a financial crisis. The news down plays it but the USA is not exactly healthy either. Some are already asking Is the United States Bankrupt? Even the Huf and Puff is seeing the handwriting on the wall although they do not get the real cause correct.
The question academic scientists fail to ask is “WHAT happens next?” The answer is simple really. If the USA bankrupts we end up with an IMF/World Bank imposed SAP:
“Balancing national budgets can be done by raising taxes, which the IMF frowns upon, or by cutting government spending, which it definitely recommends. As a result, SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk….”
In other words academic scientists who have been going along with the CAGW program are busy cutting their own throats, as grants dry up, universities are stripped to the bone, or close their doors for good thanks to the Structural Adjustment Policies. Unfortunately they are cutting the throats of all the rest of us too.
Oh yes, do not forget that Obama has already signed on to the new Financial Stability Board with real teeth, imposing “obligations” and “commitments” on its members. So the USA may not be able to avoid SAP like Iceland did.
I sure hope Cuccinelli manages to put a spanner in the works or the deity help us all.
The real threat to the climate-change industrial complex will be from US Senator Jim Inhofe, assuming that the GOP reclaims control over the Senate in 2010. That is not out of the realm of possibility.
If that happens, Jim will regain the chairmanship of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment & Public Works, and from there he’ll go after the academics, NASA etc. He’s already said as much.
Fraud is fraud, big (public) money is involved and, thus, charges should be filed.
Whether the motivation was to push an agenda and make money or to attract more funding is irrelevant.
This has nothing to do with healthy debate of real disagreements in science. Fraudulent data is not science and cannot be debated, just exposed, rejected, and litigated as needed.
Coho,
I agree that a reasonable estimate of recent trend would be 4.5F/Century. But that doesn’t gel with the shrill charge (now in limbo) that this is physically impossible (it happened). That comes straight from brownthunder’s original Soon graph, which made just that mistaken characterisation.
And the really silly thing is, this has nothing to do with Mann at all. He just plotted instrumental temperatures, which were not a product of his research. It was Soon who tried to derive a slope and got it wrong. And it is this post, years later, which echoed that to mounted a shrill charge that Mann was withholding data to cover up this “error”.
And Jim, it was law I was talking about. Cuccinnelli has limited powers in law to investigate misuse of Va taxpayers funds, not to set science to rights. And of his alleged five grants, four were federally funded, and one was from Va but not to Mann. Properly invoking actual law to justify anti-Mann vindictiveness has been a failure of this post and thread.
Jim: “If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens.”
Jim: In the usuall sense, yes. But what if the government, ( who is academia’s biggest client on AGW ) wants climate research to reflect AGW is real and a problem that can only be corrected through taxation and regulation? Are you aware that the government ( and the AGW research spiggot was first turned on high by Al Gore in the Clinton White House in 1992 and good ol’e Al is already a multi millionaire from his involvement in spreading provenly wrong climate alarmism ) only funds universities willing to “prosecute ” CO2? How can this be deemed legitmate scientific research? AGW science only seeks one answer about climate and that is the conclusion that humans are to blame from CO2 emissions.
This is stuck on stupid forever and blatently ignoring the real dominant processes at work and not spending a penny to figure out how all of the physical connections really work to alter climate, combined with the fact that AGW science is embedded in the concept of “climate models” which are not physically real enough to give any suitable answer about future climate and whose constructions are secrets of the the crowds running them that support AGW. Yet these crowds lie and falsely boast of the skill they have developed with modeling. Just look back at the original projections made around 1990. The modeling is a complete failure with all of the dirty laundry being swept under the carpet so you will hopefully forget about it:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf
With this record, how can ANYONE in government in ANY form of leadership advocate for cap and trade or ANY climate bill that stiffles the economy with higher taxes and regulation? Politicians blatently ignore hard cold facts in favor of promoting this rot which is far from being proven. According to modeling projections by Hansen around 1990, the current global temperatures are supposed to be around 1.35 DegC above the 1979 mean. We are far from this. Could it be that the government is a benefactor to using the dishonest science to raise taxes and plunder the taxpayers wallet? Sure looks like it to me!
What a nightmare! You have no understanding of freedom from the state.
You expect a free and open scierntific debate when the state is brought in to attack one side of the debate.
Just because Mann does and says things you don’t like isn’t a reason for the state to come down on his head. What’s to stop your friends from coming under this sort of attack? There’s too much politics in climate science already.
I would be much more comfortable with “clawback” kind of efforts than criminal prosecution for this kind of thing. “Clawback” meaning if proven, an institution like UVA would be forced to cough up the funding they received originally (perhaps with interest penalties as well).
For one thing, I think that kind of effort would be *much* more successful as a deterrence and in actively involving institutions in proactively reviewing research. To me, the goal shouldn’t be retribution –it should be avoiding the need for retribution.
The problem I have with criminal prosecutions for this kind of thing is I feel quite strongly that they can morph in very unhealthy ways. We’ve already seen the more virulent kind of AGWers calling for “crimes against humanity” trials. To the degree the skeptic community supports criminal prosection for “climate crimes”, in my view the skeptic community steps into a trap.
Said another way, every action that tends to lead Michael Mann closer to jail (or a noose, as the more out-there types have promoted), also leads Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre closer to the same fate. Personally, I will not support going down that road.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leftist political organization, has been very concerned for years about “politicizing science”. They’re afraid they’re going to lose their patented monopoly on the process.
*******************
Chuck Wiese says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Jim: “If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens.”
Jim: In the usuall sense, yes. But what if the government, ( who is academia’s biggest client on AGW ) wants climate research to reflect AGW is real and a problem that can only be corrected through taxation and regulation?
*****************
I am aware that Uncle Al as well as others here and in the UN are getting rich from “green” initiatives and technology. I was speaking to accountability in the usual sense. It is common for states to administer Federal programs. In the course of these duties, states dole out money and they also are responsible for fraud detection and investigation. Unemployment Insurance is an example of this. I’m not sure if the Federal grant monies are administered in the same manner, but it isn’t a slam dunk that if it was a Federal grant that the Virginia AG can’t investigate.
Jim says:
May 30, 2010 at 7:16 pm
***********
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I note that UVa is properly contesting the AG’s action.
The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century), but that aside, the question is, where does the Va AG come in? Cna any state AG make similar demands?
The claimed basis for the AG’s demand is a possible breach of state FATA – misuse of Va taxpayers funds. But as the UVa response points out, of the five grants cited, four were from federal bodies, and the one state-funded grant had nothing to do with hockey sticks, was awarded to a different principal investigator (with Mann as a co-investigator), and pre-dated FATA anyway.
******************
Nick – anyone or any organization that takes government money is making a deal with the devil. The devil isn’t predictable. If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens. Why is this so hard for you to understand. It isn’t about science, it is about law.
And the law does not authorize the AG to conduct this investigation!
It is indeed true that if you take government money you are accountable to the government and its citizens, consequently the grant-awarding bodies designate auditors and other investigatory authorities. Such audits are routinely carried out, however the Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG.
I think the Dr. Andrew Wakefield comparison should be removed from this article as there has been ample a demonstrable evidence that Mercury in Vaccines has deleterious effects on the development of brain tissue.
Hepatitis B Vaccines alone contain more than 100 times the EPA limit levels for Mercury exposure.
However seeing as how there has never been a single double blind study done on the efficacy or toxicological side effects of of such compounds as Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, live monkey viruses etc.
I would argue that the proponents of Vaccination would be the better analog to current AGW proponents. Using Wakefield as an example is ironic more than anything since it is the mainstream of science that has attacked and disbarred him much in the same way that AGW skeptics were/are persecuted by the mainstream leading lights in their respective field. And make no mistake that the Vaccination issue is any less political than AGW as the WHO blunders “medical science” on a level that is on par with the IPCC.
Oops
“However seeing as how there has never been a single double blind study done on the efficacy or toxicological side effects of of such compounds as Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, live monkey viruses etc. ”
Should have read as:
However seeing as how there has never been a single double blind study done on the efficacy of Vaccines or the toxicological side effects of such compounds as Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, live monkey viruses etc. that are used as adjuvants in the vaccines.
Ross McKitrick sez: ‘But for those who hope for legal remedy for perceived damages arising from illegitimate climate science or faulty regulatory processes, they better be prepared to invest the time and effort to master the details before taking such actions public.’
Or even if they merely wish to expose a fraudster through the usual academic process. The efforts of the gun nuts to impeach Belleisles took years, even though he had simply invented data. You would think that could have been wrapped up in a few days: Show us the data, Belleisles, or else.
But that isn’t how it works.
David Goodstein’s ‘Fact and Fraud’ is required reading on this topic.
I am glad Mr. McKitrick came and made his comment as I was concerned for a while that he wasn’t wanting science to be trumped by governmental investigation as if science is above the law. I’ve read numerous warmist websites congratulate Mr. Mckitrick for standing out against AG Cuccineli. However, like usual the warmists just can’t seem to get it right. I don’t see anything in any writings by Mr. McKitrick or by Mr. McIntyre where they have said that government shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of science. The only thing I’ve seen Mr. McKitrick say here or anywhere is:
1. That is not exactly what we said or accomplished, such and such is
2. If Cuccineli or any other AG is going to go after Mann or anyone else they better get their facts straight and go at this correctly.
(Mr McKitrick correct me if I’m wrong)
Nick Stokes and others who are crying out against Cuccineli, on the Wattsupwiththat blog, I apply the same kind of logic to you and your alarmist warmist community.
Before you expect me to pay until November for taxes which are wholly unnecessary and since based on the lies and practices of a shoddy scientist, then get your facts straight.
If a scientist has to knowingly put information into a collection of data to force it to display his desired outcome, he is not only violating the code of science by demolishing the scientific method three ways to Sunday, but he perjured himself before the US Senate Energy council when he spoke before them, and He and the University of Virginia are in direct violation of the Federal Freedom of Information Act.
I think Cuccineli is completely correct in investigating this matter, but I think he should wait and involved the US Government, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Jones have perjured themselves before the US Senate and British Parliament. Just because the British High Council was stupid enough, and bough enough to release Mr. Jones from all wrong doing, I don’t think we should be.
For those who say if the government goes after Mann that it will destroy the freedom to advance science in America.
No it won’t! It will only keep dishonest scientists from being brave enough to ever attempt this sort of crime in the future.
For those of you who don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of this being a crime, Mann, Gore, and others because of their lies and bad science, have caused the US Government to hop down a bad bunny trail and fork over trillions of tax payer’s money to further studies of climate change. That is money that could have been used other places in much better ways for things far more important than the possibility of the global temperatures increasing 1 lousy degree centigrade over the next century. There isn’t even any proof that it will, and certainly no proof that it is anthropogenic in nature.
Gore and Obama and Pochauri and others expect us to sit still while they cram huge debt down our throat and disastrous ideas like cap and trade down our throats and idly sit by while people like Mann and Jones like through their teeth. I for one will not sit still for it. Science and Scientists, and Politicians be damned if they think they are going to convince me to work until November to pay taxes for something that isn’t real!
Back when our country was a fledgling nation people were tried for treason for crimes less devastating than this. Politicians have become strange bedfellows with Scientists and both should be afraid of lying to the American People and trying to take away their freedoms and hard earned money.
Jim,
If you are implying that we should merely allow scientists to govern themselves and keep the government out, aren’t we discussing the facts of how truly bad a job the scientists have been doing of governing and watching themselves?
I think the turned over CRU team letters say that far better than any attorney ever could.
Being a Centrist I am far from wanting more and bigger bad government interupting our daily life, but someone aside from politicians and scientists need to govern this kind of thing.
What should happen is there should be a citizen watch group but of course the politicians and scientists both would say it’s far too complicated to have mere civilians monitor and pat us on the head and tell us how stupid we are.
I woud promptly bite the hand that pats me and say put me in there and I’ll show you how stupid we are!
HR read my 3 comments above to realize how inconsequential that would be in comparison to what was perpetrated across the globe by these men.
These is far more outreaching than anything that Nixon perpetrated and he was crucified because he helped Golda Meier out when her country was about to be wiped off the face of the earth rather than holding his hand like they wanted him to, it wasn’t really about watergate or the 18 minutes of missing tape.
What Gore and Mann and Obama and Pachauri have perpetrated on America and the World is nothing short of treason and such villainy as to make Charles Manson look like a schoolboy in a Catholic Uniform who wet his pants.
Over 1.8 trillion dollars has been spent by the US Government in the last 10-15 years on climate change studies, millions if not billions have been wasted on other green studies because of climate change. These men aren’t altruistic with a concern for the environment… please. They are concerned about their leather office chairs and their huge budgets.
Gore has two companies that are already set up to handle carbon trade, Until recently Obama was a principal in the Chicago Carbon exchange and the Emerald City. For Obama to push cap and trade is a massive conflict of interest.
You don’t think it’s unrelated that Obama and Emmanuel had Clinton try to bribe Sestak not to run in the primary of the Pennsylvania Senate race against Arlen Spechter?
I find it curios that scientists would object to and empirical fact finding venue, under the rule of law, in the effort to provide quality control for a discipline that apparently cannot police itself. Ironic that said scientists would call that exercise in quality control a “witch hunt,” which, from what I understand, a “witch” is a complex of supernatural phenomena beyond the scope of normal science and empirical fact finding. Perhaps they are confusing witch hunt with their consensus driven climate science?
From a post by Chuck Wiese
May 30, 2010 at 5:43 pm
“According to modeling projections by Hansen around 1990, the current global temperatures are supposed to be around 1.35 DegC above the 1979 mean. We are far from this.
——————————–
Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr.
Certainly, if you have a fixed agenda and aversion to the truth……………….
If AG Cuccinelli has prima facie evidence of fraud he should tell the world what it is and proceed from there, if he’s fishing he’s out of order.
Why doesn’t someone in the US ask for the data under the FOIA, a private citizen, or and organisation like the CEI? The UVa can’t possibly equivocate on that request now they’ve demonstrated the alacrity with which they provided the Dr. Michael’s emails.
One thing we can all agree on is that the scientific community has allowed Mann and his ilk to run their own agenda, and indeed have defended him because they agree with the CAGW hypothesis, so it will take a generation for scientists to appear who can accept the truth of the hockeystick fraud. For Mann, Jones, Briffa et al a place in the Scientific Hall of Infamy awaits, that their fate, getting away with it now doesn’t mean that they are safe forever.
1personofdifference says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I am glad Mr. McKitrick came and made his comment as I was concerned for a while that he wasn’t wanting science to be trumped by governmental investigation as if science is above the law. I’ve read numerous warmist websites congratulate Mr. Mckitrick for standing out against AG Cuccineli. However, like usual the warmists just can’t seem to get it right. I don’t see anything in any writings by Mr. McKitrick or by Mr. McIntyre where they have said that government shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of science. The only thing I’ve seen Mr. McKitrick say here or anywhere is:
1. That is not exactly what we said or accomplished, such and such is
2. If Cuccineli or any other AG is going to go after Mann or anyone else they better get their facts straight and go at this correctly.
(Mr McKitrick correct me if I’m wrong)
———————————————-
Quoting McIntyre:
“This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I condemn.”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
The key issue to handle is not scientific ‘fraud’, per se, but the ‘interpretations’, ‘spin’ and media reporting of such ‘science’.
The key issue is not usually ‘did they measure something correctly’ but ‘is what they are measuring the best leading indicator for trouble?’
So for example, you get a research group measuring, accurately, some parameter of a Greenland ice core. They then INTERPRET this data in some way or another. Often based on some work somewhere else which says that this measure is a good proxy for something else. Which may or may not be accurate, but which again was based on some measurements which were. Often, the interpretaton may be in terms of scenario modelling, the worst of which may be a significant temperature rise. From which a media story is run which implies that the research portends ‘global warming’. Which isn’t strictly true, but which fits a political agenda. Or a short-term need to generate profits by pandering to readership’s prejudices.
Note how lots of little things, rather than one big bad wolf, can contribute to this occurring. A little spin in the discussion of a research paper isn’t spin, it’s standard industry practce. The effects of that may be the same as actually fiddling the figures, but the former is ‘real world science’, the latter is ‘ostracism for life’. There’s less difference than you might think between the two in terms of outcomes, but scientific communities somehow fail to see this…….
I suspect that the clock is ticking for this kind of research. As we are now 30 years into global temperature monitoring of the land masses, the sea and the atmosphere with global reach and daily measurements. Not to mention real-time measurement of the sun and cosmic rays using new telescopes/satellites. There may be modifications to such work, but it is likely to become a global data centre which replaces the old standards of e.g. CET, ice cores, deep sea cores etc etc.
So my suggestion to politicians is this: HOLD YOUR HORSES. The world will not disappear in 30 years and by 2050, we will enjoy 70 years of data, which is pretty much a full PDO cycle. It won’t be perfect, but it’ll set the basis for realistic projections, I suspect.
Now if the politicians are realistic, they will do this.
But in their world, other things exist.
1. Getting re-elected.
2. Raising taxes.
3. Pandering to the media.
4. Getting on bandwagons.
5. Seeing their campaign contributors right (which may inlcude setting the energy agenda in their direction).
6. Setting the scene to make serious money when they depart politics.
Ah, the real world.
Doncha just think it’s wonderful, eh?
As a researcher and part of academia for over 4o years, I can empathize with those who feel that the cleansing should be left to the academia itself. At first that was my reaction, let the scientific bodies do the policing.
BUT:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal, which is literally translated as “Who will guard the guards themselves?
It is evident that the self policing honor system has fallen down on its face on the part of academia having to do with climate.
If this were a discipline, for example archeology, where some clique made up a theory and jiggled the facts to fit it and ignored discordant data, one could say that this has happened in the academic world often enough, and the ridicule of posterity is enough punishment. People do archeology for the intellectual challenge and the posthumous glory, and then acquire academic positions . Archeology will never dictate to the six billion humans how they should live or give incentives to unscrupulous politicians to tax the populace to death, or create pyramid schemes a la cap and trade.
The field of medicine does have strong connections with money and political decisions, so it would be a better example. If one discovered that a false plague was set up by a clique of medical academic people, that led to billions spent and to an improvement of their pocket, what would be my reaction? Would I expect the medical societies to clean up the mess, or would I want the system of justice of the countries to take over and judge the truth of the accusations and apportion blame?
I could make grosser analogies ( WWII type) but I will refrain.
It is scenario B that we have here, and claiming academic freedom, when the outcome involves the whole society is an elitist attitude on the part of the ivory tower that should be avoided, imo of course.
Wren says:
Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.
=========================================
Let’s see the evidence. Demonstrate. You make an assertion like that? Show charts, graphs, and real-world, real-time evidence.
The burden of proof is solely on you. Let’s see it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Wren Writes: “Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.”
Wren: BS! Hansen and all climate modelers have trained the “modeling” to project and adjust to current conditions. The variables are tweeked to mimick near current conditions and then claim they are all good and ther skills are legit. I’ll bet you right here and now because of solar magnetic projections based upon the next Gleissburg minimum that Hansen’s forecasts again will be another disaster by 2020 with global temperatures falling below the 1979 mean, regardless of understanding all the causes. The correlations here beat the CO2 r squared’s by a long mile.
Climate modeling is a disaster to date with NO scientific skill to project future conditions. The reesults from 1988-1990 are all the proof anyone needs. And you are kidding youreslf if you think meteorologists don’t know what sort of parameterizations need to be put into these models to integrate their computations far forward in time.
They are buzzing, blinking, whirring anti factoids of science that belong in castle of the Wizard of Oz under the pretense of polular science whizbang pop culture.
Fred says:
May 30, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“I just want him to find out how Mann went from obscure, wet behind the ears PhD with no background in Climatology to poster boy and senior IPCC dude in such a very, very, very short time frame.”
Its all here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700
Headline Story: Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery? by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Excerpt:
“It’s in 1996 that this story gets very curious. At that time Mann needed help to “defend” his Ph.D work in a documented but unexplained controversy at Yale. Inexplicably, this ‘controversy’ was peremptorily swept aside and between 1996-98 Mann was named as the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellow (DOE).
Mann’s Ph.D ‘Rushed Through’
All was now well and Yale gave Mann his Ph.D in 1998. One eminent source in my enquiries confirmed Mann’s Ph.D. was, in fact “rushed through.”
Instantly, Mann was then plucked from obscurity and appointed not just a contributing author for Chapters 7,8,12 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (1998-00) but also Lead Author for Chapter 2. And with no track record whatsoever in this field, Mann now with tree ring data thrust into his hand, famously carved out his infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.
“So what miracle turned this problematic researcher’s life around?
If miracles happened for Mann, they came in the form of Barry Saltzman. You see, this struggling student’s career was transformed the moment Saltzman became his Ph.D adviser. Only after Saltzman applied his influence were Mann’s lofty credentials “rushed through.” Mann then turned himself into a makeshift tree ring counter, and overnight became the iconic figure in the IPCC Third Report (2001). The rest is history, as they say.”
Phil. says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Such audits are routinely carried out, however the Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG.
=================================
As much as I disagree with my own commonwealth [ugh…yes we are still one] AG, nobody really cares whether or not the “Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG”…Phil.
Nobody cares really what you think or about the “vested authority.”
States have their own rights and they certainly have the ability to assert them and they bloody well don’t have to accede to such just because the “Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG”.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I see several postings critical of Ross McKitrick and it seems that some of the animosity may be a carry over from recent statements made by Steve McIntyre recently. In regards to his post here; Ross has said nothing other than stating clarifications and facts. It seems some take objection to this portion of his post…
With that, Ross McKitrick has not stated anything either outlandish or untrue. We live in a society where success in legal challenges requires significant proof. A preponderance of evidence resting in the challengers favor. As much dislike as I have for Mann, his methods, and what I consider poor ethic; proving intentional wrongdoings in court is not a matter of opinion. Hence, as Ross pointed out, a great deal of time and effort would have to be dedicated to the case combined with a thorough knowledge of course of events, the science itself, and Mann’s intent, etc. Not a minor undertaking. That is the reality.
Do I reject the concept of the challenge? Not in the least. If nothing else it serves to highlight the items I previously posted about. A general lack of trust in most climate scientists. Frustration in the public regarding an apparent lack of ethic and accountability. The damage to science generated by the antics of a few. And…. Al Gore.
If the message of how damage is being done to science is heard perhaps, just perhaps, necessary corrections can be implemented. The climate is not broken… but science (some of it) is.
BTW …..
I am suggesting a new treatment for hypothermia cases. Low cost, quickly administered. … .
Step 1)
Calibrate thermometer until reading is slightly more than 98.6
Step 2)
Document low-grade fever and discharge patient
Step 3)
Lose any trace / notation of original reading
I too like Anna V thought this VA fishing expedition was a bit overkill, but now see that it is indeed necessary to bleed this charlatan as a lesson to all those who take my money and produce political fiction under the guise of science.
I don’t expect to see charges at the end of the process, but I do hope to see better behavior from the climate cabal. If not? Then perhaps it will be time for torches and pitch forks (or maybe tar and feathers). – you can’t fool all the people for long and get away unscathed.
Wren has made his assertion that temps are validating Hansen; failing some evidence from him Hansen must get a fail:
http://landshape.org/enm/more-climate-illogic/
Jeff C. says:
May 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.”
While I fully agree Dr. Mann should be investigated, please provide links and quotes to back up the potentially libelous statement regarding Dr. Wakefield quoted above from the article. It has never been shown Dr. Wakefield “falsified studies”; the GMC charges regarding Wakefield involved allegedly unethical practices in his recruitment of subjects for the study.
See here.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/07/did-the-founder-of-the-antivax-movement-fake-autism-vaccine-link/
Also see
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
Before the paywall goes up.
Certainly you’ve all heard of the term ‘Blowing smoke’, and I shant say where the smoke is blown, but there’s a bit of fact behind the old saying.
With that, I introduce you to Michael Mann’s favorite tool for dealing with ‘deniers’:
http://www.assholesamongus.com/PDF/Tobacco%20Smoke%20Enema.pdf
Icarus and anu, I admire your tenacity. For those baying for blood over supposed wrong-doings by climate scientists please note that two separate inquiries have exonerated Jones (CRU) on both scientific method AND conclusions, noting that his results have been replicated by independent studies. This “replicated by independent studies” aspect is critical to robustness in science. It means different groups using different approaches and/or data sets have arrived at essentially the same conclusions. A single study may be fundamentally flawed, biased, prefaced on bad data, poor assumptions and so forth. A cluster of studies with variations in approach that produce similar end results provide increased confidence.
Also note that Jones results hold with and without the inclusion of tree ring data (the source of the oft misconstrued “hide the decline” comment). Perhaps some are barking up the wrong tree!?
Taking account of the veritable flood of warmist scary junk science CAGW “tomato sauce” served up to us each day, the only thing that will make these alarmist promoters and the journals really think hard about what they are doing, and the part they are playing, is the possibility that they could be held to account for the misuse of funds in the production of that sloppy concoction.
Dr Mann who I believe bought all this attention on himself with the degree of his engagement with others to further protect his hockey stick, his rapid rise in the Climatology new found hall of flame, his lead status with the UN IPCC, his access to research grants and membership of an exclusive inner circle dedicated to squashing any dissent, (revealed in CRU “released” emails) and ultimately, in not being Mann enough to prove his data by allowing other scientists access, so as they say here in Australia “stiff cheddar” Michael.
Of course In the Cucinelli matters he will have all the academic support, and as much “official” funding that can be channeled or diverted to explore every legal “trick” and subterfuge in the book and every advantage living in a liberal democracy can bestow. For the rest of us, there are some disturbing shadows on the Horizon with subtle attacks on personal liberties courtesy of the skewed thinking and threats of some of his fellow travellers.
Just a small indication, the tip of the iceberg so to speak, can be found on Jo Nova’s site
http://joannenova.com.au/
Article “Throwing the hate grenade”
Quote from Ben “E” on Jo Nova’s blog site.
“Sad, but scarcely surprising. Sites like this one will eventually be shut down in future updates to hate crime legislation, as they are well on the way to inciting violence and hatred towards scientists and science communicators.”
Fortunately both Jo and Willis Eishenbach set Ben E straight on where the true hate and vicious comments were coming from, courtesy, of the genre of Mann and his CAGW fellow travellers, they dish it out, then scream Wolf! Wolf! when someone merely dares to question the flaws in their science.
Not only do we have to put up with that, but the same Australian ABC crowd of left wingers that promulgate hate towards us who dare to question the religion of CAGW arejust like Ben E, panting to get laws to suppress our dissenting voices, especially the pesky qualified (hence villified) scientists among us they want to censor the internet under any pretext, but really to deny us climate deniers the means to communicate and ask questions, then that is fair game (to them).
Hmmn changing the laws to suit their own ends sounds familiar. Miranda rights for terrorists, but then we might need to suppress rights of US citizens… err…. to sell you a bill of nothing?
So for mine, Michael Mann is a lucky guy to have all his rights intact. The rest of us might not be so lucky if his fellow travellers silence our voices. Good luck Cucinelli, if you win the day, we won’t be drowning in all that red hot climate sauce.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr…..
The problem, to my eyes, is that we have seen “Academia” close ranks and make use of whitewash brushes on both sides of the pond. I get the feeling that Steve M. seems to stand with Carr on it though. Its an opinion and we all have those and are free to state them.
Nice post Paul.
According to the comments in the CGate emails, Mann behaves arrogantly and ignorantly towards his co-workers and peers, not to mention his opponents. Shed no tears over this duplicitous incompetent.
Politicians have their set of rules to play by. The legal system (in the US) has it’s set of rules. Those two are Just close enough to confuse everybody. Industry sets up self governing codes of conduct and so does the practice of Science in academia claim to self-regulate itself.
Unless they don’t self regulate like they promised. Mann and Hansen went way past detached scientific observers and the self regulating science community didn’t correct them. They chose to play in the world of politics and didn’t see the circling wolf of legal action or even consider that blogosphere blowback is something to deal with. That would be ignorant, would it not?
It’s all post-normal, so don’t worry. The stakes are high and the certainty is low. Go bold!
Excerpted from: savethesharks on May 30, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Speaking from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, what’s the problem?
From Wikipedia(!):
You got a problem with “government based on the common consent of the people”?
😉
Excellent article!
All science should be open to knowing how and where the conclusions were made and all the data behind it.
You would have thought that all the AGW supporters would like to see their “Hero” Mr Mann exonerated in a Court of Law wouldn’t you?
Except of course unless they are worried he might just be guilty.
There are too many things that are broken to be fixed with one solution, even ‘crazy glue’ won’t work. Let the AG go after the crooks, let the scholars clean their own house of the ‘unscholarly’, and let the people vote –in the final analysis, We Da People is responsible for all the things our idiot government representatives and employees does and fails to does.
Sorry to have to pop some bubbles among the uninitiated neo-mensch, but we brought global warming, algore, climategate, unscholarly conduct, greed, insanity, and a billion or two other mistakes upon our own heads and the heads of our children, and their children to the seventh generation. Funny how everything turns to crap when ya’ ain’t lookin’. Caveat Emptor! Buyer beware!
As I understand it MM’s hockey stick work is seriously flawed. So much so that Ross McKitrick might even agree that it can now legitimately be descibed as fraudulent since, even having had the obvious errors drawn to his attention, he has not resiled from his position. That is, however, a matter best dealt with by his peers in academia.
But if he has used his previous work, while being aware that it is incorrect, to obtain funding that is fraudulent and is a matter for the courts. If Mr. Cuccinelli has prima facie evidence of such fraud then he is right to enter on a fishing trip. In most of the more than four hundred cases in which I have been involved over the years the most conclusive evidence only became available on discovery/disclosure. If the fishing trip does not produce sufficient supporting evidence then Mr. Cuccinelli should withdraw and apologise. Even so his reputation will be tarnished. I assume that he is aware of that and, therefore, has not entered on this enterprise lightly.
Marc Blank says
‘If there has been malfeasance on MM’s part, it should be handled within his profession.’
And I say, sod the profession. It is not just the profession, nor for that matter, just U.S. citizens, that are being harmed by this malfeasance, and the profession has long since lost any claim to be the rightful single arbiter. The sooner effective legal action is taken the better for billions of us around the world.
Dealing with financial fraud. The AG is going after the school. He is wise and doing so correctly. The grants and funding were recieved by the school. It is the duty of the school to pass along the grant money and monitor its use. Reports on how the money was spent by Mann go to the school. If he does armchair research and merely googles info and has few expenses other than travel and entertainment, the school is damaged. The school apparently is fighting back. They may have no records from Mann and may have not required accurate reports.
When there is a crime, a strong defense is to get the case that you can’t win to be dropped. Since embezzlement is not new, when there is misappropriation of funds, there is almost 100% lack of clean and complete financial reports. Cheaters do not want to leave an easy to follow document trail.
Actually many lawyers specialize and have a law degree plus an engineering degree or accounting degree. One of my friends was a doc and then attended law school. The AG, if I remember is also an engineer. Technical methods can be used for investigating cases.
From my psychologist point of view, we ask “what is the presenting problem”
The AG is delving into the financial side and the “pretend scientists” are trying to make it a scientific inquiry. They express feigned outrage that a mere lowly lawyer could have the nerve to consider & question science. It is not illegal to make ignorant scientific claims. It is illegal to cheat with money.
The AG is about the money trail. The school is trying to shift the goalposts and claim academic freedom.
Any attempt by these scientists to hide behind statutes or grant sources does them no good and will only serve to solidify public opinion against granting any more money, state or otherwise, to AGW climate scientists.
By bringing these issues out in the open, we often discover the true colors of things we once thought were above personal agendas.
From a CPA viewpoint, that breaks down into 2 issues. The presenting problem within the problems are these
1 Did Mann provide misleading information in the course of applying for grant money? (manipulate data)
2 Did Mann and the school provide honest and accurate reports to account for the funds.
In the mortgage bubble, thousands provided false information on their loan applications. see#1 above
Mortgage problems also came from cheating surrounding the actual financial transactions. Appraisers that were relatives or not independent. Kickbacks to certain parties without disclosure. #2 above
It’s a great pity that the question of whether or not Mann deserves being brought to account at law for his misdeeds is being conflated with the rather different one of whether it is a good idea for Cuccinelli to go after him in this instance. I live for the day Mann and his tribe are brought low, but it is too important a task to be botched by a misfire. I just hope Cuccinelli knows something Steve McKittrick doesn’t…
If Michael Mann is proud of his work, and he has nothing to hide, then he should be open to the investigation. After all, Mann’s work is ‘above question’ so the investigation should find nothing wrong, right?
Why do scientists like Mann think they are so special that their government funded research should not be subject to investigation by an outside party like a government agency?
Look at the situation of auditors. Auditors are subjected to quality control reviews by their professional bodies…. they also have the corporate regulatory bodies hanging over them like a damocles sword… and their ‘audit working paper files’ must be impeccably maintained so as to stand up to legal scrutiny. One stuff up by the auditor could be the end of his career… even imprisonment.
It’s time scientists were also held to account, just as auditors are constantly held to account. They get it wrong… they pay the price!
addendum
My next letter writing campaign will be related to the offering of continued funding to those scientists who hide behind some shield so that their practices avoid proper scrutiny when it involves public policy, or worse espouse disallowing opposing research from seeing the light of day. Salary, grants, building space, and other accouterments of public research come out of my pocket. These funding sources are usually buried in massive bills which pass even under the nose of penny pinching republicans as compromises. Such behavior will garner my ill feelings towards supporting then in their next election.
1personofdifference says:
May 30, 2010 at 9:21 pm
You can do whatever you like to your politians I don’t care. But getting them involved in shaping the direction of science is a mistake whether it’s Gore, Obama or Cuccinelli.
Four of the world’s foremost meteorological organizations recorded a 0.595C temperature decrease for the year 2008. This decrease virtually wiped out all the temperature increases recorded since 1780 the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Yet, if Michael Mann finds one pine cone bristle “proxy” in the Yamal Pennisula, this proves the world is about to be burned to a cinder? I don’t think so!
Then…in order to make anything against law, one could do it through a “research paper”, then publishing it in a science magazine, correctly “peer reviewed” before its publication…
So now many proned to crime people will go to school to become “conveniently” educated, for having the consensual and accepted means to offend the law . LOL!
There is nothing more stupid and unscientific than extrapolation of two points on a curve. So I was taught as both a pre-engineering student and as a physics major, and I was taught properly, back in the 1950s. These projections of trends is no more than extrapolation. No good can possibly come of doing so. This present practice of doing so by so-called “scientists” is a clear demonstration that science is has been abandoned for purposes of obtaining government money (taxpayer dollars) through unwarranted alarmism. Alarmism is profitable, as it always has been. Absurd concept.
It’s time to clear a few things up.
Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas,
Sorry, no.
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas are both astrophysicists in the same group at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Baliunas was awarded the Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy from the American Astronomical Society – hardly an award for climatologists.
Dr. Willie Soon – SSP (Solar,Stellar, and Planetary Sciences) Division Staff List
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ssp/contact.html
Dr. Sallie Baliuna – SSP Research Staff
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ast/irs_new.html
It’s one thing to claim meteorologists are climatologists.
But astrophysicists ?
You must be joking.
But they are certainly qualified to do research on the Sun and Sun-like stars, and collaborate with real climatologists.
As the famous Nobel-prize winning economist Dr. James Hansen once said – “People shouldn’t make stuff up about me – just check your facts, ok ?”
HR says:
May 31, 2010 at 7:22 am
You can do whatever you like to your politians I don’t care. But getting them involved in shaping the direction of science is a mistake whether it’s Gore, Obama or Cuccinelli.
But, but , but, AGW is already grandly involved with politicians, like Gore, and Obama et all eying our pocketbooks, to say the least, and building pyramid schemes with cap and trade and funding the corresponding research that leads to the conclusions they want. Cucinelli is just the auditor on this money side, imo.
It is unfortunately the case that in all branches of academia there is exaggeration, distortion, and cherrypicking of results. From a tiny study we are told to eat bran muffins or cranberries to live forever. A study of toxicity uses an absurdly high dose and concludes all chemicals should be banned. Specious arguments are used to claim silly things about the gender equivalence of little boys and girls. Deconstructionists and post-modernists write total gibberish. Are they all to be investigated now? And where are you going to find a court and jury who can follow the “hide the decline” complexities? Sorry, bad idea.
The fact that the so call “scientists” signed a petition by the Union of Concerned Liars, means their credibity is ZERO.
The UCS is an advocacy group, which has NEVER…repeat NEVER supplied ANY credentials for any of it’s “members”.
In the ’80’s, “Opinion” magazine sent a survey to 2500 individuals listed in “Who’s Who of American Men and Women in Science”. They recieved an ASTOUNDING 1875 responses. One of the questions (it was on energy supply) that they asked was, “Have you been, are you now, or are you planning on becoming a member of the UCS?”
They got ONE affirmative response.
They said statistically they had 95% confidence that less than 300 of the 150,000 listed in the Who’s Who for Science were members of the UCS.
If David Duke had a “cover” organization, and they produced a “petition” who’s intent I agreed with, in this era of the internet…I’m sure I’d research the petition orginators, and despite my agreement in principle, I would not sign it.
I expect as much from a TRUE “intellectual”.
Max
If you know that the analysis you are performing is informing public policy you have a duty to make that analysis as accurate as possible. The damage these policies are doing is huge. If this action drags information into the public domain earlier, or makes academics taking public funding think twice before embelishing their predictions then it gets my support. Science has a role in public policy only so long as it is believed to be rigorous and non-partisan. The rules of academia must change to prevent science being bent like this is future, and it is hard to see how that can be enforced without the courts. Peer review was supposed to prevent this. If academia wishes it’s publications to take part in public policy (and to be funded to do so) then it has to take responsibility for ensuring they offer the best representation of the science available. If the academic institutions do not take the scientific method seriously then it has to be enforced by the courts. The structure of academia appears to have been corrupted. That is the price you pay for taking the public shilling to inform public policy. There is no place for overstatement of facts in science. Mann may not be the right ultimate target, but he is the appropriate starting point to get the facts – and he is still refusing to provide the data and models.
Charging scientists with fraudulent research and misuse of public funds is not unprecedented. The Korean scientist that claimed various cloning breakthroughs was likewise charged. (Remember Newsweek breathlessly crowing that Koreans, as opposed to clumsy Caucasians, were more adept a gene manipulation because of their nimble use of chopsticks?)
OT, but care to listen directly to Dr. Wakefield?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/smith-scott8.1.1.html
IMHO, instead of likening Dr. Wakefield to Dr. Mann, he should have been likened to Dr. Patrick Michaels. Both were prosecuted by the Establishment because of their expression of skeptical and controversial (according to the power) views.
Steve McIntyre makes a persuasive case against Cuccinelli’s action at
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/.
Those who want to politicize the issue should by all means do so this november by working against those members of congress who voted for Cap and Trade.
Craig Loehle says:
May 31, 2010 at 8:51 am
“It is unfortunately the case that in all branches of academia there is exaggeration, distortion, and cherrypicking of results. From a tiny study we are told to eat bran muffins or cranberries to live forever. A study of toxicity uses an absurdly high dose and concludes all chemicals should be banned. Specious arguments are used to claim silly things about the gender equivalence of little boys and girls. Deconstructionists and post-modernists write total gibberish. Are they all to be investigated now? And where are you going to find a court and jury who can follow the “hide the decline” complexities? Sorry, bad idea.”
You have a point there, Craig.
In Norway we have , I think they call them Sociologists (?), with PhD’s …..they study gender-stuff. And they refuse to include ANYTHING from biology; Genetics. It was a great scandal here now with a TV series called “Brainwash” that shows this very clearly to the taxpayers. They (The “scientists”) said flat out that they dont need any data from research within genetics, because all gender stuff comes from your environment and upbringing.
What can we do? We will have to wait until the 70’thy generation of marxists simply die of old age, and are replaced by a new generation of scientists, with new ideas.
However, its rather tragicomic me thinks, that the left, who loves to make laws and regulations, pushing every individual into a strict orwellian control regime, now is a victim of their own tactics.
Not many on the left understand what the marxist idea really leads to…..when everyone disagreeing with the party-line …has to be dealt with….suddenly, one day, its yourself!
Wonderful article. In addition to all the items listed in the article, we must not overlook the fact that Climategaters have done a great harm to science education. At best, Climategaters have claimed that a science in its infancy is a mature science and that it has proved the AGW hypothesis. At worst, Climategaters have proved that they have no understanding of scientific method yet they have been relentless in pushing their computer models and their hunches about Earth’s climate as if they amounted to good science conducted in accordance with scientific method. Again, they have done a great harm to science education. Climategaters will not discuss scientific method. There is not one of them who has engaged in a debate on scientific method, unless you count some post-Kuhnian dreams about post-modern science.
Computer models are like Ptolemy’s epicycles. As individual hypotheses, epicycles have no bearing on physical reality. As one grand empirical hypothesis, the system of epicycles has been known to be falsified since it was created. The history of Ptolemaic astronomy is the history of tinkerings with epicycles in the face of empirical observations that were wildly at variance with the system. Copernicus took the first step beyond tinkering when he placed the Sun at the center of the solar system. Kepler followed with genuine hypotheses that could be used for prediction in a dynamic solar system. Kepler’s laws were universal statements about regularities in nature, as are all scientific hypotheses. But there is not one scientific hypothesis in the Climategaters account of Earth’s atmosphere; that is, not one beyond those that explain the behavior of the CO2 molecule. As Climategaters explain, CO2 alone cannot explain the rise in global temperatures about which they warn. The something else that is needed is an account of the “forcings” that amplify the effects of CO2. But Climategaters have not one partially confirmed, universally quantified hypothesis about forcings. Not one. What Climategaters have is a raft load of hunches about the connections among Arctic melt, drought in North Africa, and just about anything that can be associated with climate. But there are no hypotheses to tie together these diverse phenomena and provide a framework that gives meaning to each of the phenomena against the background of global climate. Climategaters know these facts that I have described. The fact that they will not acknowledge them shows that their passions have overcome their science. They are doing great harm to science education and have truly earned indictments from state and national governments, not to mention international bodies.
₳ɳʊ says:
May 31, 2010 at 8:37 am
“It’s one thing to claim meteorologists are climatologists.But astrophysicists ?”
It would be much, much worse if someone claimed a clima-guy was an astrophysicists.
Or if someone claimed a clima-guy was a meteorologist, or a physicist.
That would be unbearable.
savethesharks says:
May 30, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Wren says:
Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.
=========================================
Let’s see the evidence. Demonstrate. You make an assertion like that? Show charts, graphs, and real-world, real-time evidence.
The burden of proof is solely on you. Let’s see it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
======
cohenite says:
May 31, 2010 at 12:47 am
Wren has made his assertion that temps are validating Hansen; failing some evidence from him Hansen must get a fail:
http://landshape.org/enm/more-climate-illogic/
———————————————————–
It’s not much work to compare Hansen’s published temperature projections for 2010 with observed temperatures.
In Hansen”s 1988-2020 global land-ocean temperature projections, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the B Scenario has temperature 1 degree C higher in 2010 than in the 1960 zero base year(see p. 9347 in link).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The corresponding actual change in global land-sea temperature from the first quarter of 1960 to to the first quarter of 2010 was 0.8 C, not exactly on the mark with the projected change of 1.0 C for the annual average, but darn close, and the year 2010 has three-quarters to go. The Quarterly averages were calculated from the linked table.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.tx
I’m not aware of an up-to-date graph comparing Hansen’s projections to observed temperature, but the following link has one that goes to 2005, and shows how the actual temperatures start catching up with the projections.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.
Responding to 1personofdifference way above: I would be surprised if there are websites out there congratulating me for criticising the Cucinelli action since I haven’t said anything one way or the other prior to the comment above.
But if more comment is needed (so to speak), my thoughts begin at the 2:15 mark here.
Some people don’t seem to understand the U.S. Constitution. Amendment X, in its entirety, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions are not prohibited by the Constitution. His right to act does not have to be granted by the federal government; the Constitution gives him whatever rights are not delegated to the US nor prohibited to the States. If he thinks he has a case, he is, in fact, duty bound to bring it. As an experienced academic, I know how slow, unpredictable, and spasmodic are most academic processes, including peer review; the idea that the academics could or would police this farrago of academic dishonesty and thuggery by themselves is simply laughable, given the vested interest they have in maintaining the status quo.
If “Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena”, then “scientific funding should come from solely the academic area.” Once an “arena” uses public funds, the public has a legitimate interest in ensuring those funds are properly used.
₳ɳʊ says: May 31, 2010 at 8:37 am
“It’s one thing to claim meteorologists are climatologists.
But astrophysicists ?
You must be joking.
But they are certainly qualified to do research on the Sun and Sun-like stars, and collaborate with real climatologists.
As the famous Nobel-prize winning economist Dr. James Hansen once said – “People shouldn’t make stuff up about me – just check your facts, ok ?”
===============
Would that be Dr. James Hansen, the astrophysicist, then?
Marc: “To turn this into a question of criminality (which implies “beyond a reasonable doubt”) strikes me as ultimately counter-productive. Do we want a liberal AG in Massachusetts to investigate Dr. Lindzen?”
A lot of misinformation being tossed around. First off the Cuccinelli investigation is NOT a criminal investigation. It is a civil action that is allowed by state law.
If you go to a bank for certain commercial loans you will likely sign an agreement that will allow the bank to audit your records and the bank will not need to establish a reasonable cause for auditing you. They can audit you if the don’t like the look of your face.
The State of Virginia clearly does not want to be taken advantage of by its contractors nor by its institutions. So it has created this law that allows for this investigation without establishing any reasonable cause and it becomes part and parcel to doing business with the State.
Likewise, Mann if he is honest should have nothing to fear either. Its my opinion that people are jumping to conclusions that this will be legally decided via an interpretation of science. If it does result in bad news for Mann it will likely be a result of some email or other communication he sent that establishes he intentionally misrepresented something. One who believes Mann does not do that should not have any concern. If your concern is the twisting of some unguarded statement; well that goes with the territory.
Cohenite Writes: “Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.”
Cohenite: Baloney! Hooey! Hansen’s scenario C is still projected above current temperatures in 2010 when that scenario stops ALL CO2 increases in the year 2000 at 368 ppmv. We are now at 389 ppmv so it is clear the modeling is a complete failure and artifact of science. ALL climate modeling to date is UNPHYSICAL and UNABLE to accurately simulate or replicate the real physical processes of the earth atmospheric interface because of gross over parameterizations of those processes to maintain computational stability, AND the modeling obviously has serious issues with radiative transfer because of the inability to model the earth’s hydrological cycle, which is the single most imortant process that handles the heat and energy exchanges between the surface and atmospheric interface.
Climate models are NOT physical and scientific with respect to how these jerks and frauds are portraying them and misleading politicians into believing they are. For you to claim ANY scenario is better than none is scientifically vacant and lends no credibility to any of these jerks. There has been no proof offered to date that CO2 has caused or driven the recently terminated warming trend and there are no measurements that have been obtained that demonstrate this either.
**************
Dr. John M. Ware says:
May 31, 2010 at 11:07 am
Some people don’t seem to understand the U.S. Constitution. Amendment X, in its entirety, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions are not prohibited by the Constitution.
***********************
It is interesting to read James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Ultimately, the States were not allowed to elect the President and the two Legislative bodies. The People elect the members of the two houses of the Legislature and also the President, although the President is elected through the Electoral College. Likewise, the State’s government officials are by and large elected by the People. Therefore, both the Federal and State governments ultimately answer to and draw their power from the People. The Federal Government does not answer to the States and the States do not answer to the Federal Government, although the Federal Governments laws do override the States in some cases.
The UCS think, say, thatthe peer review system will decide if there is problem the climatologist, and I use the word loosley, findings. the bigger problem in my mind and apperantly others as well is the fact they hijacked the process by only allowing reviewers that they approved of muchless conspiring to and haveingdone,firing of editors who did not do thier bidding, trashing the reputationof any one who did not toe the line as they saw fit!!!!!!! The CRU had a programmer that spent 3 yrs. trying tofigure out the mess they created and put it in a MODEL, he could not replicate the theorys. So far the UCS has not come down on them or said anything public aboutthis, WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This whole mess should be brought to civil court and not criminal, the burden of proof is different. Lawyers out there correct me if i am wrong and no Pamela notmy typing skills, which i hope are getting better, a little joke between us. I believe this will bear more fruit as a whole, acedamia will have to account, Univesitys , GISS, NASA and others and not just the scienctist for thier duplicity in the in the matters. And for good measure ther is also a conflict of interest problem for the likes of Gore, Pauchuri, Obama and others for the long list of companys that they sit on the boards on or thier ownership of said companys or stock for which they have an AGENDA to make richer and the world poorer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ramble but these , IMHO, are a few pionts to ponder. I look forward to talking about this, Anthony, possibly a story thier to write for the blogs out thier much less MSM to investigate, I wont hold my breath on the last part.
Ross McKitrick says:
May 31, 2010 at 10:55 am
Responding to 1personofdifference way above: I would be surprised if there are websites out there congratulating me for criticising the Cucinelli action since I haven’t said anything one way or the other prior to the comment above.
But if more comment is needed (so to speak), my thoughts begin at the 2:15 mark here.
====
Great movie! Worth watching again.
Many here have said or implied “academics should police their own” or words to that effect. Those folks have missed the point. Cuccinelli is not only within his authority as AG to ask for the information he has requested, there is no one else within the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia who is more entitled. The AG is the top legal enforcement person in Va. and therefore, represents all the other citizens. He is INVESTIGATING a potential case, not prosecuting one (yet–though that may come in the future, depending on the findings). The potential case involves large sums of PUBLIC–not private, not “academic”– money.
If wrongdoing is found, what then? Do you expect “academic police, prosecutors, and courts” to assess guilt, levy fines or sentences, and if so, who enforces those fines? Who are they paid to? (Or do you believe there should be no repayment if fraud is determined?) There is no all-powerful academia with jurisdiction to force the truth to come out. There is no all-knowing academia with jurisdiction to determine whether or not crimes or civil frauds have been committed. There is no all-wise academia with jurisdiction to determine what sentence or penalty should be assessed if guilt is determined.
We in the USA live in a society that has agreed the fairest way to handle potential issues of wrongdoing–be they littering or murder–should be handled through our system of courts, complete with attorneys to protect the interests for both sides, judges to ensure fair proceedings, juries to render verdicts, and bailiffs to enforce the sentence of the court. That is how Americans do things, even things involving academics.
As much as the average person justly fears the prospect of going to court, I guarantee that average person would be much more fearful of having decisions made on the basis of belonging to–or not belonging to–some exalted group…like academics.
How cute!
Spelling your screenname with non-standard characters, my that must make you feel special.
Also will make it harder to search for your name, which would be good for trying to prevent your old comments from coming back to haunt you in the future.
Did you check if that will display on all browsers? That would have been the polite thing to do.
Frankly, I think ⋀⋂⋃ would have been a better choice, Unicode: 22c0 22c2 22c3. Has a nice clean look.
Your reference to Dr. Andrew Wakefield is misleading. He is more like Dr. Patrick Michaels; getting terminated for challenging the established view. See this
I should add to my post above (at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/#comment-400532 ) that although I think it would be unwise for the AG to proceed against the UVA on a matter of substantive science (which is a slippery slope), I don’t think that what he’s done so far is objectionable. He has a right to take a gander at the records. (And he hasn’t gone on the warpath by so doing — his action was not revealed by his office, but by outsiders, presumably someone at UVA.) But he shouldn’t take the next step of filing an action, unless he finds a clear-cut procedural violation.
Thanks Anthony
This has been more fun than a Keystone Cops movie.
Mr McKitrick, I may have been thinking of Mr. McIntyre.
There have been several websites making comments that they were proud that one of the two of you would be standing out against the attacks on Michael Mann.
I appologize if I dropped the wrong name. 🙂
If anyone thinks this investigation is out of line and thinks that Academia should be left to the judgement, need I remind you of Mann’s whitewashed investigation at Penn State and the hand washing over in Britain in the case of Phil Jones? Colloquialism indeed.
Perhaps I should go try to rob a bank and have my cousin stand outside and tell the police… no need for alarm he’s just using historic rhetoric and bravado to test the alarm system.
Do you think they’d let me walk by them with the money bags?
Phil. says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Methinks you should spend some time studying the US Constitution. The States do not derive their powers from the Federal Government, indeed, any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were explicitly mentioned as belonging to the States by that very same document. For that matter, both the States and the Federal Government derive their powers from the people they represent.
Yet another “legal scholar” without half a clue of what he is talking about. Apparently Nick Stokes and Phil. went to the same Law School in the Honduras. They have good medical schools down there too, I here, did you guys pick up one of those diplomas there as well?
Mark
If Mann was a Republican pushing science that conservatives liked, he would have lost tenure already, been sued, had injunctions filed to shut him down, had his credit report made public, and be surrounded by mobs of activists with bullhorns blaring 24×7. And everything he has ever said or done would be dribbled out on the NYT front page.
And the US AG would be leaking the grand jury investigation out on a daily basis.
kwik says:
May 31, 2010 at 9:33 am
[–snip–]
In Norway we have , I think they call them Sociologists (?), with PhD’s …..they study gender-stuff. And they refuse to include ANYTHING from biology; Genetics. It was a great scandal here now with a TV series called “Brainwash” that shows this very clearly to the taxpayers. They (The “scientists”) said flat out that they dont need any data from research within genetics, because all gender stuff comes from your environment and upbringing.
*
*
You might be interested in this short but true story which will absolutely destroy those so-called ‘scientists’ contentions.
It’s about a boy who was raised as a girl because of a medical mishap.
http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html
Mark T says:
May 31, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Phil. says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Such audits are routinely carried out, however the Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG.
Methinks you should spend some time studying the US Constitution. The States do not derive their powers from the Federal Government, indeed, any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were explicitly mentioned as belonging to the States by that very same document. For that matter, both the States and the Federal Government derive their powers from the people they represent.
The Virginia AG is claiming authority under the Va FATA statute to investigate Mann’s activities while at UVA. That statute is restricted to grants funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, of the 5 grants named in the CID only one was funded by Va and that one predated the FATA statute (and the PI wasn’t Mann).
I just googled VA State Code and could not find “academic freedom” – I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m doing it wrong. Lots of references to misuse of public funds, fraud, disclosure, etc. The school and the academics may want to have a lawyer review their next press release.
Dr. John M. Ware says:
May 31, 2010 at 11:07 am
Some people don’t seem to understand the U.S. Constitution. Amendment X, in its entirety, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions are not prohibited by the Constitution. His right to act does not have to be granted by the federal government; the Constitution gives him whatever rights are not delegated to the US nor prohibited to the States. [–snip rest–]
*
*
I agree completely with the expressed sentiments.
Where I disagree is that matter of the U.S. Constitution ‘giving’ rights. That is the only place you are incorrect, inasmuch as the said Constitution is all about the expressly enumerated powers only. Individual rights aren’t even broached therein, and because they aren’t mentioned there is no enumerated power to meddle with them.
And in point of fact, even the ‘Bill of Rights’ is actually a bill of express prohibitions against government action regarding all of our rights.
[snip – tone it down, Anthony]
Having been audited, the source of funds is irrelevant. They were received by the UVA and distributed to Mann – those funds derived from Federal sources could be independently audited by their granting agencies.
What are the liberals thinking?
Under the AMerican Power Act (energy taxes) they pose sending folks to your home to do an energy audit. Smart meter, appliances, insulations, windows and many other items.
Under Obamacare, there are audits of Medical Clinics to see if they are making too much profit.
Under bank bailouts, the number of audits and asset reviews went up.
OSHA routinely does safety audits and exams.
The company I own has routine audits of our employer 401k plan.
The liability insurance carrier does asset reviews and safety examinations.
Under what wild and crazy notion do Academics claim they are above the inconvenience of scrutiny and external review?
Henry chance says:
June 1, 2010 at 7:30 am
What are the liberals thinking?
[–snip–]
Under what wild and crazy notion do Academics claim they are above the inconvenience of scrutiny and external review?
BRAVO, Henry!
How DARE they presume to be beyond reproach?!
Well, obviously they have titles of nobility, i.e., letters after their names, that’s why!
It is time to go for broke.
Yes, the Constitution limits our Federal government, and that is what has kept us Virginians and us Americans free, and has helped us keep the rest of the world free, too.
No free lunch. No free grants. No free political power. By, of and for the people, in whatever order, is what the American precedent is about. That is a gift from our country’s ancestors to the world, free to take or reject, and free to adopt to your own people.
And free to be called to account when it may have been abused. By each of the States. Not by the United States. What a gift to live in this way.
Chuck Wiese says:
May 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“Cohenite Writes: “Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.”
Cohenite: Baloney! Hooey!”
Fair dinkum Chuck, that wasn’t me, it was Wren who said that;
“Wren says:
May 31, 2010 at 10:15 am”
I had taken him to task earlier and he threw some GISS rubbish at me which I didn’t think worth the effort of responding to.
cohenite says:
June 1, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Chuck Wiese says:
May 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“Cohenite Writes: “Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.”
Cohenite: Baloney! Hooey!”
Fair dinkum Chuck, that wasn’t me, it was Wren who said that;
“Wren says:
May 31, 2010 at 10:15 am”
I had taken him to task earlier and he threw some GISS rubbish at me which I didn’t think worth the effort of responding to.
=====
What I did is based on published data and is easily verifiably and repeatable by anyone interested in examining my work. I think that would be the fair response rather than calling it “rubbish” without giving reasons.
I quoted Hansen’s Scenario B projection of a 1.0 C 1960-2010 increase in global temperature directly from the source:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
I calculated the observed global temperature increase of 0.8 from 1960 to the the first quarter of 2010 directly from the anomalies in the source:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The observed increase of 0.8 C is close to Hansen’s projected increase of 1.0 C , a pretty accurate projection, and obviously better than no projection at all or a projection of no change in temperature.
Wren,
Hansen took the long term average rise in global temperature [.14°/decade] and extrapolated it — with three predictions. None of them were right.
The fact that Hansen got close on one of them [but was still wrong despite the large fudge factors] means that you are practicing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of shooting a hole in the barn door and drawing a bullseye around it.
Face it, Hansen has been wrong all along. If he can’t get in the ball park with three separate scenarios, why should anyone listen to him? We need people who are right, not wrong.
Chuck Wiese says:
May 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Cohenite Writes: “Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.”
Cohenite: Baloney! Hooey! Hansen’s scenario C is still projected above current temperatures in 2010 when that scenario stops ALL CO2 increases in the year 2000 at 368 ppmv. We are now at 389 ppmv so it is clear the modeling is a complete failure and artifact of science. ALL climate modeling to date is UNPHYSICAL and UNABLE to accurately simulate or replicate the real physical processes of the earth atmospheric interface because of gross over parameterizations of those processes to maintain computational stability, AND the modeling obviously has serious issues with radiative transfer because of the inability to model the earth’s hydrological cycle, which is the single most imortant process that handles the heat and energy exchanges between the surface and atmospheric interface.
Climate models are NOT physical and scientific with respect to how these jerks and frauds are portraying them and misleading politicians into believing they are. For you to claim ANY scenario is better than none is scientifically vacant and lends no credibility to any of these jerks. There has been no proof offered to date that CO2 has caused or driven the recently terminated warming trend and there are no measurements that have been obtained that demonstrate this either.
======
I didn’t say “ANY scenario is better than none.” I said Hansen’s Scenario B projection of a 1.0 C increase in global temperature from 1960 to 2010 (1st quarter) is close to the observed increase of 0.8 C. Obviously that’s better than no projection at all or a projection of no change in the temperature, as are his A and C projections, although not as accurate as B.
If Hansen under-projected CO2, so what? He did project an increase in CO2, and it increased. Isn’t that better than no projection or a projection of no increase in CO2. Anyone who thinks Hansen’s B projection of temperature is “right for the wrong reasons,” would need to show (1) the underlying projections and the assumptions about the future were less accurate than an assumption that nothing would change, and (2) the underlying projections and assumptions were so wrong and so in conflict that they offset each other to make the temperature projection right. Has anyone done that?
Scientist don’t expect projections into the future to turn out to be right on the money , nor do they they believe that degree of accuracy is needed for the projections to be useful. No one can project the future with precision and absolute certainty, so if you want to know if a projection has turned out good, the first question should be — good compared to what?
R. Craigen says:
May 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“….. I think a lawsuit like this might be the only way scrutiny of the climate alarmist behavior can be forced. It is too bad it has to be Mann, who is not the worst in the alarmist camp, and whose behavior is probably not criminal, though in my opinion at times it has verged on being unethical, and until the discovery phase we will not really know whether or not the case has sufficient merit. I suspect Mann and UVA’s lawyers, however, will do anything to avoid submitting to discovery, which is really the main point of the case.”
__________________________________________________________________________
The thwarting of FOI requests and the dodging of the discovery process, makes me as a tax payer very very suspicious. The Virginia and US tax payers by paying for Dr. Mann’s work are in effect his boss. Therefore we have every right to demand an accounting of his work.
The political two step and obstructionism seen throughout “climate science” should raise huge flags in everyone’s mind. In no other science is the data and methods hidden during peer reviewed publication.
The damage done to the name of science by these so called “academic scientists” is inexcusable. I would like to see every one of them thrown out of their jobs. If the universities and colleges had any ethics they would do so instead of defending poor practices.
HR says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:07 pm
What a nightmare! You have no understanding of freedom from the state.
You expect a free and open scierntific debate when the state is brought in to attack one side of the debate.
Just because Mann does and says things you don’t like isn’t a reason for the state to come down on his head. What’s to stop your friends from coming under this sort of attack? There’s too much politics in climate science already.
____________________________________________________________________
I would revile ANY scientist who falsifies data for money… Actually I HAVE fired two chemists for that exact reason.
You must not have read much of this blog. Science is what counts, not which side of the debate you are on. I know of at least two anti-CAGW types who have been banned from WUWT while pro-CAGW types continue to post.
This is investigation is all about secrecy and misuse of funds.
Smokey says:
June 2, 2010 at 10:58 am
Wren,
Hansen took the long term average rise in global temperature [.14°/decade] and extrapolated it — with three predictions. None of them were right.
The fact that Hansen got close on one of them [but was still wrong despite the large fudge factors] means that you are practicing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of shooting a hole in the barn door and drawing a bullseye around it.
Face it, Hansen has been wrong all along. If he can’t get in the ball park with three separate scenarios, why should anyone listen to him? We need people who are right, not wrong.
====
Smokey, I just wrote a lengthy reply to cohenite’s post, clicked the “Post Comment” button, and my reply vanished. I don’t know why.
I’m beginning to think I’m wasting my time on this thread, but since you replied to my post, I will not ignore your message.
If by wrong, you mean none of the projections were 100% accurate, you should know scientists don’t expect projections or forecasts to be right on the money, since no one can predict the future with absolute certainty. But pinpoint accuracy is not necessary for a projection to be good.
Of Hansen’s three scenarios for global temperature projection he made in 1988, one is now too low, one is about on the mark, and one is too high. Obviously, we can’t expect all three scenarios to be right, but all three projected increases in temperature, and temperature increased. If Hansen’s projections were projections of the prices of three stocks, we would have made money on all three.
If by your standards, the projections are wrong, I will ask you wrong compared to what? What other projections of temperature were made in 1988 to the year 2020?
Smokey, my reply to cohenite’s post didn’t vanish as I had feared. There was just a delay.
To Whom It Concerns: I just sent a post that disapeared and forgot to sign my name.
I could not retreave it but hopefully you still have it. It was my response to Wren, and unfortunately I did not save it!
Chuck Wiese