Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
When peripheral issues dominate the climate news agenda, it’s normally a sign that not much is happening on the scientific, political or legal front. So the fact that the blogosphere (and increasingly the mainstream) is so heavily focused on the No Pressure video and Ken Cuccinelli’s renewed subpoena of Michael Mann’s emails would tend to indicate that the climate is quiet.
But that’s not really the case. September was really warm, globally, increasing the odds that 2010 might be the warmest year since modern instruments began recording the temperature. Arctic ice, on the other hand, is recovering spectacularly quickly from a strong melt this summer. The University of Colorado seems to be saying that despite this warm weather, sea level declined….
So there is climate.
Judith Curry has put a firm stake in the ground on her weblog, discussing the potential and, perhaps more importantly, the limitations of models in climate science. The NOAA is discussing heat in the depths of the ocean and the Royal Society has revised its position on climate science overall, while here at WUWT you can easily scroll down to find interesting and relevant reports on papers and discoveries.
So there is climate science.
And the sharks appear to be circling for Rajendra Pachauri, with establishment organisations preparing the way for calls for his departure. Expectations for the climate summit in Cancun are rapidly being adjusted downwards, as are hopes for any kind of U.S. energy bill this year.
So there is politics.
To have discussion dominated by a twisted little video and what I believe a mistaken attempt to criminalize scientific error risks letting more important things slip out of control, or at least off our radar screen.
I have written enough of the No Pressure video and really don’t think there is much more to say. Big mistake, shows bad intent, use it as a reference point for evaluating further messages from the climate establishment.
And anyone who has read the book Steve Mosher and I have written knows that I think very poorly of what Michael Mann did–his actions in defense of his Hockey Stick chart were wrong, bullying, cheap and destructive of scientific publishing protocols and procedures.
But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.
I’ll get a lot of flack from you on this–and don’t be shy, I can take it. But remember as you write–District Attorneys are not always Republican, and controversial scientists can be skeptics at times, too. Don’t let your desire for a short term victory in the daily news cycle let you ignore what would be an erosion of all our civil liberties, I beg of you.
And let’s turn the discussion back to matters that we will at least remember three months down the road. Science, news and politics bring us enough material for discussion. We’ve noted the scandals, observed the wheels in motion. I’m not saying forget what has happened recently.
But let’s get back to the subject at hand.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, here’s one “skeptic” who remains skeptical of all arguments. So fullmarks Anthony for maintaining a quiet impartial position – as we should all be doing whichever side of the various belief systems you happen to lie
Russia Today interviewed Piers Corbyn on the 10:10 video:
I like that you take this position. Still, I think that the content of the East Anglia emails can certainly be considered a reasonable suspicion. In that view, this is not fishing for wrongdoing, but merely investigating suspicious circumstances. Now, if it were to be found that Michael Mann had aided in some sort of financial fraud or scientific fraud, the consequences of that are significant. This particular email shows that United States Government funds may have been purposefully mishandled.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
…How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious…
Why were costs incurred for trips not made? What other money that you haven’t spent has disappeared? Why would NOAA be suspicious about this? If you haven’t (officially) spent it, why is it gone? And that probable cause comes form just one email. Of course, Mann isn’t involved in that exchange, but the topic of research is. Given the questionable handling of data and code by Mann, combined with the “Why should I give it to you? (etc)” attitude, there is a reasonable inquiry as to the handling of research funds in the U.S., given the apparent mishandling of U.S. Goverment funds overseas in the same line of study.
September was really warm, globally
‘Really warm’ is a relative term.
Posted a comment. I even have the URL, but I don’t see it as “awaiting moderation”. Can the mods save it or do I have to repost it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/ill-trade-you-cuccinelli-for-splattergate-with-a-player-to-be-named-later/#comment-500786
And I’m giving a heads up that the Sun dropped in Flux and active regions so hard I can scarely match up the finalized composite STEREO Ahead & Behind (3 day lag) to the current SDO view:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm
Normally, the lineup is easy due to the slow development and decay of Active Regions.
So, I trade you a Splottergate and a Freeze-dried Arctic for a Bi-Polar Solar Cycle 24.
“On Saturday, the New York Times broke news of Russian law enforcement officers raiding an environmental group’s offices and confiscating computers. What excuse did the police officers give for raiding the environmental group? Because Russian security services were investigating claims (unfounded, as it turned out) that the group had unauthorized copies of Microsoft software.”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online
I would disagree because “allegations” are not necessary for an investigation to be justified. If a stance is clearly at variance with the facts, then the need for an investigation can be inferred. In the case of Mann, if one concludes that his current publications are not valid science, then it’s valid to question his earlier science — this equates to the legalism of “discovery” when investigating a case. Remember the NYTimes reporter who was found to be lying — they went over previous years of his reporting, and found a trail of deceit, even though nobody had allegated it — it was valid and necessary to do that investigation, to find the truth about the previous work. If Mann’s earlier science was OK, then it should withstand the exercise of “discovery”. Investigation is not condemnation. So I think Anthony is misguided here, although well-meaning.
REPLY: This essay was written by Thomas Fuller.
– Anthony
But let’s get back to the subject at hand.
The subject at hand? That would be the data that shows nothing unusual is happening in climate. Everything that has happened in climate in the last 150 years, including the very slight warming that has occurred, has happened before in climate. There’s nothing whatsoever to be alarmed about.
As for any alarm over man changing climate: there still is no evidence that man’s action have changed climate. But there is an ever increasing amount of evidence that shows everything that has been happening in climate is natural in origin.
As for mankind’s influence, there is evidence of UHI, and localized temperature changes from manmade land use practice. But it is localized only.
Other than that nothing is happening that deserves any attention and/or action on mankind’s part.
Humankind has been needlessly frightened over ‘fossil’ fuels.
As for the pollution from fossil fuels: advances have been made in making fossil fuels burn cleaner over the years. There’s no reason to think those advances are going to end. Mankind, for the most part, cares about the health of others. One of the ways that care has been manifested is by working to reduce pollution. There is no reason to believe mankind will suddenly change and stop working to make thing healthier.
So, since mankind, in general, is already working for the good of mankind, no nudging from the government is needed to make mankind be more of what that government thinks it should be. In all likelihood the government will only knock mankind off the good course he is already on—as governments have done time and again.
You say :
But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.
For a certain value definition of “criminal”. I have first seen this “certain value definition” in Terry Pratchett’s delightful fantacy series , where he plays havoc with rules, both physics and society.
The climate community, or the precautionary principle, are trying to stampede world governments to commit essentially economic hara kiri. If/when that happens the results in misery and deaths of the poor and helpless will be enormous.
Should the state or concerned citizens who can see further than their nose not use the same precautionary principle to defend against this putative solution to a putative disaster?
This is a gray region and your argument could hold, that they are going fishing for transgressions of law.
On a more down to earth note the hockey stick has been used to get money for grants and students and further research.
Lets take the case where a medicine professor is found not even to have a PhD and is performing operations and getting grants from the state. This is a clear case of fra$ud and I suppose everybody would agree that Cuccinelli should prosecute.
In the case of the hockey stick, if, and I say IF, the publication has been used to get money and the university got its cut from that money, when the publication is found intentionally misleading, does not the prosecutor have a case for money misappropriated?
Where does one draw the line between ” honest scientific mistake” and “intentional set up for fra$ud” ( sorry for the dollars, it is to avoid the spam catcher).
Had Mann, like a man, when the hockey stick was outed come and said “sorry folks, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I thought I had it right but obviously I was wrong”, one, I too, could be defending an honest scientific research mistake.
Time to shift focus, since the really damning objective of this propaganda is to stamp out independent thought and enquiry.
Take a look at what the Russian WWF has to say about the IPCC:
The Head of the “Climate and Energy” programme of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) Russia Alexei Kokorin says:
“There’re many mistakes in the 4th status report, which consists of 3 volumes. Some factors in it are analyzed with greater detail than the others. There’re even funny mistakes there. For example, it said that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. You can meet this statement more than once in the 4th report.”
This is not the first scandal expert climatologists are involved in. The correspondence of the scientists of the University of East Anglia with the leading climatologists of the world was posted in the Internet late last year. The documents showed that the scientists purposefully exaggerated the threat of the greenhouse gas effect. At that time the scandal was hushed up.
Full story at: http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/08/31/18061827.html where they are preparing for serious winter.
By your logic Al Capone would’ve been able to run free. Thugs like Mann who use bullying to cover and make up for their intellectual deficiencies certainly don’t belong in academia, and when they use those tactics to knowingly perpetrate fraud then they most assuredly belong in prison.
I wish Cucinelli the best of luck on all his fishing expeditions – 10:10 the bottom feeders.
No pressure.
I jumped the gun on my second post. Weird, though. I have had every other post I’ve made show up with that “waiting for moderation” line above the rest of my post. What was it about that one post that was different? Or is it just a glitch in WordPress and something I shouldn’t worry about?
fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing
Wrongdoing may also be a relative term.
There’s no need to go fishing. It’s already out in the open. No need to catch any fish. They do need to be gutted and cooked though. If there was no wrongdoing then all data and emails would be freely submitted. But the constant resistance that continues, still, after more than a decade, smacks of guilt.
We cannot sweep all the deceptions under the rug and move on as if nothing happened. What a precarious precedent that would set! Maybe some people’s sense of right, and of justice, aren’t bothered by what has been happening in ‘global warming’ science. But some people’s are.
anna v says:
October 5, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Had Mann, like a man, when the hockey stick was outed come and said “sorry folks, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I thought I had it right but obviously I was wrong”, one, I too, could be defending an honest scientific research mistake.
Touché! 🙂
anna v,
There is also the biofuel programs that have lowered a food supply that should instead be getting increased. And biofuel programs exist because of an artificially created market. In America, and the prosperous West, we can go on and take higher food prices in stride (for the most part). But poorer countries could use a larger supply of food which would lower prices.
How horrible ‘global warming’ has been on humanity!
Adding to what Thomas mentioned in his post, what about the new study showing increased water flow into the oceans from 1994 to 2006? (It probably slowed down a bit when La Nina kicked in around 2008, but this warm year likely got things “flowing” again).
They toss in all the regular caveats at the end, but still, it’s an intriguing datum.
“So there is climate. ”
No, it’s weather.
Thanks for the reminder. It is oh so easy, to get oh so sidetracked.
The current legal probe has to do with whether Mann had a correct scientific basis to conclude his hockey stick conclusions were correct. That’s my take, perhaps other attorneys will categorize it differently.
This request for data was made in Virginia. It is much more specific than the request that was denied.
“And anyone who has read the book Steve Mosher and I have written knows that I think very poorly of what Michael Mann did–his actions in defense of his Hockey Stick chart were wrong, bullying, cheap and destructive of scientific publishing protocols and procedures.
But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.”
How the heck do we know that Michael Mann did not consciously include unreliable/biased proxies and utilize statistical techniques to produce temperature series for private or political gain while working under government contract?
Tom, my stance on climategate has not changed. It is my belief that if similar documents were released to the public regarding the BP Gulf of Mexico accident, Genetically modified crops, structural plans on a major building or bridge, comprehensive investigations would be launched without question and would not be limited to the set of documents provided by the whistle-blower.
A dramatic blood trail down the sidewalk leading up the stairs of a building & stench emanating from the entranceway after a widely reported disturbance does not necessarily indicate that there is a corpse on the premises or even that a crime has occurred. We can be willfully blind or we can investigate. It seems choices have been made on this issue by both yourself and Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli.
The market value of ideas is not determined by the same factors as the market value of baseball cards.
But really Tom, the SF Giants aren’t that strong for much hope in the playoffs. Nice try though.
John
NZ Willy says it well. Investigation of dubiousness does not mean there is criminality involved. But it does mean we need to know more. As I see it, that’s merely about searching, freedom of information, science. Science isn’t a private activity. Carry on Cuccinelli.
When I was a young 7-year old 2nd grade student in 1972, our teacher decided to hold an informal “vote” in class for the US President. The election was between Nixon and McGovern. She kept saying “No pressure, but who would you vote for?” I was one of only two in the class of 25 to vote for Nixon. Thank god she did not have a red button!!!
Cuccinelli is not one of the “District Attorneys” you
mention. He is the Attorney General of the State of Virginia.
The difference in responsibilities and authorities held by an Attorney
General are far different from those held by a District Attorney.
Are the “matters” in Virginia something we will “at least
remember three months down the road.” ?
So far, Attorney General Cuccinelli’s efforts to see if
there might have been account padding, improper expenditures for
excluded entries, or even misrepresentations as to what the scientific
basis for specific grant application were at that time, or the science
the grant the work product produced and the claims made for it
thereafter.
Once the University and it’s current/former employees provide the
required documentation then the materials will have
be sifted by accountants and attorneys to see if a possible
case for fraud of any legal significance might be made.
So, YES, this issue will still be active and remembered “three
months down the road.” It might be over in the spring.
Is asking a worker in the public sector, or the worker’s employer to
account for expenditures, or asking that “employer to provide
documents” as required by law to facilitate an inquiry into
possible fraud really “an erosion of all our civil liberties”?
NO. This issue of the public employee or employer acquiescing
to the Attorney General’s request for documents will not be
“an erosion of all our civil liberties”; unless withholding
evidence generated by public monies is some civil right I didn’t
get to enjoy as an employee at a state university (in Ohio) from
1974 to 1990.
[ I crashed my part of the university’s Business & Finance
staff Unix computer (with Berkeley add-ons and local shell
hacks) enough to know almost everything can be
brought back for restoration or review. I expected it, and
at times I needed that capability. ]
The situation may have a chilling effect on folks who might
otherwise stray from the straight and narrow in accounting
for grant fund expenditures… or those that might try to
misrepresent just what they’ve done with that public grant
money.
There is no civil right to hide public information from the
folks who are legally authorized to see it.