An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Dear Dr. Mann:

I just read your piece in the Washington Post.

First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.

Figure 1. The Merciless Light of Publicity

On the other hand, your opinion piece published in the Washington Post contains a number of omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements of fact.

[As a digression, for those who don't know who Dr. Michael Mann is, he is the man who wrote the paper that established the "Hockey Stick" as the icon of misguided climate science. He then used his position on the IPCC to promote his own work, and suppressed contrary views. In one swipe he threw out all evidence that there were warmer periods in the past. No Medieval Warm Period. No Little Ice Age. Here's that famous and most bogus of graphs, which has been reproduced hundreds of thousands of times ...

Figure 2. The "Hockeystick" graph.

Unfortunately, his math was wrong, and the method he used mines for "hockey stick" shapes and will pull them out of random data, so the graph turned out to be both meaningless and totally misleading. End of digression]

So without further ado, Dr. Mann, here are my comments on your opinion piece. I have put your entire article from the Washington Post, without deletions, in bold italic.

Get the anti-science bent out of politics

As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do.

If this is a surprise to you, it should not be, and not just for climate scientists. Cast your mind back President Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1960, wherein he said (emphasis mine):

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

You are funded by the government, and are a salaried member of that scientific-technological elite that Eisenhower warned us about. Why on earth would you think that you would not have a stake in the election? The problem is the opposite – you have far too large a stake in the election, since climate science funding comes solely because the government is willing to back your ideas. As a result, a change in administrations might dry up your funding. You have a huge stake in the elections, and it is curious you want to claim otherwise. You are fighting like mad to keep the funding coming, so don’t pretend that you “shouldn’t have a stake” in the elections.

And regarding the elections, you have a huge political problem. Your science is so shabby and weak, and your claims are so apocalyptic, shrill, and far-fetched, that the people are no longer buying your line of patter. Climate change is at the very bottom of things that the electorate thinks are important … which seems to drive you guys nuts. Because of this, you and other climate scientists like Jim Hansen have become political activists, fighting like crazy to make sure the right people are elected to keep the money spigots turned wide open … just like Eisenhower warned.

So please, spare us the vapors about scientists having a stake in politics. You are in it up to your ears.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

Deniers? Anyone who is still using that emotion-laden, infantile term is deliberately being antagonistic. In any case, we have very real reasons to suspect you of wrongdoing. You don’t exactly show so well in things like the Climategate emails … see below.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Forgive my bluntness, but that is absolute hogwash. Hand-picked groups of your myopic friends have gotten together, consulted the auguries, studiously looked away, and declared you and Phil and Gene and the rest to be pure as the driven snow. But not one of the “thorough investigations” has spoken to one single person other than you and your friends and supporters. How thorough is a “thorough investigation” that only interviews your friends? “Exonerated”? Don’t make me laugh. You haven’t even been investigated, much less exonerated.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

Well, they might uncover the truth contained in the emails that haven’t been published. For example, you stand accused of conspiring to delete emails that showed you and your friends trying to prevent IPCC Review Comments from being made public.

Did you delete those emails? We may never know, since your good buddies in the “thorough investigation” DIDN’T EVEN LOOK TO SEE IF THE ACCUSATION WAS TRUE. They never looked through either your emails, or the CRU emails, to see if you had deleted emails as you were asked to do by Phil Jones. They never looked for your answer to Gene.

As you may not want to recall, in the Climategate emails, Phil wrote to you about the AR4 review emails, as follows:

Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same?  I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Those emails, Dr. Mann, were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request. You replied:

Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.

I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: xxxx@yahoo.com

talk to you later,

mike

Now you may have a reasonable innocuous explanation for that interchange. I don’t see one. I see Phil advising you to break the law and delete emails that were the subject of an FOI request, and you saying “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. When your friends were doing their “thorough investigation”, it is curious that they NEVER ASKED TO SEE the other emails in the chain. Like for example the email you said you would send to Gene to tell him to delete the emails. Did you send it?

And did you delete your emails? The “thorough investigation” never investigated that either, they didn’t even try to answer that important question.

So please don’t give us your sanctimonious posing as though you were shown to be innocent. The “thorough investigations” run by your friends have not determined your innocence, or the lack thereof – since they haven’t even tried to look at the evidence, how could they determine anything? So the jury is still out on the question.

But the facts we do have do not look good for you in the slightest.

If you had any actual evidence that you were innocent, I’m sure you would have given it to the investigators … funny how none of the five investigations have come up with a single fact or email or document to exonerate you in this question. As far as we know, you didn’t write back to Phil later and say something like “I can’t delete emails, that would be unethical and possibly illegal”. You wrote back to say that you would pass on the email deletion order to Gene … and you want us to believe that your hands are clean? Sorry, my friend, I’m like the Red Queen, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast, but that one is just too big to swallow.

The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

The truth is, your objections have nothing to do with climate research. You are simply worried what an inquiry might find out, otherwise the idea of an investigation wouldn’t bother you a bit. But since all the indications are that you and others conspired to subvert the IPCC process , and then conspired (as shown in the Climategate emails) to cover it up, I can understand your all-pervading unease …

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton’s attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.

Discredited claims? A bit more specificity would go a long way here, although I don’t expect it of you. What claims were “discredited”? As a close observer at the time, I did not see that a single claim against you was “discredited”. Quite the opposite, several of your claims were discredited, and McIntyre’s claims were totally upheld.

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.

I’m not sure what your point is here. You seem to be saying that there have been false claims made by shady scientists in the past, and so that makes you right. How does that work again?

The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.

Scientists are in broad agreement that the earth has been slowly warming for about three centuries. We don’t know why, which should give us a clue about the depth of our understanding of the climate.

More to the point, there is no agreement about such basic, rudimentary, fundamental, all-important questions as the sign and size of the cloud feedbacks. A change of 2% in cloud cover would wipe out any CO2 effect. Since we don’t understand the clouds, that most basic and critically important part of climate science, the idea that we understand why the earth is currently warming, or the idea that we can forecast climate a hundred years in advance, is hubris of the first order. We don’t know why it warmed in Medieval times. We don’t know why it warmed in Roman times. We don’t know why it has warmed since the “Little Ice Age”. We don’t understand the climate, and you folks’ claims that you do understand it well enough to make century-long forecasts just makes rational, reasonable people point and laugh.

Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate. The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades. But even if we don’t reduce emissions, the reality of adapting to climate change will require responses from government at all levels.

And you know this how? You guys have got some serious coconuts, to think that you can predict what kind of “potentially dangerous changes in our climate” will be the lot of people living a hundred years from now. Let me say it again. There is no agreement on the SIGN, much less the size, of cloud feedback. And if you don’t understand cloud feedback, you don’t understand the climate well enough to forecast it for a decade, much less for a century.

Next, you say “even if we don’t reduce emissions” as though there is a cost-effective way to reduce temperature through emission cuts. The Kyoto Protocol (if its adherents had been able to fulfill their targets, which they didn’t) was estimated by its proponents to have the potential to cool the earth by six hundredths of a degree by 2050. The EPA just estimated that their current plan of regulating CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant” will cool the earth by somewhere around three hundredths of a degree by 2030. Those are the estimates of the proponents of the plans, opponents say less.

So you are pushing us to spend billions and billions of dollars and radically reshaping the global economy, and all for a trivial, unmeasurably small reward of a few hundredths of a degree … and then you think people who are against your cockamamie ideas are “anti-science”??? Where is the science in spending billions and billions of dollars for a possible, not guaranteed but only possible, temperature reduction so small we can’t even detect it? That’s so dumb and so far from science that I can’t begin to characterize it.

Challenges to policy proposals for how to deal with this problem should be welcome — indeed, a good-faith debate is essential for wise public policymaking.

But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.

The questions that you have been asked from the beginning have been the most fundamental of good-faith questions. We simply asked you to show us your data and your work. We requested you to abide by the most bozo requirements of the scientific method. Show us your data, show us your work, the same thing my high school science teacher taught me.

But no, in February of ’05 you went to the Wall Street Journal to make the extraordinary claim:

Giving them [McIntyre and McKitrick] the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in

For you to claim that such basic scientific questions were not in good faith, for you to say that merely (and politely) asking you to show your work is “intimidation”, is the opposite of science. For you to refuse to respond to those requests stops science in its tracks. We just wanted to see how you had come up with such an unusual and unexpected result as your total eradication of the Medieval Warm Period from the landscape. (It turned out that when you were finally forced to reveal your methods, your novel result could be seen to came from a stupid mathematical error combined with using bristlecone pines, known to be an invalid temperature proxy. That made your work meaningless and misleading … but I digress.)

How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?

How can you assure them? It’s very simple. Dr. Mann, do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing? If you want to assure young researchers that they will not be dragged in front of Congress, tell them not to do the things you have done.

Tell them not to hide adverse results in a folder marked “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED“. Tell them not to make stupid mathematical mistakes and then refuse to show their work. Tell them not to hang around with people who delete emails that are the subject of a Freedom of Information act. Tell them not to subvert the IPCC process to advance their point of view.

And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right …

Tell your students that scientists who do those things may have to face either the consequences, or Congress, or both …

America has led the world in science for decades. It has benefited our culture, our economy and our understanding of the world.

My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.

My friend, the problem is not blatant abuse from politicians. The problem is your blatant abuse of the scientific method. If you and other climate scientists stopped trying to scare us with your doomsday fantasies, if you and other climate scientists were honest and open and forthright about what we do understand and what we don’t understand, if you and other climate scientists fully disclosed your data and your methods, if you and other climate scientists stopped trying to subvert the IPCC into serving as your propaganda mouthpiece, we could have a rational discussion.

But you are like a junkie who jumps up and down and screams “Police abuse” every time the cops question him. Asking you scientific questions is not abuse, Dr. Mann, no matter how many times you try to claim it is. And your investigations are the just rewards of your own anti-scientific and unethical actions. As my momma used to say, “Scorch around, and you’ll get burnt.”

Now, if you’d care to disagree with any of the things that I have said above, I am certain that Anthony Watts would be more than happy to publish your reply. So the opportunity is yours to make your case about the math, and the bristlecones, and the IPCC AR4 review comments, and all the rest. Heck, publish your emails that show that you didn’t conspire with Wahl and Amman and Jones to delete emails regarding what you had done to subvert AR4 … I offer you the chance to set the record straight.

My conclusions? I strongly support the fullest further investigation of the Climategate scandals, and your own role in them. Not via the legal system like Cuccinelli, however. I want an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation that talks to both your friends and those who disagree with your actions and claims. I want to bring in full sunlight, and put this matter to rest. I would like to know if you did delete the emails, and if you asked your pal Gene to do the same … you know, the stuff your precious “thorough investigations” never investigated in the slightest.

And as a result, it is perfectly clear to me why you have gone to the Washington Post to complain about the possibility that people might find out exactly what you did and didn’t do. And I have to say, I sympathize with you in that regard.

Because from the looks of things, if I were you … I wouldn’t want someone bringing in the sunlight so folks could find out what went on, either.

Sincerely,

Willis Eschenbach

Independent Climate Researcher

About these ads
This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

339 Responses to An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann

  1. savethesharks says:

    BZAPPP!

  2. Fool me once says:

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?

  3. redneck says:

    Nice letter Willis as always an interesting post from you.

    Unfortunately what we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some Menn you just can’t reach.

  4. Patrick Davis says:

    Interesting read, and again, sadly, we’ll not see this downunder in MSM. But, OUCH!! That’s gotta hurt! *thumbs up*

  5. Jack Savage says:

    Here come da Judge!

  6. ThomasJ says:

    Wow! Great post, Willis. Plenty thanks!

  7. Peter Miller says:

    Well written.

    Same old story – con artists like Mann do not like being caught out. When they are, they turn the air blue with their shrill protests of injured innocence.

    I always think it amazing that even with the annual backing of hundreds of millions of dollars, the purveyors of bad science are losing the argument in the court of public opinion. One day, even the goofiest of our politicians may catch on they are being conned by Mann and his cronies.

  8. Ralph says:

    Perhaps a little too abrasive, for public consumption? You cannot take the moral high ground about arrogance, by being arrogant yourself. Stick to the facts.

    In my estimation, any letter to the media, should be a little more moderate in tone and little less colloquial in language.

  9. Huub Bakker says:

    That would be Cuccinelli, Willis, not Cuchinelli.

    [Typo fixed, thanx. ~dbs, mod.]

  10. hro001 says:

    Very well said, Willis … thank you!

    Should we now cue sounds of deafening silence from Mann, as occurred when he was given the opportunity to explain himself at the Daily Caller?

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/the-surprisingly-reticent-michael-mann/

  11. Pogo says:

    @Fool me once: I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?

    What’s that got to do with it?

    Willis is writing about the Scientific Method, openness and honesty. I have no publications in climate science either – mine are all in my own branch of physics – but I’m still perfectly capable of spotting bad attitude and dishonesty in other branches of science.

  12. Caleb says:

    Well spoken.

    A true scientist would welcome questions. They love the opportunity to blab about what interests them. All too often they work long hours, facing total indifference from the layman.

    Dr. Mann, and Dr. Hanson as well, have not welcomed questions, other than the softballs they receive at Real Climate. In fact they have encouraged a hostility towards even the most innocent questioner. I know this because I myself was originally an innocent questioner, and was accused of astonishing things for simply wondering.

    I remember my original question had to do with something I read on-line in the Toronto Star, around August 8, 2007. It introduced me to a site called Climate Audit, and had to do with Hansen readjusting adjusted adjustments.

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/

    When I asked a few simple questions I was immediately called a denier and a “Ditto-head.” I had no idea what a “Ditto-head” was, and had to look it up to find out a “Ditto-head” was a listener to Rush Limbaugh. (Apparently Mr. Limbaugh mentioned the Climate Audit site on his show, which resulted in such a flood of people at the Climate Audit site that the site actually crashed for a while.)

    Being attacked in this manner made me furious. I wrote my congressman. I demanded hearings.

    I was told, back in 2007, that I was too hot-headed. I was asked to be patient. It was explained to me that Dr. Mann and Dr. Hansen were scientists, and that scientists tend to have their heads in the clouds. Their desks are messy, and they need help finding papers. So I calmed down a bit and attempted to be patient.

    Now it is more than three years later, and they still haven’t answered the questions. Instead they continue to attack the questioners. That is all Dr. Mann’s editorial boils down to: An attack on questioners.

    Obviously his desk is very, very messy. He simply can’t be bothered to clean it up and locate the answers. Therefore it will take drastic action to force him to shape up his act:

    Congressional hearings.

  13. Golf Charley says:

    October 2010 has not been a great month for the AGW theorists so far. Hopefully, it will get worse.

    Is this an opportunity for Dr Mann to take Willis to court, so he can defend himself and the science he invented, or would that risk more truth coming out into the sunlight?

  14. The Kyoto Protocol (if its adherents had been able to fulfil their targets, which they didn’t) was estimated by its proponents to have the potential to cool the earth by six hundredths of a degree by 2050. The EPA just estimated that their current plan of regulating CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant” will cool the earth by somewhere around three hundredths of a degree by 2030.

    Willis, do you have references for the above?

  15. Shevva says:

    At some point Mr Mann must of realised that his work would not hold up to the scientific method, it is how long and what he did once he realised his work was incorrect that intrests me, did he go to his colleagues and try and get his work corrected or just cover up his mistakes?

  16. MackemX says:

    @foolmeonce
    Regardless of his publication record can we assume you have no problem with the substance of what he says? I assume that since, if you were disputing any of it I’m sure you would have the garce and courtesy to engage in a discussion of the potiojns in dispute.
    Failing that, nowt like a quick ad-hom to start the day.

  17. Smokey says:

    Excellent as always, Willis. You have a talent for getting to the basic issues.

    To put these questions to rest, all Michael Mann has to do is cooperate with the peoples’ elected representative. What does he have to hide?

    Answer: plenty.

    Fool me once says:

    “I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    That can be remedied.Willis Eschenbach has been published and peer reviewed. And you?

    Don’t be fooled twice by Michael Mann: do a search of the WUWT archives. Get up to speed on this subject. In the process, you will arrive at the inescapable conclusion that Michael Mann is a scientific charlatan; an Elmer Gantry trying to convince an increasingly skeptical public that he has secret knowledge about how to make it rain.

    But that putative ‘secret knowledge’ was paid for by the taxpaying public. It is their property. So produce it, Michael Mann, and see if it withstands the Scientific Method. [snip]

  18. John Whitman says:

    Willis,

    Very good.

    Thanks.

    John

  19. Ken Hall says:

    “Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    So what? You do not have to be a farmer to recognise Bullsh[snip].

    The very first thing I was taught in my first science class at school was the essential tenets of the “scientific method” Anyone who fails to ensure that ALL of the scientific method is followed is NOT a scientist. Michael Mann has failed to implement the scientific method and falls far short of what is required to consider oneself a scientist. When one alters raw data, fails to provide evidence in support of one’s conclusions, when one conspires to hide data, in support of a theorem, instead of putting that theorem out for all to attack and for it to stand or fail on its own merits, then one ceases to be a scientist and becomes an advocate.

    When one states that to question the science is not science, then one does NOT understand the scientific method AT ALL and fails even at science101.

    Micheal Mann practices anti-science, not his detractors.

    And IF you seem to think that you must have scientific credentials to be adequately qualified to “question the science” then I refer you to Dr Lewis who resigned as a Fellow of the APS due to their corrupt, political and uncritical acceptance of the anti-science of Michael Mann and his acolytes in what Dr Lewis describes as “he greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    Dr Hal Lewis’ credentials as a scientist of the highest regard and achievement are far more impressive than Michael Mann’s. When it comes to (What my American cousins quaintly refer to as) a “pissing contest” with regards to scientific achievement, Dr Lewis wins hands down!

  20. Alexander K says:

    Willis, you have a gift for making forthright, clear and unequivocal statements. Right on the button.
    @ foolmeonce – I am not a scientist of any kind, but I kinda like hearing the science of anything explained. Willis does that superbly in various fora, enjoys replying to intelligent questions and engaging in discussion; your point was?

  21. Cassandra King says:

    Mann is a very frightened man indeed, the sands of time are running out for him and he knows it.

    The reckoning is coming, the phrase ‘be sure your sins will find you out’ is very apt in this case and the many others to come.
    The refuge of this particular scoundrel is to call into question the motivations of his accusers and to present himself as a persecuted individual being hounded by politically motivated enemies, he wishes to defend himself by slandering his accusers hoping that by politicising his case he will find political allies.

    Come November we will know if sanity will be restored to the home and base of liberty, come that day we will see a reckoning and the bringing to justice of those who so degraded science and dragged its reputation through the mud of self interest and selfish self promotion.

  22. Ken Hall says:

    Michael Mann declares, “But the attacks against the science must stop.”

    That is the most anti-science statement I have ever seen.

  23. Patrick Davis says:

    “Alexander K says:
    October 11, 2010 at 3:28 am”

    Great post, and I am not bagging you at all, but, BUT, one does not need to be a scientists to read a thermometer and track trends. One very well may need to be a “scientist” to read a GCM however, programed with “assumptions”. Fact over fiction IMO.

  24. Jim Cripwell says:

    Anthony, Willis suggests that you would be willing to publish a reply from Michael Mann to this paper. I am sure you would be, but it would be nice to see your assurance of this.

    [Reply: Anthony has consistently offered article space to public figures who support the AGW hypothesis. For some reason they rarely accept his generous offer. I can assure you that an article contributed by Michael Mann would be posted on this site. ~dbs, mod.]

  25. LabMunkey says:

    Excellent read, a bit heavy on tone if i may say so Mr Eschenbach, but a good read nonetheless.

    I often try to get these points across on the Richard Black blog over at the old BBC, however at times it is like banging my head against a brick wall.

    Science without openess and honesty is not science. Simple as that.

    Let’s hope you get a reply, it would be facinating to see if he can address any of these qualms (and i for one won’t give him a hostile reception if he takes the time to respond, i’ll just address any points he makes on the merit of those points).

    Lab

  26. mosomoso says:

    My favourite wiggles in the Hockeystick are those around 1200 and 1600 AD, which invite us to believe that the climatic conditions in those two periods were different only by a trice. But viewing the whole stick was a delicious breakthrough for me. Up till then, as a flaky humanities type who has trouble counting change and making tomato stakes stay upright, I had that inferiority thing happening in the company of tech people. No more!

    For to give even a moment’s credence to that diagram is to be:
    a) utterly ignorant of the human past
    b) dumber than doggy-do

  27. stephen richards says:

    Antonis Christofides says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:55 am

    You don’t references. Do the calculations from Mann’s and Hansen’s work.

  28. Mikey's Mum says:

    Dear Mr. Eschenbach,
    I do wish you would stop picking on Mikey. He is a good boy who works hard and would never do anything wrong. I have talked to him about this and he says a bigger, older boy from another school called Phil made him do it. He met him on the internet I think. I hope this clears the matter up.

    Yours, Mikey’s Mum

  29. Fool me one more time says:

    “Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    Indeed, for example “Science relies on continued questioning and challenging of ideas. To manage and quality-control this marketplace of ideas, science has developed the peer-review process. When a new hypothesis or finding is published in a scientific journal, other scientists will take it seriously because it has been through the peer-review process, whereas an article that has not been peer-reviewed, such as an opinion piece in a newspaper, has no particular scientific credibility.”

    Source: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/myths/~/media/publications/science/hot-topics-peer-review-process.ashx

    Which is fine….just fine. Note it doesn’t matter who publishes it. That’s irrelevant. All that matters is that it is published. Irrelevant is who.

  30. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Antonis Christofides says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:55 am

    The Kyoto Protocol (if its adherents had been able to fulfil their targets, which they didn’t) was estimated by its proponents to have the potential to cool the earth by six hundredths of a degree by 2050. The EPA just estimated that their current plan of regulating CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant” will cool the earth by somewhere around three hundredths of a degree by 2030.

    Willis, do you have references for the above?

    Of course, but it might take me a minute. Hang on … OK, the first number is from the work of Tom Wigley at NCAR, a supporter of Kyoto.

    The second was very recent, wait a minute … found it, it’s here.

    w.

  31. Neville says:

    Good post Willis, it certainly is frustrating trying to tease any real science from Mann and his kind.
    I’d also like to see the quote from the EPA that estimates the temp reduction of 0.03 degrees C in the next 30 years, has anyone got a link?
    If this is true we really are dealing with utter absurdities and flushing countless billions down the plug hole for a zero return.

  32. RockyRoad says:

    I nominate Hal Lewis to head this independent, outside scientific/academic investigation that Willis suggests in his conclusions. That would be both enlightening and entertaining, to say the least!

    (Maybe we can start a petition here at WUWT?)

  33. paulhan says:

    Good to see you back, Willis.

    From time to time we all need to be reminded of the core issues at the heart of the matter. This does that very well.

    Thanks

  34. Lawrie Ayres says:

    Nice letter. Although from down under I look forward to your Mid Terms. If the Representatives you refer to do not hold comprehensive hearings they will be no better than the current crop of AGW adherents in Congress.

    We are under attack from the PM and her Green cohort in their obscene haste to put “a price on carbon”. Their terminology indicates their lack of knowledge of good old CO2. To be kind I could say ” forgive them for they know not what they do”. The trouble is they know exactly what they are doing; being dishonest with the public. Dishonesty seems to be the warmers stock in trade.

  35. In one swipe he threw out all evidence that there were warmer periods in the past.

    This video may help those who don’t understand:

  36. So please, spare us the vapors about scientists having a stake in politics. You are in it up to your ears.

    I think they’re in it over their heads.

  37. simpleseekeraftertruth says:

    Hmm Willis, you have demonstrated very clearly that Mann’s letter is just hot air. As hot air is his favourite research topic and the trace gas CO2 is his favourite subject, is it not time we had a name for that compound in that context? I would suggest mann gas as the common noun as in laughing gas, swamp gas etc. but concede that there may be a more appropriate moniker: anyone?

  38. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia

    We don’t know if they were stolen.That’s another misrepresentation.

  39. JP says:

    “…My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public…”

    Au contraire. Big Science is now an interest group no different than Big Dairy, Big Drug, or Big Oil. It recieves very generous tax exempt subsidies and grants that not constitute billions of dollars each year. Big Science (or Big Climate), like other interest groups, seeks to mold public opinion, steer public policy, and influence political outcomes. Welcome to the Big Leagues. Get used to the political witch hunts, political grandstanding, and Beltway Dramas that can make or break careers.

    Dr Mann, the days of play acting the innocent victim are over. Grow up.

  40. Not via the legal system like Cuccinelli, however. I want an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation that talks to both your friends and those who disagree with your actions and claims. I want to bring in full sunlight, and put this matter to rest.

    An ‘outside’ investigation like that will need funding. Where would the money come from?

  41. Alex Heyworth says:

    Michael Mann doesn’t have any fellow scientists.

  42. morgo says:

    GOD FORBID THEY KNOW NO WRONG . THEY SHOULD ALL BE PUT IN JAIL.

  43. John McManus says:

    When I read all the emais in question, I was left wondering what all the fuss was about.

    About a thousand emails from a period of years were distributed. Such a tiny number of emails means that most of the communication was missing.

    No matter how the emails were liberated, it is obvious that individual communications were picked. Because no other reason can exist but an attempt to harm the CRU, it follows that the most damaging emails were released.

    Here is the problem with the above entry. The emails released are devoid of evidence of wrongdoing. While condemming Mann roundly, WE admitts that there is no evidence that Mann or Jones deleted any emails. The email release can only have been an appempt to damage the reputation of Dr. Jones et al. If any evidence of wrongdoing had existed in the files, it would have been searched, selected and released. Your letter calls for the conviction of someone with no evidence. How unamerican.

    Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes, Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. They are none of my business, being private, so I don’t expect to have access but I am glad they formed part of the investigations. Knowing they were examined makes the findings of the many investigations stronger.

  44. Garry says:

    Eschenbach: “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach.”

    So what.

    I’m a long time Virginia resident and taxpayer and I most certainly do agree with Cuccinelli’s “legalistic approach,” esp. given that he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney General, and hence the “legalistic approach” is the only tool at his disposal to investigate the frauds and potential frauds detailed in the your (Eschenbach’s) post above.

    It is slightly ironic and amusing that three prominent skeptics – Montford, Macintyre, and Eschenbach – seem to eschew Cuccinelli on purely political grounds (Macintyre’s previous screed on the topic can only be called “a rant”) and do not seem to recognize the propriety of a state attorney general investigating the potential misuse of taxpayer funds.

    Yet all three of these critics continue to expose and to publish (as above) these most egregious of scientific frauds upon the public, with Mann as a chief perpetrator.

    You might just as well call Cuccinelli “a denier” and be done with the political charade.

  45. Tucci78 says:

    The Washington Post closed the online comments on Dr. Mann’s article a few hours ago. The warmists were getting their nates handed to ‘em.

    Unfortunately, there is no way in which “an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation that talks to both [Dr. Mann's] friends and those who disagree with [Dr. Mann's] actions and claims” could possibly be productive.

    The instant Michael Mann and/or any of his “friends” went on-record as having done what they did, criminal charges and civil lawsuits would come down upon them like an avalanche. At the very least we have indications of peculation and conspiracy, and in the line of tort law there are not only actionable cases for real but also punitive – especially punitive! – damages.

    I could not possibly imagine Dr. Mann getting legal counsel about his personal conduct in the course of such “an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation” except an admonition to “Shut your festering gob and say absolutely NOTHING, you bloody fool!

  46. John Murray says:

    Mr Eschenbach,

    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.”

  47. berniel says:

    Willis’s breakdown of Mann’s article confirms that Mann is one of the quintessential characters in this play – if you understand him you understand a lot of what is going on. It pays to give close attention to Mann, for he is an allegory, he is Everyman. Consider…

    Mann suggests that he made a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate. Now, imagine how he might consider his work (given as credible) could be seen as making such a breakthrough.

    Consider also how he talks of us deniers, that our failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too. In the AGW rhetoric ‘reality’ is often used in this way: we are not failing to accept the evidence etc, but failing to accept the ‘reality’ of a projection of the future — which can only ever be imagined.

    This is so much like Savonarola: When the French first crossed the Alps into Italy, heading for Florence, he preached for urgent reform, for piety and against vanities, so as to prevent inevitable catastrophe. Mann’s work can only show that the world has warmed (that the French have invaded Italy) and might continue to warm (and might sack Florence) but not the causation (that it is due to our vanities).

    How it is that the likes of Savonarola and Mann succeeded (for a time) to capture the hearts and minds of so many intelligent folk, this is one of the great question of history. But what we do know is that in both these allegories, reason departed early in Act I.

  48. Sandy says:

    If Hal Lewis were to write an article detailing what he’d need for government standard report on the current state of climate science and its bang for tax-payer bucks, and Anthony published here, then surely the parallel research power of the visitors here would gather it in no time?

  49. JohnH says:

    Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am
    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?

    Its that very atitude that got us to this point, by restricting published work to ‘The Team’ they froze out any other views and published rubbish, Jones admitted was never asked for any of his data/workings by reviewers of his papers, he even admitted he published papers before he had collated all the data and then lost it.

  50. UK Sceptic says:

    Willis shoots! He scores!

  51. steven says:

    “My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.”

    It is unclear to me why there is a problem then. The information has obviously been gathered and all that needs to be done is to send it over in order to put this matter at rest. It seems that full disclosure clearly showing the innocence of the parties involved would be the best course of action to prevent congressional hearings. If there are unprofessional remarks in the emails and this is the only reason for not wanting their release then it is just a life’s lesson: you are at work, be professional.

  52. Theo Goodwin says:

    Wonderful post. Thanks so much for your excellent work. If Mann wants to see himself from the point of view of science, he should write an op-ed to Scientific Method. I doubt that he knows the address or anyone who does.

  53. John Murray says:

    Mr Eschenbach,
    You said :-“First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.”
    I have read several articles where the authors have expressed similarly a problem with the legal action being taken by the Virginia State Attorney General, but stating that they believe that there is something to investigate. I wish to point out that the Scientific Establishment has had a number of years to clean house and have failed to do so to date, and so the action of Mr Cuccinelli would seem to be more than proper in the light of the non-investigative actions of others.

  54. Tucci78 says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites writes: “I think they’re in it over their heads.

    Aw, c’mon. They’d be “in it over their heads” were they to find themselves in the proverbial wet spot.

  55. Tucci78 says:

    The Washington Post closed the online comments on Dr. Mann’s article a few hours ago. The warmists were getting their nates handed to ‘em.

    Unfortunately, there is no way in which “an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation that talks to both [Dr. Mann's] friends and those who disagree with [Dr. Mann's] actions and claims” could possibly be productive.

    The instant Michael Mann and/or any of his “friends” went on-record as having done what they did, the legal system would come down upon them like an avalanche. At the very least we have indications of funds diverted from the public purse on the basis of of knowing misstatement of facts in grant applications, and in the line of tort law there are not only actionable cases for real but also punitive – especially punitive! – damages.

    I could not possibly imagine Dr. Mann getting legal counsel about his personal conduct in the course of such “an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation” except an admonition to “Shut your festering gob and say absolutely NOTHING, you fool!

  56. Theo Goodwin says:

    JP writes:

    “Big Science is now an interest group no different than Big Dairy, Big Drug, or Big Oil.”

    Yep. Makes me tear up. Well, something had to bring an end to the growth of “higher education.” Of course, people like Mann could learn a lot from farmers.

  57. Smokey says:

    John McManus says:

    “When I read all the emais in question, I was left wondering what all the fuss was about. About a thousand emails from a period of years were distributed. Such a tiny number of emails means that most of the communication was missing.”

    How right you are. So let’s see all the emails. They were, after all, a work product funded by taxpayers. Being reasonable people, we can then decide if Michael Mann engaged in scientific misconduct.

    “Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes [sic], Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. ”

    I think you need to get up to speed on which carefully selected emails were “requested, produced and read.”

    It bears repeating that any investigation is *bogus* if it does not allow for the calling and cross examining of opposing witnesses and the subpoenaing of relevant documents.

    Every “investigation” of Michael Mann has been a staged whitewash. When opposing witnesses testify, and when all emails, relevant documents, data, methodologies and metadata are produced, and when cross examination under oath is the standard, then the truth will come out.

    But until that happens, Mann can not claim to be “exonerated.” Instead, he has been protected – and the truth of the matter remains hidden. Why would you, or anyone else, want the truth to remain classified as Top Secret by those setting the agenda?

  58. Chuck says:

    Are we back to this guy?

    Give him a snow shovel and send him over to the university president’s home and put him on standby.

  59. Barry Woods says:

    Micahael Mann’s IPCC hockey stick graph is on the back cover of:

    A W Montfords book – “The Hockey Stick Illusion”

    HAL LEWIS, refers to it in his resignation letter……..

    Hal Lewis:

    “Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) ”

    A W Montford – also known as the sceptical Blogger Bishop Hill

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/11/hsi-hits-big-time.html

    BH: “The Hockey Stick Illusion” hits the Big Time
    “The Hockey Stick Illusion seems to have hit the (comparatively) big time, spending most of yesterday between around the 5-600 mark on the Amazon chart in the USA. The root cause seems to have been Hal Lewis’s resignation letter which was picked up by Instapundit, among others.

    It’s currently at number 532.

    Update on Oct 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill
    Now at 407!!”

    ————————

    Put a prominent link up on Watts Up, why don’t you?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    (like Climategate: The Crutape Letter, bothe authors thought they wished they had written it!!!!!!)

  60. Tony Armstrong says:

    Hang on fellas, Mann is not the causal problem here; he is but a tool in the hands of politicians who see benefit in the AGW story. Global politics is where the real digging should be done. The ‘science’ is but a smokescreen. He who pays the piper…

  61. RR Kampen says:

    Still don’t know that even fencing of those hacked mails cannot provide arguments?

  62. Stacey says:

    I says to our Gav. Gav please have a word with Trickey Mickey and tell him to stop digging when he’s in a hole?

  63. Jose Suro says:

    Gee Willis! All guns blazing bright and early. I do love the smell of cordite in the morning :). Also look forward to the cries of libel and slander from Dr. Mann’s blogosphere lackeys in the coming days. Hope the good Doctor answers himself.

    My own personal observations is that it seems so pitiful that Dr. Mann made the decision to jump into the Big Fish pond and now he’s crying foul; the preferred defense of the little fish. It shows a huge lack of foresight.

    Welcome to the Big Fish pond Dr. Mann. Enjoy your swim!

  64. thefordprefect says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:01 am
    your 2 refs

    One (epa) is talking about US only I believe. So the global change will be larger.
    The other (Wigley) – the original source is not referenced – however they are all talking of a continuing reduction to the future.

    You seem to be suggesting that because we will not cut CO2 sufficiently now to make a difference it is not worth cutting CO2 at all.

    Surely you cannot be relying on the unknown future supplying a instant fix. Do you not see a problem with just letting things continue as they are?

    If you have set a 100 tonne wagon in motion you cannot stop it instantly by standing in front of it, but apply a continuous force it will eventally stop. The global climate has been pushed – stop pushing and it will return to “stability”

  65. Stacey says:

    Sorry it was remiss of me.

    Great post Mr Eschenbach. do you by any chance travel on the Clapham Omnibus?

  66. hunter says:

    I think the only thing better than the AG reviewing Mann will be a grand jury.

  67. David, UK says:

    You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies.

    Let me add my thanks to you Willis. Mann and the rest of them are con artists, and you have called it like it is. I would have liked to have seen even stronger language (“fraudster” and “charlatan” come to mind) but you have summed up our case very clearly and succinctly indeed, which should illustrate to the Believers just why we feel as strongly as we do. Thank you again.

  68. David L. says:

    Why does Mann play the victim card all the time? I’m a scientist and a big part of the job is responding to quesions, challenges to one’s work, and sometimes just blatant hostile attacks. But it’s part of the job. It’s definitely part of the academic system. In graduate school people were terrified to give departmental presenations or even at group meetings. The egos came out and would sometimes question and belittle the presenter to the point of getting them upset to the point of outright crying. And then all the big egos in the audience would feel good about themselves because they proved they were the smartest in the room. But this is “normal” in academia and you just got used to it. You got all your data and theory in order because you knew you were going to get some harsh feedback. Very harsh. But you also felt like you made a great contribution when you defended yourself to all the scrutiny. So it worked both ways.

    And you especially had to be prepared if your work was a big challenge to the establishment or conventional wisdom. But most academics I know actually relish a good fight, and their ego grows when they can defend their science with data and intelligence from even the most hostile criticisms. So I don’t understand this Mann character at all.

    The only explanation I can muster id that he knows his science is crap but he was able to form an “old boys network” that protected him and allowed the grant money to flow. Really, if he truely was a scientist interested in the science itself, he would be fighting the criticism so normal in the academic arena and presenting the data, showing the methods, and actually enjoying the back-and-forth banter that is acadamic research. I don’t see this. What I see is a guy that wants to hide but keep having the checks showing up. Now he wants to hide from the scrutiny as there may be criminal charges as well.

  69. David L. says:

    Ken Hall says:
    October 11, 2010 at 3:32 am
    Michael Mann declares, “But the attacks against the science must stop.”

    That is the most anti-science statement I have ever seen.
    ————————————————————————-
    Absolutely Ken. See my post just above this one. Every legitimate scientist I’ve met knows that science will get attacked. It’s part of the system, certainly the academic system. These guys are pretty thick-skinned. I’ve seen some really hostile academic meetings that would be rare and certainly taboo in corporate America where we have to keep people’s feelings in mind. But in academia it is fully expected and encouraged to be hostile against other people’s ideas. Mann is “out to lunch” on this point. This alone proves he is not a scientist but a huckster and snake oil salesman.

  70. sharper00 says:

    My reading of this is that Mr Eschenbach agrees with Dr Mann that Cuccinelli’s approach is not the correct one but vehemently disagrees with all the reasons given for why this is so.

    Would it be possible for Mr Eschenbach to outline his own objections since “it doesn’t seem like the right way” is quite vague and open to interpretation.

  71. Mike S. says:

    Here is the problem with the above entry. The emails released are devoid of evidence of wrongdoing.

    I see, Mr. McManus. Well, if they are “devoid of evidence of wrongdoing”, from whence, then, came the Information Commissioner’s Office’s finding that the CRU breached Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act? The ICO report makes it clear that the reason CRU avoided prosecution only because of the act’s six-month statute of limitations – a provision the ICO says needs to be changed, since internal FOIA procedures can take that long to process, meaning by the time a requester can refer the matter to ICO it’s already too late.

  72. starzmom says:

    A lawsuit by the Attorney General of Virginia may be the wrong forum, but with the history this problem has had, it may be the only forum in which a breakthrough and thorough discovery may be had. We don’t seem to be having a lot of luck with scientific groups, and I’m not sure Congress has the will or the interest at this point.

  73. @ J McManus,

    How can the many whitewashes, sorry enquiries have been said to have exonorated Mann et al when none of them took statements or evidence from any critics, none of them looked at the science, and in a few cases the “accused” were able to set the terms of reference by recomending what questions should be asked?

  74. Trevor says:

    In reply to

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:49 am

    “Your letter calls for the conviction of someone with no evidence. How unamerican”

    On the contrary, the letter calls for an independent investigation to determine guilt and IF determined guilty then conviction may follow. I personally find this the right process. Neither innocence nor guilt can be confirmed without a PROPER investigation.

    “Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes, Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. They are none of my business, being private, so I don’t expect to have access but I am glad they formed part of the investigations. Knowing they were examined makes the findings of the many investigations stronger.”

    First, many problems have been discussed regarding these enquiries conducted. The biggest in my opinion is that only one side of the argument was looked at as none of the well known people including such as Mr. Watts and Mr. McIntyre were ever asked any questions or allowed to participate in the enquireies. In my (once again) personal opinion this is akin to a murder trial where the accused is asked wether or not he did it and upon saying no the case is closed without the Attorney General’s office even being allowed to investigate the crime.

    Second you mention how the e-mails are private and therefore none of your business. On the contrary, these e-mails are regarding projects conducted with PUBLIC funding and therefore should be (and I believe are) subject to freedom of information requests.

    I’m not a climate scientist or ANY type of scientist, I’m a security guard with no degree worth discussing. HOWEVER I am a taxpayer and like to know where my tax dollars are going and also like to know if increases in everything from utitlity bills to gas prices (which then increses the cost of everything such as groceries or anything else transported by truck) due to government carbon legislation is based on fact or on faulty conjecture.

  75. glacierman says:

    The University of Virginia had the chance to put the full record straight by releasing all of the emails, etc. that would have answered the critical question of if Mann did follow through and delete the emails and ask others to do likewise (a conspiracy) – effectively subverting the IPCC process. There would have to have been a record of everything Mann did from his university account, and the emails should be on a server somewhere. So the original documents should be recoverable, as well as a record of the possible attempt to delete by Mann. They chose not to. They didn’t even use a lame excuse like the documents don’t exist, they just never looked for them.

    I believe they do exist and would answer the questions. Why would the UV do this? Were they affraid of being implicate? I think they had a golden opportunity to save credibility and they wouldn’t even have had to fire one of their own since he is not there any more. Really makes makes me go Hmmm, what is going on here?

    Maybe too late now as the investigation may turn criminal and UV may have joined the effort to subvert the law.

  76. Neil Jones says:

    “We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.”

    Do we finally have the model he is working from? Has he turned this on its head as he has so much else? Has he decided to get the pseudo-science in first?

  77. Enneagram says:

    While all we know this issue of Global Warming/Climate Change was a scam, this wenesday October 13th., Al Gore will be preaching in Lima, Peru, South America, sponsored by Movistar- Telefonica (Telefonica de España: A member and sponsor of the Malthusianist “Group of Rome”):

    http://www.telefonica.com.pe/noticias/pdf/peru_verde.pdf

    http://peru21.pe/noticia/640177/al-gore-dictara-charla-magistral-lima

  78. Dr. Mann and the rest of the team of AGW climatetoligist are the products of politically motivated subjective research funding. He is doing what he is paid to do. “Researchers” in EPA, NASA and other government agencies have been doing the same. The solution is to stop funding subjective research that is intended to support a political agenda. We can make a difference this November. I’m voting agains’t those who support “tax and trade”.

  79. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re John McManus says:

    Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes, Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. They are none of my business, being private, so I don’t expect to have access but I am glad they formed part of the investigations. Knowing they were examined makes the findings of the many investigations stronger.

    So would it change your mind at all to realise that what you think is not true? The email server archive from CRU has not examined by any of the investigations. Muir Russell’s review made a half-hearted attempt at it, as explained here-

    http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Report%20on%20email%20extraction.pdf

    The processes of analysis to identify (and then review) additional email traffic which might be associated with the issues which are the subject of the allegations which have been levelled against CRU, is likely to take at least several weeks. It would be for the Review Team and the University to determine whether the cost, inevitable time delays and (at this time) uncertain outcomes could be justified. Until the material is subjected to a much downgraded security level, the likely position will be that the University and its appointed team will not be able to carry out any meaningful analysis.

    The University, being in charge of investigating itself declined to look. Can’t think why that may be. What this brief look at the backup server tells us though is that there’s far more data that’s potentially FOI’able. It also tells us there’s a high quality, forensically reliable copy of the archive that needs to be preserved when CRU gets it’s server back to prevent any further ‘accidental’ deletions obstructing legal FOI requests.

    It also raises questions about Jones saying he cleared out his mailboxes every few months. If he did that, where did the years old emails come from, and why is the archive version of the mailboxes so large? Testing whether Jones, Briffa or the CRU crew did delete emails after the FOI request may be as simple as looking at the archive version and seeing if relevant emails are flagged as deleted.

    None of the inquiries to date has looked very hard or attempted to answer that question.

  80. RockyRoad says:

    Ok, I’m finally going to break down and get the book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”–not that I can afford the time it will take to thoroughly digest it, but because of unintended consequences. Mann spouts off and books critical of him climb in the sales ratings. I can’t think of a better consequence.

  81. Marge says:

    David L. says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:43 am
    “Why does Mann play the victim card all the time?”

    Because a rather large number of people have been spreading lies about his climate research?

    Because the Attorney General for the State of Virginia is pursuing a politically motivated criminal investigation on him with the implication that there is evidence of fraud?

    Examine the mega-dittos response to Willis Eschenbach’s guest post which itself contains “a number of omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements of fact.”

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

    Mann has been “victimized” by a rather large number of skeptics. One need look no further than this blog, for evidence supporting that assertion.

  82. Smokey says:

    thefordprefect says:

    “You seem to be suggesting that because we will not cut CO2 sufficiently now to make a difference it is not worth cutting CO2 at all.”

    Maybe you’re finally beginning to understand.

  83. John McManus says:

    Mike S:
    Please explain exactly how refusing a vexatious FOI complaint is evidence of wrongdoing.

    I see others howling for the rease of the emails. The worst the whisleblower/hacker ( take your pick) could find was leaked. Sorry, no cigar.

  84. Former_Forecaster says:

    It’s beginning to feel Climate Pseudoscience may finally be exposed in the light of day, and its instigators publicly derided. I’m no fan of Republicans–as they’ve proven too often they’re little more than Democrats occasionally wearing the vestments of rational people–but if they’ll conduct a real and independent investigation of Dr. Mann and his cohorts, I’ll vote for them.

    I’ve read a few too many things about Dr. Michael Mann. At the moment, I have only this to say: If I handled data in the biased, anti-science method as it appears Dr. Mann does, I’d be sued, my license would be pulled, and I’d be on the public dole. That he fears a real investigation should be sufficient to tell any who read his essay that he has something to hide.

  85. RockyRoad says:

    John McManus–you make an interesting presumption, which could only be true IF you knew what was contained in ALL the emails. Nobody knows that–I seriously doubt you do (unless YOU are the hacker/whistleblower). So stop conjecturing and stick with the facts.

  86. Ken Coffman says:

    Perhaps this is a good time for a listen to The Hockey Stick Blues…

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978577798

  87. Smokey says:

    John McManus says:

    “Please explain exactly how refusing a vexatious FOI complaint is evidence of wrongdoing.”

    First off, it is an FOI request for information, not a complaint.

    Next, ignoring an FOI request is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.

    Finally: who, exactly, is qualified to label a request “vexatious”? You?

    Have you even read the “vexatious” FOI requests? Or are you just winging it?

  88. Tucci78 says:

    John McManus had written:

    Please explain exactly how refusing a vexatious FOI complaint is evidence of wrongdoing.

    Vexatious? Vexatious, you arrogant schmuck? That friggin’ well does it, [snip]. A parasite fastened upon the public purse conducts what is in every regard work-for-hire does not get to determine whether or not a lawful request uttered under the prevailing Freedom of Information statute is “vexatious” or not.

    The [snip] either comes up with the information demanded or he gets arrested and hauled before a competent legal authority on criminal charges.

    And therefore to hell with John McManus and every post he’s uttered. I strongly suggest a permanent ban.

  89. Ken Hall says:

    “Mr. McManus.”

    If you were charged with murder, but had the right to choose which evidence was presented in court, your defence team was made up of your friends and professional associates, people who also stood to benefit from the murder, and the trial was in front of a jury of your friends and the prosecution were barred not only from cross-examining any prosecution witnesses, but only spoke briefly to the defence witnesses, the I am pretty sure that you would be cleared of all wrong-doing too.

    Educate yourself on what actually happened in these 5 grotesque abuses of the investigative process.

  90. Regardless of how the climate argument shakes out, AGW or no AGW, this sort of controversy backed by legitimate and sound complaints are going to result in de-accreditation of many academic research institutions in whole or in part. There is already a critical contraction planned by both parties in Congress of distribution of Federal funds for research, and this sort of needed but untimely re-evaluation of the ethical Zeitgeist of America’s on-campus scientific community no doubt will reveal the huge percentage of “cooked” degrees, bought credentials and the type of cynical wheeler-dealer activity that goes on when schools are pouncing on Federal and state funds to make of tenure a comfortable and leisurely sinecure, which is presently of a sort to make Gordon Gecko blush in shame.

    Climate science is the least of anyone’s worries on US campuses. One need only conduct a cursory review of the cost-cutting measures going on in the UK to see the writing on the wall. MacDonalds and Walmart can look forward to a huge new crop of highly-qualified greeter trainees in the very near future.

  91. Ken Hall says:

    ““Please explain exactly how refusing a vexatious FOI complaint is evidence of wrongdoing.””

    This may appear to be to complicated for you to grasp, but, what Mann et al did was illegal.

    A) these FOI requests were judged to be valid and not in the least bit vexatious by the relevant authorities.
    B) The soundness of these requests meant that to refuse them was unlawful.
    C) so the LAW shows that refusing a valid FOI request to be evidence of wrongdoing.

    Had it not been for the 6 month limitation in the FOI act, then these people would have faced a criminal trial for their breach of the FOI act in the UK.

  92. Alexander K says:

    @ Thefordprefect – you write about a ‘stable climate’. Over what period was the earth’s climate ‘stable’ and who defined and measured that stability? Oh yes, and some references for your rather vague asserions would be pertinent.
    @ John MacManus – You have not followed the ‘enquiries’ into the Mann cohort’s activities re CRU and UEA very closely, have you? Do keep up!

  93. bob says:

    Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am
    “I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    A man who stood out in his field once said, “You don’t have to be a chicken to know when you have a rotten egg.

  94. Bill Illis says:

    If it were just the original hockey stick, I think we could say “okay mike, you got a little carried away with data selection here in trying to prove your point. Don’t do it again because this is an important issue and we need to be sure about the facts.”

    But he did do it again and he went much, much farther than that.

    He got people fired, removed editors, ensured the IPCC fully endorsed his hockey stick climate history view, supressed numerous objective climate science papers from being published, forced editorial boards to resign, set-up the RealClimate charade, established a climate science culture of withholding and distorting evidence, established a persona whereby other scientists are actually fearful of his wrath, set-up his own mafia-like group of senior scientist suppressors and established a climate science culture of extreme intimidation of other scientists to toe the line which still exists to this day.

    It is not just the hockey stick – it is about how much damage he has done in a scientific field which has become an important influence on our way of life. I don’t want a person like that in a position of further influence (and he isn’t the only one).

  95. Smokey says:

    Marge says:

    “Mann has been ‘victimized’ by a rather large number of skeptics. One need look no further than this blog, for evidence supporting that assertion.”

    Marge, dear, the fact that you and any other defenders of Michael Mann can post here makes the comments fair. It is not the fault of skeptics that Mann’s defenders are few and far between, or that their defense is riddled with holes. And you must be aware that alarmist blogs, particularly Mann’s own RealClimate, routinely censor out opposing views. See the difference?

    The problem is that Mann refuses to answer questions, and like Phil Jones he personally had a hand in the whitewashes that pretended to investigate him.

    No doubt you will continue to shed tears of persecution as long as Michael Mann hides out and never has to answer charges of scientific misconduct in a legitimate venue. Michael Mann is many things, but he certainly is no “victim.”

  96. Henry Pool says:

    Great piece, Willis. I hope you sent a copy to the Washington Post?

  97. PJP says:

    @John McManus

    These were NOT private emails. Check with your own employer, I think you will find that a general policy is that any communications made in time being paid for by your employer, using employer’s resources (computers, communications) are the property of your employer.

    In this case, the employer is the taxpayer. Public funds were being used to finance this research, as well as the institutions for which they were working.

    You can try to play games, such as saying that this was on time paid for by the university, but that is just playing games. If the public funding was not there, they would not have jobs with the university.

    So there is absolutely no expectation of privacy, and all these communications are public property.

    So not only is there an issue that they used university/public property and time to conspire to break the laws of at least two countries, and to subvert the scientific process but there is a more fundamental problem that they seem to be totally ignorant of who they are working for. They need to understand, take one penny of public money and the public owns you and your work. Don’t like that? Fine! Go work on your own.

  98. Alexander K says:

    @ Thefordprefect – you write about a ‘stable climate’. Over what period was the earth’s climate ‘stable’ and who defined and measured that stability? Oh yes, and some references for your rather vague assertions would be pertinent.
    @ John MacManus – You have not followed the ‘enquiries’ into the Mann cohort’s activities re CRU and UEA very closely, have you? Do keep up!
    @Marge – your megaditto comment is nasty and demeaning; most responders on WUWT actually take the trouble to understand the posts before we respond, which most of us try to do intelligently and courteously. Ad hominem attacks are neither productive, courteous nor called for..

  99. Ken Hall says:

    ” Marge says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:26 am

    David L. says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:43 am
    “Why does Mann play the victim card all the time?”

    Because a rather large number of people have been spreading lies about his climate research?”

    Yes, sadly you are right, there are many people who have spread malicious lies about Mann, however he should not consider every reasoned and correct attack on the known and exposed massive flaws in his work as malicious. They are merely normal academic tests of data, method, execution, analysis and conclusions which is also known as science.

    If he could separate the unreasonable attacks he has suffered, from the reasonable academic attacks, instead of lumping any and all criticism of his work as a malicious attack, then he would garner more respect.

  100. Ken Hall says:

    thefordprefect says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:37 am

    You seem to be suggesting that because we will not cut CO2 sufficiently now to make a difference it is not worth cutting CO2 at all.

    If you have set a 100 tonne wagon in motion you cannot stop it instantly by standing in front of it, but apply a continuous force it will eventally stop. The global climate has been pushed – stop pushing and it will return to “stability”
    ———————————————

    If I stood in front of a moving 100 tonne wagon, I would have as much effect on that as a fly does on the speed of my car when it hits my windscreen.

    Why spend trillions of dollars over the next 30 years for the same effect (I.E. none)?

    Also, you are suggesting that we should not apply any more force at all, which in the context of human CO2 emissions means that you are suggesting that we reduce our emissions to zero.

    In other words, you want to LITERALLY return to the stone age. Considering that you used a computer to post your comment and therefore used electricity which was probably produced from coal, or gas, makes you a hypocrite too.

  101. Enneagram says:

    I still wonder why don’t “they” invented a more credible story to scare us, like the opposite: Global Cooling, which, by now, it would be fulfilling. It seems fantastic that they still preach and repeat the same mantras, unless driven by some esoteric revelation we don’t know. Perhaps a demonologist or an historian of demonology could explain it to us. :-)

  102. 007 says:

    Mike Mann says “laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. ”

    The way he says this, he’s confirming that there is a ‘problem’. Wouldn’t a scientist address the problem openly? Or try to correct it? Or acknowledge it?

    Yet they are obviously trying to conceal it. I would like for him to explain what is scientific about that?

    How can so many people be fooled by such behavior?

  103. John McManus says:

    FOI refusalss are not primo facia anything. Any FOI requset can be turned down by the appropriate authority ( here the UEA information officer). The person who filed the FOI can ask for a hearing, an appeal etc. according to the act. This stage can result in acceptance or rejection.

    The FOI case in question was not able to go ahead . This is proof of nothing except the inability of the complainant. The emails urging deniers to disrupt the work of the CRU with a flood of emails may have been deemed vexatious by the authorities and the request rejected , or not, we will never know. The primo red facia statement was withdrawn as innacurate, inappropriate and wrong.

    One thing puzzles me. Why does everyone here think Mann is suject to FOI requests in England?

  104. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re Ken Hall

    This may appear to be to complicated for you to grasp, but, what Mann et al did was illegal.

    That may be a bit harsh and unproven. Replacing Mann with Jones is more fair and matches the opinion given by the UK’s ICO. Mann is a US national and isn’t bound by UK law, so didn’t necessarily act illegally in deleting emails pertinent to a UK originated FOI request, or in asking other non-UK nationals to delete their emails. If a request under US FOIA had been made simultaneously, then it could have been illegal.

    But his apparent behaviour was unethecial and unscientific, but that’s been his problem from the outset and why he’s now playing the victim card. He’s had a long history of not co-operating along with his ‘peers’. They’ve dug themselves into this hole, and they’re still digging.

    Other climate scientists have realised that the public importance of climate change means it needs a spirit of openness and transparency, if it’s to gain public trust. But not the Hockey Team or their fellow travellers, they’re still playing their zone defence and trying to attack anyone who dares to criticise them, as we’re seeing with the attack on Wegman. Wegman or GMU’s legal team may want to look at the UK libel laws though, as that may be one way of stopping ad hom attacks from the team.

  105. Jenn Oates says:

    This is an extremely nice takedown, I’ll be annoying many of my FB friends when I link to it this afternoon. :)

  106. anna v says:

    Well, as far as scientific wrong doing goes, the mail with the “hide the decline” needs no other e-mails to prove that data was cooked to order.

    How can somebody call a thermometer scale something uncalibrated is hard for a physicist to comprehend. When,on top, in the main time sequence where a calibration could be carried out, i.e. after thermometers were invented and temperatures widely taken, the two curves do not agree, that glaringly means that the tree ring measures cannot be a proxy of temperature. That the group decided to “hide the decline”, i.e. the non similarity of instrumental to tree proxy assumed “temperatures”, is where they sinned against science and the scientific method.

  107. D. King says:

    Great post Willis.
    “So please, spare us the vapors about scientists having a stake in politics.”
    You have now tied Michael Mann back to back, with my grandmother.
    I do see a link….Well, maybe not see.

  108. lowercasefred says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:21 am

    “Of course, people like Mann could learn a lot from farmers.”

    Probably, except that he needs no lessons in shoveling manure.

  109. GregO says:

    Willis,

    Your post is just excellent. Thanks to you for taking your valuable time to make a point-by-point rebuttal of that silly puff piece by Dr Mann published by WaPo . I am encouraged by the number of skeptical comments it attracted and have participated myself in suggesting WaPo publish Dr Hal Lewis’ resignation letter from the American Physical Society as a rebuttal/counterpoint.

    It is a mystery to me why American MSM is so hesitant to investigate or question CAGW pseudo-science. Even a cursory examination reveals CAGW as lacking in evidence, lacking in logic, lacking in physical confirmation of modeled predictions, in clear and obvious violation of the scientific method; and is nothing but the weakest sort of faddish, fashionable, trend thinking. In 30-50 years no one will be able to care about CAGW with the possible exception of sociology grad students needing thesis material for “madness of crowds and popular delusion” papers.

    Slowly but surely the truth is emerging, despite the decades of officially sponsored brainwashing on CAGW. All those supporting it and those publishing it will be tarred by association with these false prophets that practiced a form of amoral sophistry bridging on sociopathic.

    Dr Mann and his ilk refer to us skeptical of his nonsense as “deniers”. Well I have a term for his true believers: “sucker”.

  110. DonS says:

    Garry says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Correct, Garry. Willis displays the “circle the wagons” science community response to any indication of interference from mere mortals. This is acceptable, and desirable, when science and only science is the subject, but totally unsatisfactory when government funds are paying the bills and there is may be a fraud being perpetrated on the tax paying public,
    Seems nobody ever learns that when the government is involved (funding), the politicians are involved and the public is involved. The public can now only be satisfied about what has occurred in the Mann case by an investigation conducted by a government entity with prosecutorial authority. You take the man’s dime, you do the man’s bidding.

  111. John Whitman says:

    I do see a pattern emerging about climate science.

    Elements of the Pattern (partial sampling, not meant to be comprehensive):

    “Settled” / “consensus” scientists investigated several times (CRU / PSU / British Gov’t ) in a non-rigorous manner. Exoneration prevailed.

    US congress commissioned the Wegman investigations / report. A climate scientist was not exonerated, found lacking and there was general criticism of the prevailing climate science occurred.

    Some skeptical scientists critically analyzing (some say auditing) published climate science of the “settled”/”consensus” variety. Problems identified and widely spread on the blogosphere.

    It is not uncommon that skeptical scientists disagree/dislike recent legal actions toward a climate scientist of the “settled”/ “consensus” variety.

    Recent critical analysis toward the Wegman report by supporters of “settled” / “consensus” science.

    Degrading image of AGW in global public opinion.

    Bizarre video released by an ideological environmental group goes uber-viral.

    A Congress much more critical of AGW “settled” / “consensus” science will be elected.

    Copenhagen absolutely failed.

    US congress failed.

    New Zealand climate data manipulation found in legal proceedings.

    IAC found IPCC lacking.

    RS slightly retreating from former biased AGW view.

    Pattern Recognition: AGW leadership is retreating and fighting a regard guerilla action in support of its icons and its beliefs. It is not surrendering. Nor will it.

    A New Strategy: It appears that independent thinkers (a.k.a. skeptics) are strategically repositioning themselves be at the intellectual location where the AGW leadership is retreating to. Sitting there waiting. It appears that the retreating AGW leadership is preparing for a reunion with independent scientists and vice versa. I see their strategy is to save the integrity of science at all costs. Openness would be again a victim.

    My concern: Science, whether of the independent or “settled” / “consensus” variety, still needs to play the politics to maneuver funding and select the topics of public science. Objectivity still is highly questionable by the government funding process and by the IPCC centralized clearinghouse situation.

    My conclusion: The result of the strategy will not be an improvement, if politics remains integrally linked with the most fundamental aspects of the science. There will be the creation of a new consensus . . . . . milder at first than the previous tyrannical one . . . . at first only . . .

    John

  112. John Diffenthal says:

    @Marge,

    Thanks for the link to the National Academies Press for the 2001 report. You’re right, it is pretty critical of Mann … particularly in section 11 on Multi proxy reconstructions.

  113. James Sexton says:

    Tucci78 says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:51 am

    John McManus had written:

    “……..The [snip] either comes up with the information demanded or he gets arrested and hauled before a competent legal authority on criminal charges.

    And therefore to hell with John McManus and every post he’s uttered. I strongly suggest a permanent ban.”
    =======================================================

    Tucci, if Anthony were to ban all of the McManus’, then we wouldn’t be able to respond to such idiotic comments. Not only do they serve for a lively dialogue they also have great amusement value. Apparently, John isn’t aware that adherence to U.S. law is a compulsory requirement for U.S. citizens. Maybe in his world/country, adherence to law is optional.

  114. Tucci78 says:

    Zombie Drowned Polar Bear had written:

    Regardless of how the climate argument shakes out, AGW or no AGW, this sort of controversy backed by legitimate and sound complaints are going to result in de-accreditation of many academic research institutions in whole or in part. There is already a critical contraction planned by both parties in Congress of distribution of Federal funds for research, and this sort of needed but untimely re-evaluation of the ethical Zeitgeist of America’s on-campus scientific community no doubt will reveal the huge percentage of “cooked” degrees, bought credentials and the type of cynical wheeler-dealer activity that goes on when schools are pouncing on Federal and state funds to make of tenure a comfortable and leisurely sinecure, which is presently of a sort to make Gordon Gecko blush in shame.

    In the early 20th Century era of mass armies, the officers of the federal government in these United States came to the conclusion that increasing the numbers of college graduates in the population would have a beneficial effect upon the ability of the country to wage war. In theory, a college-educated individual could be more readily trained to serve as a commissioned officer, and there is great need for junior commissioned officers.

    In combat, they get killed rather more readily than do most other personnel.

    Thus we got the post-World War II “G.I. Bill of Rights” to defray the costs of college educations for discharged veterans, the federal guarantees (and now, under our TelePrompTer-in-Chief, the direct federal funding) of student loans, and the flow of increasing amounts of money in the form of research grants.

    All of this is undertaken upon the premise that these expenditures conduce to certain “national security” benefits. Under no other presumption could these allocations of tax monies even tenuously be considered constitutional.

    This being clearly understood, the federal funds allocated under grant programs to support research conducted on anthropogenic global climate change were expended in payment for the benefit of the American public in a national defense context.

    Thus the “many academic research institutions” of which Zombie had written have been – strictly speaking – defense contractors in both their educational and research functions. Every graduate (male or female, able-bodied or physically incapacitated) was considered to be a potential officer or technical support specialist, and every bit of scientific, methodological, or technological innovation conducted on the government dime was supposed to have been of potential military value.

    I do not overstate the case here. The experiences of the major and minor armed conflicts of the past century and more were interpreted to an exaggerated extent by politicians and military bureaucrats to have demonstrated that their predecessors’ abilities to predict of what would and would not yield some kind of critically important advantage in war had been quite poor.

    If this mindset is appreciated, it becomes possible to understand why, since the late 1940s in particular, the officers of civil government in these United States have diverted astonishing amounts of the national wealth to the country’s colleges and universities.

    This policy (if as such it can be regarded) has created in American academia an intensely rent-seeking constituency which relies completely upon money extorted from the taxpayers to survive and to prosper.

    I find it entirely correct that there should be “a critical contraction planned by both parties in Congress of distribution of Federal funds for research,” and would hope that it extends eventually to a complete cessation of all federal support for student loans (which is chiefly responsible for the colleges and universities having raised their tuition charges with unremitting avarice in recent decades).

    Experience has by now shown that most of the research indiscriminately undertaken in these universities is in no way genuinely required for the defense of the nation, and in an era where enormous conscript armies are no longer cost-effective, the service academies more than suffice to provide the required annual influx of officers in the O-1 pay grade.

    There is no “to promote the general welfare” benefit accruing from public expenditures upon such research, or – as events in the economy are presently proving – increasing the numbers of Americans with baccalaureate degrees in subject areas that simply do not qualify these college graduates to perform genuinely productive work.

    How many Artium Baccalaureus people do we really need flipping burgers and filling paper cups with Pepsi?

  115. Beth Cooper says:

    I was just thinking a day or two ago that we hadn’t had one of those interesting communications from Willis Eschenbach, you know, like the Floating Islands article… when wham bam! To the point, Willis, tough but fair. The hockey team don’t play by Marquis of Queensberry rules and we need to fight back hard, but fair, like the above…

  116. Erik says:

    simpleseekeraftertruth says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:25 am
    —————————————————————————————–I would suggest mann gas as the common noun as in laughing gas, swamp gas etc. but concede that there may be a more appropriate moniker: anyone?
    —————————————————————————————–
    Manneken Gas ?? – it would go beautifully with the other one..

  117. Ferdinand says:

    Whenever I see a state employee in difficulty I always ask “Who would employ him/her in the private sector ?” Only if I can come up with a postive answer do I pay much attention to his/her statements.

  118. ML says:

    Enneagram says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:35 am
    I still wonder why don’t “they” invented a more credible story to scare us, like the opposite: Global Cooling, which, by now, it would be fulfilling. It seems fantastic that they still preach and repeat the same mantras, unless driven by some esoteric revelation we don’t know. Perhaps a demonologist or an historian of demonology could explain it to us. :-)
    ———————————————
    There is no money to make on global cooling. What you going to tax ?………Ice ;-)

  119. RunngMoose says:

    David L. says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:43 am
    “Why does Mann play the victim card all the time? I’m a scientist and a big part of the job is responding to quesions, challenges to one’s work, and sometimes just blatant hostile attacks. But it’s part of the job………………………..”

    Right on, David. Great post. Your experiences in this area are exactly the same as mine have been and I agree with your explanation and conclusions about Mann.

  120. Wind Rider says:

    Nice fisking, Willis. My only comment would be an echo of a comment earlier, wrt the apparent dissonance of consistently pointing out that Man, et al, are charlatans who have been incuriously and ineffectively “investigated” by their parent institutions, yet in almost the same breath decrying the actions of the Virginia Attorney General for launching an actual investigation.

    While the spectre of ham fisted political types thrashing around in the ivory towers of academia does sound horrific on its face, in this case, based in large part on the evidence that you, Anthony, and others have presented detailing ‘scientists gone wild’, and the characterization of the ‘internal’ or ‘academic friendly’ ‘investigations’ as flawed and worthless, it seems to me a bit of cognitive dissonance to call for more of the same, and decry the investigations by outside authorities with not only the legal ability, but mandate to do so as well.

    It may simply be your opinion that such a baby is ugly. So be it.

    But keep in mind – Al Capone wasn’t sent to jail for murder, extortion, or bootlegging.

    And with the impact that the AGW clown show has had on society, coupled with the damage their antics have done to the advancement of actually understanding how spaceship earth actually functions, I have a hard time figuring out a way of admonishing them that does NOT include criminal sanction.

  121. Dikran Marsupial says:

    “Hand-picked groups of your myopic friends have gotten together, consulted the auguries, studiously looked away, and declared you and Phil and Gene and the rest to be pure as the driven snow. But not one of the “thorough investigations” has spoken to one single person other than you and your friends and supporters.”

    Not true, one of the investigations was a parliamentary investigation, and it was clear that the committee included members that were openly hostile, and heard testimony from Prof. Peiser and Nigel Lawson, neither of whom can be considered “friends and supporters”. I know this as I watched the footage.

  122. RC Saumarez says:

    I want to see just one thing from the CRU and from Mann:

    They show how the data they used were processed by their computer programs to acheive their published results.

    Res ipsa loquitur

  123. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites said on October 11, 2010 at 4:16 am:

    So please, spare us the vapors about scientists having a stake in politics. You are in it up to your ears.

    I think they’re in it over their heads.

    That can be dangerous with regards to vaporous (gaseous) carbon dioxide as it is heavier than normal air and can settle out. Industrial workers should know to stay out of pits, especially in areas with inadequate ventilation, which should also be known by farm workers to miners to excavators. Such conditions, where CO2 concentrations build to toxic levels but also where they displace oxygen, also represent the only proven way that carbon dioxide vapors are a threat to humans.

    Which is further basis for the only advice Mann really should be heeding now: “You’re already too deep in that hole. Stop digging!”

  124. BS Footprint says:

    What cajones! Every time I see the term “climate change” I am reminded of just how slippery this subject has become. I love the way he charges skeptics and opponents with being “deniers of change” when most I know of are denying AGW, not climate change.

  125. Doug in Seattle says:

    It is clear to me that Cuccinelli’s subpoena is needed. And Issa’s and Sensenbrenner’s committees will also be needed. We are not going to get a balanced investigation of what has been done in the name of science from the people who have gained the most from gaming the system for the last 20 years.

    I don’t expect Cuccinelli or a Republican congressional committee to be unbiased, but balance dictates the necessity of airing the facts and concerns of both sides of the issue and it is clear that only one side has been given any opportunity to speak on the official record.

    The only regret I have is that Cuccinelli, as well as congress, have the authority to impose criminal punishment on Mann and his team. Had they been open about their methods from the beginning, and not conspired to hide their errors once found out, none of this would have been necessary.

    If Mann and team had been open and acted like scientists, they might have even been able to convince me and others that the precautionary principle made their world changing plans worthwhile. But it was the path the team chose that made me, and likely many others reading here, to look closer at the science behind the AGW movement and see for myself that AGW is the Piltdown Mann of the 21st century.

  126. pyromancer76 says:

    Willis, excellent post as usual. I wish that everyone who reads your letter would email Michael Mann and ask him to respond exactly to the questions asked: about the science, about the scientific method, about destroying emails, etc.

    One addition to the example of clouds affecting amount of atmospheric CO2. What is the effect of the biosphere during warming (and growing) periods. Do all those plants “suck” CO2 out of the atmosphere? See http://chiefio.wordpress.com/ ” Got Wood” 10/10/10. He does some interesting math on “got trees”, “got grass”, and other plants suggesting (or proving?) that actually we need more CO2 today, not less. The AGW-evil-CO2-types are not only going to shut down industrialization-prosperity if they get their way, but they are going to starve plants to death, too.

  127. Phil Henshaw says:

    Not much but theatrics here!

  128. pyromancer76 says:

    I agree with Wind Rider (October 11, 2010 at 8:26 am). Don’t decry any proper investigations. Let them procede in the academic-scientific world for the appropriate scholarly research, scientific method, and open and accountable procedures in publishing. Also let the appropriate legal investigations procede without criticism. This bogus research is being pawned off as truth by which both national and global governmental policies are being promnulgated. If the research is false, this is fraud and worse of the vilest kind.

  129. rbateman says:

    On face value, there is enough in the Climategate emails alone for a Grand Jury to indict.
    Ah, but there is so much more to be ‘unearthed’.

  130. Why is Mann calling attention to himself right before the election? He might have declined to watch the Monty Python video “How not to be seen”. I’m guessing he’s the first guy in that sketch. Why he stood up when he knows he’s going to get shot doesn’t make sense. That he knows better can be shown by his refusal to debate in hostile forums much the same way Al Gore does. There is no such thing as faith based science.

    Mann is not a scientist. He hasn’t produced his methods or data for people to test his conclusions against. If the data is lost, sorry, he has to do it all over again. If he can.

    Politically, he may be really hosed if the Republican party wins big as many people predict. That the Democrats held congress during the last four years may be a very good thing. This may have allowed institutions to do things they wouldn’t have done had they not had the political protection the Democrats provided. With the protection gone, the whitewashes may be stripped off in short order, and we can implicate institutions along with the individuals they attempted to protect. I’m really hoping this happens.

  131. John McManus says:

    Atomic Hairdrier:

    Exactly when did Mann delete any emails? Receiving an email does not mean action was taken. Actually I delete emails every day but I don’t think that negates the preceding sentence. Having said that, what is wrong with deleting emails. Everybody does it. Saying Mann deleted emails and is a criminal and should be in jail is kind of childish. Noone told him not to delete emails ( and noone has said he deleted any emails). No complaint, no directive, no crime.

    One of the funniest things about this meme is the idea that someone would delete emails and not delete the email advising them to delete the emails. This applies to Jones since , of course, noone knows what’s in Mann’s emails.

  132. cleanwater says:

    Lets call “climate science” what it really is “the Darkages of Alchemy”. There is no creditalbe experimental data that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exists! There have been a few attempt to do experiments to demonstrate the “ghg effect” so far they have failed because it has been shown that the “ghg effect” violates FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF PHYSICS. There are various faults that are readily visible to scientists carefully examining the experiments. Little things like putting thermocouples inside the containers where they absorb the light and IR thus heating the thermocouples and not the IRag (IR absorbing gases), if there is any heating it is from the thermocouples heating the IRag not the other way around. ( Remember Niels Bohr models)

    With the recent discoveries that the NOAA satellite data is faulty and “Mannipulation” of other data sources, there is serious question that there is any “climate change/ Mann-global warming”. Current information indicates that the World is going into global cooling-go buy more long underware and house insulation. Off course if we could store some of the HOT Air being wasted we might be able to heat a few house for the poor.

  133. BS Footprint says:
    Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

    Cheers

    Phil


    Those emails, Dr. Mann, were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request. You replied:

    Hi Phil,

    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.

    I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: xxxx@yahoo.com

    talk to you later,

    mike

    Those emails seem to be prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime (destruction of materials subject to a FOIA request), if I’m not mistaken.

    If so, why haven’t they been charged? Must be nice to live in such a privileged, sheltered world.

  134. Charles Higley says:

    Mann’s article:
    “The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.”

    There is not a single part of this paragraph that is true. Arrhenius’s hypothesis has never been confirmed, starting out the paragraph on very weak footing. He then spews opinions (biased and/or false) of the real world. And he finishes with the argument from authority, the ever popular “consensus.”

    Mann is once again using his Kool Aid glasses. Chase the funding, Michael, it’s running away from you at ever increasing speed! I think you may be approaching a tipping point, a real one this time; in the real world that usually means being fired.

  135. Stephen Wilde says:

    David L. says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:43 am

    ” you knew you were going to get some harsh feedback. Very harsh. But you also felt like you made a great contribution when you defended yourself to all the scrutiny. So it worked both ways.
    And you especially had to be prepared if your work was a big challenge to the establishment or conventional wisdom. But most academics I know actually relish a good fight, and their ego grows when they can defend their science with data and intelligence from even the most hostile criticisms”

    Crikey, so that’s what I’m doing here :)
    And if something initially contentious turns out to be true then that’s a bonus.

    Odd that so many establishment figures just can’t cut it.

  136. RobW says:

    “invent a better scare story”

    But they did, remember we are about to experience a warming hiatus of 20-30 years then look out!!!!!

  137. BS Footprint says:

    And, looking at it another way, Dr. Mann appears to be trying to spin things just in case the elections don’t turn out his way. It’s a clever way of framing the discussion: “See! I told you so! This is all just a political witch-hunt, just like I told you it would be. Pay no attention, move along, mumble…

  138. Jimash says:

    The Congress has the power to cal before it, baseball players, investigate charges of using performance enhancing drugs, and proffer charges.
    Surely it can do the same to publicly funded scientists suspected of using performance enhancing math to bolster fake science.
    So I support that effort.
    Good letter Willis !

  139. James Sexton says:

    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach.”
    ========================================================

    Willis, with the exception of the above statement, I completely agree with your letter. Well done! I would re-word the statement to something like, ‘First, let me say that I find the necessity of legal examination deplorable. If academia had shown the slightest willingness to clean their own house and properly safeguard the public’s interest, then people such as Cuccinelli wouldn’t feel compelled to intervene and uphold their responsibility to the people’s interest.

    If you don’t want to play by the rules of the public, don’t take the public’s money. It is that simple. Universities have for too long taken our money without feeling required to answer to us. This ends. The sooner the better. How they ever came to the belief they could take our money and remain unaccountable is beyond me, but the message of accountability should be reinforced……..and loudly.

  140. John Whitman says:

    Wind Rider says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:26 am

    While the spectre of ham fisted political types thrashing around in the ivory towers of academia does sound horrific on its face, in this case, based in large part on the evidence that you, Anthony, and others have presented detailing ‘scientists gone wild’, and the characterization of the ‘internal’ or ‘academic friendly’ ‘investigations’ as flawed and worthless, it seems to me a bit of cognitive dissonance to call for more of the same, and decry the investigations by outside authorities with not only the legal ability, but mandate to do so as well.

    ——————

    Wind Rider,

    Nicely put. I generally agree with you.

    By my (and I think also increasingly the general public’s) perspective, the legal system appears more trustworthy at this point than the climate science taken as a whole. All the climate science blogs (pro-AGW and skeptical) set the stage for what Cuccinelli is doing.

    I say climate science should open their kimonos to legal investigation, instead of reacting against it. That would show integrity and appearance of openness. Now, there is some perception that scientists are starting to defensively close ranks, with some skeptics included . . . . . to protect climate science from . . . . . ahhh . . . . those who no longer trust it (and who pay for it).

    The perception of circle-the-wagons does not work very well.

    John

  141. Arno Arrak says:

    Mann’s boasting about “science” makes me throw up. The science he speaks of is fake and is based on falsehoods. First of all that so-called “anthropogenic global warming” has never been observed. How can I say this? Because satellites have been continuously recording global temperature for the last thirty years and they simply cannot see that warming. And their “science” attributes warming to carbon dioxide in situations where laws of physics do not permit it.

    Let’s start in the beginning. In 1988 Jim Hansen testified to the Senate that global warming had started and that carbon dioxide was the cause. The problem with that testimony is that satellites simply cannot see this warming. What they do see in that time slot is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no actual warming until 1998. That is ten years after Hansen’s claim that warming had arrived. And when the real warming started it was a brief burst which began with a super El Nino in 1998, raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years, and then stopped. There was no further warming after that but temperature stayed high near the El Nino maximum for six years.

    The cause of it was not some greenhouse effect but warm water carried across the ocean that started the Super El Nino when it reached South America. The twenty-first century high that the presence of this water mass was responsible for in turn caused the first decade of the century to be the warmest on record. Don’t forget that there really was warming, not of the anthropogenic kind. A third of a degree rise in four years is equivalent to half the rise attributed to the entire twentieth century.

    But now we have an interesting conundrum: none of the temperature curves from NASA, NOAA, or the Met Office show this step-wise warming. What they all show is a gradual warming in the eighties and nineties that goes by the name of “late twentieth century warming.” I have examined them and find that the same temperature oscillations that satellites see are also present in their data. There were five warm peaks within twenty years that corresponded to El Nino periods, and valleys in between them that corresponded to La Ninas. You can line the satellite peaks up with the peaks in official curves and you notice that peak heights are the same, at least for the first four. But the big difference is in the valleys between the peaks: they have been truncated, which turns deep valleys into shallow dips. And when you do that the entire curve gets an upward slope, which is how they can claim that eighties and nineties were a period of warming, Hansen’s warming – that did not exist.

    This is nothing less than scientific fraud on a grand scale that has been going on since the late seventies. And it is still going on when you study the rest of their output. Since they do get the peak values right there is no reason to believe that they did not have equally good values for the La Nina valleys in between. I know of no natural process that could selectively change the valleys without changing the temperature peaks also.

    You will find details of how the different groups handled their separate deceptions in “What Warming?” All this makes it clear that no AGW has existed at any time during the last thirty years. This still leaves arctic warming which is very real indeed. But its cause is not the greenhouse effect, but warm water brought to the Arctic Ocean by currents. Kaufman et al. have shown that it all began at the turn of the twentieth century, after a two thousand year period of cooling. The start of this warming was sudden, almost a ninety degree turn of the temperature curve. But carbon dioxide took no notice of the passing of the century. From that it follows that it is physically impossible for carbon dioxide to have started that warming. A rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century which very likely set the Gulf Stream unto its present northerly path is the only possible explanation of arctic warming. With that, all scientific claims that anthropogenic global warming exists or is caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide are shown to be false.

    And now what? Lets bring rationality back to science and stop deceiving the public and the politicians with bogus claims of so-called “climate” scientists.

  142. old44 says:

    “omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements of fact.”

    In order to save ink, there is an OE four letter word that would suffice: [snip]

  143. Daryl M says:

    Willis, thanks for a well-written, well-researched post. That has to be one of the all-time best posts on WUWT. If that does not qualify you for life-time achievement on WUWT, nothing does. Keep up the great work!

  144. JAE says:

    Willis: Well said! But I think the ONLY way we will get additional “light” is through the legal system. The scientific “community” is not getting anything done.

  145. alexandriu doru says:

    “A change of 2% in clouds will offset the CO2 warming”
    This is not true.
    Low altitude clouds have ~30 W/m^2 albedo effect and ~25W/m^2 greenhouse
    effect.
    You need doubling them to offset the 4 W/m^2 of the CO2.
    And the bad news is that they are, in fact ,decreasing.

  146. John Whitman says:

    rbateman says:
    October 11, 2010 at 9:29 am

    On face value, there is enough in the Climategate emails alone for a Grand Jury to indict.
    Ah, but there is so much more to be ‘unearthed’.

    ————-

    rbateman,

    What is yet to come out on climate science corruption will no doubt be interesting.

    I dearly would love to see Cuccinelli’s case file on UoV and Mann. Has he got the next ‘unearthing’ already and is just playing UoV and Mann to come clean first? I do not know but the possibility is intriguing.

    How wonderfully Michael Crichton would have played with the drama of this!!!! And who will do the movie and who will portray Mann (& team) and the skeptics?

    John

  147. JPeden says:

    thefordprefect says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Surely you cannot be relying on the unknown future supplying a instant fix. Do you not see a problem with just letting things continue as they are?

    The alleged cure is worse than the [unscientifically disasterized] alleged disease, to the point of being productive of a full-blown disaster itself. And, using Climate Science “logic” and Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy results, it now appears that increasing CO2 quells Hurricanes and has significantly diminished ACE over the last 30 yrs. – to record low levels.

    Climate Science misses such potential conclusions because it is not real Science.

  148. AT says:

    “Deniers? Anyone who is still using that emotion-laden, infantile term is deliberately being antagonistic”

    Stolen is also emotion laden. As a UK taxpayer I am pleased that what my money is being spent on has been exposed.

  149. JPeden says:

    Marge:

    Mann has been “victimized” by a rather large number of skeptics. One need look no further than this blog, for evidence supporting that assertion.

    Marge, I don’t have to go all the way back to the beginning, and do a considered analysis of the way ipcc Climate Science operates, but you apparently do! Or even farther if you also have no idea as to how real Scientific Method science is done.

    Climate Science relies on your ignorance!

  150. Jimbo says:

    Mr. Mann,
    Those investigations exonerated you and your chums because to do otherwise would have been to deprive the universities of millions of dollars in funding. Oxburgh would have put his carbon companies in danger of losing a lot of money.

  151. Anthony Mills says:

    Kadaka said on October 11, 2010 at 9:11 am:
    “carbon dioxide as it is heavier than normal air and can settle out”

    Carbon dioxide cannot “settle out” of normal air: there is no forced difusion in a gravitational field. See a standard mass transfer text. However, if some carbon dioxide at a lower temperature is added to air ,it will settle out due to a buoyancy foce, until ordinary diffusion (Fick’s law) and convection mix the gases and the temperatures equilibrate (Recall that the oxygen in air does not “settle” even though it has a larger molecular weight than nitrogen)

  152. Theo Goodwin says:

    alexandriu doru says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Begin Quote:
    “A change of 2% in clouds will offset the CO2 warming”
    This is not true.
    Low altitude clouds have ~30 W/m^2 albedo effect and ~25W/m^2 greenhouse
    effect.
    You need doubling them to offset the 4 W/m^2 of the CO2.
    And the bad news is that they are, in fact ,decreasing.
    End Quote.

    Are you talking just measurements and hunches, like a Climategater, or do you have some reasonably well -confirmed hypotheses about cloud behavior that explain the cloud behavior and changes in albedo that you imply that you can reference? What set of confirmed predictions about cloud behavior do you have?

  153. Jimbo says:

    “Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ;o)

  154. Francisco says:

    “Get the anti-science bent out of politics,” says Michael Mann.

    These guys, or their PR agents, do come up with clever slogans. “Anti-science” here stands for any attempt by anyone (especially politicians) to scrutinize the science performed with public funds. Translation: “Give us the money and leave us alone.”

    A more proper wish might be: “Get politics out of science”. But this wish, if granted, would mean in the first place the end of funding for politically-driven pseudoscience, which in this case means lafish funding of research with the specific, politically pre-established goal of supporting a politically pre-established conclusion. Without which, Michael Mann and hundreds like him might not have a good job.

  155. JPeden says:

    Figure 1, nice cartoon! But Mann didn’t actually do any field work to gather his data, which also didn’t involve cutting trees down, so he gets some credit here, too.

  156. Willis Eschenbach says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:49 am


    Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes, Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. They are none of my business, being private, so I don’t expect to have access but I am glad they formed part of the investigations. Knowing they were examined makes the findings of the many investigations stronger.

    Clearly you are not following the story. You have swallowed the lie, that there were investigations that “exonerated” people. No one was exonerated.

    The problem is that the relevant emails were NOT “requested, produced, and read” as you naively claim. That would happen in a real investigation, so people assume it happened in this case. But when push came to shove, they were never even requested, much less “produced and read”. You are assuming things not in evidence. There were no investigations, there were only whitewashes.

  157. ZT says:

    Excellent letter. Thank you.

  158. Alex says:

    This letter declares war when a more neutral tone would have more real impact beyond the already convinced. But I agree with the points being made.

  159. Timoteo says:

    Oh, Anthony, this is dirt.

    As always, did *you* put the doctored images in this post, or was it Willis?
    You are losing it.

    REPLY:
    Oh, you mean the hockey stick? That graph is from Dr. Mann.

    The figure 1 has been around for a couple of years, back in 2008 is when it first appeared:

    http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/post_750.html

    Otherwise the entire post is Willis. – Anthony

  160. Willis Eschenbach says:

    sharper00 says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:53 am

    My reading of this is that Mr Eschenbach agrees with Dr Mann that Cuccinelli’s approach is not the correct one but vehemently disagrees with all the reasons given for why this is so.

    Would it be possible for Mr Eschenbach to outline his own objections since “it doesn’t seem like the right way” is quite vague and open to interpretation.

    My great preference would be to see scientific disputes and questions of scientific ethics and malfeasance settled in the scientific arena, not the legal arena. I would rather see M. Mann shot down by scientists, not by lawyers.

    I say this because science has (up until now) always been self-policing, with frauds and hucksters being dealt with internally. This necessity to clean up our own scientific backyards made science itself stronger, just like exercising any facility makes it stronger. Scientists should have the coconuts to stand up for the scientific process. It is too important to be left to the legal profession. Unfortunately, most climate scientists these days are very unwilling to say anything at all about even the most egregious examples of scientific malfeasance.

    And of course, this has left the reputation of the entire field in tatters. People notice things like that. They notice that even the worst offenders are routinely ignored by people in the field, and they draw the obvious conclusion, that the other scientists in the field don’t have the stones to speak up. They see scientists who are known to be serial offenders in scientific malfeasance speaking at the conferences and feted by their acolytes.

    And as a result, people walk away saying “A plague on both your houses”. This is a very dangerous situation for science in general.

  161. Smokey says:

    John McManus says:

    “Exactly when did Mann delete any emails?”

    Well now, that’s a question no investigator has ever asked him.

    “Noone [sic] told him not to delete emails”

    No one told me not to delete emails either. You are not half smart enough to argue on this board. The relevant question is: who instructed others to delete specific emails, and what was in those emails? Jones told Mann to delete emails that were the subject of an FOI request, and Mann told Wahl to delete those emails, too.

    “One of the funniest things about this meme is the idea that someone would delete emails and not delete the email advising them to delete the emails.”

    None of those in the Mann/Jones clique expected Climategate to expose their behind-the-scenes shenanigans. They were simply interested in thwarting the FOIA request by deleting the emails being requested under the Freedom of Information Act. They didn’t delete all their emails because they were as incompetent in their conspiracy to avoid the law as they were with their proxy statistics.

  162. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Marge says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:26 am

    David L. says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:43 am

    “Why does Mann play the victim card all the time?”

    Because a rather large number of people have been spreading lies about his climate research?

    Because the Attorney General for the State of Virginia is pursuing a politically motivated criminal investigation on him with the implication that there is evidence of fraud?

    Examine the mega-dittos response to Willis Eschenbach’s guest post which itself contains “a number of omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements of fact.”

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

    Mann has been “victimized” by a rather large number of skeptics. One need look no further than this blog, for evidence supporting that assertion.

    Marge, you claim that my piece (above) contains “a number of omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements of fact.” This may be the case, I have made errors before.

    However, like Mann, you seem to have omitted pointing out even a single one of these claimed errors. That takes us nowhere. Pick one thing that you think I have said that is wrong. QUOTE WHAT I SAID. Then show us why, where, and how it is wrong.

    Otherwise, you’re just railing against the wind …

  163. Mark says:

    Author wrote:
    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.”
    Are you saying scientists should be above the law? Fraud applies to everybody except politicians while politicking. They exempted themselves, of course. I look forward to seeing the global warming frauds criminally investigated and prosecuted if it turns out their actions reach the legal definition of fraud.

  164. Jimbo says:

    Marge says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:26 am

    David L. says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:43 am
    “Why does Mann play the victim card all the time?”

    Because a rather large number of people have been spreading lies about his climate research?

    Marge, I have an answer for your concerns. Go to Real Climate and ask a question directed at Michael Mann: Did you delete the aforementioned emails and did you ask your colleague to do the same? If your comment gets printed then just wait for the vitriol to come raining down: denier, liar……..

  165. Willis Eschenbach says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Mike S:
    Please explain exactly how refusing a vexatious FOI complaint is evidence of wrongdoing.

    Sure, I’d be glad to. Answering a FOI request is not optional. It is not a good idea. It is the law. Nobody gives a damn if the request is “vexatious”. Michael Mann finds all requests “vexatious”, but that does not give him the right to ignore the law.

    So yes, not answering a legal and proper FOI request is not just “evidence of wrongdoing”, it is an ILLEGAL ACT. You seem to think that it is OK to blow it off just because it is offensive to Mike’s feelings … sorry, doesn’t work that way.

  166. Tim Williams says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 11, 2010 at 11:36 am
    My great preference would be to see scientific disputes and questions of scientific ethics and malfeasance settled in the scientific arena, not the legal arena. I would rather see M. Mann shot down by scientists, not by lawyers.

    Yeah right. Go on then Willis, publish a paper start with this …http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
    and add your insightfull comments.

  167. Willis Eschenbach says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:43 am

    FOI refusalss are not primo facia anything. Any FOI requset can be turned down by the appropriate authority ( here the UEA information officer). The person who filed the FOI can ask for a hearing, an appeal etc. according to the act. This stage can result in acceptance or rejection.

    The FOI case in question was not able to go ahead . This is proof of nothing except the inability of the complainant. The emails urging deniers to disrupt the work of the CRU with a flood of emails may have been deemed vexatious by the authorities and the request rejected , or not, we will never know. The primo red facia statement was withdrawn as innacurate, inappropriate and wrong.

    As the person who filed the first FOI with the CRU, I can assure you that my FOI request for their data was legal, proper, and not vexatious. It was turned down, using a succession of excuses. At the end of the day it was revealed that it was turned down because they had lost the data and did not want to admit that.

    You really should educate yourself on this subject before you embarrass yourself further. You could start with an account of my experiences with the CRU here, and go on from there.

  168. DesertYote says:

    Antonis Christofides
    October 11, 2010 at 2:55 am

    The Kyoto Protocol (if its adherents had been able to fulfil their targets, which they didn’t) was estimated by its proponents to have the potential to cool the earth by six hundredths of a degree by 2050. The EPA just estimated that their current plan of regulating CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant” will cool the earth by somewhere around three hundredths of a degree by 2030.

    Willis, do you have references for the above?

    #

    The insistent whining for references for statements of commonly known facts that can be found by 15 min of googling is getting irritating. It is obviously being lamely used as a distraction to denigrate a statement when no other option is available.

  169. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Atomic Hairdryer says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:45 am

    … Mann is a US national and isn’t bound by UK law, so didn’t necessarily act illegally in deleting emails pertinent to a UK originated FOI request, or in asking other non-UK nationals to delete their emails. If a request under US FOIA had been made simultaneously, then it could have been illegal.

    Nonsense. Anyone can file an FOI act request, in either the UK or the US. In Mann’s case, a US request was made to Mann. You really should do your homework first, before posting.

    But in any case, an honest and thorough investigation would clear up all of these questions. Why is Mann fighting so hard against that? …

  170. Smokey says:

    Timoteo says:

    “As always, did *you* put the doctored images in this post, or was it Willis?”

    You’re right, Timoteo, those were both doctored images. The one of Mann was a joke on his “treemometer,” and the other one was a joke on the taxpaying public.

  171. Tucci78 says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Good comments. Any idea how to check the split between dollars on defense research versus civilian-needs driven Fed research grants and both versus civilian-provided research funds, please? That would interesting.

    I work often with aeroderivative gas turbine applications, nearly all of which turbines are dual-use, i.e., they were originally developed for military aircraft, but on the ground drive exclusively civilian electrical generators or natural gas compressors. I would therefore imagine this significantly complicates differentiating military from civilian research funding. one confronts that with penicillin.

    As a veteran who used the GI Bill for my ding-dong school training after I ETS’d, few who complete their degrees on the GI Bill ever in turn go back into the service, unless they are doing the ROTC bit or are lifers, so…when they graduate, they rejoin the workforce with better skills, and thus earn more, and thus pay more taxes, and thus support Ye Olde War Machine of which you presumably would have no part, if asked. I would be interested if you think the GI Bill should be discontinued as an unfair subsidy to baby killers, etc., etc., which language and worse I put up with on campus for four years, smiling sweetly to keep from jumping over the table and throttling the speaker. But then, it was the Seventies.

    Just curious. I enjoy telling people now they weren’t worth it, but it made me stronger and wiser, so it was a net positive experience.

  172. Steven Mosher says:

    mann said that more powerful hurricanes are the result of AGW.

    interesting

  173. I think you WERE worth it, but it is fun saying that just to see the expression on their faces.

  174. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Alex says:
    October 11, 2010 at 11:27 am

    This letter declares war when a more neutral tone would have more real impact beyond the already convinced. But I agree with the points being made.

    My friend, the declaration of war was made long ago, and not by the folks on the side I represent …

  175. Steven Mosher says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:49 am


    Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes, Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. They are none of my business, being private, so I don’t expect to have access but I am glad they formed part of the investigations. Knowing they were examined makes the findings of the many investigations stronger

    #####

    ah no they were not. none of the investigations looked at forensic evidence to determine this. They explicitly did not.

  176. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Mark says:
    October 11, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Author wrote:

    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.”

    Are you saying scientists should be above the law? Fraud applies to everybody except politicians while politicking. They exempted themselves, of course. I look forward to seeing the global warming frauds criminally investigated and prosecuted if it turns out their actions reach the legal definition of fraud.

    No, I’m not saying scientists should be above the law. I am saddened to see that the scientists in the field have allowed so much sloppy, slip-shod work to pass as science, and have said nothing. Their unwillingness to stand up for proper science has led to the current situation. I think by preference it should be handled by scientists, not lawyers.

    However, since climate scientists have completely abdicated their responsibility to clean up their own back yards, since none of them seem to be willing to point out that the Emperor is buck naked, we end up with the lawyers involved, which is always a tragedy.

  177. James Sexton says:

    Timoteo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Oh, Anthony, this is dirt.
    ========================================================

    Figure 1 is a successful attempt at humor. The graph is an attempt(partially successful) to mislead the public, while using the public’s money to do so.

  178. Bruckner8 says:

    My 6th grade science teacher had us use the Scientific Method all year. Every 6 weeks, we had to turn in a steno pad, the first page of which had to be a Hypothesis. The following pages were supposed to be our thoughts about WHY we had come to the Hypothesis (Observations). Then we would document any and all experiments/tests/activities. The activities could even be interviewing real scientists about what they thought about our idea!

    We also had to state (ie, think about!) why others might find fault with our Hypothesis. Further, before we turned them in, we’d spend two days reading each others’ Hypos, writing in their stenos about what we thought was wrong! On the final day, we were allowed to rebut the rebuttals!

    The rebuttal process was done in private (as if we were writing to each other…no emails!), not in real-time back-and-forth discussion…that was later, only twice per year. At the end of each semester, the class would vote on a project or two that would go under further scrutiny, with teams “taking sides.” It didn’t matter if you really believed in the Hypothesis not…your job was defend your side using sound principles. You had to prepare a “statement” and give it aloud to a panel of other science and math teachers.

    It was perfectly fine to turn in a project where you found out that your Hypothesis was false! You just had to be sure to stick to the entire method, showing your work.

    From this, my appreciation for science, math and logic was formed.

    In 6th grade.

    My disgust with all things in modern day “politico-science” is that every one of those steps is somehow missed by the experts. The steps I learned in 6th grade.

    Everything I’ve learned about Climate Science, I’ve learned as a result of this site. I’m no expert on it. All of my contributions (as few as they are) have been along the lines of “cost assessment of risk/reward” and failures of the Scientific Method. My first post asked “How can all of these world-wide thermometers be calibrated properly, and known to be of the same vintage? [common error margins, accuracy]”

    One needn’t be an expert in Scientific Fact Knowledge to spot flaws in a process.

    I’m not skeptical of Climate Change. I’m skeptical of the processes followed by the people in which we’ve put our trust! (And to me, that’s worse than Climate Change.)

  179. Jeremy Poynton says:

    @Fool me once says: october 11, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?
    //
    So? It matters not in the context of what the author writes.

  180. Robuk says:

    REID A. BRYSON PhD.

    PROXIES ARE SECOND -TIER -STUFF

    All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

    Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

    We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s SECOND -TIER -STUFF . “DONT TALK ABOUT PROXIES,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

    Bryson describes the NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR NORSE MARINERS making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 THE INSTRUCTIONS CHANGED IN A BIG WAY. ICE BECAME A MAJOR NAVIGATIONAL REFERENCE. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

    Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

    We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

    “A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

    HOW DID MANN WITH HIS COMPUTER MODELS AND DODGY PROXIES OVERTURN UNCHALLANGEABLE HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL FACTS.

    file:///G:/Users/Rob/Desktop/page%202/Reid%20A.%20Bryson%20and%20swiss%20silvermine.html

  181. Mann Wrote
    “We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, ….. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.”
    Fundamental to science is verification. The link between smoking and lung cancer was first established by questionnaires returned by 34000 British Doctors, and has been strongly replicated since. They use methods that aim to eradicate bias, and have strong levels of statistical significance. The hockey stick selects data sets for their results, then used methods (e.g. short-centering) that increased that bias. Even then the statistical results are very weak. See

    http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/big-tobacco-and-climate-change-deniers/

  182. John McManus says:

    Steve Mosher:
    Emails were requested, produced and examined. You know it and I know it. Forensics has nothing to do with it except as a red herring sandwitch.

  183. Dr. Dave says:

    “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes”

    Is there any proof for any part of this statement? Perhaps…the combustion of hydrocarbons definitely releases CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a GHG and if atmospheric concentrations became high enough (like in 100 years) future generations might be able to detect a slight warming. We know that glaciers have been retreating for at least a couple hundred years. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Polar ice fluctuates widely. Is drought more widespread? Are heatwave more frequent? Are hurricanes any more powerful.

    I think in this comment thread someone even invoked the Holy “97% of climate scientists believe…” canon. Jeepers, I’m shocked! Guess what…97% of American trial lawyers are vehemently opposed to tort reform, too. Think those opinions are the result of enlightened self-interest?

    Mann cracks me up as he spews the wearisome old talking points of the AGW alarmist movement. Some of his supporters (defenders) here parrot similar drivel from the same playbook. You can bet the farm that they’re ALL scared spitless of Nov 2.

    Willis, as an aside, your responses to comments are nearly as much fun to read as your article. Well done!

  184. Francisco says:

    Reasonable and well-researched skeptical inquiries of prevailing theories, meriting publication, are by no means limited to climate science, and they are generally met with similar nastiness to keep them at bay wherever they arise. Nor is corruption unique to this field (the pharmaceutical-medical field in particular is probably much more corrupt than anything else we can imagine).
    Maybe in older times (pre-WWII, say) it was sensible to suppose that the scientific community could effectively police itself. But today? I don’t see how. And I see no clear means of fixing the system either.
    Peer review is very very corrupt in many fields. Would it be better if it were eliminated altogether? I suppose. But what would you replace it with? Ultimately, a means to make a judgement has to exist. Funding has to come from somewhere, and no matter where it comes from, it seems to be the root of corruption. In the case of the chemical, medical and pharmaceutical fields, it comes mostly from the private industry itself, and the courruption is simply amazing. In the case of climate science it is coming mostly from the public coffers, and the results are getting almost as bad. I find the whole scene extremely depressing.
    Big science – corruption of peer review…

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/big-science-commercial-science-publishing-corruption-of-peer-review-science/

  185. John McManus says:

    [snip. Try to avoid calling others "deniers." ~dbs, mod.]

  186. John McManus says:

    Smokie:
    How about the investigation of Wegman ? Done by his employer and fellow employees.

    Surely you regard this process as a whitwash.

  187. John McManus says:

    [snip. Using the d-word gets your comment deleted. ~dbs, mod.]

  188. John Whitman says:

    Mark says:
    October 11, 2010 at 11:42 am

    No, I’m not saying scientists should be above the law. I am saddened to see that the scientists in the field have allowed so much sloppy, slip-shod work to pass as science, and have said nothing. Their unwillingness to stand up for proper science has led to the current situation. I think by preference it should be handled by scientists, not lawyers.

    However, since climate scientists have completely abdicated their responsibility to clean up their own back yards, since none of them seem to be willing to point out that the Emperor is buck naked, we end up with the lawyers involved, which is always a tragedy.

    ————

    Willis Eschenbach,

    Calmly stated Willis. Thank you for your even tone in writing about this.

    Part of the upcoming reformation / renaissance in climate science must then be re-structuring a working relationship and cooperative understanding with legal bodies. Everyone wins if there is mutual process and understanding of thresholds between science and law. The height of the hurdle that science should clear in order to be above reproach needs to be understood. That understanding should be what sets the height of the hurdle that science should clear to be above reproach.

    Leadership has yet to emerge in this area. But the ongoing situation is an opportunity for UoV and Cuccinelli to just sit down and talk this through without the public and the courts. THAT STILL could happen. Wisdom is needed here, not hot heads.

    John

  189. Jan Pompe says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 4:49 am

    While condemming Mann roundly, WE admitts that there is no evidence that Mann or Jones deleted any emails.

    I rather understood that he made no such admission but that the so called investigators did not investigate it. They didn’t, and not looking for evidence a far cry from there being none.

  190. Matt Ridley says:

    Small correction: I’m pretty sure it was the White Queen, not the Red Queen, who believed six impossible things before breakfast…

  191. James F. Evans says:

    Congressional hearings in the House of Representitives.

    I can’t wait!

  192. Enneagram says:

    Silly alarmism: 7 Cities About to Sink

    http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-35998698

  193. Trucker Bob says:

    Bravo Willis Bravo!

  194. sharper00 says:

    @Willis Eschenbach

    “I say this because science has (up until now) always been self-policing, with frauds and hucksters being dealt with internally. This necessity to clean up our own scientific backyards made science itself stronger, just like exercising any facility makes it stronger. Scientists should have the coconuts to stand up for the scientific process. It is too important to be left to the legal profession. Unfortunately, most climate scientists these days are very unwilling to say anything at all about even the most egregious examples of scientific malfeasance.”

    I’m afraid I’m now even more confused because it appears you believe Dr Mann is guilty of everything he’s charged with (and that there are other scientists who similarly guilty of fraud).

    If, as you believe, Dr Mann is guilty of fraud and that normal scientific processes have failed to even identify much less marginalise that fraud then what’s the basis of your objection to to the Cuccinelli investigation?

  195. hro001 says:

    BS Footprint says:
    October 11, 2010 at 9:18 am
    What cajones! Every time I see the term “climate change” I am reminded of just how slippery this subject has become. I love the way he charges skeptics and opponents with being “deniers of change” when most I know of are denying AGW, not climate change.
    =========

    And when it comes right down to it, IMHO, very few are actually “denying” AGW.

    Although many do question where the evidence might be for the primacy of C02. As Philip Bratby wrote recently:

    “Why is it everything to do with the effect of human emissions of CO2 is given a false label?

    “For example ‘climate change’ is a false label taken to mean only man made global warming. Thus all climate change is falsely attributed by politicians and advocates to human causes, even though we know climate change is natural.
    [...]
    Could it be that politicians and environmental advocates are trying to scare the ignorant general public by use of false labels?[...]“ [emphasis added -hro]

    From Mann’s most recent whine above:

    “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. [...] scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.”

    I’d say that the above paragraph is a perfect example of “an environmental advocate trying to scare the ignorant general public”.

    It certainly doesn’t sound very “scientific” to my ears. Although it is somewhat amusing to note that “scientists are in broad agreement” seems to have replaced previously ubiquitous “scientific consensus” as the au courant appeal to authority.

    Perhaps this subtle shift was the outcome of the recent AAAS sponsored “rebranding” workshop deliberations?!

  196. Theo Goodwin says:

    John McManus writes:

    “My personal theory is that many of the people commenting on denial blogs know the truth; it’s warmer, the MWP was regional to the North Atlantic, trees can be good thermometers and on and on.”

    Sir, you are a typical Warmist. Whether or not Earth is warmer is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Climategaters made some contribution to science. What you and Climategaters care nothing for is science. You do not even know what it is. If, for the sake of argument, Earth is warming and that warming is caused by manmade CO2 only, then no credit accrues to Mann and friends. The reason is that Mann and friends have produced no science. The product of science is well-confirmed hypotheses and the ability to use those hypotheses to make predictions and to explain the phenomena predicted. Mann’s work does not even get to the level of hypothesis. All his work might have accomplished is to establish nine data points. Yet he and people like him CLAIM THAT HIS SCIENCE SHOWS THAT MANMADE CO2 IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF A GLOBAL WARMING THAT IS INDEED HAPPENING. Mann has no science because he produced no well-confirmed hypotheses. His work cannot be used to either explain warming. Maybe he is too stupid to know that. In either case, he has no place teaching in a university or receiving government funds for scientific research. Now, do you understand? If your work produces no well-confirmed hypotheses, you are not a scientist.

    By the way, since you claim that “trees can be good thermometers,” please fess up to the fact that Mann assumed that trees can be good thermometers, but did nothing to establish that they are. In fact, the famous act of “hiding the decline” was Mann, Jones and others conspiring to cover up the fact that their empirical data since 1960, their tree data, DIVERGED FROM rather than supported the claim of warming.

  197. Vince Causey says:

    John McManus is correct in that the UK FOI legislation has a number of get-out-of-jail-free clauses, as Steve McIntytre found. Reasons cited to deny requests included confidentiality agreements with foreign countries. However, if reasons are spurious, the commissioner can overrule the decision. Unfortunately, the evidence that Phil Jones dripped poison into the ear of the university’s administrators is ironically present within the emails themselves.

    In one email, Jones describes how he organised a session with the administrators, complete with slide presentations. As he himself bragged, after an hour and a half, he convinced them “what sort of person we are dealing with in McIntyre.” On several occasions he refers to McIntyre as “that type,” and bragged how he got the administrators fully onboard, and primed to resist any attempt to release the requested data.

    At the time, McIntyre, in the eyes of the warmist community, had bright red skin and horns on his head. More recently, this most honorable and mild mannered of gentlemen, has entered the limelight, and presented an image in sharp contradiction to the one that Jones tried to instill in the heads of the administrators. In my opinion, Jones was prejudiced in his presentation, and set out to misinform and misdirect the administrators to block all FOI requests with the sole objective of serving his own ends. For that reason, his name will live in infamy.

  198. James Sexton says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Steve Mosher:
    Emails were requested, produced and examined. You know it and I know it. Forensics has nothing to do with it except as a red herring sandwitch.
    ========================================================

    No, John, that’s not correct. Where on earth did you get the idea that e-mails were requested, produced and examined? Further, even the most basic question was never asked.———Mike Mann, “Did you delete e-mails that were pertinent to the FOI requests?”—–It’s never been asked.

    Later, you state, “The ” denial of service plan ” by the denialist brainstrust meant to slow….”

    Why is it so unimaginable that people would actually like to see the science behind the wild assertions coming from the alarmist camp? You actually believe Willis’ FOI request was in the purpose akin to a DOS? Is it your assertion these totally ridiculous claims of a non-existent MWP, LIA, RWP and the rest should never be examined by critical thinkers? If the CRU asserted that they had proof that CO2 actually induces a cooling effect on the earth, would you simply accept their statement or would you want to see the science behind the assertion?

    That’s such a hoot! Yeh, the entire skeptical community all got together in one great webinar and formulated a DOS plan that included the snail mail FOI requests. The wanks forgot to send me my invite to that one, but I’m pretty sure something like that happened! Denialists?(BTW, I object to that word on a two-fold basis, not the least of which the use of the word minimizes the murderous pain and suffering Holocaust victims went through.) We don’t engage in denying reality, but you, apparently, have no qualms with living in a fantasy world. Mr. McManus, get a grip.

  199. Vince Causey says:

    John McManus,

    “My personal theory is that many of the people commenting on denial blogs know the truth; it’s warmer, the MWP was regional to the North Atlantic, trees can be good thermometers and on and on.”

    If they believe what you say they believe, then why do they argue the opposite?

    Your arguing is becoming so circular, if you’re not careful you’ll end up disappearing up you own jaxie.

  200. Theo Goodwin says:

    John McManus writes:

    “Vexatious requests are specifically restricted.”

    You have been screaming “vexatious” all day. But you have done nothing to prove that the requests were vexatious. Prove it or drop the topic. Oh, by the way, McIntyre, who was one author of some of those requests, has explained in great detail at his site that his requests were targeted and totally reasonable. Jones was hiding something. All this has been known for years.

    REPLY: Yeah I’ll have to second that. Willis original FOIA request was certainly not vexatious, and requests for data and code for scientific replication are not vexatious. What IS vexatious is Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Jones’ refusal to provide it then, plus Dr. Mann’s “censored” folder among other things. – Anthony

  201. Tom in Texas says:

    Richard Sharpe says:
    October 11, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    EPA to regulate CO2, Women and Minorities hardest hit!

    From that article:

    Blacks and Hispanics “see more sick days from work and school, and increased medical costs due to the ravages of greenhouse gas pollution,” the EPA stated in its defense. “We must act to stop this now, while seizing the opportunity to bring green jobs and green small businesses.”

  202. Jimmy Haigh says:

    “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes”

    I don’t know who said this but, surely, you jest?

  203. John Whitman says:

    Congressional hearings in the House of Representitives.

    I can’t wait!

    By James F. Evans on October 11, 2010 at 1:28 pmCo

    I can’t wait!

    ——

    James,

    Yes, and with potential upside of it being a joint hearing with the senate too.

    Will Mann flee to Canada like those guys in the late 60’s?

    John

  204. @Marge,
    lies! what lies?

  205. AndrewSanDiego says:

    John McManus writes:
    >Smokie:
    >How about the investigation of Wegman ? Done by his employer and fellow employees.
    >Surely you regard this process as a whitwash.

    Mr. McManus,
    There is no investigation of Wegman’s conclusions going on – just an iffy claim by one of the Hockey Team (Bradley). As Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) so correctly put it yesterday:
    “■Wegman et al are guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise”
    “■Wegman et al are not guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise.”

    So tell us which one of these is correct? :-)

  206. John Whitman says:

    Willis,

    You are on a roll here.

    Welcome back to the ‘argumentosphere’! There isn’t a better place to be …. thanks largely to some guy named Anthony ( & his hearty band of mods).

    Athens circa ~2400 BC was great but this is wayyyyy better. : )

    John

  207. John Whitman says:

    Errata – cicra ~400 BC (~2400 before present time)

    Duh (slaps palm to head)

    Hey, can I blame this on my Blackberry & my Adirondack chair?

    John

  208. Dishman says:

    Mann wrote:
    The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries.

    Is he being creative with his history, or just making it up?

    Maxwell was born in 1831. Boltzmann was born in 1844. Kinetic theory of gases only dates from 1866.

    Arrhenius was only born in 1859, and only speculated on GHGs in 1896, just 114 years ago.

  209. Dr. Dave says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes”

    I don’t know who said this but, surely, you jest?
    ____________________________________________________________

    This was a quote of Mann taken directly from the article. I wish it were jest. He wrote this in his WaPo article. The general theme of hard-core alarmists is to repeat their talking points over and over again in the hope that the public accepts them as “settled science”. These claims have dissected in detail here at WUWT and at other sites and in numerous books and articles. They’re all silly propaganda.

  210. W^L+ says:

    Willis, this is very good. However, I have one disagreement.

    If public funds have been used to defend slipshod research, to knowingly produce deceptive documents to influence political policy, or to advocate for or against particular candidates or ballot measures, that is clearly something for the legal system to pursue.

    If, as you suspect, the prosecutor just wants to shine some attention, then you’re right, it isn’t the appropriate forum.

  211. UK Sceptic says:

    John McManus

    “My personal theory is that many of the people commenting on denial blogs know the truth; it’s warmer, the MWP was regional to the North Atlantic, trees can be good thermometers and on and on. I know that your position is in some company the politically correct one but why bother.”

    Mr. McManus, perhaps you would care to expand on your theory in order to explain why your hypothetical closet warmists would create anti-AGW blogs and make a lot of waves for the sole purpose of staying in the closet. The theory might make sense to you so please take pity on this puzzled denier brain of mine and explain to me what the heck you are talking about. I don’t believe in Saint Michael’s Holy Hokum Schtick any more than I believe in a flat Earth, phlogiston or fairies at the bottom of the garden, do you see? Nor do I have or want a warmist closet to cower in. So there you are, your theory is falsified.

  212. Tilo Reber says:

    Fool me once:
    “I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    I suppose that you need a Phd in Electrical Engineering to change your light bulb for you. The travesties of people like Mann are so obvious that a high school dropout could recognize them.

    When I listen to Mann complain that science is being disrespected it makes me think of a witch doctor complaining about medicine being disrespected. It’s not science, Mann, it’s all the quacks in the bopping for climate dollars business that are at fault. Unfortunately, their chicken little game is going to end up tainting all of the good scientists in the world.

  213. Theo Goodwin says:

    Tom in Texas says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    OMG, the EPA has devolved into total self-parody. Keep it up, EPA. Publicize your idiot ideas. Then no Democrats will be elected in November.

  214. The relentless grinding march into the Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum that began in 1990, will bottom out in 2030, and will end in 2070, will wipe out any miniscule warming from CO2 and bury us in a worldwide harvest killing cold and famine.

    Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al, will hopefully be still alive to witness this maturing Next Little Ice Age, and explain why their CO2 warming religion was so flawed.

  215. James Sexton says:

    Dishman says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Mann wrote:…blather, blather, blah, blah…..

    Is he being creative with his history, or just making it up?
    ========================================================
    I prefer to say he’s participating in fictional history. Really, he’s much better at creating scary bedtime stories for children.

  216. Bob Kutz says:

    John McManus says:
    October 11, 2010 at 1:15 pm, & 12:59, & 12:56, & 12:49, etc.

    “. . . My personal theory is that many of the people commenting on denial blogs know the truth; it’s warmer, the MWP was regional to the North Atlantic, trees can be good thermometers and on and on. I know that your position is in some company the politically correct one but why bother.”

    John, do you read what you post?

    1) It would be damn hard to know anything right now, as the Pro-AGW set has lost the data! Its no longer science, its a fairy tale. It’s pretty obvious the Earth’s been warming since LIA, but it doesn’t seem to correlate very well with CO2, much better with Milankovich, or precession of orbits, solar cycles, etc. But Mann’s reconstruction is a farce and the notion that MWP was regional has been blown away by a great number of published papers, so quit with that mantra already.

    2) They produced email? Well, I think their take on it is that the emails were stolen. Is it incomprehensible to you that they deleted emails pertaining to wrong doing but someone was able to later archive the emails evidencing the cover up? But for you to suggest that they willingly handed over their email archive belies a lack of willingness to fess up to the facts on your part that is astounding.

    3) If the science is so damn solid, why, oh tell me why are the scientists responsible so reluctant to provide data and methodology? Why, in the few instances that they have, has there been serious egregious errors discovered? And why on Earth do you see the need to come here and make such indefensible claims, over and over and over?

    Did you actually read the emails? How about the code and data released along side of the emails? Did you actually read the findings of the inquiries? The level of contempt for true science and for those with whom they disagree on the part of Mann and Jones is breathtaking. The fix has been in, and the gameplan has been to smear those who ask too many questions or disagree with the findings. This has gone on too long and it’s high time sunshine disinfects the whole climate science establishment.

    You apparently find that notion objectionable, and label those who want to take a closer look as “deniers”.

    BTW; I think it was something like 60 FOI requests in three years. Hardly an onslaught. If they’d posted the data on their website there probably wouldn’t have been a second FOI request. Finally; if they lost the data, why did they collude through email to delete it? If they had come clean on day one about having ‘lost’ the data, they’d be in a lot better situation right now. Why did they have to obfuscate their adjustments and hide behind “proprietary” data?

    Do you really not understand the implications? Do you really not comprehend why, had they been honest and forthright all along there might be a lot fewer skeptics? That they might not have to defend themselves against endless criticism if they could just once be open and honest? Do you know why they cannot? I believe I do.

    It’s the same reason my three year old looks at the floor when I ask him about the missing cookies.

    Just sayin.

  217. manicbeancounter says:

    Reading through the comments, I think many, on both sides are too immersed in the detail. The big question is this.
    “Is there good reason to believe that the policies proposed to combat climate change will make a positive differance to this planet and the people upon it?”.
    The hockey stick graph is very much secondary evidence for the science. The rapid rise to prominence that Prof. Mann achieved and the major role that the hockey stick graph has played in two UNIPCC reports shows the absence of primary empirical evidence that exists to link the 30% rise in CO2 levels with a 0.7 degrees celsius rise in global temperatures. The fact that the hockey stick evidence is so weak and highly circumstantial means that the primary evidence is not there. If it was, most serious climate scientists would have distanced themselves from dendrochronolgy and hockey stick team a long time ago.

  218. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Anthony Mills said on October 11, 2010 at 10:57 am:

    Kadaka said on October 11, 2010 at 9:11 am:
    “carbon dioxide as it is heavier than normal air and can settle out”

    Carbon dioxide cannot “settle out” of normal air: there is no forced difusion in a gravitational field. See a standard mass transfer text. However, if some carbon dioxide at a lower temperature is added to air ,it will settle out due to a buoyancy foce, until ordinary diffusion (Fick’s law) and convection mix the gases and the temperatures equilibrate (Recall that the oxygen in air does not “settle” even though it has a larger molecular weight than nitrogen)

    This must be one of “Theory vs Reality; Theory loses” things. Volcanic CO2 emissions can accumulate in low spots, high CO2 concentrations can flow across the surface, as in the deadly Lake Nyos incident. The Wikipedia CO2 entry mentions this, Lake Monoun (similar tragedy), and a spot in Italy where CO2 from hot springs accumulates overnight in a bowl-shaped depression about 100m in diameter, making me wonder about your “lower temperature” qualification.

    Sure, when sampling well-mixed atmosphere you likely won’t notice any CO2 settling. That’s where our argument is, when you get mixing and what is settling. Volcanic CO2 collects in low spots. CO2 does accumulate in pits. It can be released at a certain height and “fall” to the ground, leading to accumulations, which I consider settling. It’s like describing sugar in water. Pour it in the glass, talk about the crystals settling in the bottom. Stir it up, crystals go away, and you don’t expect the sugar to then settle out of the water.

    Now for the “pedantic check” where I see if you’ll argue about the different mechanisms of diffusing and dissolving.
    ;-)

  219. Phil M2. says:

    John McManus says:
    My personal theory is that many of the people commenting on denial blogs know…

    My personal theory is that most of the people on this blog realize that you are a complete wan[snip]r!

    Willis, a breath of fresh air as usual. Honesty scares them. Keep it coming.

    Phil

  220. RockyRoad says:

    Kadaka, while it is true that CO2 can settle out in a number of instances, these are the exception rather than the rule. It is human-produced CO2 that has a lot of people up in arms–they’d rather see humans curtail such production, even though it would be cost prohibitive to do so and fail to impact countries that are the biggest producers.

  221. Not just wrong, evil says:

    John McManus “My personal theory is that many of the people commenting on denial blogs know the truth”. First prize for irony.
    I’ll pick just one to refute – that trees are good thermometers. If so, let’s see a continuous proxy series extending beyond 2000 that fits the AGW hypothesis.

  222. Theo Goodwin says:

    Dishman says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Thanks for the info. So, the scientific description of the CO2 molecule dates to around 1900? The only thing the Warmista have that approaches a scientific hypothesis is that description. From that description alone, CO2 could not raise temperatures more than 1.7 degrees Farenheit. That amount of warming harms nothing. The additional warming must come from forcings. Warmista have not one well-confirmed hypothesis that can explain forcings or predict them. There is no science of AGW. All the Warmista have are computer models, doubtful data points, and a bunch of hunches. Their great error is that they cannot understand the difference between hunches and scientific hypotheses. That error plus their unbridled self-regard.

  223. Tilo Reber says:

    John McManus:
    “No matter how the emails were liberated, it is obvious that individual communications were picked.”

    Your honor, the prosecution has only picked those instances where my client has committed murder; ignoring all of those times when he harmed no one in a clear effort to hurt my client.

    “FOI requests have no legal basis if they fail the tests set out in the legislation.”

    Which tests would those be? The ones that say “FOI requests may be denied to those who disagree with your scientific position.”

    “They are none of my business, being private, ”

    No, those emails were written at work, on tax payer machines, using time that was paid for by the taxpayer and discussing issues and research that was also paid for by the taxpayer. There was nothing private about them. Mann’s and Jones’ desire to hide the communication does not make them private.

    “Please explain exactly how refusing a vexatious FOI complaint is evidence of wrongdoing.”

    Tell me, if, in your country, I refused to pay my taxes because I found them to be “vexatious”, would I be “exonerated”.

    “The emails urging deniers to disrupt the work of the CRU with a flood of emails may have been deemed vexatious by the authorities and the request rejected , or not, we will never know.”

    There was no flood of FOI request emails at the point where Jones began to deny them. There were damn few such requests. In fact, Jones was planning on how to avoid FOI requests before he ever received them.

  224. Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?

    I on the other hand am quite familiar with Dr. Mann’s extensive publication record in climate “science”, and I would take the unsupported word of Ronald McDonald over anything he might write.

    Let alone Willis.

  225. Theo Goodwin says:

    sharper00 says:
    October 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    Begin quote:
    @Willis Eschenbach
    I’m afraid I’m now even more confused because it appears you believe Dr Mann is guilty of everything he’s charged with (and that there are other scientists who similarly guilty of fraud).
    If, as you believe, Dr Mann is guilty of fraud and that normal scientific processes have failed to even identify much less marginalise that fraud then what’s the basis of your objection to to the Cuccinelli investigation?
    End Quote.

    I think sharperoo has a good argument. In the so-called investigations, the investigators simply joined in the fraud. How do I know? Because they could not possibly be as stupid and obtuse as their final reports. Anyway, Cuccinelli might be president in four or eight years. Then it will be a matter of policy decisions, not legal decisions. You won’t complain when President Cuccinelli abolishes the NSF will you?

  226. John McManus says:

    [Snip. Read the site Policy. Calling people "deniers" gets you snipped. ~dbs, mod.]

  227. jorgekafkazar says:

    Fool me once says: “I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?”

    I’m extensively familiar with the first refuge of warmist trolls: ad hominem attacks. Actually, now, with Copygate, it seems to have become their LAST refuge, as well. Looks like the bag of tricks is getting empty.

  228. Dan Murphy says:

    John McManus-You have repeatedly used the insulting term denier in your comments on this post, and obviously you intend to insult those who are skeptical of AGW. Normally Anthony and the moderators here won’t put up with this. From this, and the Steven Mosher’s reaction, I would guess that they know who you are, and are allowing you to bend the rules. But if they won’t comment on it, I will. Your behavior is rude and boorish, ungentlemanly, and remarkably emotional. Without counting, I’d guess you have submitted 20 or so comments to Willis’ post, with probably 1/3 of them using the “D” word. You should be adult enough to know that insults rarely swing someone’s opinion around to agree with your side of an argument.

    The proper term you should be using to describe someone who doesn’t agree that the science is settled about AGW is “skeptic”. Being skeptical is acting in the best traditions of science. Calling people names is either evidence of poor character or of having nothing else but ad hominem attacks as a response.

    You do yourself no favors in staying aboard the AGW bandwagon; whatever your reasons are for supporting Michael Mann. The data does not currently support the position taken by supporters of AGW theory, and it will only get worse, as more and more information is uncovered which undermines the position that CO2 is a significant driver of the earth’s climate. Remember, in science there is no good substitute for being correct. Those who unquestionably support the false AGW hypothesis to the bitter end will be remembered by history, and not favorably. The internet does not forget.

  229. Jimmy Haigh says:

    To John McManus – I think I’d rather be a ‘denier’ than a ‘projector’.

  230. James Sexton says:

    lol, Dang it!!! This happens all the time. While I’m at work and can’t spend much time considering arguments, the trolls abound with idiotic statements. By the time I get home, they’ve already been dispatched and are probably too embarrassed to use the same alias’ they used to spew their tripe.

    Vexatious? Really? So, what FOI request would be considered legitimate?

  231. Jose Suro says:

    “My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.”

    I’m a retired analyst. I wont toot my horn here, suffice to say my University education in computer programming and analysis was done on IBM cards, yes paper cards. I’m still up to date and yes, I’ve seen it all.

    That said, Dr. Mann, mentions the East Anglia Archive specifically. This is very clever because he does not mention the PSU archive. Different organizations have different archival schemes and, unfortunately, some are pretty archaic. I would bet good money that the Penn State system should be close to state of the art. What about that archive? Systems archive e-mails at both the outgoing and receiving location. Archival systems vary a great deal, but most will backup information incrementally, and delete the older backups automatically after some time. Depending on the archival scheme, deleted e-mails could stay in the system up to a year, not much more than that. Time is of the essence then. Obviously, the deleted e-mails could already be out of the system and this is exactly what they are banking on.

  232. Graeme says:

    Hmmmm…

    “It only requires the following the uncover lies.

    1. Honesty.
    2. Hardwork.
    3. A lack of niavety.

    I hope that clarifies it for you.”

    It only requires the following to uncover lies.

    Misplaced “The” = No clarity!

  233. MackemX says:

    @John McManus

    You keep repeating this vexatious mantra, seemingly unaware that the ICO quite clearly stated that the requests were in no way unreasonable or vexatious. Now, if you know something he doesn’t/didn’t, now might be an opportune moment for you to both join Mann in making a name for yourself, whilst simultaneously digging your hero out of the hole he’s digging himself into.

    On the other hand, if you’re just repeating what you’ve been told and assumed to be correct because you respect the ‘authority’ of the person/people who told you, now might be an opportune moment to stop embarrassing yourself any further and perhaps take a moment or two to educate yourself as to how the scientific method actually works.

    I personally have no background in climate science, but do have a chemistry PhD and work closely with a large number of academics at a UK university – I see on a daily basis how the majority of academics conduct themselves, then I look at Michael Mann’s outbursts and quite frankly, if that was a member of our academic staff I’d be ashamed to be associated with them.

  234. MackemX says:

    Also, Mr McManus, the appeal to authority itself is anti-scientific (by which I include the various claims of scientific consensus).
    Science has roughly two thirds of bugger all to do with consensus, even the Royal Society’s own motto “Nullius in verba” tends to give the game away. A rough translation would be ‘on the word of no-one’, but I wouldn’t dream of asking you to take my word for it :-)

  235. KD says:

    @Marge & @John McManus:

    Just one question. According to Wikipedia, the scientific method:

    “Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.”

    Please provide one example where Mann has followed this.

  236. James Sexton says:

    Jose Suro says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    Jose, you’re correct, but I don’t believe Mike et al. used the universities e-mail program for the more delicate conversations. Note the e-mail exchange with our friend Phil……
    Hi Phil,

    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.

    I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: xxxx@yahoo.com

    talk to you later,

    mike

    I believe, and is shown specifically for Wahl, that we’d have more information if yahoo, hotmail, and/or gmail were open for scrutiny. This is probably why the conversations are incomplete from the e-mail release. The rest of the conversations took place in cyberspace and would literally take a Supreme Court challenge to be open for scrutiny.

  237. DCC says:

    John McManus said:

    Here is the problem with the above entry. The emails released are devoid of evidence of wrongdoing. While condemming Mann roundly, WE admitts that there is no evidence that Mann or Jones deleted any emails.

    Wrong. Willis did not say there is no evidence that emails were deleted; he said if there were such evidence, Mann should have produced it in his defense – but he hasn’t.

    If any evidence of wrongdoing had existed in the files, it would have been searched, selected and released.

    That’s an assumption on your part. Got any proof? It would help if you would tell us who released them. You can’t know how and why until you know who.

    Through the many enquiries that have universally exonerated Johnes, Mann et al from these fabricated charges, email archives were requested, produced and read. They are none of my business, being private, so I don’t expect to have access but I am glad they formed part of the investigations. Knowing they were examined makes the findings of the many investigations stronger.

    Wrong. At no time did any of the investigations report that they had read all of the unreleased emails. I personally doubt that they all read all of the released emails.

    PS: WordPress has an excellent spell checker. Why not try it? That’s also a good time to cut out the fat in a post.

  238. Robert E. Phelan says:

    MackemX

    quit wasting your time on Atty McManus – as a member of one of the top 250 law firms in the country he is undoubtedly better qualified to parse, dissect and discourse on the meaning of “is” better than most. It is also worth noting that Atty McManus’s livelihood depends on AGW.

  239. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re: John McManus says:

    Atomic Hairdrier:

    Exactly when did Mann delete any emails?

    Who knows? Neither you nor I do because none of the ‘investigations’ have actually bothered to look. For Mann, it’d be the Penn State whitewash that should have been looking at Mann’s end. For the UK, I already gave you the link showing that the CRU end was never examined.

    Receiving an email does not mean action was taken.

    True, but replying saying you’d asked another person to delete emails suggests an intent to comply with the original request.

    Having said that, what is wrong with deleting emails.

    Sometimes that’s incompatible with the law. See Sarbannes Oxley for more information. It’s a big problem for businesses because how are you meant to know when an email may become subject to discovery? But that’s the law, so the solution is archive everything.

    The Jones-Mann exchange was a clearer example of law breaking. You recieve an email asking for FOI’able email. You send an email to people asking them to delete any emails that may be relevant to the FOI request. That’s somewhat different to routine mailbox clearouts, and why the UK ICO said there was prima facie evidence of criminal obstruction of UK FOI law.

    Noone told him not to delete emails ( and noone has said he deleted any emails). No complaint, no directive, no crime.

    Jones asked him to delete emails that were subject to a UK legal discovery process. Nobody knows if Mann deleted emails or not.

    One of the funniest things about this meme is the idea that someone would delete emails and not delete the email advising them to delete the emails. This applies to Jones since , of course, noone knows what’s in Mann’s emails.

    Don’t ask me, ask Jones. He sent the email requesting deletion of FOI’able information. That Jones didn’t delete that email and it ended up in the public domain as part of Climategate is one of life’s little mysteries. None of the inquiries to date have bothered to ask for the answer to that question though. How did this email, and other ‘sensitive’ emails end up in the public domain, if they should have been deleted?

  240. GogogoStopS-T-O-P says:

    “… when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask…”

    “Intimidation!” Remember the old axium: “You spot it… YOU GOT IT!”

    QED! LOL

  241. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re: Willis Eschenbach says:

    Nonsense. Anyone can file an FOI act request, in either the UK or the US. In Mann’s case, a US request was made to Mann. You really should do your homework first, before posting.

    I may have missed some of the timeline stuff, but it’s a jurisdiction thing, and why I suggested to be safe, a US-UK FOI request needs to be filed in both jurisdictions. I may be wrong about reciprocal arrangements, but if I as a UK subject use US FOIA to get data from a US subject, the US subject is bound by US law, and vice versa for UK FOI. So if I FOI Mann, I could ask him for information he holds. I couldn’t expect him to ask for information non-US citizens hold as they’re not bound by US FOIA. Same as if there’s an FOI request on Jones under UK law. Jones asking Mann to delete emails makes Jones guilty, but how would Mann be liable, or prosecutable under UK law? Mann isn’t a UK subject, so isn’t bound by UK law. It’s all part of the buggers muddle that is international law, but for international emails, FOI both ends and double the chances that one produces, or both become liable to prosecution if they don’t.

    But in any case, an honest and thorough investigation would clear up all of these questions. Why is Mann fighting so hard against that? …

    That’s the million dollar question. Methinks he doth protest too much, and his actions aren’t those of an innocent Mann. But then the Climategate emails did provide additional insight into his nature, and his paranoia.

  242. davidmhoffer says:

    manicbeancounter says:
    October 11, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    Reading through the comments, I think many, on both sides are too immersed in the detail. The big question is this.
    “Is there good reason to believe that the policies proposed to combat climate change will make a positive differance to this planet and the people upon it?”.
    The hockey stick graph is very much secondary evidence for the science.>>

    Thank you for saying this. The fact is that the secondary evidence has in fact hijacked the discussion. When a conversation turns to the logarithmic effects of CO2 and the amount that would be required to result in catastrophe, we get inundated with tree ring reconstructions, studies about polar bear habitat, rising sea levels, increasing storm intensity, melting ice caps and so on. All have turned out to be exagerated or flat out wrong, but all of them are in fact, secondary evidence of warming, and none of them provide any linkage between temperature and CO2. Yet that is what the bulk of the debate is about, even though the fact that CO2 is logarithmic and understanding that pretty much ends the debate.

  243. Nick says:

    I suppose some other poster has pointed out that Mann didn’t make the Roman Warm Period disappear because his co-authored reconstruction doesn’t go back that far? It would be pretty scary if I was the first to notice after 243 posts…

    Oh,and as for the rest, bunkum,Willis.

  244. James Sexton says:

    Robert E. Phelan says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    MackemX

    quit wasting your time on Atty McManus – as a member of one of the top 250 law firms in the country he is undoubtedly better qualified to parse, dissect and discourse on the meaning of “is” better than most. It is also worth noting that Atty McManus’s livelihood depends on AGW.
    =======================================================
    lol, that doesn’t bode well for the people he’s representing. Were I the one paying him, I’d hope he be better informed on the subject.(especially about what rises to the level of “vexatious”.) As far as the meaning of the word “is”, I always defer to the expert…….WJC, though he seemed confused about it at times, also.

  245. Girma says:

    Excellent, powerful, convincing article

    Thanks Willis

  246. 4 says:

    I am a PhD student in my last year, and I am finishing up my dissertation and will be defending soon. I think I will write to the Dean and tell him I want the attacks on my science (from my committee) to stop. Science is all about defending your hypothesis. If you receive millions in tax payer dollars, you better have thick enough skin to face any attacks from the public. After all, they are paying your bills Dr. Mann.

  247. davidmhoffer says:

    Atomic Hairdryer re John McManus:
    Don’t ask me, ask Jones. He sent the email requesting deletion of FOI’able information. That Jones didn’t delete that email and it ended up in the public domain as part of Climategate is one of life’s little mysteries.>>

    No mystery at all. There is a difference between how the local email server deals with an email being deleted and how your own personal email account deals with it. Your personal account operates by the rules you set yourself and the actions you take. The server operates by a different set of rules set by the email adminstrator for that system. In most cases, the email server deals with an end user deleting something by “marking” it as deleted, but keeping the email according to the policies set by the server admin, frequently a minimum of 90 days and often as much as a year. This allows easy retrieval of email deleted by mistake. Further, standard backup and disaster recovery procedures require daily incremental and weekly full backups of the server. Assuming such standard policies were in place, even a 90 day retention period would result in 12 or 13 copies of any deleted email on the backup system, usually a tape based device to allow copies of the data to be sent off site.

    It is clear that who ever released the ClimateGate emails had access to the email server itself, or a complete backup set of tapes, or both. There is no other practical way for so many end user accounts to have been accessed.

  248. James Sexton says:

    Atomic Hairdryer says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    “I may have missed some of the timeline stuff, ……………….Jones asking Mann to delete emails makes Jones guilty, but how would Mann be liable, or prosecutable under UK law?”
    ========================================================
    He’s not, however, the U.S. has laws under which Mann is subject. I’m not sure how the laws read in the UK, but here in the states, often conspiracy carries more punishment than the act itself. I may be fuzzy on time line stuff also, but I believe both Jones and Mann had FOI requests simultaneously. Maybe our friend McManus can shed some light on the subject? Here in the state, conspiracy doesn’t even have to include the act, but rather intent to commit the act.

  249. ginckgo says:

    It sounds like you’re arguing the opposite of Eisenhower, that the scientific-technological elite have become the captive of public policy.

    And any scientist should indeed be fearful that a Republican party under the thrall of the Tea Party wackos should dictate public policy; you don’t get much more anti-science that that mob of nutjobs.

  250. James Sexton says:

    Nick says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    I suppose some other poster has pointed out that Mann didn’t make the Roman Warm Period disappear because his co-authored reconstruction doesn’t go back that far? It would be pretty scary if I was the first to notice after 243 posts…

    Oh,and as for the rest, bunkum,Willis.
    =======================================================
    Nick, most everyone here knows and understands the reconstruction didn’t go back that far. It is disappeared by default when the alarmists state “warmest ever” or “unprecedented warming”. In other words, you were stating the obvious that no one felt completed to state. As for the rest, care to point out what exactly is bunkum? Or is this the equivalent of a drive by raspberry?

  251. ben says:

    The bit I get nervous about is when a climate scientist tries to speak with authority on matters of economics and politics. Could Michael Mann be a more political creature? And the chutzpah to open his article complaining about political interference. Surreal.

  252. DonB says:

    This whole CAGW thing is just about the best “novel” I’ve ever read. It’s right up there with “Atlas Shrugged.” I think that Ayn Rand would be proud of all of the John Galt’s who have stepped up to expose these CAGW “looters.”

  253. Breckite says:

    I’m confused. Is it “global warming”? Is it “climate change”? Or is it “climate disruption”? Or maybe it’s “global climate warming change disruption.” Can the climate “scientists” please clarify?

  254. James Sexton says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    It sounds like you’re arguing the opposite of Eisenhower, that the scientific-technological elite have become the captive of public policy.

    And any scientist should indeed be fearful that a Republican party under the thrall of the Tea Party wackos should dictate public policy; you don’t get much more anti-science that that mob of nutjobs.
    ========================================================

    You’ve got any evidence about people believing we are spending and taxing too much are also anti-science? As it happens, I think that people believing the status quo would be good for another few years are the nutjobs. It never ceases to amaze me about whackjobs that worry about the future of mankind in terms of a fictional problem, but when it comes to dealing with a real problem, they want to ascribe demeaning labels to the people that desire to deal with the problem.

  255. davidmhoffer says:

    Breckite says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:32 pm
    I’m confused. Is it “global warming”? Is it “climate change”? Or is it “climate disruption”? Or maybe it’s “global climate warming change disruption.” Can the climate “scientists” please clarify?>>

    I believe that it is not possible for scientists engaged in climate research to clarify as they are suffering from a condition known as CCD (Cognitive Climate Disorder). There are multiple varieties of CCD, but the most frequent type seems to occur as a consequence of writing grant proposals and is referred to as ACCD (Acquired Cognitive Climate Disorder). This should not be confused with an inborn dislike of human success which is CCCD (Congenital Cognitive Climate Disorder), closely related to supporters of alternatives to capitalism which claim superiority despite massive failing such as CCCP. While writing research grant proposals is widely recognized as being closely correlated with ACCD, so are political aspirations for power, known as TICCD (Tax Incented Cognitive Climate Disorder).

    While much of the focus has been on ACCD, new research suggests that ACCD may be an effect of (rather than the cause) of TICCD. Studies suggest that ACCD affected large portions of the human population world wide for several decades, but recently the tide has been turned against this terrible condition, with large numbers of tax payers waking up to the reality of TICCD and being royaly ticked as a consequence, to the point that some are calling it TRICCD (Truly Rediculous Incidents of Cognitive Climate Disorder). They note, and with some justification, that unless a larger scale recovery from CCD, the TICCD variant in particular, happens soon, the rest of the population will be SCREWED (the latter not standing for anything in particular, just that we will be SCREWED).

  256. thefordprefect says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    That Jones didn’t delete that email and it ended up in the public domain as part of Climategate is one of life’s little mysteries.>>

    In the UK ISPs are being asked for the details of customers sharing music etc on line. These have been provided to a “law” firm ACS-LAW who then try to obtain money from the transgressors using a “pay up or else well take you to court” method. Their web site was subject to a DOS attack and then restored. The restoration unfortunately left their email system visible to the web at large.
    The resulting effect is that the TOTAL email system has been posted as a 380Mb file. This is what the UEA email SHOULD have looked like if it hadn’t been severely edited by SOMEONE with an agenda.
    The ACS-Law emails contain personal (very) emails, Full attachements, Full headers, Spam.
    How can you judge people on an incomplete sample of 13 YEARS of emails There should have been 10+ times the number of mails in the UEA pack. They have been edited for a purpose!

  257. Joe Bastardi says:

    I love the term “denier” The simple fact is this: The true deniers are going to be exposed over the next 20-30 years as the PDO changes and then the AMO changes. Should these two natural drivers cause the cooling I believe they will, then the only ones that are “deniers” will be the people that have wasted time, money and a heck of alot of potential economic progress, progress that I may add has help to fund their fiefdoms, on this whole matter ( salaries of people being paid came from profits, that were either taxed, or donated. The money doesn’t grow on trees). I am going to be waiting to see how co2, at 25% higher than 1978 levels is being blamed in 2030 if temps are back where they were then.

    Deniers eh? its just big forecast problem over a longer period and those that have never forecasted but instead recreate things with only variables that will verify what they want to see, are in denial, not those of us who fight every day and understand the majesty, and the randomness of a system that we did not create.. nor can control…no matter how much worship fawning students and journalists may heap upon someone.

    I am not afraid of the answer..nor am I in denial of the fact that we will soon get our answer. Only people who wish to shut down debate because they fear the answer
    are the deniers here… And that is exactly what they are trying to do..deny the chance to see what the truth is in this matter.

    After all, If you are right.. just what the heck are you afraid of?

  258. feet2thefire says:

    [Mann] The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades. But even if we don’t reduce emissions, the reality of adapting to climate change will require responses from government at all levels.

    I will say this briefly:

    In 1970, in the run-up to the Clean Air & Water Act, I lived in Cleveland. All we read then about pollution was that “If we didn’t put another drop of pollutants into Lake Erie, it would take 10,000 years to clear it up.” Such hyperbole worked – the bill passed.

    10 years later, holy cow! Lake Erie had cleaned itself up (about 90%) 990 years ahead of schedule (about 90%).

    And what was the percentage drop in pollutants entering the lake? 75%. Not the 100% they’d claimed.

    And what was the time it took? 10 years, not 10,000.

    Whenever I’ve mentioned this to warmers/greenies, they always discounted the lies, saying, “Well, some exaggeration was necessary, and aren’t the results worth it?” I am sure that come 2100, they would all be bragging about their 0.2°C temp reduction, too.

  259. TomTurnerInSF says:

    If not Cuccinelli’s approach, than what? Do we wait for old men to resign from the American Physical Society at the rate of one every 6 months? It is utterly wrong and vexing for the Univ. of Virginia to provide the emails of a skeptic professor, but then to refuse to provide the emails of a warmist such as Michael Mann. As Piers Corbyn puts it, “They’re on a gravy train.” http://information-machine.blogspot.com/2010/08/piers-corbyn-russian-heatwave-pakistan.html

  260. James Sexton says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    hahahaha……quite funny!

  261. R. Craigen says:

    Piece of Advice to Dr. Mann when you visit here, from a fellow PhD (Mathematics, Waterloo, 1991):

    If you’re looking for a scientifically literate audience, Mike, take Willis’ advice and publish a reply here on WUWT. For one, I bet the readership of this site by now has surpassed that of WaPo, so if you want broad exposure to folks who know and care about this issue you’re hitting the wrong audience.

    Further, you’ll find the WUWT crowd more scientifically literate than the readership of WaPo. Make a good case and you may win some “skeptics” over. You’ll find us remarkably open to logic, evidence, scientific reasoning and facts. If you value your time I guarantee you won’t get better exposure in any MSM outlets than here.

    Anthony has proven more than willing to provide a forum for all perspectives on this subject; it is remarkable how few AGW advocates have the nerve to do so. Kudos to Judith Curry and the few others who do.

    If you’re not up to a guest post why not comment on this piece and show that you are not afraid of engaging actual scrutiny of your work. You’ll be delighted to learn that, in comparison to RealClimate or InItForTheGold there is relatively little ad hominem here, and dissenters are genuinely welcome to engage in collegial dialog.

    What have you got to lose?

  262. James Sexton says:

    thefordprefect says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    “How can you judge people on an incomplete sample of 13 YEARS of emails There should have been 10+ times the number of mails in the UEA pack. They have been edited for a purpose!”
    ========================================================

    Hmm, I’m not aware that anyone has challenged the veracity of the e-mails. As I noted earlier, we notice Mann gives Wahl’s e-mail addy as xxxx@yahoo.com. It seems that they used yahoo or other on-line e-mail services such as hotmail for their “discreet” correspondences. This is why the e-mails look incomplete. Further, the person(s) that released the e-mails stated it was a random release, we’ve no reason not to believe them. I read through a good many of them, and many were simply of no interest in regards to climate science.

  263. savethesharks says:

    Scathing….razor-sharp….invective….put exactly as it needs to be put.

    The truth sometimes hurts….really bad.

    EXCELLENT JOB WILLIS!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  264. davidmhoffer says:

    thefordprefect;
    The resulting effect is that the TOTAL email system has been posted as a 380Mb file. This is what the UEA email SHOULD have looked like….
    How can you judge people on an incomplete sample of 13 YEARS of emails There should have been 10+ times the number of mails in the UEA pack. They have been edited for a purpose!>>

    For starters, not a single email was edited. The researchers at the CRU have already stipulated that the emails were theirs, and there was not a single complaint otherwise. If you meant “selected” rather than “edited” then yes, there was a purpose, and the purpose was clearly to expose the writers of those emails as charlatans and hucksters.

    You may be correct that it is not possible for me to judge based on those selected emails alone… BUT (and this is a huge, gigantic, bolded-underlined-italicized-flashingneonsign BUT):

    The researchers were given ample opportunity to put those selected emails in context and could easily have provided the balance of the emails required to do so. Instead they engaged in the most see through of excuses, trying to paint the words “trick” and “hide the decline” as some sort of standard scientific procedure. No respectable author of fiction would have written such drivel, it would have been rejected by every publisher on the planet as too unbelievable to make good reading.

    Further, I judge those individuals not just on those emails, but those emails in the context of the rest of the debate in which they are involved. A debate in which they admit no statisticaly significant warming in 15 years, and a debate in which they presented tree ring studies based 50% on a single tree in Siberia.

    But most shocking of all, a debate in which tree ring data for 60 years was discarded because it “diverged” from the modern temperature record, but is none the less presented as accurate for the previous thousand years, and justification for doing so is couched in “scientific” terms such as “tricked” and “hide the decline”. They had ample opportunity to put the emails you say are missing and therefore prevent me from judging them fairly on the public record, and instead they resorted to obfuscation, misdirection, and blatant excuses that a six year old might be proud of. In that context, yes I judge them, and find them and their work wanting.

    They have a raging case of CCD (Cognitive Climate Disorder). What is your excuse?

  265. ginckgo says:

    James Sexton: The Tea Party certainly seems to have a very high concentration of candidates that are fundamentalist christians, which is incompatible with science, no matter what people argue (but maybe that’s just a general trend in the USA these days). They put tax and ‘big’ government as their main causes, this distrust of any ‘elite’ explains why they pretty much all don’t believe in evolution and even the most basic evidence for AGW, they oppose stem cell research, they think homosexuality is a disease or a choice, some are even coming out as anti-vaxers. Heck, the fact that many still think Obama is a foreign born muslim shows how consistently they ignore any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

    Not really shure how they manage to pull the wool over people’s eyes about public spending, considering public debt tends to ballon under Republican presidents much more than under Democrats.

  266. savethesharks says:

    Willis, you are the man!

    My lap-top started to heat up so much because of your white-hot polemic in your post, that I had to stick it in the freezer. Hahaha.

    If Mann is half a “man” he will have the guts to respond.

    If he doesn’t then…..it’s worse than we thought!! LOL

    But I thought his editorial was complete and UTTER nonsense and absolute pure and unfiltered sophistry.

    Pretty pathetic coming from one of the world’s “leading” climate scientists AND from one of the world’s “leading” newspapers.

    I laugh because it makes me wonder either how dumb these guys are….OR how ******* stupid they think WE are…OR both!

    Well, best wishes, and EXCELLENT job on this!

    BTW…even if you don’t agree with my state’s Attorney General’s approach on this [this is one "witchhunt" I support], at least Cuccinelli is providing pressure and making the Mann shake in his boots a bit…forcing him to write that emo, silly, milktoast, hogwash editorial that we have before us today.

    Thanks again for your efforts.

    Your logic is like a surgeon’s knife.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  267. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Nick says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    I suppose some other poster has pointed out that Mann didn’t make the Roman Warm Period disappear because his co-authored reconstruction doesn’t go back that far? It would be pretty scary if I was the first to notice after 243 posts…

    True, my bad. He only wiped out the record back to the year 1000 … so?

    Oh, and as for the rest, bunkum, Willis.

    I love your scientific arguments like the last one there, Nick. They’re so well researched, and so specific as to what you are objecting to, and with such detailed cites too. It’s really a pleasure to see what a sharp intelligence can do when you cut loose like that …

  268. Willis Eschenbach says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    It sounds like you’re arguing the opposite of Eisenhower, that the scientific-technological elite have become the captive of public policy.

    And any scientist should indeed be fearful that a Republican party under the thrall of the Tea Party wackos should dictate public policy; you don’t get much more anti-science that that mob of nutjobs.

    Oh, please. The current Democratic administration (which I voted for) has John Holdren as its science advisor … and you can’t get more anti-science than John.

    You are confusing “anti-science” with “anti-what-I-believe” … neither party has any monopoly on bad science.

  269. savethesharks says:

    Bill Illis says:
    October 11, 2010 at 7:09 am
    If it were just the original hockey stick, I think we could say “okay mike, you got a little carried away with data selection here in trying to prove your point. Don’t do it again because this is an important issue and we need to be sure about the facts.”

    But he did do it again and he went much, much farther than that.

    He got people fired, removed editors, ensured the IPCC fully endorsed his hockey stick climate history view, supressed numerous objective climate science papers from being published, forced editorial boards to resign, set-up the RealClimate charade, established a climate science culture of withholding and distorting evidence, established a persona whereby other scientists are actually fearful of his wrath, set-up his own mafia-like group of senior scientist suppressors and established a climate science culture of extreme intimidation of other scientists to toe the line which still exists to this day.

    It is not just the hockey stick – it is about how much damage he has done in a scientific field which has become an important influence on our way of life. I don’t want a person like that in a position of further influence (and he isn’t the only one).

    =======================

    Repeated for effect. Well said, Bill.

    And on that theme, you know a man by his words.

    Mann’s editorial says it all: He is trying to cover his ass right and left.

    I can not believe a rational human being would allow such UTTER hubris to be published in a major newspaper.

    But then again, unlike the Hockey “Team”, I am not bunch of scientists turned sociopaths.

    Res ipsa loquiter.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  270. Willis Eschenbach says:

    thefordprefect says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm


    How can you judge people on an incomplete sample of 13 YEARS of emails There should have been 10+ times the number of mails in the UEA pack. They have been edited for a purpose!

    That’s why I was hoping for a full investigation, thefordprefect, so that we could put the emails in a better context. Unfortunately, the “friends of Phil” have nobbled all of the investigations to date, so we don’t have that.

    Of course, you would think that (as with Mann) if Jones or Wahl or Amman had any emails that exonerated them, they would have published them themselves long ago.

    The fact that they have not done so, and the fact that Jones et al. have worked so hard to make sure that the rest of the emails never see the light, and the fact that the emails we do have are so damaging, is part of the reason that we CAN judge people on an incomplete sample … because the emails are congruent with their subsequent actions. The idiots never even learned the basic Nixon lesson about hidden wrongdoing — the coverup can be worse than the crime …

  271. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Calling Mike Mann. Calling Mike Mann. Mike Mann? Are you there? Mike?

    Mike? Are you there? Mike?

    Has anybody seen Mike Mann?

  272. savethesharks says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes”

    I don’t know who said this but, surely, you jest?

    ==============================

    Apparently one of the world’s “leading” climate scientists, was NOT jesting when he published this in a major newspaper.

    And on the taxpayer-funded scientific dole, to boot.

    But I hear you Jimmy, surely this must be a joke.

    Tragically, it is not.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  273. JPeden says:

    thefordprefect says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    How can you judge people on an incomplete sample of 13 YEARS of emails There should have been 10+ times the number of mails in the UEA pack. They have been edited for a purpose!

    Having watched the way ipcc Climate Science operates for the previous ~9 years before the leak, I wasn’t surprised in the least. The leaked material was unnecessary to prove that ipcc Climate Science is not real science, but instead only a massive Propaganda Op.. So where were you?

  274. David Ball says:

    Nice one Joe B. Hear, hear !!!

  275. savethesharks says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    October 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm
    I love the term “denier” The simple fact is this: The true deniers are going to be exposed over the next 20-30 years as the PDO changes and then the AMO changes.

    I am not afraid of the answer..nor am I in denial of the fact that we will soon get our answer. Only people who wish to shut down debate because they fear the answer
    are the deniers here… And that is exactly what they are trying to do..deny the chance to see what the truth is in this matter.

    =================================

    Repeated for effect! Well said, JB. That is one of the reasons I am a long-time pro subscriber to your company.

    Grrrr. Keep it up.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  276. rwd says:

    “Jimash says:
    October 11, 2010 at 9:51 am
    The Congress has the power to cal before it, baseball players, investigate charges of using performance enhancing drugs, and proffer charges.
    Surely it can do the same to publicly funded scientists suspected of using performance enhancing math to bolster fake science.
    So I support that effort.
    Good letter Willis !”

    “…PERFORMANCE ENHANCING MATH TO BOLSTER FAKE SCIENCE.”
    Now that Jimash is FUNNY! Just the sort of thing I wish I had said—and will manage to do so at the first opportunity.

    Thanks, Ron.

  277. savethesharks says:

    Oh, please. The current Democratic administration (which I voted for) has John Holdren as its science advisor … and you can’t get more anti-science than John.

    ======================================

    Just like when I voted for Bush both times [please don't hate me for that lol] his choice of an attorney general [John Ashcroft] was an absolute and complete disaster.

    Once they shed their democratic or republican skins, I really believe people like John Ashcroft and Michael Mann have a lot in common.

    They are both religious zealots, each for their own cult.

    They are also, as Ayn Rand calls them, “Second-Handers”.

    And they are just really, NOT THAT SMART.

    No scientific prodigy with an exceptional IQ would produce the sublime TRASH that Mann vetted out to the public via the Washington Post.

    He just…ain’t that smart.

    And if that is an ad hominem then I apologize in advance.

    It is the truth.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  278. Baa Humbug says:

    You tell ‘em Willis. What a great read that was.

    I’m afraid you’re not making new friends though lol

  279. LightRain says:

    “Michael Mann has failed to implement the scientific method and falls far short of what is required to consider oneself a scientist.”
    —————————————————————————
    Yabut, he’s really really sure he’s right.

  280. ginckgo says:

    Willis @ 9:28 pm: Do you consider Holdern anti-science because he doesn’t agree with your view on climate change, or because of hisearly (and misrepresented) views on population control?

    The misguided views on scientific issues of of the Tea Party are highly destructive to society, and the majority of Republicans are embracing them. A scientist is also a member of society, so why should they get involved in politics any less than a plumber or a pastor? [do you really think this is the appropriate place for a political debate? . . b.mod]

  281. savethesharks says:

    inckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    Willis @ 9:28 pm: Do you consider Holdern anti-science because he doesn’t agree with your view on climate change, or because of his early (and misrepresented) views on population control?

    =================

    I don’t want to take words from Willis’ mouth on this but I would venture to guess it is none of the above.

    It is simply that Holdren is not a scientist….he is simply political ideologue.

    Kind of a scary person you would want as your science advisor [regardless of your political persuasion], don’t ya think??

    Unless you are one of the controlled sheeple….then it makes sense.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  282. James Sexton says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    James Sexton: The Tea Party certainly seems to have a very high concentration of candidates that are fundamentalist christians, which is incompatible with science, no matter what people argue (but maybe that’s just a general trend in the USA these days). They put tax and ‘big’ government as their main causes, this distrust of any ‘elite’ explains why they pretty much all don’t believe in evolution and even the most basic evidence for AGW, they oppose stem cell research, they think homosexuality is a disease or a choice, some are even coming out as anti-vaxers. Heck, the fact that many still think Obama is a foreign born muslim shows how consistently they ignore any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

    Not really shure how they manage to pull the wool over people’s eyes about public spending, considering public debt tends to ballon under Republican presidents much more than under Democrats.
    =======================================================

    Where do you people get your information? Do you just sit and make stuff up like GISS does? First, fundamental Christianity is in no way incompatible with science. Go here http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientists-who-believe-in-god-faq.htm

    An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.
    — Srinivasa Ramanujan

    In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

    And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen.
    — Sir Isaac Newton

    But I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
    — Galileo Galilei

    God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.
    — Paul A. M. Dirac

    God’s interest in the human race is nowhere better evinced than in obstetrics.
    — Martin H. Fischer

    I, of course, could go on for quite some time and still not run out of statements of these intellectual giants affirming that science is simply an endeavor to see what God was doing.

    No, I’d say many of the great thinkers in the history of the world would disagree with your statement. It seems a belief in God is entirely compatible with science, if not a requisite to scientific work.

    The rest of your tripe is simply that ……anti-vaxers? Are you for real? Son, I was raised in a strict Southern Baptist family. My mother is a fundamentalist Christian. I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian(sometimes a bit of a backslider). I can assure you, it was never a question about our getting various vaccines. Later, while in the service, I became an allergy/immunology technician. (the shot guy) I had no qualms providing vaccinations to the servicemen or their dependents. BTW, I only had one objection to a vaccine based on religious principles, and I can assure you also, that it wasn’t a fundamentalist Christian. There is a very small minority of fundamentalists that don’t believe in receiving vaccines. I’ve never met one. And they are not the only ones that object to vaccines on religious principles.

    I would address the rest of your babbling, but I’ll just say, your denial of the reality of our most recent spending sprees seems a bit over the top. A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon we’re talking about real money!

    I hope I was able to put to rest your inaccurate beliefs and sweeping generalizations about both groups of people. I’m simply flabbergasted by your willful ignorance and inflammatory mischaracterizations of two very large parts of the population of this nation.

  283. James Sexton says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    The misguided views on scientific issues of of the Tea Party are highly destructive to society, and the majority of Republicans are embracing them.
    =========================================================
    K, ginckgo, put up or shut up. Show me where the Tea Party has made any statements as to their views on any scientific question.

  284. James Sexton says:

    [do you really think this is the appropriate place for a political debate? . . b.mod]———————————- No, but you let him post the idiotic statements. It should be allowed to be responded.

  285. Willis Eschenbach says:

    My thanks to Nick for the online review regarding my misstatement about the Roman Warm Period, at

    Nick says:
    October 11, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    I have removed the statement, science goes forward.

  286. Patrick Davis says:

    Harry needs to do some more e-mailing, just in time for Cancun? I wonder, will we have “Climategate 2: No Pressure!”?

  287. James Sexton says:

    Well, its late and work comes early. I’ll leave this to you. Be sure to check the authors of these statements. Their knowledge, understanding, and contributions to science, then and now.

    In this age of space flight, when we use the modern tools of science to advance into new regions of human activity, the Bible … this grandiose, stirring history of the gradual revelation and unfolding of the moral law … remains in every way an up-to-date book. Our knowledge and use of the laws of nature that enable us to fly to the Moon also enable us to destroy our home planet with the atom bomb. Science itself does not address the question whether we should use the power at our disposal for good or for evil. The guidelines of what we ought to do are furnished in the moral law of God. It is no longer enough that we pray that God may be with us on our side. We must learn again that we may be on God’s side.
    — Wernher von Braun

    It is God who is the ultimate reason things, and the Knowledge of God is no less the beginning of science than his essence and will are the beginning of things.
    — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

    Know, oh Brother (May God assist thee and us by the Spirit from Him) that God, Exalted Be His Praise, when He created all creatures and brought all things into being, arranged them and brought them into existence by a process similar to the process of generation of numbers from one, so that the multiplicity [of numbers] should be a witness to his Oneness, and their classification and order an indication of the perfection of His wisdom in creation. And this would be a witness to the fact, too, that they [creatures] are related to Him who created them, in the same way as the numbers are related to the One which is prior to two, and which is the principle, origin and source of numbers, as we have shown in our treatise on arithmetic.
    — Ikhwan al-Safa

    I wanted to become a theologian; for a long time I was unhappy. Now, behold, God is praised by my work even in astronomy.
    — Johannes Kepler

    The prohibition of science would be contrary to the Bible, which in hundreds of places teaches us how the greatness and the glory of God shine forth marvelously in all His works, and is to be read above all in the open book of the heavens. And let no one believe that the reading of the most exalted thoughts which are inscribed upon these pages is to be accomplished through merely staring up at the radiance of the stars. There are such profound secrets and such lofty conceptions that the night labors and the researches of hundreds and yet hundreds of the keenest minds, in investigations extending over thousands of years would not penetrate them, and the delight of the searching and finding endures forever.
    — Galileo Galilei

    The resources of the Deity cannot be so meagre, that, in order to create a human being endowed with reason, he must change a monkey into a man.
    — Louis Agassiz

    We should like Nature to go no further; we should like it to be finite, like our mind; but this is to ignore the greatness and majesty of the Author of things.
    — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

    [We need not think] that there is any Contradiction, when Philosophy teaches that to be done by Nature; which Religion, and the Sacred Scriptures, teach us to be done by God: no more, than to say, That the balance of a Watch is moved by the next Wheel, is to deny that Wheel, and the rest, to be moved by the Spring; and that both the Spring, and all the other Parts, are caused to move together by the Maker of them. So God may be truly the Cause of This Effect, although a Thousand other Causes should be supposed to intervene: For all Nature is as one Great Engine, made by, and held in His Hand.
    — Nehemiah Grew

  288. Tim Williams says:

    I’m sure we can all agree on a least one of the findings of the Wegman report….

    “Our committee believes that web blogs are not an appropriate way to conduct science and thus the blogs give credence to the fact that these global warming issues are have migrated from the realm of rational scientific discourse.”

    [mod: right...]

  289. Willis Eschenbach says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Willis @ 9:28 pm: Do you consider Holdern anti-science because he doesn’t agree with your view on climate change, or because of his early (and misrepresented) views on population control?

    Ummm … none of the above. My concern with John Holdren is that he is a close friend and co-author of Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider. They are the deans of the doomsday predictions, not one of which has come true. Holdren was even one of the people who made (and lost) the famous bet with Julian Simon.

    Their whole schtick is making predictions of terrible future events. In the sixties, it was doomsday coming in the ’80s, with whole populations dying of hunger. In the seventies, it was the coming Ice Age. In the eighties, they were predicting the end of the world from the “Population Bomb” by the turn of the century. Now they are predicting Carbongeddon by 2050 or somesuch date.

    Not one of their predictions has ever come true. Reminds me of the old joke about the difference between college professors and lab rats. The difference is, when you take the cheese out of the maze, pretty soon the lab rats wise up and stop running …

    Unlike the lab rats, Holdren and Ehrlich (and Schneider right up to his death) are actively running their booming trade as doomsday merchants, offering very good deals on wholesale disasters of the Biblical variety, floods and plagues and starvation and the like. And all of this despite the unaccountably tenacious refusal of a single one of the foretold disasters to actually appear on schedule.

    The only way their forecasts have improved is that they finally realized that twenty year predictions could actually be verified in twenty years, and they might live that long. So now, they predict Carbongeddon fifty years out, confident that they will be long gone before their latest forecast fails …

    Anyhow, that’s my objection to Holdren. I don’t need pseudo-scientific neo-Malthusian prognosticators, particularly consistently unsuccessful ones …

  290. Willis Eschenbach says:

    James Sexton says:
    October 11, 2010 at 9:55 am

    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach.”

    ========================================================

    Willis, with the exception of the above statement, I completely agree with your letter. Well done! I would re-word the statement to something like, ‘First, let me say that I find the necessity of legal examination deplorable. If academia had shown the slightest willingness to clean their own house and properly safeguard the public’s interest, then people such as Cuccinelli wouldn’t feel compelled to intervene and uphold their responsibility to the people’s interest.

    You have divined my intention exactly, and expressed it more powerfully and concisely than I have. My thanks.

    w.

  291. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Tim Williams says:
    October 12, 2010 at 12:27 am

    I’m sure we can all agree on a least one of the findings of the Wegman report….

    “Our committee believes that web blogs are not an appropriate way to conduct science and thus the blogs give credence to the fact that these global warming issues are have migrated from the realm of rational scientific discourse.”

    Naw, I don’t agree with that at all. Given that the Wegman Report was called into existence by a dispute which played out at two blogs, ClimateAudit and RealClimate, this claim simply showed that Wegman should stick to the statistics, at which he is admittedly a master. If the blogs were as irrelevant as he claimed, there would never have been a Wegman Report.

  292. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Fool me once says:
    October 11, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I’m unfamiliar with Willis Eschenbach’s extensive publication record in climate science?

    Well, here’s my publication record …

    Waxman-Malarkey: Impact Zone US Northeast
    Waxman Malarkey 2: Impact Zone Australia
    Waxman Malarkey 3: Impact Zone Alaska
    Waxman Malarkey 4: Impact Zone Ireland
    Willis publishes his thermostat hypothesis paper
    Border Transgressions
    Walking the Plank-ton
    More Gunsmoke, This Time In Nepal
    Of Rice and Men
    Plankton Cause Hurricanes! Urgent Action Required!
    Dr. Curry Warms the Southern Ocean
    Ecological Footprints ‚a good idea gone bad
    Is Armagh Burning?
    I Am So Tired of Malthus
    Animal, Vegetable, or E. O. Wilson
    An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann
    Another Look at Climate Sensitivity
    Can’t See the Signal For the Trees
    Carbon Emissionaries
    Climate, Caution, and Precaution
    Come Rain or Come Shine
    Congenital Climate Abnormalities
    Why Copenhagen Will Achieve Nothing
    Darwin Zero Before and After
    The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero
    When Results Go Bad …
    Willis: Reply to the Economist
    Data Smoothing and Spurious Correlation
    The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…
    Floating Islands
    Fudged Fevers in the Frozen North
    GISScapades
    Of Hawks and Handsaws
    Himalayan Hijinks
    Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics … and Graphs
    More on the National Geographic Decline
    Sense and Sensitivity
    Skating on the Other Side of the Ice
    The Steel Greenhouse
    The Thermostat Hypothesis
    Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …
    Trust and Mistrust
    Conservamentalism
    Dr. Ravetz Posts, Normally
    My Thanks and Comments for Dr. Walt Meier
    The Unbearable Complexity of Climate
    Tropical Tropospheric Amplification ‚an invitation to review this new paper
    Underground Problems with Mann-Holes
    Where Are The Corpses?
    Where’s the Climate Beef?
    Climate Actually Changes! Film at 11:00!
    Willis Eschenbach
    Every Silver Lining Has A Cloud
    Where the !@#$% is Svalbard?
    Livetooning the ICCC
    Livetooning the ICCC, Day 2
    Tanganyika Revisited
    Editorializing about the Editorial
    On Being the Wrong Size
    In Which I Go Spelunking …
    Anthropogenic Decline in Natural Gas
    Where’s the ice for my drink?
    You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done! I’m melting! Melting!
    The Ice Who Came In From The Cold
    The Irony, It Burns …
    Under the Volcano, Over the Volcano
    Some people claim, that there’s a human to blame …
    An Englishman’s Castle: Forensic Climatology and the Central England Temperature (CET) record – UPDATED
    Antarctic Agreements and Disagreements
    The Electric Oceanic Acid Test
    Before One Has Data
    Out in the Ama-zone

    Publications in Scientific Journals (three peer-reviewed, one [Tuvalu and Sea Level] unreviewed)
    Lake Tanganyika Nature Communications Arising
    Tuvalu and Sea Levels
    Extreme Temperatures in Svalbard
    The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis

    Finally, I have the odd distinction of being the first person to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the CRU, for their data. I was also involved in the fight to get Mann to release his data, writing (unsuccessful) letters to Science Magazine to try to get them to enforce their own policies on archiving data.

    So I’m not without a certain weight in the field of climate science …

  293. Blade says:

    Willis Eschenbach [Top Post] says:

    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.

    Hold on, stop right there. [Note: I am commenting on this opening paragraph BEFORE reading the entire article and any of the comments. So I do not know if Willis redeems himself later (though I expect he will) or if anyone else calls him out on it.]

    I for one am completely fed up with the canned “blah blah blah [something politically correct], but … approach. Particularly when the politically correct portion is implying that I, the taxpayer, doesn’t really matter.

    There may actually come a day when Mann and the hockey team and the whole AGW cabal is divorced from the taxpayer dime. If and when that day comes the Cuccinelli whiners (Fuller, Mosher, McIntyre, Willis, etc) can all sit around and have a gentlemen’s discussion about the scientific merits of this and that. And at that time the same whiners may feel free to send Mann checks of any dollar amounts that you would like, and I will not attempt to stand in your way at all.

    But for now I am, in part, financing this pop-science extravaganza. And I am asking that you cease and desist from standing in between myself and accountability. The last federal budget sent up was over 3 Trillion bucks, look at that number: 3,000,000,000,000. Almost half of that is red ink! Each state has its own gigantic budget as well and this is where state AG’s like Cuccinelli better get moving (lest Virginia become like California). I will not attempt to unravel Willis statement (“… achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity …”), as he clearly misses the point of the AG position.

    There is a strange yet ironic paradox facing these “go away Cuccinelli” voices. You may inadvertantly kick this thing up to a whole new level should you successfully silence the voice of the taxpayers. Because, if these completely appropriate but TINY baby steps towards fiscal accountability fail, well, don’t be surprised at what comes next. The politically incorrect radical constitutional freedom and private property worshipper in me and mine will at the very least be grabbing tar and feathers, pitchforks and torches. Note, I said at least. Count on this because an enormous number of taxpaying citizens do not plan on leaving this financial mess for our kids and grandkids to clean up.

    Disclaimer: Naturally, this comment is all IMHO, and has nothing to do with Anthony Watts and WUWT.

    Now to finish reading the article, and the comments.

  294. Roger Knights says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    The misguided views on scientific issues of of the Tea Party are highly destructive to society, …

    Not 1% as destructive as the views of the warmists.

  295. Mike Haseler says:

    Shevva says: “At some point Mr Mann must of realised that his work would not hold up to the scientific method,

    It is likely it happened this way:

    1. Too little data so they used the “best estimate” of trend.
    2. Far too little data to provide any confidence in that trend, so they never had a “proven trend” and so they got into the habit of using “best estimate” whenever anyone asked for “proven trend” … ignoring (or worse not knowing) the difference.
    3. As for scientific method (proving by experimentation, not using “best estimate as proven trend, etc.) how do you do an experiment in climate “science”. Basically, they decided to call themselves “science” when anyone who’d read even a basic book on the philosophy of science would have known this isn’t a real science. It’s no more a science than economics, psychiatry, cooking.

  296. RichieP says:

    ‘Res ipsa loquiter.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA’

    Pedantically, but in the spirit of accuracy, it should be ‘loquitur’.

  297. Bertie Poole says:

    Even if CO2 produced by man caused global warming scientists agree there is no way to reverse the process. If we could then we could agree on a world temperature and pump the required CO2 into the atmosphere.

  298. Mike Haseler says:

    Climate “science” vs. Economic “science”

    If you were to ask most scientists whether economics is a science, the answer would be an almost unanimous NO! But if you were to ask them about the climate, the answer would be at least a: “it should be”.

    Why?

    Why is it that people think that climate “science” is a science and economics is not? When you look at economics and the global climate there are a lot of similarities in the problem of prediction:

    1. A few main variables: temperature/GDP.
    2. An incredibly complex system.
    3. A system that is largely incapable of being scientifically “experimented upon” (the fundamental requirement of science), and which the experts can only watch, observe and pontificate.
    4. A system constantly under change. Technology, population growth, changes in resource supply fraught any chance of ever seeing the world economy respond to the same input stimulus more than once with the same starting conditions. Likewise, changes in air/water circulation, changes in solar activity, changes in land use, even on longer scales: changes in magnetic north and its shielding effect and changes in continental positions, all mean that the climate never experiences the same conditions more than once.

    But, isn’t it a “science” because it can be measured “scientifically”?

    This is the real con of climate “science”. Because they use instrumentation and not accounts, because they measure things in a way the public associate with “science and are not measuring things in just as scientific a way by measuring “money” through accountants rather than instruments, somehow climate “science” gets lumped in with real science, whilst the similarly scientific subject of “economics” does not.

    But they use physical models … they must be science

    What’s the difference between homoeopathy, and real medicine? They both measure, they both have doctors wearing white coats? They both (largely) share the same physical models of the human. The real difference is that unlike even economics, you don’t have to prove anything in homoeopathy.

    Climate “science” is much the same as homoeopathy. The “fact” that homoeopathy “works”, is very much the same as “the Medieval warm period was cooler than today”, or even “mankind is heating the climate”. The two subjects share the same sense that things can be “so” despite the lack of any evidence and certainly any proof that shows it to be so. Just because two subjects look the same, it doesn’t mean they are unless they share the same basic philosophy regarding “truth”.

    One could even take the analogy further. We’ve all heard the “tigers teeth are good for indigestion, are an aphrodisiac and stop flees”, kind of rubbish by “herbalists”. The simple truth is that at best this is anecdotal coincidental one-off things that someone thought had been caused, at worst it is utter claptrap made up by those involved. Well, it’s much the same with predictions regarding the affects of “climate change”. Just as the traditional herbalist is free (out with western law) to claim any kind of effects that their gullible climates might believe without a shred of evidence, so the climate “science” has indulged in the same kind of push-to-the limit anything that their gullible audience will believe claims of effects.

    There are many contending views in economics: There’s only one school in climate science

    The biggest difference between economics and climate “science”, is not that one or the other is/isn’t scientific. In my view, there is little to differentiate between the two in terms of scientific credibility. Indeed, many economists are far more scientific than someone like Mann (shooting a fish in a barrel!). The big difference, is that we have contending views on the economy that allow us to compare and contrast the merits and (failure to) predictions of each school – we can see that economics is as much “opinion” as accurate measurement. In contrast, in climate science, we (as yet) do not have this diversity of views. Largely I suspect, because they have been able to delude themselves that they can predict the climate. But, sure as bad eggs are bad eggs, and climate “science” isn’t a science, these charlatans will embarrass the whole of real science when their predictions get shown to be as credible as (x UK PM) Brown’s “end to boom and bust”.

    Summary: In terms of scientific credibility and scientific method – there really isn’t much difference at all between economic “science” and climate “science”.

  299. ginckgo says:

    James Sexton: All the anti-science stances within the Tea Party (unless you’re a member, then your personal beliefs aren’t relevant to that statement) I listed can be easily confirmed by web searches; I’m not going to spoon feed you that. Plus, everyone knows Palin’s and O’Donnel’s attitude towards evolution and stem cell research.

    I understand that some scientists are also religious to varying extents, I work with some, whose science I respect. I guess I just can’t understand how people can suspend their scientific way of looking at things when it comes to the superatural. What I meant was that fundamentalist belief (the belief, not the believer necessarily), which always insists that it already has all the answers and blind faith is a virtue, is incompatible with scientific inquiry.

    Listing quotes by famous people borders on argument from authority (aside from the fact that Einstein repeatedly asserted his disbelief in God; and quoting scientists from an age where belief in God was the norm, let alone atheism a crime, does not mean much today; science tended to progress despite, not because of faith).

    What I find interesting is that now some of the opposition to the theory of AGW comes from a misunderstanding of anthropocentrism: humans through their numbers and extended phenotype have indeed been capable of altering the land, ocean, atmosphere and biosphere significantly, today on a massive scale.

  300. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re davidmhoffer says: October 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Regarding mail server non-investigations..

    No mystery at all. There is a difference between how the local email server deals with an email being deleted and how your own personal email account deals with it.

    You, I and many others know this. McManus and others still seem to think Jones et al have been vindicated during these inquiries, even though it’s clear from the Muir Russell review, the servers were never actually examined. I linked the report from the forensic expert which contained some oddities, like suggesting –

    An analysis, against selected terms or combinations of author and recipient will require the deployment of specialist software with more sophisticated searching facilities than are available in regular email software. Almost certainly there would need to be conversion of the “Thunderbird” archives into a format that the specialist analysis software requires; together with the “published” emails.

    Which is a somewhat curious statement given Thunderbird’s archives, along with most POP/IMAP clients tend to use simpler plaintext file formats rather than MS’s more cumbersome Exchange database system. So grep or some Perl would usually answer the basics. None of this was examined though.

    There are other oddities regarding archival though. From Iain Reeman’s reply to Jim Norton-

    Within the Unix email service “inbox” and “sentitems” are single files. Fourteen versions of “Inbox” is backed up (normally 2 weeks) and “Sentitems” is backed up for 4 weeks. Once an email has been deleted it will be retained for 60 days. The exception to these rules is for users that have configured POP to delete the emails from the server. For these users the only copy is on the PC where the email was downloaded and they will need to ensure the data is secured.

    Yet the leak contained emails dating back much further than 4 weeks or 60 days, so a hacker would have needed to extract emails from multiple archive files to cover the timeframe. Or UEA’s IT people missed other archival rules that logged from EXIM/Dovecot, or archived staff’s folders from their ‘personal’ machines. Lots of questions which the inquiries provided no real answers to.

    It is clear that who ever released the ClimateGate emails had access to the email server itself, or a complete backup set of tapes, or both. There is no other practical way for so many end user accounts to have been accessed.

    Actually there may be, which may explain why the messages chosen for release were selected highlights and some more random results thrown in to salt the output. One curious feature of the release was the way the emails were edited to remove or redact some personal information. Why would a hacker bother to do that? Redacting parts of the email may be nice to prevent spam harvesting, but why strip the headers, which would have added authenticity?

    One possible answer is bcc: If you use that, the sender and main recipient will see the To: From: simple headers, but not the Bcc: recipient. They’ll have the To/From in their simple headers, but their own name won’t appear. So it would look at first glance that they weren’t included in the conversation, and ‘must have hacked someone elses mailbox’, or the server. Instead, it could have come from a single person’s ‘CYA’ mailbox.

    Simple questions to answer, but again none of the inquiries have bothered to investigate the detail. While the server and copy is safely immune from FOI while it’s with the police, we can’t expect answers to those questions either. What we do know though is there’s still 7.77GB of emails potentially FOI’able, once the server and copy is released.

  301. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re: James Sexton says: October 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    He’s not, however, the U.S. has laws under which Mann is subject. I’m not sure how the laws read in the UK, but here in the states, often conspiracy carries more punishment than the act itself. … Here in the state, conspiracy doesn’t even have to include the act, but rather intent to commit the act.

    I’m not a lawyer, but UK FOI is a bit of a mess given the statute barring time limit. It does have some conspiracy elements, but generally I think the US version is stronger, plus other US conspiracy laws. EIR may be a better/stronger law to use for climate related information in the UK as well as there are fewer expemptions and more obligations to disclose.

    On conspiracy and intent though, you mentioned Wahl’s Yahoo address. Some of the other Team members have also talked about using Gmail or similar purely to avoid FOI. What they don’t seem to realise is that doesn’t work. There is usually no such thing as private or personal correspondence if it’s done on taxpayer funded systems and on taxpayer funded time. Using ‘private’ email accounts to discuss work and avoid FOI seems pretty clear intent to break those laws. Yahoo or Gmail content is still FOI’able, if it’s work related.

  302. Blade says:

    ginckgo [October 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm] says:

    “It sounds like you’re arguing the opposite of Eisenhower, that the scientific-technological elite have become the captive of public policy.”

    It sounds like you have been drinking too much. Watch for clues like seeing double, falling down, drooling and complete reversal of logic and reason.

    “And any scientist should indeed be fearful that a Republican party under the thrall of the Tea Party wackos should dictate public policy; you don’t get much more anti-science that that mob of nutjobs.”

    I am surprised the mods let that ad hominem slip through, as it is as offensive as the frowned upon D-Words.

    Anyway, TEA Parties. Taxed Enough Already. Which one of those words do you not understand? So ginckgo, what did you pay in taxes this past year? State? Federal? Or are you still living in mommy’s basement. Are you not Taxed Enough Already?

    But your vitriol fails to hide your nervousness. That light you see in the distance is a freight train headed your way. The mob of taxpayers is onboard and it is scaring the [self-snip] out of you.

    ginckgo [October 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm] says:

    “…fundamentalist christians … in the USA these days … evolution … stem cell research … homosexuality … anti-vaxers … Obama … foreign born muslim …”

    Trying to do anything to change the subject and go off topic I see. FAIL. But I won’t take the bait since this is Anthony’s house. Enjoy your prejudice and bigotry.

    ” … public debt tends to ballon under Republican presidents much more than under Democrats.”

    You are so full of it. It figures you would get this as ass-backwards as you would the AGW fiasco. I personally prefer to leave political parties out of it but since you stepped into this: It is the Congress + President that matters most. If Congress is controlled by liberals we’re financially screwed. If Congress + President is controlled by liberals we’re FUBAR (like now). And one more thing, Bubba Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from Lewinsky to sign Republican balanced budgets.

    Graph-1 :: Graph-2 :: Graph-3 :: Graph-4

    Hurry back and give an apology to any folks here that your LIE may have offended.

  303. Ken Coffman says:

    Sorry, my earlier link was wrong…if you want to hear The Hockey Stick Blues, click here:

    http://www.gather.com/viewVideo.action?id=11821949021914758

  304. RockyRoad says:

    Blade says:
    October 12, 2010 at 1:41 am
    (…)
    But for now I am, in part, financing this pop-science extravaganza. And I am asking that you cease and desist from standing in between myself and accountability.
    ————-Reply
    I’d like to give a strong second to Blade’s comment, particularly as he takes Willis to task for his first comment wherein Wills disagrees with Cucinelli’s legalistic approach (What–would you have Cucinelli refute the SCIENCE??)

    Indeed, what on earth is wrong with all you Cuccinelli whiners (Fuller, Mosher, McIntyre, Willis, etc)??

    Don’t you understand politics? Don’t you understand the rule of law?

    Don’t you understand the taxpayer is getting screwed?

    Apparently not!

    “Climate Science” has become nothing more than a subversive arm of degenerative politics. It is used to drive horrible domestic policy that will reverse civilization’s progress if implemented completely.

    Or are you Cucinelli whiners (Fuller, Mosher, McIntyre, Willis, etc.) so stuck on the “science” you don’t see the big picture?

  305. James Sexton says:

    ginckgo says:
    October 12, 2010 at 3:12 am

    James Sexton: All the anti-science stances within the Tea Party (unless you’re a member, then your personal beliefs aren’t relevant to that statement) I listed can be easily confirmed by web searches; I’m not going to spoon feed you that. Plus, everyone knows Palin’s and O’Donnel’s attitude towards evolution and stem cell research.

    Let’s be a little more precise, shall we? Human embryonic stem cell research is what they find objectionable. They find it objectionable for 2 reasons. One, believing in the sanctity of life and that life begins at inception, in their view, we are destroying life when we engage in human embryonic stem cell research. The other reason, is knowing that this will bring about a myriad off ethical dilemmas and moral choices. They believe humanity may not be capable of making the right choices and its better to avoid the slippery slope altogether. Yeh, total nut jobs. I can’t understand how someone could think like that. BTW, you do know the Tea Party existed before Palin and O’Donnel? They are no more representative of Tea Partiers than Pelosi and Frank are of Democrats.

    Listing quotes by famous people borders on argument from authority (aside from the fact that Einstein repeatedly asserted his disbelief in God; and quoting scientists from an age where belief in God was the norm, let alone atheism a crime, does not mean much today; science tended to progress despite, not because of faith).

    Sad that you didn’t read all of the quotes or their sources. The list covered quite a bit of the time line of science. A few of the ones I quoted were of the modern variety. You asserted fundamental Christianity is incompatible with science. I simply listed many who were fundamental Christians or at least adhered to one of the base tenets, the belief in God. Somehow, amazingly, they were all able to make significant scientific contributions. It wasn’t arguing from authority, it was showing you that you were wrong. Science and scientists have made significant progress in parallel with Christianity. How else could the listed scientists have made their contributions?

    What I find interesting is that now some of the opposition to the theory of AGW comes from a misunderstanding of anthropocentrism: humans through their numbers and extended phenotype have indeed been capable of altering the land, ocean, atmosphere and biosphere significantly, today on a massive scale.

    That statement is what I find interesting. If we all suddenly died tomorrow, the earth will continue to rotate, warm, cool, rain, dry, ect…. No, we haven’t significantly changed the earth, no we can’t. It stems from a scientific tenet. We can’t create matter. The elements are still the elements(double entendre). With or without mankind.

  306. Girma says:

    Willis, why did not you include the following statement of Michael in your article?

    “There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
    so at our own peril!”

    http://bit.ly/927jQy

    By the way, what does he mean by “AT OUR OWN PERIL”????????

    After making such statement, it is surprising that he still tries to convince the world of man-made global warming.

  307. davidmhoffer says:

    Atomic Hairdryer;
    Once an email has been deleted it will be retained for 60 days. The exception to these rules is for users that have configured POP to delete the emails from the server. For these users the only copy is on the PC where the email was downloaded and they will need to ensure the data is secured.>>

    Wasn’t aware of this information, but it does add some possibilities. That’s a very odd way to run an email server, but one of the side effects is that users who configured their personal computer as POP with “delete on server” enabled, would not necessarily have been aware that logging in remotely and deleting an email would not remove it from the server. They may possibly have believed they deleted something not understanding that the rules were different for remote access versus being in the office.

    As to the use of “bcc”, I don’t see that as practical. The hacker would still have had to have access to each and every user account to set themselves up as a “bcc” recipient by default in order to get copies of the emails. Access to the server or backup tapes would require a fraction of the effort.

    Now here is an excuse I also wasn’t aware of:

    “Almost certainly there would need to be conversion of the “Thunderbird” archives into a format that the specialist analysis software requires; together with the “published” emails.”>>

    Yeah right. Analysis software that doesn’t understand standard unix file formats. How long did they have to search to find analysis software that bad? Every intelligence agency on the planet not to mention most police forces have commerical software that does exactly this sort of analysis. Even if they didn’t, exporting to another format isn’t a big deal for anyone with basic unix and email server skills.

    As for stripping the headers, no idea. It would be a simple way of removing personal email addresses and such wholesale, that’s for certain. If the researchers had claimed the emails were forged or edited, having the headers would have been important, but they didn’t do that. Again, a hacker with access to the server could have set it up to forward email to an outside IP address (a case where a system wide bcc would work, but you still need access to the server to do it). If that is what they did, then there would be information in the headers that could well be used to track down the hacker, so another reason to redact them.

    In any event, the fact that a forensic audiot of the email system hasn’t been done (or at least not publicaly admitted to) and that the excuses for not doing it are flimsey at best, suggests once again two possibilities in regard to this matter. Either gross incompetance or a deliberate attempt to keep certain information out of the public domain.

  308. John Whitman says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 12, 2010 at 1:01 am

    James Sexton says:
    October 11, 2010 at 9:55 am

    “First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach.”

    ========================================================

    Willis, with the exception of the above statement, I completely agree with your letter. Well done! I would re-word the statement to something like, ‘First, let me say that I find the necessity of legal examination deplorable. If academia had shown the slightest willingness to clean their own house and properly safeguard the public’s interest, then people such as Cuccinelli wouldn’t feel compelled to intervene and uphold their responsibility to the people’s interest.

    You have divined my intention exactly, and expressed it more powerfully and concisely than I have. My thanks.

    w.

    ————

    James Sexton,

    Thank you for that statement on why legal action is necessary because science itself did not take timely care of a problem that they should have taken more timely care of (especially when that science was funded by public money).

    Science is beyond their pale; they are accountable to the public for due diligence and fiscal responsibility. Other professions like medicine, law, engineering, computer software/hardware, or any business are all held accountable.

    Scientists are not privileged . . . . especially when they think they are saving the world so the end justifies the means while using public money.

    John

  309. Stacey says:

    Where does he get “nearly two centuries from”

    Apologies in advance for my ignorance.

  310. Beth Cooper says:

    Agree with Mike Haseler 2.07 am on hockey pseudo science…
    The spin doctors of climateology
    Deny any bias
    In their tricky methodology! :-)

  311. John Whitman says:

    RockyRoad says:
    October 12, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Indeed, what on earth is wrong with all you Cuccinelli whiners (Fuller, Mosher, McIntyre, Willis, etc)??

    Don’t you understand politics? Don’t you understand the rule of law?

    Don’t you understand the taxpayer is getting screwed?

    Apparently not!

    “Climate Science” has become nothing more than a subversive arm of degenerative politics. It is used to drive horrible domestic policy that will reverse civilization’s progress if implemented completely.

    Or are you Cucinelli whiners (Fuller, Mosher, McIntyre, Willis, etc.) so stuck on the “science” you don’t see the big picture?

    ————–

    RockyRoad,

    Within an idealistic view of the processes of the scientific community, I can understand why some scientists are objecting to Cuccinelli’s legal actions. They want science to police itself. I respect their dedication to the honor of their profession. To that extent I agree and support them.

    Therefore, I have a sincere request to those (“Cucinelli whiners”) scientists. I want to know what science is formally or informally doing about the Mann (& Team) situation. Give me a summary of your plan to deal with it. Show me the basic investigative process, the key milestones you will meet and the key players to be involved. PLEASE! I will stop supporting Cucinelli’s legal actions if you show me your actions.

    If scientists want legal actions to stop then they must act in an open, convincing timely manner. They must show the public their stuff on dealing with issues regarding Mann ( & Team).

    So, until I see explicit evidence that science is policing itself, I do not agree with those scientists that think Cuccinelli’s legal actions are inappropriate or misguided. Pending science policing itself, I encourage legal bodies, within the bounds of the law, to go forth to finally do an independent review of what the heck is going on with my money.

    John

  312. Ian W says:

    alexandriu doru says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:17 am
    “A change of 2% in clouds will offset the CO2 warming”
    This is not true.
    Low altitude clouds have ~30 W/m^2 albedo effect and ~25W/m^2 greenhouse
    effect.
    You need doubling them to offset the 4 W/m^2 of the CO2.
    And the bad news is that they are, in fact ,decreasing.

    You are quoting assumptions used in the GCMs. Observational evidence from satellites actually shows that these figures are incorrect.
    for examples see:
    Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
    Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2253.1

    Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical
    intraseasonal oscillations

    Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, and Justin Hnilo
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698, 2007

    Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?
    Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou

    there are many others.

    The impact of clouds on climate appears to be less well understood by climate ‘scientists’ than it is by sunbathers.

  313. James Sexton says:

    Stacey says:
    October 12, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Where does he get “nearly two centuries from”

    Apologies in advance for my ignorance.
    ========================================================

    No need to apologize, apparently, it isn’t widely known that climatologists routinely make numbers up. (See Hansen’s interpolation techniques.) Arrhenius’s hypothesis wasn’t articulated until 1896, so he’s only off twofold, which is pretty good for him!

    On an aside, Arrhenius probably was the climatologist to have the first of a multitude of “oops” moments. After arguing over the climates sensitivity to CO2 with Knut Angstrom for years, in 1906 he reevaluated and revised his estimates downward by about 3 fold. So you see, Mann has historical precedent of idiocy on his side.

  314. Ed Murphy says:

    [snip- personal attack on Dr. Mann ~mod]

  315. cleanwater2 says:

    Thank you Bruckner8 for this very important statement-it’s a shame that most “climate scientist ” and a few physicists like Michael Mann did not learn the basics of the “scientific method” When physicists like Dr. Harold Lewis, Dr. Charles Anderson, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme , R.W. Wood , the work of Angstrom and many others tell us with well thought thru documents that the “ghg effect ‘ does not exist. There is no “creditable experimental data that proves that the ‘greenhouse gas effect ‘exists.
    Its worth repeating -the Scientific Method.
    Bruckner8 says:
    October 11, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    My 6th grade science teacher had us use the Scientific Method all year. Every 6 weeks, we had to turn in a steno pad, the first page of which had to be a Hypothesis. The following pages were supposed to be our thoughts about WHY we had come to the Hypothesis (Observations). Then we would document any and all experiments/tests/activities. The activities could even be interviewing real scientists about what they thought about our idea!

    We also had to state (ie, think about!) why others might find fault with our Hypothesis. Further, before we turned them in, we’d spend two days reading each others’ Hypos, writing in their stenos about what we thought was wrong! On the final day, we were allowed to rebut the rebuttals!

    The rebuttal process was done in private (as if we were writing to each other…no emails!), not in real-time back-and-forth discussion…that was later, only twice per year. At the end of each semester, the class would vote on a project or two that would go under further scrutiny, with teams “taking sides.” It didn’t matter if you really believed in the Hypothesis not…your job was defend your side using sound principles. You had to prepare a “statement” and give it aloud to a panel of other science and math teachers.

    It was perfectly fine to turn in a project where you found out that your Hypothesis was false! You just had to be sure to stick to the entire method, showing your work.

    From this, my appreciation for science, math and logic was formed.

    In 6th grade.

    My disgust with all things in modern day “politico-science” is that every one of those steps is somehow missed by the experts. The steps I learned in 6th grade.

    Everything I’ve learned about Climate Science, I’ve learned as a result of this site. I’m no expert on it. All of my contributions (as few as they are) have been along the lines of “cost assessment of risk/reward” and failures of the Scientific Method. My first post asked “How can all of these world-wide thermometers be calibrated properly, and known to be of the same vintage? [common error margins, accuracy]”

    One needn’t be an expert in Scientific Fact Knowledge to spot flaws in a process.

    I’m not skeptical of Climate Change. I’m skeptical of the processes followed by the people in which we’ve put our trust! (And to me, that’s worse than Climate Change.)

  316. PhilJourdan says:

    Willis, I knew (from your past writings) that you leaned more liberal than I, and therefore your rebuttal of Mann is that much more powerful. Putting principal ahead of partisanship is rare these days. Mann may be liberal or just a leech on the back of the public trough, but your stand against his poor science speaks volumes for your integrity.

    I enjoyed your entire post until I got to the part about Cuccinelli. But then with James Sexton’s restatement, and your endorsement of his interpretation, I am glad to say I fully endorse your entire article. Very well written, and an excellent rebuttal. A shame that the press is not as competent and ethical as you.

  317. cleanwater2 says:

    to James Sexton : To answer your question on the almost 200 year old hypothersis ,here is the abstract from G&T with a little of the history:The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
    traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
    is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
    which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
    radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
    Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
    literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm sci-
    entifc foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
    physical principles are clarifed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
    between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperatureof a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifed.
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X,
    c World
    Scienti c Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

  318. cleanwater2 says:

    When Michel Mann is finally brought to court ,will he take the Fifth Amendment?

  319. John Whitman says:

    cleanwater2 says:
    October 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    When Michel Mann is finally brought to court ,will he take the Fifth Amendment?

    —————

    cleanwater2,

    When you said that I had an immediate mental image of him plea bargaining away is associates . . . . in a fit of righteousness.

    John

  320. John Whitman says:

    Correction to my comment ‘John Whitman, October 12, 2010 at 4:07 pm’

    . . . plea bargaining away his associates . .

    John

  321. Tilo Reber says:

    ginckgo:
    “The misguided views on scientific issues of of the Tea Party are highly destructive to society, and the majority of Republicans are embracing them. ”

    It must be wonderful going through life swimming in a sea of absurd stereotypes designed to feed your ego. I’m a Republican that makes his living building spacecraft and space launch vehicles. Most of my coworkers, who do the same thing, are also Republicans. I’m not a Christian and I discarded religion when I was 15. You keep iterating this idea that Republicans are anti-science and the only shred of evidence that you provide is that some are against government funding of stem cell research. But their reason for being against it has nothing at all to do with their believe in the science of stem cell research. For example, science would tell you that you could raise the collective IQ of mankind by requiring that all men and women with an IQ below 120 be sterilized. So why don’t we do it? Because we have decided that there are cases where morality trumps science. Of course morality can never be explained scientifically. And the truth is that leftists have just as many anti-scientific positions that are based on their particular morality as anyone else. Their anti nuclear position would be an example. Their anti Alaskan pipe line (because it will destroy the caribou) position would be another. When you think about it, the position of the left, that something magical happens to a fetus, such that it is not human 10 seconds before it passes through the birth canal, and then suddenly, 10 seconds later it has aquired this fabulous characteristic of humanness that entitles it to all kinds of rights and priviledges, is about as anti-scientific as you can get.

  322. JPeden says:

    ginckgo:

    “And any scientist should indeed be fearful that a Republican party under the thrall of the Tea Party wackos should dictate public policy; you don’t get much more anti-science that that mob of nutjobs.”

    An actual scientist would observe that it is instead mainly the Democrat Obama Progressives who are in the complete thrall of the unscientific ipcc Climate Science CO2CAGW dogma and Propaganda Op., which seeks to loot and control as many people as possible. And if anyone is really looking for a bunch of Evolutionary Throwbacks [Totalitarians]….harrumpth….their example is quite unrivaled!

  323. wayne Job says:

    “The time has come the Walrus said to speak of many things.”
    Truth in answers to scientific questions is impossible, as ultimate answers may be beyond our ken. Honesty in science however is totally possible, this man [Mann] seems to be able to hold an untruth in science up to the world as a gospel truth without so much as a blush. There are some people, it would appear to me, that are born with no shame.

  324. ScuzzaMan says:

    “Questioning Basic Science”?

    Quelle horreur!!!

    Mr Mann writes as if this is some kind of criminal activity, or possibly indicative of madness.

    You know, like Galileo, Newton, Einstein … those crazy fools.

    The guy's a hack. His own career is a sickening assault on his profession.

    Meh.

  325. Francisco says:

    I admire Willis belief that naked truths should manage to free themselves on their own from the bs that keeps them buried. The evidence I see points rather in the opposite direction. The capacity to manufacture “truths” effectively enough to keep whole societies under their spell seems to have increased a lot in the last few decades.

    Pigeonholing things in Republican vs Democratic leanings is useless. I myself could be described as being on the very left side of things on many views, yet I find myself agreeing with many important views that are much more commonly held by those on the opposite side. While strictly agnostic myself, I profoundly dislike evangelical atheists, and their idiotic, presumptuous notions that religious people are stupid. I laugh at the prevalent notion that we possess any serious understanding of the mechanisms by which biological organisms evolve, let alone any understanding whatsoever of the origins of life, or the obvious inherent capacity of matter for extraordinarily complex self-organization. I laugh at the shrill venom with which the crude dogmas of a 150 year old theory are defended against deviations from the party line, and the knee-jerk accusations of “creationism” or “flat-earthness” hurled against any scientist who examines things with a critical scientific eye. I am amazed at things like the blatant bs of the latest vaccination bonanza a year ago, where pharmaceutical companies and the health organization they control put together a massive world-wide campaign of fear to coerce governments into signing secret, undisclosable contracts (freeing them of all responsibility) to buy a useless (at best) and possibly dangerous untested concoction. Until the whole charade became so obvious it was quietly dropped — but not before they made out with untold billions. I am equally amazed that the overwhelmingly compelling physical evidence as presented by many competent researchers, physicists, engineers, architects questioning the official story of 911 (thousands of whom have asked for a real investigation) can be kept so efficiently buried and successfully described as the rantings of marginal lunatics (just like the climate skeptic community is so successfully kept under the exact same light).

    No. Truth does not just emerge by its own inner force. In all the cases described, uncertainties in details can be exploited *forever* to confuse the issue and keep the overall picture from emerging. What it all leads to is an unmeetable request to prove a negative. You cannot prove that imps don’t exist. You cannot prove that CO2 cannot have whatever impact someone speculates it might have.

    Is the picture that emerges from the CAGW ideology utterly ridiculous under rational examination? Yes, it is. Will this assessment impose itself any time soon by rational analysis alone? Don’t count on it. Can they keep getting away with it? Yes, they can. They have in their payroll enough scientists with enough technical competence to keep the issue confused as long as they want.

  326. CodeTech says:

    Francisco, I was with you until 9/11. Then I threw my laptop at the wall.

    Seriously? Really? You think that islamic terrorists flying into buildings filled with people, and gloating about it afterward, requires more investigating? Sigh.

  327. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Girma says:
    October 12, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Willis, why did not you include the following statement of Michael in your article?

    “There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
    so at our own peril!”

    http://bit.ly/927jQy

    By the way, what does he mean by “AT OUR OWN PERIL”????????

    After making such statement, it is surprising that he still tries to convince the world of man-made global warming.

    True. He stands condemned by his own words. “At our own peril” indeed … that says it all about his worldview, and it is not that of a scientist.

    w.

  328. Francisco says:

    @CodeTech, October 13, 2010 at 6:02 pm
    ===============
    Sorry to have caused you to mistreat your laptop and your wall in such a manner. I suppose you meant it metaphorically.

    I began to look seriously into the CAGW stories in 2007, prompted by a very audible increase in the apocalyptic drumbeats. Up until then I had more or less gone with the flow. Your perspective on things can change in surprising ways once you put in some serious time investigating them with an open mind. It takes time, though, coupled with real curiosity and some basic understanding of science. It took maybe a month or two for me to realize that this (the case for climate alarm) is at best a castle of cards kept toghether by sheer political will and a massive distribution of carrots. I wasn’t too shocked, but I was perplexed as to the motives behind it for a long time.

    The case that causes such visceral reaction in you was different mainly in the amount of shock it did cause me. It happened around 2005, and I spent countless hours, and many sleepless nights pouring over materials, as if compelled to make sure I was not overlooking something essential. But the more I looked, the more obvious it became. I am used to reactions such as yours, and find them understandable. I will tell you this: the case against the official story in that matter is in my opinion far stronger, clearcut and easier to make than even the case against the official CAGW stories. But then again, the inner resistence to accept it is also much stronger. Most people accept CAGW without looking into it just because they find it higly implausible that such a vast number of experts would endorse it, if it weren’t solid. It is a reasonable stand. The same line of thinking is at work in the case whose very mention causes such indignation in you, but with the added thick barrier of a much, much greater intellectual predisposition against it. I will now stop since this is not the place to discuss such matters. The amount of independent research on this is already very large, in the unlikely event you should you care to examine it. I could give you a very long list of names, but the work of architect Richard Gage, or philosopher David Ray Griffin, or physicist Steven E. Jones seem like good places to start.
    Do not mistreat your laptop.

  329. Jean-Denis says:

    Climate change is at the very bottom of things that the electorate thinks are important
    Only in you deluded mind where you think the USA is the planet.
    Your attitude is criminal: with your lies, you will make sure the the planet we borrowed from our children will be an ever worse place to live for them.
    Shame on you pitiful american.

  330. Vanguard says:

    I don’t know if this has been addressed so far in the comments (frankly, there are so many that I don’t have the time to get through them all), but I do think that Cuccinelli’s investigation does have more going for it than simply the type of he-said she-said dialog that typically goes on in scientific circles. Cuccinelli’s investigation is focused on the legalities of Mann’s actions and conduct relative to a valid FOIA request. It is not the science that is at issue there, it is whether or not Mann acted in the best interest of the persons making the request and his responsibilities and accountability according to the law. If he violated his duties, then he stands to lose something since he was an employee of the state of Virginia at the time.

  331. Pete H says:

    Jean-Denis says:
    October 14, 2010 at 7:11 am
    “Your attitude is criminal: with your lies, you will make sure the the planet we borrowed from our children will be an ever worse place to live for them.
    Shame on you pitiful american.”

    I will ignore the racist side of your eco rant but like all trolls you assume that anyone who questions AGW does not want for clean rivers, clean air etc. Not true, we simply will not roll over to bad scientists such as the person this open letter was addressed to along with his corrupt H.S.

  332. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Jean-Denis says:
    October 14, 2010 at 7:11 am

    [Willis says:]

    Climate change is at the very bottom of things that the electorate thinks are important

    Only in you[r] deluded mind where you think the USA is the planet.

    Apologies for my lack of clarity, I meant the American electorate, my bad.

    Although to be fair, most of the planet lives on under $5 per day, and doesn’t have the luxury of worrying about the climate … so climate change is at the bottom of a lot of peoples’ lists, not just Americans.

    Your attitude is criminal: with your lies, you will make sure the the planet we borrowed from our children will be an ever worse place to live for them.
    Shame on you pitiful american.

    I have to assume that you didn’t notice that this is a scientific website. As such, when you accuse me of being wrong, you are expected to quote whatever I said that you disagree with. Then you are expected to provide argument and evidence that I am wrong, including citations.

    Far from doing that, you are accusing me, with neither specifics, argument, or evidence, of being a liar and a criminal.

    Now where I come from, calling a man a liar and a criminal without evidence is looked on very seriously and unkindly. I will assume that it is a lack of appropriate social education and exposure to adult behaviour, rather than simply an uncaring nastiness, that leads you to make such unsupported, provocative, impolite, and unpleasant accusations.

    So either put up some evidence that what I wrote above makes me a criminal liar as you claim, or shut up and go somewhere else.

  333. Tucci78 says:

    In response to Jean-Denis, Willis Eschenbach had written:

    Now where I come from, calling a man a liar and a criminal without evidence is looked on very seriously and unkindly. I will assume that it is a lack of appropriate social education and exposure to adult behaviour, rather than simply an uncaring nastiness, that leads you to make such unsupported, provocative, impolite, and unpleasant accusations.

    So either put up some evidence that what I wrote above makes me a criminal liar as you claim, or shut up and go somewhere else.

    ..
    Evidence? Adult behavior? A sense of honor, a degree of respect, the semblance of consequentiality?

    From a warmist?

    Mr. Eschenbach, this is “a scientific website.”

    The expectation of plain common decency from a critter like this “Jean-Denis” specimen is something out of fantasy, not science.

  334. simcs says:

    Willis,

    Whilst I hope that the scientific establishment does clean up its own house, I don’t have any confidence that it will, at least not for a while yet. The problem that is that if the science establishment is left to its own devices, there is the real potential that those who should be brought to book will just slip quietly away – being the ‘political solution’, and so nothing substantive is achieved. The involvement of a legal investigation however could tip the balance, as a legal investigator is trained and able to probe in a way that can reveal many secrets that those being investigated would wish to remain hidden. A legal investigation is able to demand production of material that is considered to contain evidence of illegality, but quite rightly, a trial judge is then able to rule on their admissibility. A ‘good’ trial will bring everything out into the open, and also close many of the quiet exit paths Dr Mann and other may try to use.

    Someone referenced Al Capone, and that his conviction was not related to ‘gangster’ activities, but tax evasion if my memory serves me well (please correct me if I’m wrong – I want this to be a truthful comparison), but whether convicted for murder, extortion or tax evasion, it removed him from the street. A positive outcome.

    Perhaps a criminal conviction on an FOI related charge would actually be what’s needed, as it would then make (his) further involvement in climate or any research virtually impossible by virtue of not being employable due to a criminal record. It would also send a few ripples (even shockwaves) through the AGW establishment. This would also be a positive outcome.

    I’m watching this space…

  335. James Allen says:

    What is interesting to me is that the photo at the beginning of this piece shows a tree ring in which a section is highlighted as “the supposed medieval warming period,” which is a wide ban, and also shows a much smaller band of rings labeled as the actual medieval warming period. This is interesting to me as they appear to be the same rings about the same circular core, only one side grew at a disproportionate rate than the other. The figure is labeled as the Merciless Light of Publicity and makes me suspect that this author, not Dr. Mann, is the one trying to hide things. It is rather similar to claims of another denier trying to link the luminence of Neptune, which lags but mimics the higher frequency warming and coolings of the Earth and the Suns radiance, as proof against the human cause, yet that author failed to note that the Earth merely leveled off, not dropped with each trough. Same distorted method of graphics used to confuse those whom would not take a second thought to that which is visually presented.

  336. Willis Eschenbach says:

    James Allen says:
    November 3, 2010 at 11:05 am

    What is interesting to me is that the photo at the beginning of this piece shows a tree ring in which a section is highlighted as “the supposed medieval warming period,” which is a wide ban, and also shows a much smaller band of rings labeled as the actual medieval warming period. This is interesting to me as they appear to be the same rings about the same circular core, only one side grew at a disproportionate rate than the other. The figure is labeled as the Merciless Light of Publicity and makes me suspect that this author, not Dr. Mann, is the one trying to hide things. It is rather similar to claims of another denier trying to link the luminence of Neptune, which lags but mimics the higher frequency warming and coolings of the Earth and the Suns radiance, as proof against the human cause, yet that author failed to note that the Earth merely leveled off, not dropped with each trough. Same distorted method of graphics used to confuse those whom would not take a second thought to that which is visually presented.

    Jeez, bro’, lighten up, it’s called “humor”. The notes on Figure 1 are a satire on all of the ridiculous claims made by Michael Mann about what he can do with tree rings.

    However, on the other side of the coin, your analysis of Figure 1 as a dark and sinister plot on my part, and the way you tie that in to the “luminance of Neptune” and “higher frequency warming” is hilarious, much funnier than my Figure 1 satire on Mann …

Comments are closed.