Mann Fighting Release of UVA emails on Hockey stick

ATI Statement on Results from Today’s Hearing in Freedom of Information Act Case Against U. of Virginia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, September 16, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org

Today in Prince William County court Judge Gaylord Finch delayed arguments and the scheduled production of documents in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the University of Virginia. A brief hearing was held to discuss a Motion to Intervene in the case by lawyers for former UVA professor Michael Mann, whose records that were created while employed there are what ATI seeks. Judge Finch, recognizing the important precedent-setting potential of the case, said he wanted to schedule a longer hearing — two hours — to hear arguments about whether to allow Dr. Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, to enter the case.

Judge Finch granted ATI a sur reply in the case, which allows ATI Environmental Law Center director David Schnare to place additional materials before the court as Judge Finch considers whether to allow Dr. Mann to intervene. The two-hour hearing is scheduled for Nov. 1.

Statement by ATI Environmental Law Center director Dr. David Schnare about today’s developments:

“If it wasn’t clear before, it should now be clear to everybody. This is an extremely important case, and we appreciate Judge Finch’s careful attention to detail as we proceed.”

See case documents, press releases, media coverage, commentary, broadcast interviews, etc. pertaining to ATI v. University of Virginia by clicking here: http://bit.ly/mLZLXC


h/t to Bob Ferguson

 

About these ads

181 thoughts on “Mann Fighting Release of UVA emails on Hockey stick

  1. I don’t see that the case is important in the sense of a legal precedent, but it is certainly important to Michael Mann. It certainly makes me wonder what he is hiding!

  2. So are they trying to string this along to beyond the date when relevations would have to be considered in the next IPCC Report? What is the deadline for research and drafts in that process.

  3. recognizing the important precedent-setting potential of the case
    =====================================================
    The only thing that would be precedent-setting, would be to allow someone to avoid a FOIA……

  4. Well, it looks like Judge Gaylord Finch may be less than the ‘honorable judge’ he should be. Virginians tried to oust him back in 2009, for various acts of judicial skullduggery…..

    Pitchfork rebellion against Judge Finch
    By: Examiner Staff Writer | 01/13/09 1:00 AM
    The Washington Examiner Follow Us @dcexaminer
    “A lot of Virginians are coming out of the woodwork and demanding that the General Assembly refuse to reappoint Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch. The complaints are coming close to critical mass.”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/01/pitchfork-rebellion-against-judge-finch#ixzz1Y8vW89AR

  5. udge Finch granted ATI a sur reply in the case, which allows ATI Environmental Law Center director David Schnare to place additional materials before the court as Judge Finch considers whether to allow Dr. Mann to intervene.

    This could suggest that ATI has information that could shed light on the public interest that would be served by examining these emails. ATI would not make this motion capriciously.

  6. Another 6 weeks, minimum, to find 2 hours.

    Not just in the States, but in Canada and elsewhere, there is so much foolishness spent in hair-splitting at a senior level that it takes six weeks to find an additional hour or so of court time. Or lawyer time – lawyers who are allowed to explain that their case load is so high that they are unavailable, but not so high as to tell their clients that really they have insufficient time available to handle their cases and so the client should look elsewhere.

    So much foolishness.

  7. It would be interesting to check on some other research, not related to AGW and see how hard it is to get the information. Do all scientists hide their data OR only the ones that have “hidden the decline”?

  8. I do not get it. Any documents created while employed are normally the property of the employer. It is normally made clear in the hiring contract. These are University documents and MM should have no say as to anything concerning their release.

  9. Ron Cramsaid: “It certainly makes me wonder what he is hiding!”

    As Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to vote for it so we can find out what’s in it! It’s like Christmas!”
    I am surprised she was not censured for referring to a religious holiday.

    It’s sure going to be fun to see what Mann is hiding. Mann-gate.

  10. How secure are the UVA documents? Do other documents/emails concerning Mann exist at UVA that have not yet seen the light of day? How many other public documents/emails not at UVA are referenced?
    I am not a trusting person. This game of delay, delay, delay has gone on too long. How many documents have been destroyed? How many elinks and paper trails have been/will be lost? At the rate this issue is progressing the only things left will be Mann’s emails to his mother.

  11. If only Mann would follow through on his threat to sue the writers of the song “Hide the Decline” for defamation. Then Mann would be compelled to produce the documents in open court.

  12. Face it, truth never escapes via official processes. All official processes are designed exclusively to bury the truth.

    Only hacking works.

    I’m starting to wonder which side ATI is on. It has consumed a considerable amount of money and effort in generating useless delays. The people who have contributed the money and effort might otherwise have put their money and effort into more productive purposes. Like sleeping.

  13. Theodore 11.44
    I have learnt that deadline for scientific material for IPPC 5th assesment report is 31 dec 2011.
    But when Michael Mann is involved I think it’s about time to question his contribution to the worlds scientific knowledge. It is stated that he is world class in paleoclimate reconstructions, but has he ever made any effort to collect or refine the basic data records?
    My impression is that he has taken the right to select data from other providers and present them after statistical processing as his own.
    He has a reputation of being a climate scientist, but to me he is just anorher number cruncher playing with the latest tool: “multivarate analysis”.

    Michael Mann claimes to have found a signal in noise but so far reality has proved him wrong.

  14. Here’s the drill. The judge sets this over not just to find 2 hours but to give the parties time to prepare and for ATI to come up with some more material. Then they have a little dance on Nov 1 and decide to have more argument or perhaps to take evidence later on. Eventually the judge rules… maybe March of next year. Then Mann appeals the judgment. That winds through the appeal court for 2 or 3 years. By then the 17 year self imposed time limit is over and the whole hoax becomes moot. (wishful thinking about the “moot” part, realistic about the time lines.

  15. I know that I would fight tooth and nail to sequester documents that would get me charged with criminal offenses. I wonder what Mikey’s motivation is.

  16. Mann’s actions of denial and delay don’t surprise me a bit. I’d be shocked–SHOCKED! I tell you, if he were to simply comply like any other well-disciplined professor.

    Actions like these completely destroy whatever professional reputation he may have had. Sad thing is, he doesn’t recognize the consequences.

  17. MM’s flaw of ignoring (or actually hiding) the Medieval Warming Period in his so-called “Hockey Stick” is such a major scientific deception that he should be totally discredited by now. The only thing saving him is that other so-called scientists are so highly invested in the AGW fraud that they will go down with him. There are big bucks riding on this scam and the reputation of science in general will be thoroughly depleted when the truth is finally told. The media, major AGW supporters, unfortunately, no longer has any credibility to lose. There is no consensus on AGW, only a large number of discredulous lemmings, hungry for tenure or the next grant, with unfettered access to the media and no accountability in the few instances when someone with guts stands up to them. Next, we need to look at Obama’s Social Security Number.

  18. I was rather cynical as to whether the emails that will be disclosed would contain anything of significance. It now appears that they might contain something of significance, and thus the stakes look as they may be high.

    Not being a US lawyer, it is difficult to see why the US public should not see these documents given that they paid for the production of the documentation etc (when they paid taxes to the State which in turn used those taxes to employ/fund Mann) and given that Mann signed some form of agreement actually agreeing that ‘work’ related documents etc were the property of his employer (ie., the State). I would have thought that the latter point is high hurdle for Mann to jump over and hopefully, the Judge will order full production of these documents.

  19. Time for everyone to go “all in” and show all their cards, no exceptions: Mann, McLeod, Santer, Michaels, Spenser, Christy, Trenberth, Curry, Hansen, etc.
    Reveal ALL the relevant docs from ALL the players and let us all see where the truth truly, er, lies.

  20. Are there any warmists reading this thread?
    What are your views on this whole incident?

    As AGW-believers, you must be really worried about what is in those emails.

    I’d love to hear what you have to say: surely the High Priest of AGW, Michael Mann, would have nothing to hide. Would he?

  21. Anthony,

    Your post title is “Mann Fighting Release of UVA emails on Hockey stick”.

    With all due respect, it is not Mann who is the principal in fighting the UVA info release. It is a coordinated group who support Mann. That is who is fighting the UVA info release; it is they who are the climate science Goliath; it is ATI who is David.

    Go David.

    John

  22. mpaul says:
    September 16, 2011 at 11:59 am

    This could suggest that ATI has information that could shed light on the public interest that would be served by examining these emails. ATI would not make this motion capriciously.

    ——–

    mpaul,

    You tease. I have long speculated Cuccinelli has info on UVA/Mann that he has always been holding back. ATI too? I wish I had the movie rights.

    John

  23. I must say that he is giving me excellent ammunition as a skeptic in my daily battles against the ecotards. At this stage I have them cornered – I simply say “Why should I believe anyone with something to hide?”

  24. I am so surprised that Mann even has ‘standing’. They’re not his emails, plain and simple (the Greenpeace FOI?) … And the whole reason this is all taking place behind closed doors is to protect his privacy….so I don’t get it.

  25. Gunnar Strandell says:
    September 16, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    “But when Michael Mann is involved I think it’s about time to question his contribution to the worlds scientific knowledge.”

    That would be minus 100 years.

  26. Andy says:
    September 16, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Are there any warmists reading this thread?
    What are your views on this whole incident?

    As AGW-believers, you must be really worried about what is in those emails.

    R Gates? Do you have an opinion?

  27. The judge is doing what the judge has to do: due process. Like it or not, believe the motives of the plaintiff/s or not, this is what happens. Do any of you think for a second that the judge is unaware of the applicable law in this case? Regardless of their political affiliation? Come on! Another thing – there is more than one case waiting to be heard in this court. Patience, as they say, is a virtue, and will be rewarded. Spouting off as to the relative virtues of a case will get you (rightly!) precisely nowhere.

    The chances of Professor Mann’s challenge succeeding are minimal, given the precedent of Virginia’s state law. But that isn’t the point. The point is to delay, hopefully – to them – long enough for the release of the IPCC’s next work, which will be lauded far and wide, overriding any sensationalist results from this case.

    It’s quite simple: this is not to do with the facts, but with what will have the greatest impact.

  28. State agencies produce lots of documents, paid for by the taxpayer, that do not need to be released via a polite request. Lots of things involving, for example: personnel actions, student records, possibly also documents that may become of interest in a lawsuit, and so forth…

    We all wish these documents would be made public, but there may be so many that Mann, himself, hasn’t a clue what is there, and with lots of people rattling swords, he may feel a need to protect himself from self-incrimination. After all, those are his words in those e-mails.

  29. I think we should prevent the ” Release of Mann” into the public. He obviously has no credibility, and deserves to fade into the beyond after being exposed for the unscientific fraud he is.

  30. I repeat my earlier comment on an earlier thread:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/mann-hires-attorneys-to-halt-foia-document-production/#comment-737917

    This request to intervene by Dr. Mann has much more substance than at first appears. His attorneys are invoking a First Amendment right of professors to have academic freedom. The attorneys quoted a 1957 Supreme Court case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 234, 250) where the Court wrote, “To impose any straight jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. . . Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate.”

    Mann also claims that UVa has agreed to hand over emails that it knows are exempt from such disclosure under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act. Mann wants to halt that.

    Mann also claims that forced disclosure of his emails would have a chilling effect on other academic scientists and force them to be much more careful in what they write in their communications with other scientists. Mann extends this to not only US academics but around the world, presumably because climate science is engaged in by academics in many countries.

    If the court allows the intervention, this case could get very complicated, and require a very long time for resolution. No matter who prevails, and if the losing party has the funds, this could be appealed through the various appellate courts and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  31. I don’t think we need to see the emails anymore.

    The way they have bent over backwards to hide them, really tells us all we need to know. The only reason to undertake this action and look guilty in the eyes of everyone watching…..is because he would look even worse by them being produced. But I suspect the even more important things they are fighting to suppress is the names and actions of others that are now in the clear, but would lose credibility like the Climategaters. If half or better of the IPCC lead authors fall to the suspicious isle, they would all lose. I suspect there will be a stint in jail done by one or more in “protest” before these emails see the light of day. They have everything to lose.

  32. Roger Sowell says:
    September 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm
    ==========================================
    Roger, I think you just said they are going to try and re-write the law……….

  33. A brief hearing was held to discuss a Motion to Intervene in the case by lawyers for former UVA professor Michael Mann, whose records that were created while employed there are what ATI seeks.

    This is an untrue statement.

    Michael Mann has NO records that he has ownership in while employed at UVA. His conditions of employment said so. Everything he created belongs to UVA and the taxpayers who funded his ‘work’. He might not like it now – but those were the conditions of his employment and funding. This is absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom. Had Mann wanted academic freedom to keep his emails privage he could have had it by not taking taxpayers’ monies.

  34. Mike Mann still doesn’t have any kind of a ruling on his “standing’
    in the University of Virginia/ATI FOI case.

    He, the UVa and ATI get two hours instead of one to argue Mann’s “right”
    to participate in deciding which e-mails (and attachments) fall under
    the exception rules and don’t have to be released under Virginia’s FOI
    laws.

  35. @Latitude,

    re re-writing the law.

    The VFOIA already has certain exclusions in it that could (emphasis on could) preclude release of those items that fall within each exclusion. As I understand the case, and Mann’s motion to intervene, UVa agreed to provide items of Mann’s that are within an exclusion. While I’m no fan of Michael Mann, he should have an opportunity to prevent such excluded items from being handed over. Without leave to intervene, he is powerless to prevent that from occurring.

    As to the Constitutional aspect and Free Speech, yes, this very well could result in the Supreme Court carving out another exception to the existing list pertaining to Free Speech. The existing limitations on Free Speech include but are not limited to Defamation, Obscenity, Clear and Present Danger, Inciting Rebellion, Fighting Words, False and Misleading Advertising, and Presidential Threats. Each of these was created after balancing the good to the speaker who utters the speech against the harm to society if such speech were allowed. The Court clearly concluded that the harm to society would be greater than the good to the speaker in each case.

    With that background, it is conceivable that the Supreme Court could conclude that academics’ need for freedom to conduct research, teach students, write and publish, engage in scholarly dialogue, and other activities inherent in the academic world would be limited if a law such as VFOIA were to allow public disclosure of the correspondence at question in this case. The harm to the academics could be a reluctance to pursue research into controversial topics, for example.

    No one knows how this will turn out, but it appears to me that Mann’s attorneys are on fairly weak ground because they cited a case, Sweezy v New Hampshire, from 1957. The age of that case alone indicates there is not much case law on point, that is, that supports their argument. Most of the academic freedom cases decided by the Supreme Court had to do with things like subject material for class lectures, qualifications to be a professor or teacher – especially political leanings, qualifications of students to be admitted or denied admittance, etc.

    However, this is a long, long way from being before the Supreme Court. The Court hears a very small percentage of all cases brought to it. Many times, even if an issue is one the Court would like to hear and decide, it will be denied certioari simply because the particular case does not satisfy the Court as to the facts that occurred. The Court will wait until a better, stronger case is brought before it.

  36. Roger Sowell says:
    September 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    I repeat my earlier comment on an earlier thread:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/mann-hires-attorneys-to-halt-foia-document-production/#comment-737917

    This request to intervene by Dr. Mann has much more substance than at first appears. His attorneys are invoking a First Amendment right of professors to have academic freedom. The attorneys quoted a 1957 Supreme Court case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 234, 250) where the Court wrote, “To impose any straight jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. . . Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate.”

    Mann also claims that UVa has agreed to hand over emails that it knows are exempt from such disclosure under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act. Mann wants to halt that. ”

    I’m not a lawyer however i did study law and the argument of “First Amendment” is just meaningless for the most part. He can invoke the the first amendment when it comes to things NOT covered under the FOIA act in private matters and have an argument. Such as saying UVA is going to purposely give away private non-FOIA email however the court is already supposed to be reviewing the case in that matter so unless his argument is the court is willfully conspiring to violate Virginia’s FOIA laws he’s got nothing… add in he wouldn’t be filing that type of respond in that court he would goto another court to demand that a different judge hear the case.

    The other issue is that the court case you site is basically the very basis for FOIA in science to begin with… how can you counter an argument that blacks aren’t human or jews belong in ovens if you can’t get the data, freely inquire, study and evaluate the matter.

    FOIA was designed to PREVENT groups from straight jacketing intellectual leaders and others.

  37. What an outrage! This is not science. This is some kind of foolishness unrelated to the joy of discovery. I no longer am interested in the contents of these emails. The die is cast, CAGW is junk science. Let the lawyers feast on the dead carcass.

  38. Please…oh PUHLEEZE tell me that the two hour hearing will allow witnesses to be called?

    ATI: You honor, we would like to call a witness, but he is refusing to appear. We’d like you to issue an order compelling him to appear.
    Judge: So this is a hostile witness?
    ATI: Yes your honor.
    Judge: What is the relevance of this witness?
    ATI: He is one of the most respected and widely quoted climate scientists in the world. He was acclaimed as chairman of the prestigious wedex science committee by acclamation. His opinion on climate matters is so highly respected that the Editor-In-Chief of an academic journal resigned and apologized to him just for letting a paper that disagreed with his artificial computer models be published. This is THE climate scientist of all time.
    Judge: I do not understand why you would want him to appear. You are claiming that he is the highest possible authority on climate, and that he is hostile to your case….
    ATI: The witness was recently quoted in an academic journal as follows…”Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.” We’d like him, as the world’s leading climate scientist, to comment on Michael Mann’s work and attempted suppression of the data and communications in our FOI request.
    Judge: Well, that makes some sense. I’ll consider the order. What is this gentleman’s name?
    ATI: Kevin Trenberth, your honor. That’s with a “T”, as in “Travesty”.

  39. Dr. Michael Mann is the Reggie Jackson of Climate pseudo-Science–there’s not enough mustard in the world to cover that hotdog.

  40. Roger Sowell says:

    “The existing limitations on Free Speech include but are not limited to Defamation, Obscenity, Clear and Present Danger, Inciting Rebellion, Fighting Words, False and Misleading Advertising, and Presidential Threats. Each of these was created after balancing the good to the speaker who utters the speech against the harm to society if such speech were allowed. The Court clearly concluded that the harm to society would be greater than the good to the speaker in each case.”

    Yes, but each of those examples were already covered by existing law. Slowly but surely, the 1st Amendment [and the entire Bill of Rights] is being undermined by fallible judges. By not adhering to the original Constitution, we are headed straight for a dictatorship, and that is not a ‘conspiracy theory’.

    Bob Diaz asks:

    “Do all scientists hide their data OR only the ones that have ‘hidden the decline’?”

    Answer: Michael Mann deliberately and mendaciously hid contrary proxies that debunked his MBH98 paper in an ftp file labeled “Censored“. If that [much better, and more extensive] data had been used, there would never have been a “hockey stick” chart – and Mann’s subsequently debunked conclusions would have been negated. Mann fraudulently eliminated the MWP and the LIA, and he blatantly cherry-picked only selected data to acheive his desired result. [IMHO, of course; prove me wrong.]

  41. @temp on September 16, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    re “the argument of “First Amendment” is just meaningless for the most part”

    Actually, the Supreme Court has decided a number of cases on First Amendment Free Speech grounds over the decades, each pertaining to some aspect of academic freedom. I mentioned the topics in my earlier comment. Sweezy is but one such case.

    Mann is making yet another argument, and that is that the emails and other correspondence to be turned over have not yet been vetted. That is, it has not yet been determined if an exclusion applies to each one. Normally, such items are reviewed by the attorneys for both sides, with the attorneys sworn not to divulge what they see to their clients. Where the attorneys cannot agree, then the judge rules on the disputed documents.

    In this case, ATI’s lawyers are also de-facto principals at ATI. Mann objects (through his attorneys) that allowing ATI’s lawyers to see the emails is tantamount to showing them to all of ATI. ATI may have made a tactical error in this case by not hiring outside counsel to represent them.

  42. Roger Sowell says:
    September 16, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    “…As to the Constitutional aspect and Free Speech, yes, this very well could result in the Supreme Court carving out another exception to the existing list pertaining to Free Speech…”

    Wouldn’t Mann still be in breach of the conditions of his employment? Essentially liable for breech of contract by refusing to follow the guidelines of his employment? Isn’t his lawsuit simply an attempt to bypass those conditions?

  43. I am not knowledgeable regarding computer or server backup technology, so maybe somebody with expertise can help me out. Can these delays be an attempt to buy time in order to alter, delete or otherwise hide incriminating emails? How difficult would this be from a technical aspect, or is it impossible?

  44. So much secrecy around MBH98 makes it alchemy instead of Science. Making a ‘golden’ hockey stick out such leaden data is certainly a form of magic.

    Hiding evidence is proving the opposite.

  45. @Smokey on September 16, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    “Yes, but each of those examples were already covered by existing law.”

    Yes, that is the way the Free Speech Clause is slowly fleshed out, and has its limits defined. Some of those areas had long-existing common law, that is, judge-made law from ancient England. When the government – federal or state – passed statutes prohibiting something such as defamation, for example, a lawsuit was brought that challenged the statute as violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. As we all know, the Court upheld the statute. In the case of Defamation, the Court also added some conditions in the landmark case of New York Times v Sullivan.

    In this case, the existing law is VFOIA. It may, but is by no means certain, that the Constitutionality of some aspects of VFOIA will be heard and considered by the Supreme Court. I believe that this is at least one of Mann’s goals.

    “Slowly but surely, the 1st Amendment [and the entire Bill of Rights] is being undermined by fallible judges. By not adhering to the original Constitution, we are headed straight for a dictatorship, and that is not a ‘conspiracy theory’.”

    The First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights is a very complicated body of law, and I’m not sure I agree that it is being undermined by activist (my word, not yours of course) judges. The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment was certainly hammered recently, though, in Kelo v City of New London. But, the Miranda warnings, part of the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, were strengthened. There are long arguments over these issues.

    I would like to see fewer activist judges creating law, and instead have the Constitution changed by the amendment process as was intended by the Framers.

  46. @SSam at September 16, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    “Wouldn’t Mann still be in breach of the conditions of his employment? Essentially liable for breech of contract by refusing to follow the guidelines of his employment? Isn’t his lawsuit simply an attempt to bypass those conditions?”

    Well, I haven’t seen Mann’s employment contract, but generally, a contract cannot over-ride a state law. Otherwise, for example, it would be easy to form a contract to hire someone to dump toxic chemicals, or break some other law. So, even if Mann agreed in his contract to have all his professional work be subject to the University’s discretion as to being revealed to the public, the VFOIA would invalidate that part of the contract. Therefore, Mann would not be in breach of contract because those parts of the contract are unenforceable.

    This actually occurs fairly often, where a contract contains clauses that are void or unenforceable in a court. This is why it is critical to retain an attorney to review a contract. Many, many times the attorneys for one party draft a contract with unenforceable provisions or even illegal provisions, in the hopes that an un-knowledgeable other party will not know this. The party without an attorney generally assumes the contract must be “legal” and he must abide by all of its terms. This can be detrimental to the party without an attorney. There are more than a dozen ways to “get out of” a contract, that is, legally not perform under the terms of the contract.

  47. It seems Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann is indeed squealing like a stuck pig, as I said a few months ago. ‘Banjo Time’ draws near….

    BTdubs, love the judge’s first name – if only his surname was Clinch instead of Finch, it’d be up there with matey off of Meet The Fokkers.

  48. Roger Sowell says:
    September 16, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    @temp on September 16, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    re “the argument of “First Amendment” is just meaningless for the most part”

    Actually, the Supreme Court has decided a number of cases on First Amendment Free Speech grounds over the decades, each pertaining to some aspect of academic freedom. I mentioned the topics in my earlier comment. Sweezy is but one such case.”

    Expect current case law is overwhelmingly clear that they must be turned over… it would be one thing if this was the very first FOIA filed in context however it is not even close.

    “Mann is making yet another argument, and that is that the emails and other correspondence to be turned over have not yet been vetted. That is, it has not yet been determined if an exclusion applies to each one. Normally, such items are reviewed by the attorneys for both sides, with the attorneys sworn not to divulge what they see to their clients. Where the attorneys cannot agree, then the judge rules on the disputed documents. ”

    Thats not much of an argument because they are already covered under a gag order so he is basically arguing they will breach it if given the info… Plus the fact theirs an issuing of standing if UVA were arguing that I could see the merit of their argument however they aren’t Mann has not legal “excuse” to whine about anything going on.

    Also as to the vetting the court is in the process of vetting them thus unless he’s saying the court isn’t working in good faith then once again a meaningless argument.

  49. Mac the Knife says: “Well, it looks like Judge Gaylord Finch may be less than the ‘honorable judge’ he should be… [...] Pitchfork rebellion against Judge Finch [...] The complaints are coming close to critical mass.”

    Truly, America, you are the Wild West… I thought someone told you the farmer and the cowman should be friends?
         (I do concede we probably do exactly the same in Australia; but hide it better…and what a wonderful expression: pitchfork rebellion!)

  50. They claim their data is robust and then fight like wildcats to hide it!

    Just how long can this situation be allowed to continue?

  51. The great thing is while Mann is wriggling within the legal world he is being kept away from research. Its a win/win situation!

  52. “Chilling effect”. This was the argument of Ward Churchill’s defenders when he was removed from his position for a long list of reasons unrelated to his politics. It didn’t work for him and hopefully, it will not work for Dr. Mann.

    The reality, for those of us who have had to sign the document stating our electronic communications should not be expected to be private (I’ve done it at least twice), is we heed our mothers’ warnings to never put anything in writing that we wouldn’t want the entire world to read. If we don’t expect the rules to apply to everyone but ourselves, we tend to be more balanced, factual and to the point in our emails.

    It has been my personal experience that some directors and project managers think they are exempt. They are not and are always surprised when they find it out. Why don’t they use their personal computers or cell phones when they wish to have a less formal, private and frank conversation? Because they think the rules don’t apply to them. They are too important to follow rules. I could tell you stories :P

  53. Well, Ward Churchill’s First Amendment rights are still being argued. This case has been going on since January, 2005 :( Sorry for the misinformation.

  54. Ockham says: I am not knowledgeable regarding computer or server backup technology, so maybe somebody with expertise can help me out. Can these delays be an attempt to buy time in order to alter, delete or otherwise hide incriminating emails? How difficult would this be from a technical aspect, or is it impossible?

    It’s certainly not impossible. I can imagine technical factors that would make it difficult (whether they actually exist is another question), but the main difficulties would be non-technical: They wouldn’t want the wrong people to know about it or even suspect it, but this might be unavoidable. For example, what if some backups are held offsite by a contracting company?

  55. Richard Verney,

    Not being a US lawyer, it is difficult to see why the US public should not see these documents given that they paid for the production of the documentation etc (when they paid taxes to the State which in turn used those taxes to employ/fund Mann) and given that Mann signed some form of agreement actually agreeing that ‘work’ related documents etc were the property of his employer (ie., the State).

    ATI has already received 3,800 pages of Mannian material underwritten by the tax payer. Instead of posting it immediately online, they informed us that they will review the material and decide whether or not to post any of it on their website.

    Will you be leading the call to have ATI release all of the material they have embargoed? What do you think the chances are that anyone here will demand that ATI post all the information immediately, seeing that it is publicly owned?

    Is it not strange that although the regulars of WUWT are quite aware ATI is in possession of this material, they are not requesting ATI to post it all, as they suggested they might?

    Incredibly, it appears no one here is interested in the actual contents of the emails etc. Why might that be, do you think?

  56. “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,….
    The laws delay, the insolence of office…”

    Just sayin’, or rather, someone else said it.
    (Hamlet’s 4th Soliloquy.)

  57. barry;
    Incredibly, it appears no one here is interested in the actual contents of the emails etc. Why might that be, do you think?>>>

    Incredible. The trolls have taken to making claims so completely ridiculous that they defy logical rebuttal.

  58. It is irrelevant what the emails contain. The fact that “scientists” work so hard to hide data and obscure their methods tells us all we need to know about the current state of “climate science”. When a colleague approached Issac Newton and ask about a mathematical description of planetary motion, Newton responded ‘I have that, I will send it to you’. THAT is science. THAT is the joy of discovery, the joy of human understanding.

    What Mann, Schmidt and the rest of the political advocates are engaged in is anti-science. These advocates have thrown their scientific reputations on the scrap heap of history. It is a sad, sad thing to witness.

  59. davidmhoffer,

    Incredible. The trolls have taken to making claims so completely ridiculous that they defy logical rebuttal.

    Troll, is it? Great to meet you.

    The very next post after yours reinforces my point.

    “It is irrelevant what the emails contain”

    ATI hold 3,800 pages of Mann’s emails and other information from UVA. They have this stuff right now after the courts released them. My question to you is not rhetorical – why has no one from WUWT demanded that ATI release the 3800 pages of Mann/UVA material that they received via court order nearly a month ago?

    I think the answer is that nobody is really interested. Having followed the threads on this at WUWT, there’s been barely a comment on this state of affairs, let alone an explanation. Could you enlighten me, please?

  60. The principle of the VFOIA is to be questioned by Mann’s attorneys on privacy issues. That should be a simple challenge for the Virginia courts to overcome, since ‘in camera’ review by the UVA and ATI attorneys already guarantees privacy during the review process to determine which of the emails are indeed exempt from VFOIA due to being found to be private.

    To me Mann’s strategy appears to be just obstruction and delay. I say that because there is no hope that a court is going to overturn a citizen’s right to know what a government body is doing with its money (FOIA) in favor of a professor working at a government university on government funded research.

    Why delay by Mann? Is there an alternate Team strategy we are not seeing that is churning away in the background during this Mann delay distraction with UVA? Is that alternate Team strategy focused on AR5 or on something cooked up by a Team hired PR company (one similar to OO used by the UEA)? We know the Team is capable of confidential actions and hidden strategies based on the climategate emails.

    John

  61. It’s no wonder that Michael Mann is fighting the release of his emails, given the way that the meanings of the emails stolen from the CRU have been endlessly and viciously distorted. He can be certain that somewhere in his emails, there is a word or phrase that, taken out of context, can be made to suggest anything that his attackers want. He may have written that Steve McIntyre’s mother wears army boots, as a joke for a colleague who knows how to take his facetiousness — not seriously — but what fun his attackers would have with that! He can’t win. Either he releases the emails and endures the smears that are based on them, or he fights the release, and exposes himself to the charge that he is hiding something. Mann publishes the results of his science for all to see, to verify or refute. Everything that we need to know to determine whether his science is good is already public. There can’t be any motive behind the request for his emails other than a desire to find the word or phrase that can be converted into a cudgel to beat him with.

  62. Roger Sowell: Many, many times the attorneys for one party draft a contract with unenforceable provisions or even illegal provisions, in the hopes that an un-knowledgeable other party will not know this.

    Will not the court rule against the party that actually drew up such an agreement?

  63. Jesse Fell “It’s no wonder that Michael Mann is fighting the release of his emails, given the way that the meanings of the emails stolen from the CRU have been endlessly and viciously distorted.”

    Is there any evidence that CRU emails were stolen rather than leaked? That the emails became public doesn’t work as evidence of theft. So, what do you know about this that the rest of us don’t and how do you know it?

    Could you please give an example of one of the emails that had a meaning explained but someone (who?) “viciously distorted” that meaning? Please explain just one with the specifics. I’ll certainly listen if you do that. Am I asking too much?

    A dime says neither of my questions will be answered as asked, if at all.

  64. @juanslayton,

    Re “Will not the court rule against the party that actually drew up such an agreement?”

    The response below, and all other responses or comments on this thread are not legal advice, but merely general comments on broad points of general interest. The viewpoint of the comments below is US law, specifically California law. Everyone’s specific situation is different, therefore anyone who needs legal advice should seek the services of an attorney.

    A court ruling against the party that drew up the agreement is the general rule, but like most things in the law, it gets complicated. I referred above to the situation where one party is unsophisticated; that is, he (or she) is not represented by counsel and doesn’t know much if anything about the law. The other party, having an attorney, is considered sophisticated. In this context, sophisticated and unsophisticated merely means the extent of legal knowledge, nothing more.

    Regarding contract interpretation, the legal issue is that ambiguities will be construed against the party that drafted the agreement, where both parties have a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguity. The key word here is “ambiguities.” Attorneys spend a lot of time and write many, many words to achieve unambiguous documents because of that legal issue. However, in spite of best efforts to achieve clarity, there are still disputes over the meaning of contract clauses. Where the court agrees that the meaning is ambiguous, the non-drafting party’s interpretation is usually granted. But, this is not an iron-clad rule because there are many factors to be considered.

    This does not refer to un-enforceable provisions, however. To have an unenforceable provision struck down, a party generally must provide either statutory citations, or case-based precedents to the court that show such provisions have been unenforceable in the past. In short, just because an agreement is in writing, and signed by both parties, does not mean it is an enforceable contract. As I wrote above, there are more than a dozen ways that a written agreement can be found null and void, or unenforceable. There is room in the law, also, for a party to carve out a new reason for a contract provision to be unenforceable. It is rare, but it can be done.

  65. barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:34 am

    ATI hold 3,800 pages of Mann’s emails and other information from UVA. They have this stuff right now after the courts released them. My question to you is not rhetorical – why has no one from WUWT demanded that ATI release the 3800 pages of Mann/UVA material that they received via court order nearly a month ago?

    I think the answer is that nobody is really interested. Having followed the threads on this at WUWT, there’s been barely a comment on this state of affairs, let alone an explanation. Could you enlighten me, please?

    Not sure what enlightenment you are seeking barry but speaking for myself, I don’t need any additional evidence that Mann et. al. are playing some kind of game here. This is not science. The hockey stick is not science. The corruption of peer review is not science. If my tax dollars are going to be used to fund science I expect the scientists to be open and forth coming with all of their work product. It’s really that simple and fits nicely with the scientific method. There should be no problem, it all should work for every stakeholder. The fact that it is not working tells me there is a problem here and it needs to be addressed. Simple.

  66. @ Nat Wilcox,

    My pleasure. This is a fascinating case with far-reaching implications. From an attorney’s point of view, this is good stuff. The precendent, if one is indeed set, could have great implications for scientists in all fields. If this gets much further, I expect that many amicus briefs will be filed.

  67. “davidmhoffer says:
    September 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm”

    Super!

    “Jesse Fell says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:52 am

    Everything that we need to know to determine whether his science is good is already public.”

    I am not so sure about that. We are not interested in an inside joke that may be misinterpreted by others. Why can Mann not just give McIntyre what he specifically asked for? For the example, what computer code was used to get the hockey stick graph and would some random hockey statistics give the same hockey stick graph with Mann’s computer code?

  68. barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:34 am
    davidmhoffer,
    Incredible. The trolls have taken to making claims so completely ridiculous that they defy logical rebuttal.>>>

    barry says;
    Troll, is it? Great to meet you.>>>

    REPLY: Good to meet you too. I’m a Billy Goat. You may call me Gruff.

    barry says;
    The very next post after yours reinforces my point.
    “It is irrelevant what the emails contain”>>>

    REPLY: So a bunch of commentors have suggested that the way in which Mann is tying himself and the legal system in knots to keep those emails out of the public eye is good enough for them to suggest that he is guilty of something, and something big. I agree 100%. Add to that the context of everything else that Mann has done, including being exposed for building a computer program that produced a “hockey stick” graph regardless of the data being used, building a 1000 year reconstruction of earth’s climate based 50% on a SINGLE tree, refusing to release his data, which in every case where he was forced to turned out to discredit his results, and one can easily see why a whole bunch of people need no further evidence to conclude he is hiding something incriminating.

    But trust me barry, they want to see those emails as do the rest of us. Because along with our conclusion that Mann is so clearly and obviously hiding something, WE WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT HE IS HIDING.

    The days of the public accepting the great and mighty’s smoke and mirrors show are over. We keep getting told not to look behind the curtain. We know the smoke and mirrors are all show, we know there’s some damning evidence to prove it behind the curtain. The phalanx of armed gaurds and the dire warnings about not looking behind the curtain sort of spell that out.

    But make no mistake about it. When the curtain is pulled aside, we’ll be looking at that tiny little excuse for a human and all his wires and handles and other trickery and taking it apart with considerable interest, in considerable detail.

  69. barry says:

    “ATI has already received 3,800 pages of Mannian material…” & blah, blah, etc.

    barry, Mann can voluntarily give ATI 3,800 postcards from Cancun for all anyone cares. It’s what he’s fighting tooth and nail to withhold that people want to see.

    The judge can hear both sides on particular emails that are of a personal nature, etc., and rule to accept or deny them as evidence. But a leopard doesn’t change its spots, and Michael Mann has been caught time after time engaging in what appears to be serious scientific misconduct.

    Based on his past actions, it is very likely that Mann is fighting the release of these emails because they are incriminating. We’re talking about the weather and climate here, not nuclear defense secrets – yet Mann’s desperation to avoid disclosing what the taxpayers funded comes across loud and clear.

    Mann is hiding evidence of serious wrongdoing, IMHO. And if witnesses are ever called, there are no doubt people who have been steamrollered by the arrogant Michael Mann, and who will be eager to testify against him. Mann has stepped on plenty of toes, as the Climategate emails show.

  70. Laurie,

    You ask how I know that the emails were stolen rather than leaked. I would reply that no evidence has turned up pointing to anyone at CRU having leaked the emails — and if the leaking had occurred at the CRU site, it would be easy to detect. But even if someone at the CRU had leaked the emails, it still would be a form of theft — just as it is when a clerk at a department store goes home with an unpaid-for diamond bracelet in his pocket.

    As an example of vicious distortion of the meaning of the emails, I would mention that charge that scientists at CRU were conspiring to blackball scientific papers that didn’t echo their views. First of all, they were not in a position to prevent anyone’s papers from being published. But what they were in fact talking about was whether to cite the findings in certain already-published papers in the IPCC report. The IPCC conducts no original research; it merely aims to provide a digest of “the best that is thought and known” on climate change. The IPCC is under no obligation to incorporate the results of ALL research conducted on any given point; that is neither desirable nor possible.

    Now, I’ll toss the ball back to you: what did Phil Jones actually do that he referred to as hiding the decline?

    JF

  71. Werner Brozek,

    If I were Michael Mann, I would be similarly loath to give Steven McIntyre anything. McIntyre is a hanging judge if ever there were one. He is industrious and has spotted some statistical errors in NASA data (for which NASA thanked him graciously). But his efforts are not in the interest of making the science better, but in the interest of discrediting the scientists.

    He has Michael Mann in a tight spot. If Mann releases anything, he can be sure it will be converted, somehow, into weapons to use against him. If he resists releasing things, he is open to the accusation of having something to hide.

    Questions for you, Werner: Aren’t there other hockey stick models? What do they show? If they show roughly the same thing, do we have reason to believe that they are based on fudged data?

  72. barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 5:29 am

    ATI has already received 3,800 pages of Mannian material underwritten by the tax payer. Instead of posting it immediately online, they informed us that they will review the material and decide whether or not to post any of it on their website.”

    I’m sorry but you have no clue what your talking about. Yes ATI has gotten a huge amount of the data to review… However THEY AREN’T ALLOWED TO RELEASE IT UNTIL THE COURT APPROVES. Once again because you seem to just link without reading any of the links THE COURT/JUDGE MUST APPROVE THEIR RELEASE which is what Mann jumping in is trying to prevent and why theirs a court case to begin with….

    FOIA on this scale normally goes through at least 2 review processes before its released to the public now with the court(thats 3) and Mann(thats 4) your stacking more and more parties that must “approve” of a public release. Getting documents to review to argue a public release IS NOT the same is being able to release said documents to the public.

  73. Jesse Fell: “As an example of vicious distortion of the meaning of the emails, I would mention that charge that scientists at CRU were conspiring to blackball scientific papers that didn’t echo their views.”

    Fell, are you monumentally and willfully ignorant? Or are you a paid troll?

    In fact, the charge of blackmailing is true (from Montford’s site, updated with live links)

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    -Phil Jones to Michael Mann, July, 2004: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” (http://www.di2.nu/foia/1089318616.txt)

    -Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(http://www.di2.nu/foia/1047388489.txt)

    -Tom Wigley – Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (http://www.di2.nu/foia/1051190249.txt)

    -Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(http://www.di2.nu/foia/1237496573.txt)

    And now you ask us to do your work for you about “hide the decline”? It only takes a few seconds on ClimateAudit or Bishop Hill to find that out, so it appears you choose to be willfully ignorant.

    Here’s a question for you? Why do you believe the POLICY of hiding data and methods, of refusing to allow independent replication in direct and deliberate violation of the Scientific Method, constitutes anything resembling “science”.

  74. Jesse Fell;
    Now, I’ll toss the ball back to you: what did Phil Jones actually do that he referred to as hiding the decline?>>>

    Other than truncating the data for two large time periods for which the proxy indicators showed a decline in termperature you mean? Something other than that?

    Ball back to you JF. Do you believe your own bulls**t? Or are you just posturing for someone? do you need some grant money or data that Kevin Trenberth is in control of? what’s your excuse for such a blatantly misleading and ridiculous question?

  75. Jesse Fell;
    But even if someone at the CRU had leaked the emails, it still would be a form of theft — just as it is when a clerk at a department store goes home with an unpaid-for diamond bracelet in his pocket.>>>

    Really? You’re trying to equate copies of emails with a diamond bracelet? E-mails are records of communication. They have no physical value. Identical copies can be made as many times as you would like. Try that with diamond bracelets! Emails have NO VALUE. The information they contain however is subject to the same rules as contracts, (in fact, some emails ARE contracts!) and they constitute EVIDENCE just like a recorded telephone conversation or an over heard verbal conversation.

    If you want to argue that the EVIDENCE was improperly released, by all means. I’ll just point out in advance that many jurisdictions are implementing legal protection for “whistle blowers” for the express purpose of protecting them and ensuring that evidence of wrong doing is released.

    Blather on all you want about “leaked” or “stolen” but don’t insult our intelligence by trying to equate them with a diamond bracelet. It makes you look foolish and doesn’t change the important fact that:

    THE EMAILS ARE BLATANT EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.

  76. davidmhoffer,

    Gosh, I’d never thought of that — getting grant money by promulgating bull**t! I’m a camera buff and have my eye on a snazzy new camera — which goes for $2k. So if you could tell me how to get grant money, I’ll be much obliged.

    In the meanwhile …

    My understanding of “hide the decline” is that for the period after 1960, the temperatures that could be inferred from a certain set of tree ring diverged sharply from temperatures obtained by direct instrumental measurement for the same period. Ordinarily,the temperatures that can be inferred from proxy data are fairly close to instrumental data; where both forms of data are available, however, the more accurate instrumental data is to be preferred. It is especially to be preferred when the temperatures inferred from proxy data are contradicted by more reliable forms of data.

    Jones’ decision to use only the instrumental data in constructing the final portion of his graph was what anyone would do to produce the most accurate graph possible, given the available data. To the best of my knowledge, no one has charged that this instrumental data was flawed, or argued that it was less reliable than the anomalous tree ring data.

    Jones failed to document his switch to instrumental data, which he should have. He was constructing his graph for the cover of a brochure, however, and not for a scientific paper, so perhaps he thought that he didn’t need to document his sources. At any rate, his failure to document the switch in no way invalidates his graph. The data he used was sound, and no one has been able to show that it wasn’t.

  77. Fell again: “Jones’ decision to use only the instrumental data in constructing the final portion of his graph was what anyone would do to produce the most accurate graph possible, given the available data.”

    Ah yes, cherry picking data that fits your theory and throwing away data that doesn’t is what consitiutes “science” in your eyes, no? No one with a shred of scientific ethics supports this corrupt behavior. What Jones had was hard evidence that tree rings CANNOT reproduce temperatures in any century, so he deletes that evidence. He’s a Lysenkoist fraud and your support for him says quite a lot.

    So how about answering my earlier question?: “Here’s a question for you? Why do you believe the POLICY of hiding data and methods, of refusing to allow independent replication in direct and deliberate violation of the Scientific Method, constitutes anything resembling ‘science’?”.

  78. Andrew Russell,

    You wrote: “In fact, the charge of blackmailing is true (from Montford’s site, updated with live links).” Now, “blackmailing” would be new turn of the screw — but I assume you meant to write “blackballing”.

    At any rate, the link to Montford’s site no longer works.

    However, next quote in the list you sent me to shows that CRU people were determined to keep a certain paper from being cited in the IPCC report. That, in itself, is not damning; in fact, the IPCC needed to be selective about what papers to cite — papers are not all of equal quality. And the quotation does not indicate that they were opposing the citation of a particular paper for any other than scientific reasons.

  79. Andrew Russell,

    The temperatures that can be inferred from tree ring data almost always agree fairly closely with temperatures from direct instrumental measurement. So, when a set of tree ring data yields a set of temperatures that diverge widely from instrumental data — especially instrumental data whose accuracy one has no reason to question — it is reasonable to assume that some unknown factor has produced the anomaly. It is also reasonable to set the tree ring data aside until this factor can be identified; otherwise, you risk inferring a decline in temperatures when the correct inference would be, for example, a drought, an infestation of pests, or something of the like.

    Evaluating the soundness of data is a basic part of scientific analysis; to accept all data without evaluation or validation would be to entrust one’s research to the hands of chance. I don’t think that careful scientists are that trusting.

  80. Jesse Fell
    ‘Evaluating the soundness of data is a basic part of scientific analysis;’

    It is and magic trees would fail such an analysis .

    I suggest you do some reading other than Real Climate about what the hide the decline was about . The idea that tree rings can proved valued temperature data is highly questionable , indeed the very divergence that the Team made ‘go-way’ suggest there not for they have no real idea why this has been seen in the first place . And unless your of a religions mind, blind and unquestioning faith is rarely good for you in the long term.

  81. Jesse Fell;
    My understanding of “hide the decline” is that for the period after 1960, the temperatures that could be inferred from a certain set of tree ring diverged sharply from temperatures obtained by direct instrumental measurement for the same period. Ordinarily,the temperatures that can be inferred from proxy data are fairly close to instrumental data;>>>>

    My my my, how selective of the actual story facts can you get? Let’s see, the instrumental data goes back to what….1880 for NASA/GISS? 1850 for HadCrut? Let’s use HadCrut. 1850 to 2000 is 150 years. According to PHIL JONES and MICHAEL MANN, the data from the tree rings DOES NOT MATCH THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD FOR 40 YEARS OF THAT TIME PERIOD.

    1. That’s over 25% of the timeline. Since we know for a fact, accroding to the experts themselves, Jones and Mann, that the tree rings don’t even come close to representing the actual temperature record AT LEAST 25% OF THEM TIME, could you please explain why the previous thousand years of data SHOULD BE?
    2. If the decline in the tree ring data was obviously “scientific” to dispose of, why did they have to “hide” it via “Mike’s Nature Trick” which was to truncate the data exactly where several lines cross, making them look like spaghetti, and the fact that a couple of them just disappear at the point?
    3. After being caught out hiding contrary data and replacing it with supporting data, they came up with the very excuses that you quote. They never mentioned that they did the same thing with another few decades of data in the MIDDLE of the graph. Until they got caught at that too.

    Sorry Jesse, but for anyone who bothered to go through the emails in context, and follow the story from beginning to end, your excuses are preposterous and blatantly repititious. You’ve added nothing to the debate except to repeat things that are so obviously not true that you are either (contrary to your claims) unfamiliar with the whole story, or wilfully… let’s go with blind. I had another word in mind but I’m certain it would get snipped.

  82. Jesse Fell;
    So, when a set of tree ring data yields a set of temperatures that diverge widely from instrumental data — especially instrumental data whose accuracy one has no reason to question — it is reasonable to assume that some unknown factor has produced the anomaly. It is also reasonable to set the tree ring data aside until this factor can be identified; otherwise, you risk inferring a decline in temperatures when the correct inference would be, for example, a drought, an infestation of pests, or something of the like.>>>>

    Exactly! Despite all of our instrumental data we have no clue, to this day, as to why the tree ring data diverged from the instrumental record. For 40 years. So HOW can you POSSIBLE suggest that the previous 850 years of data from tree rings simply be accepted at face value when we have NO POSSIBLE WAY OF VERIFYING IT?

    Are you competing with R Gates for the Troll of the Month Award?

  83. Jesse Fell;
    to accept all data without evaluation or validation would be to entrust one’s research to the hands of chance. I don’t think that careful scientists are that trusting.>>>

    See my previous comment. Duh.

  84. Jesse Fell;
    However, next quote in the list you sent me to shows that CRU people were determined to keep a certain paper from being cited in the IPCC report. That, in itself, is not damning; in fact, the IPCC needed to be selective about what papers to cite — papers are not all of equal quality. And the quotation does not indicate that they were opposing the citation of a particular paper for any other than scientific reasons.>>>

    Yes, so important was it to keep that paper out that Phil Jones said that he and Kevin (Trenberth) would keep it out even if it meant having to re-define the scientific process. Tell me Jesse, was the scientific process so flawed that it needed to be re-defined prior to contrary papers being published? Or after? Was the scientific process used by ALL OTHER SCIENCES not used in the first place? Or was it only in need of re-definition when contrary papers started to appear?

    Pick your poison sir. If the climate science didn’t meet the requisite standards in the first place, THEN ALL THE CLIMATE SCIENCE UP TO THAT POINT IS SUSPECT AND SHOULD BE THROWN OUT. If the original science processes were fine, THEN THE ONLY REASON TO RE-DEFINE THEM WOULD BE TO BLOCK CONTRARY PAPERS FROM BEING PUBLISHED DESPITE THEM BEING SCIENTIFICALY SOUND. For example, Wolfgang Wagner resigning in protest over the publication of a paper that he himself says was properly peer reviewed and scientificaly sound for the one and only reason that it was contrary to the work of Kevin Trenberth.

    Despite your protestations to the contrary sir, you are a troll. I’m the Billy Goat Gruff, and frankly, you look damn silly sitting on your butt in the middle of the stream. Wanna climb back up on the bridge and have another go?

  85. davidmhoffer,

    So you concede, then, that Phil Jones was right to set aside the anomalous tree ring data.
    As for the use of proxy data generally, scientists always use as many different forms of proxy data as they can find. Usually, they can find more than one. For example, the growth of algae is sensitive to temperature to a known degree, so when roughly the same temperatures can be inferred from algae and from tree rings, scientists feel greater confidence in the inferred temperatures than they would if they had only one source from which to infer temperatures. Scientists gather proxy data from recent times to test it against readings from instruments, to get an idea of the margin of error in the proxy data. The hockey sticks that I have seen show this margin of error as a shaded area above and below the main line.
    No scientist to my knowledge has ever said that proxy data is as reliable as instrumental data, or denied that the farther back in time we go, the greater the margin of error in our estimates of average global surface temperatures. But scientists continue to gather new forms of data, and they continue to improve their techniques for evaluating the data — and the result of these improvements continually confirms our belief that over the past 1,000 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has been largely constant, and that the spike in the Earth’s temperature that began roughly 40 years ago is truly anomalous.

  86. Jesse Fell says:
    September 17, 2011 at 2:58 pm
    davidmhoffer,
    So you concede, then, that Phil Jones was right to set aside the anomalous tree ring data.>>>

    Oh.
    My.
    Gosh.

    How deluded are you?

    Do you really think that ANYONE with enough intelligence to learn to read could interpret what I said as conceding anything of the sort? Are you declaring our own stupidity? Or playing to an audience that you believe is stupid enough for your comment to make sense?

    I think you’ve just displaced ******** as the most outrageously rediculous troll at WUWT.

    At least I have to work a bit sometimes to butt ******** off the bridge. You on the other hand…look damn silly sitting once again in the midst of the stream.

    [NOTE: David, ******** was not part of this discussion and dragging him into it in this fashion might be considered a bit ill spirited. There ARE worse trolls. -REP. mod]

  87. Jesse Fell;
    and the result of these improvements continually confirms our belief that over the past 1,000 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has been largely constant, and that the spike in the Earth’s temperature that began roughly 40 years ago is truly anomalous.>>>

    Would that include the last 15 years during which there has been ZERO warming? The last 40% of the record that you claim shows anomlous warming? 40% of it is zero. Zero. ZERO! Is there a part of ZERO you do not get? Not to mention, since by your own assertion the instrumental record and the proxy data are both INCREASINGLY INNACURATE THE FURTHER BACK IN TIME WE GO, could I ask…

    Anomolous compared to WHAT?

    You must really like sitting on your duff in the middle of that stream…

  88. davidmhoffer,

    I’m just trying to understand your position. You maintain that proxy data is pretty much worthless, but you still maintain that Phil Jones was wrong not to use an especially problematic set of proxy data in constructing his graft.
    Your assertion that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is contradicted by the instrumental record. In fact, something like eight of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. This has been confirmed by many independent lines of data.
    As for this troll business — what is a “troll” (in blogspeak; I’m understand its usage in the Brothers Grimm.)

  89. davidmhoffer,

    And, please note the correct spelling: anomalous.

    [NOTE: It is good that your spelling, unlike most of the rest of us, is perfect, but it is not a response to an argument and in some circles is considered ill-mannered and trollish behavior. -REP, mod]

  90. temp,

    Yes ATI has gotten a huge amount of the data to review… However THEY AREN’T ALLOWED TO RELEASE IT UNTIL THE COURT APPROVES

    No, you are referring to exempted material, which ATI may view, but may not release without approval.

    The 3800 pages that ATI have in their possession are already cleared. ATI may post them publicly if they wish. This quote from Paul Chesser is from three weeks ago.

    Asked what ATI plans to do with the documents, Chesser said that depends on what’s in them. The institute may decide to post them on its Web site, he said. “We’ll have to see what we’ve got first.”

    I have written to Chesser and ATI demanding that they post all the non-exempted material they currently have – 3827 pages – on the ATI website immediately. Am I the only person here to have done so? And if so, does that not strongly suggest that the actual contents of the emails are of little interest to people here?

    To do the job properly, you need to review ALL the material. not just fragments. Context is everything. We should be satisfied with nothing less than immediate and full access to the cleared material in ATI’s possession. Is there any ‘logic’ in an alternative position?

  91. juanslayton,

    Thanks for the link — I’ll read it tomorrow.

    But for now, I’ll just repeat that every scientist I’ve read agrees that proxy data is not as reliable as instrumental data. Unfortunately, we have good instrumental readings going back only a hundred years and a few more. Dante was preoccupied with Beatrice, not with the daily temperatures in Florence. So, to discard 800+ years of proxy data would be to discard all but a stub just above the blade. Still, we have a clearly distinguished stub and blade.
    I would also note that if we have to discard all of the hockey stick except that which can be based on instrumental data, we also have to discard any idea of a medieval warming period, for the evidence for such a period is based on the same sort of proxy data as the long handle of the hockey stick.
    But let me ask Bobby Orr what he thinks about all this.

  92. Jesse Fell;
    I’m just trying to understand your position. >>>

    Reply: Really? You’ve made several assertions that are without merit, made analogies that that are meaningless, and repeated much hyped (but completely discredited) dogma as if it was fact…but you maintain that you’re just trying to understand my position? I haven’t stated my position. I’ve pointed out that the positions that you’ve taken are based on a house of cards.

    Jesse Fell;
    You maintain that proxy data is pretty much worthless, but you still maintain that Phil Jones was wrong not to use an especially problematic set of proxy data in constructing his graft.>>>

    Reply: No. What I said was that if the tree ring data cannot be substantiated for the last 40 to 50 years, then the same logic cannot substantiate it for the previous 950 years. I neither agreed with nor disagreed with its accuracy or value. I pointed out that Jones is choosing that data which agrees with him, and discarding that which does not. That is not science.

    Jesse Fell;
    Your assertion that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is contradicted by the instrumental record. In fact, something like eight of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. This has been confirmed by many independent lines of data.>>>

    Reply: For starters, Jones himself testified that the warming of the last 15 years is statistically insignificant. Being warmer than the year before by less than 1/100th of a degree is meaningless when the instrumentation being used can’t even MEAUSURE 1/100th of a degree. Further, the warming of the last 90 years is about the same as the previous 90 years… according to the instrumental record. Since CO2 began rising significantly in 1920, why are the before and after increases about the same? FURTHERMORE, the various records pretty much show that the earth has been warming for the last few hundred years. So…this century SHOULD be the warmest of the last few centuries, and the last few decades SHOULD be the warmest etc…that’s the result of a general wasrming trend, isn’t it? Warmer now than before? It has been warming for centuries, and it started CENTURIES before CO2 emissions became significant.

    Again, back to your anomolous quote (correct my spelling all you want, it won’t help my spelling and it won’t change the facts BTW), anomylus cumpaird to wat? The last ice age? Or when grapes were a major crop in Britain because it was warm enough to grow them? Or when the Vikings had thriving colonies in Greenland? Or when the dinosaurs roamed the jungles of northern Canada? Which are these “unprecedented” temperatures to be compared to? and how many of them were due to CO2 levels above what we have now?

    Zero. Oops. Forgot. You don’t know what zero is.

  93. Jesse Fell;
    I would also note that if we have to discard all of the hockey stick except that which can be based on instrumental data, we also have to discard any idea of a medieval warming period, for the evidence for such a period is based on the same sort of proxy data as the long handle of the hockey stick.>>>

    Bull. We have ALL SORTS of proxy data to substantitate the medieval warming period. Here’s a few…ok, more than a few…

    http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

  94. “Jesse Fell says:
    September 17, 2011 at 11:29 am
    Questions for you, Werner: Aren’t there other hockey stick models? What do they show? If they show roughly the same thing, do we have reason to believe that they are based on fudged data?”

    Yes there are other hockey stick models and they all show the same thing. But with all the evidence that “davidmhoffer says: September 17, 2011 at 5:13 pm” exactly what is happening here? Either the IPCC crew knows something all other scientists do not know about the MWP or something is wrong with the computer code. That is why we want Mann’s files! We want to know what is really happening. Perhaps Mann is correct after all, but we want to be sure before spending trillions for a problem that may or may not exist. Is that too much to ask considering the potential costs involved?

  95. barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    temp,

    Yes ATI has gotten a huge amount of the data to review… However THEY AREN’T ALLOWED TO RELEASE IT UNTIL THE COURT APPROVES

    No, you are referring to exempted material, which ATI may view, but may not release without approval.

    The 3800 pages that ATI have in their possession are already cleared. ATI may post them publicly if they wish. This quote from Paul Chesser is from three weeks ago.”

    I agree they should be posted right away but I question this quote. The last time I read they got this info is to review it to be released as part of the lawsuit not that it could be released only that it could be reviewed… as this is a secondary source and the quote easily meaning what I read earlier I still hold that all files are currently under a gag order.

    Just because the info has been turned over for review doesn’t mean that it can be released to the public just means that UVA released it to ATI as part of the lawsuit so they can argue over what can be released. Unless you got an ATI headline saying that UVA has released the info no strings or that UVA posted it for everyone to have… I’m still going to sit in the “they’re still playing with the court thus the legal ability to release is hampered”.

    Once again no mistake if they can post it on the internet at this moment they should… much like climategate the internet can sort through it 1,000x faster then they’re small group.

  96. To
    barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    I just ran through ATIs site on this issue(should have done it before first post)

    http://www.atinstitute.org/michael-mann-supporters-make-case-for-release-of-emails/

    “Finally, Dr. Mann’s own letter to UVA shows why his work and correspondence while employed there are of national public interest, writing, ”Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom.” But Dr. Mann is not challenging “indiscriminate release” of the records, but release under seal of a Protective Order (link to order http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ATI-v-UVA-5-24-Protective-Order.pdf)— one agreed to by University of Virginia more than three months ago, to no legal response by Mann until the records were due for production.”

    It clearly states all releases currently are under a protective order(ie gag order) so as of this point they can’t release any of the info to the public.

  97. Werner, david’s ‘evidence’ amounts to a link to a heavily agendaed website (it uses words like ‘alarmist’ and ‘hoax’). I checked some of the references and they don’t stack up. There is one multiproxy study there that is interesting (and recent), but it is inconclusive, and mainly compares early to mid-holocene temps with pre-industrial (~1750). Basically, they’re saying that it was warmer during the early to mid holocene than it was during the LIA. They make even more tentative conclusions abut the MWP, which is briefly mentioned in the paper, saying that it may have been over 1C warmer than ~1750 – but they qualify that there is too little SH data to make a confident global determination. The same author (Ljungkvist) last year delivered a paper on MWP specifically that generally was in agreement with Mann and others. IOW, david’s source is poor.

    It takes time and effort to get stuff like this straight, and no time at all to create confusion and doubt. There are many multiproxy studies roughly confirming Mann (and others) basic thesis – that the rate of current warming exceeds any other that can be detected using proxy records, and that the last few decades are likely (not absolutely) warmer than the putative MWP. Of course, there are a few other studies that come to different conclusions.

    It’s highly doubtful that UVA emails are going to unsettle a body of work that goes well beyond Mann and co. This extraordinary focus on 12 year-old papers is political, not scientific in nature – and that’s why no one here is interested in demanding the release of 3800 pages of emails that ATI currently hold and are at liberty to disseminate.

  98. Sorry mods hehe hopefully this will be the last one.

    This clearly states without any doubt the records were given to ATI under court order

    “UVa’s August 23 release under court order of 3,800 pages of emails – records that UVa previously denied existed – was its second since the American Tradition Institute (ATI) sought judicial assistance in bringing the school into compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA).
    The school has spent approximately $500,000 to date keeping these records from the taxpayer, who paid for their production to begin with.”

    http://www.atinstitute.org/atis-horner-uva-goes-all-in-on-climategate-foia-cover-up/

    Which means they are subject to court order IE the gag order. These files release under the current court order are the files that UVA refused to release to the DA when the VA DA sued them over it. So I think at this point its clear cut that they can’t release anything until the court approves it which will be a long long time.

  99. “Jesse Fell says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    davidmhoffer,

    Your assertion that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is contradicted by the instrumental record. In fact, something like eight of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years.”

    As a retired physics teacher, let me try to explain it in a different way to what davidmhoffer already did. I will define displacement and velocity in the process. Displacement is the change in position. So if you started at sea level and climbed to the top of Mount Everest, your displacement would be 29,029 feet up. Now suppose you rapidly reached the top in 1998 and then started to slowly walk down at the rate of 10 feet per year. Velocity is the rate of change of position. So in this example, the velocity is 10 feet per year down. Now if you walked down for 12 years, your velocity would be down, even though you would still be very high up during those 12 years.
    So there is no contradiction as you claim. It is perfectly possible to be high up (eight of the hottest years), and at the same time be going down (or possibly cooling in our analogy).
    By the way, according to the HADCRUT3 record, 1998 was the warmest year and 2011 so far, to the end of July, it is the 12th warmest. See: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
    Since it does not look good to have 15 years of cooling for certain people, the suggestion is made that 15 years is no longer a good yardstick and 17 years is needed. And Trenberth talks of “20 years or longer” for some other purpose. I think I know why.

  100. temp,

    again, you are referring to the exempted material – the Protective Order is specifically targeted at those emails and other material UVA thinks are exempted. It does not cover the 3800 pages of released material from August, which UVA does NOT consider exempted. ATI explicitly say so.

    It took a petition to force UVA to agree to produce the documents that by statute they should already have produced. The day before the court hearing, UVA finally agreed to a date when they must produce all the documents they believe are not protected from disclosure. The court entered an order that forces UVA to honor that agreement and to produce the documents in easy-to-read electronic form so that ATI can make them available to all who wish to review the work of this highly controversial former Virginia employee. They must produce those documents by August 22nd.

    http://www.atinstitute.org/court-orders-university-of-virginia-to/

    Those documents were released under this order by the due date (Aug 24) in electronic form, as noted at ATI and here at WUWT at the time. These are the materials that UVA believe are “not protected from disclosure”.

    Which is why Chesser said three weeks ago that ATI (not the court) would determine whether or not they would post them on their website.

    The other ~5000 pages of material is under the Protective Order. That is what you are referring to. I am referring to the unprotected material no one seems to be interested in demanding from ATI.

  101. barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 8:35 pm
    Werner, david’s ‘evidence’ amounts to a link to a heavily agendaed website (it uses words like ‘alarmist’ and ‘hoax’). I checked some of the references and they don’t stack up>>>

    Yes…if a web site uses words like “alarmist” and “hoax” that must discredit it, right? Unless of course the evidence being presented by the CAGW cheer leaders is actually a hoax and designed to cause alarm where there isn’t any…. wait…. that’s pretty much on the mark…

    You can “check some of the references” and claim they don’t stack up, but then you try and discredit one (just one) without saying WHICH one, and without going into any critique of the science…just some vague comments about what YOU say the paper says…hard to dispute your conclusions when you don’t even say which paper your are referring to. Wait. Are you a climate scientist? Sure sounds like it….

    I linked to that web site because it has a long list of ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED PAPERS from all over the world, using a wide variety of proxies, that ALL show that the MWP existed and that it had been warmer before, well in advance of any rise in CO2. Jesse’s claim that if one throws out Jones and Mann’s proxies that show the hockey stick warming one must also throw out the MWP is patently false. If you throw out the tree data that Jones and Mann used, and that was the only data there was, then his claim would be correct. That site has a whole lot of graphs from a whole lot of papers from a whole lot of proxies from a whole lot of places on earth…that all discredit the notion that there was no MWP or (the even more hilarious claim) that it was confined to Europe.

    One need not turn to studies however, one can simply refer to historical records. Vikings had thriving colonies in Greenland that are now covered in ice. Receding glaciers in Canada have revealed ancient hunting sites complete with weapons, fire pits and so on that clearly show these were regularly used because the glacier was no where nearby at the time. There were hundreds of vineyards in Britain hundreds of years ago (tax records, or were those faked too?). They dwindled to almost zero…and then started to increase in number again. Not nearly as productive as they were in the MWP…because it isn’t…uhm… warm enough? The Nile froze over around…I forget…about 1000 AD? The same year in Japan the cherry blossoms were very very late. They’ve been getting earlier ever since…earlier springs due to… warming… that started BEFORE CO2 levels started rising? Crack a history book or two, pay attention, and you’ll find all the evidence you need of the existance of the MWP without looking at a single science study.

    Or are you going to rewrite history too now….?

  102. david,

    I linked to that web site because it has a long list of ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED PAPERS from all over the world, using a wide variety of proxies, that ALL show that the MWP existed and that it had been warmer before

    “ALL”? Not true, the study I spoke of didn’t do an in-depth analysis of MWP compared to present times. It was mainly concerned with temps from 5 – 10 k/yrs BP, the early to mid-Holocene – and it compared those temps with global temps centred on ~1750, in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It does not in any way say anything, either absolute or tentative, about MWP temps compared to the last few decades – which is the periods of interest WRT Mann’s papers.

    Furthermore, other of the references cited on that website are to do with data derived from ice cores that are attempting to track global temps from tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, and few say much about how these compare with the temps of the last few decades. The author of the blogsite you linked, however, makes plenty of their own interpretations on this, but that blog-effort cannot possibly be mistaken for work that has been “PEER REVIEWED”.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “the MWP existed.” No one disputes – not even Mann – that there was a warm period, possibly more spatially coherent in the NH than in the SH, in medieval times. But I am very sure that you are far more interested in insulting people who disagree with you than coolly assessing the scientific literature, and that further discussion with you is pointless.

  103. barry:
    “ALL”? Not true, the study I spoke of didn’t do an in-depth analysis of MWP compared to present times. It was mainly concerned with temps from 5 – 10 k/yrs BP, the early to mid-Holocene – and it compared those temps with global temps centred on ~1750, in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It does not in any way say anything, either absolute or tentative, about MWP temps compared to the last few decades – which is the periods of interest WRT Mann’s papers.>>>

    For starters barry, I was addressing Jesse’s contention that without Jones and Mann’s data there was no evidence for the MWP, which is just blatantly false. I wasn’t commenting on Mann’s papers at that point, was I? Now…onto the one paper that you now identify…

    Your claim that my saying “ALL” isn’t true because that ONE study (talk about cherry picking!) concentrated on the mid-Halocene and didn’t do an in depth analysis of MWP. What, exactly, has that got to do with the fact that it DOES in fact confirm the MWP? If I do a study that’s mostly about honey bees and some part of it about wasps, does that make the part about wasps wrong?

    From the very paper you finger as being suspect on the matter:

    “a new multi-centennial period of temperatures exceeding those of the pre-industrial
    (~1750 AD) period by more than 1°C seems to have occurred during the
    Medieval Warm Period (c. 800–1300 AD; see, e.g., Bradley et al. 2001, 2003;
    Broecker 2001; Esper, Frank 2009; Ljungqvist 2009″

    If you don’t want to be insulted by my responses, then don’t insult my intelligence by attempting to cherry pick, argue points I never made, draw conclusions that your pontificate about without any supporting evidence, and then try to discredit what I said (about a list of papers that all support the MWP) by picking out ONE, and claiming it is mostly about the Halocene (which it is) but nonetheless provides supporting evidence for the MWP and quotes…one, two, three, four, five, SIX other papers that do the same.

    Now, what about the historical references I provided you? Or the other 109 studies on that site? Or the ones Werner posted? I’ve done a ton of reading and studying on this topic, I know the physics and the fact that there is a debate at all is mind boggling in the first place, but you think I’m just throwing insults around?

    I only throw insults at people who present completely hollow arguments that are insulting to the intelligence of anyone who bothers to actually delve into the details, I throw insults at people who make vague claims without substantiating them. I throw insults at people who look at a list of 110 peer reviewed studies and attempt to discredit all of them by pointing out that ONE is focused on a slightly different topic.

    Frankly sir, I find your remarks insulting. The difference is I don’t run away and hide when the going gets tough. I keep putting the facts on the table, keep pointing out the misrepresentations, the cherry picking, the misleading positioning, and yup, I make my ire known. But we both know the truth. you’re not refusing to debate me because I’ve insulted you. you’re refusing to debate me because I’ve shredded every point you’ve raised.

    Frankly, I thought you would last longer.

  104. Werner, I’m really not interested in rehashing old MWP arguments. If you’re genuine, you can read a critique on that old ‘skeptical’ graph here, and an analysis of the 1990 IPCC millennial graph here. I examined the science-skeptical graph long before those posts linked were made, and concluded myself that it in fact corroborates that the MWP was not a spatially/temporally coherent event, as many of the warm periods on the various graphs (which conveniently pop up when you roll over them) happen at different times, some as much as 500 years apart.

    However,

    This thread is about the UVA emails. There are 3800+ pages of them and related material that ATI are free to disclose right now, but have not posted on their website. It appears no one is interested in having ATI release them to the tax-payer – on whose behalf ATI have supposedly been working all this time. ATI are the new gate-keepers, and faux skeptics are content to do nothing about that.

  105. Jesse Fell says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    “I would also note that if we have to discard all of the hockey stick except that which can be based on instrumental data, we also have to discard any idea of a medieval warming period, for the evidence for such a period is based on the same sort of proxy data as the long handle of the hockey stick.”

    Oh, so you want to throw out historical evidence in the same bucket as tree rings and reindeer crap? Classic troll behaviour.

  106. > Time for everyone to go “all in” and show all their cards, no exceptions: Mann, McLeod, Santer, Michaels, Spenser, Christy, Trenberth, Curry, Hansen, etc.
    Reveal ALL the relevant docs from ALL the players…

    That’s right. Because they are the only climate scientists in the entire world.

  107. Slacko,

    Historical evidence is also part of the hockey stick. So if you throw away your hockey stick, you have to give up on your medieval warming period.

    Personally, I believe that there was a medieval warming period — but since it appears to have been confined to the lands around the north Atlantic, and maybe the west coast of norther Africa, it can’t be called an instance of “global” warming.

    This is a nit, but anyway: during the MWP, Greenland was referred to as “Vinland”. This term does not mean “vine – land”, however. In Scandinavian languages, the root “vin” means “grassy”. So Greenland may have been grassy during the MWP, but they weren’t growing grapes there. It didn’t get THAT warm.

    Still, Chaucer and company had pleasant enough weather to go to Canterbury.

  108. Jesse Fell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 1:45 am

    Historical evidence is also part of the hockey stick. So if you throw away your hockey stick, you have to give up on your medieval warming period.

    Don’t you just love these warmists….Always trying to re-write history
    Perhaps we can have a book burning on the steps of next climate meeting in Rio.

  109. Mycroft,

    I am not advocating giving up either the hockey stick or belief in a medieval warming period.

    I’m merely pointing out that both are based on the same types of evidence, and that if you reject hockey sticks because of the nature of the evidence on which they are based, you must also give up your belief in a medieval warming period. And, I repeat, I am not in favor of giving up either.

  110. Darrell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 12:35 am

    > Time for everyone to go “all in” and show all their cards, no exceptions: Mann, McLeod, Santer, Michaels, Spenser, Christy, Trenberth, Curry, Hansen, etc.
    Reveal ALL the relevant docs from ALL the players…

    That’s right. Because they are the only climate scientists in the entire world.

    Darrell, please note the use of “etc” and “ALL the players” in previous post.

  111. John B (UK)

    Nobis omnibus bono.

    Michael Mann is conducting research that is leading to better understanding of climate change, something that will be of benefit to all of us of this planet. It’s hard to imagine a better use to which stimulus money could be put.

    By the way, the article linked to wrongly asserts that the stimulus package failed to create jobs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it created almost three million jobs — a number close to predictions. This achievement has been obscured by the fact that some government economists badly underestimated the amount of economic damage that had been done by the collapse of financial markets in 2008; and the subsequently underestimated the extent to which consumers would cut back on spending, and employers on hiring. It is for this reason that unemployment did not remain at 8 per cent as they predicted, and not because the stimulus package failed to produce jobs. It did produce jobs, and now that the stimulus money has run out, we see unemployment ticking up sharply.

  112. barry says:
    September 17, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    The other ~5000 pages of material is under the Protective Order. That is what you are referring to. I am referring to the unprotected material no one seems to be interested in demanding from ATI.

    ——————

    barry,

    You can go to ATI’s website and demand it. Is there a problem with you doing that?

    It seems a straight forward path for you.

    John

  113. Jesse Fell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 8:27 am
    John B (UK)

    Michael Mann is conducting research that is leading to better understanding of climate change, something that will be of benefit to all of us of this planet. It’s hard to imagine a better use to which stimulus money could be put.

    ————-

    Jesse Fell,

    We will each independently judge whether the public money that Obama’s administration inappropriately gifted to Mann will be “leading to better understanding of climate change” or “be of benefit to all of us of this planet” or “better use to which stimulus money could be put”. Neither you nor the ‘consensus’ nor ‘settled science’ will have any authority to overrule individual judgments. Individuals will make judgments and through open, transparent and manifold discourse the pieces of science that conform to stark reality will be sifted out from the IPCC bias toward CAGW.

    If Mann’s documented behavior is consistent with his future behavior then I see wasted money on science products similar to his inept hockey stick science.

    The Obama administration’s inappropriate gift to Mann will continue to be evaluated as the evidence of corruption in climate science continues to expand.

    John

  114. barry says;
    September 17, 2011 at 11:26 pm
    Werner, I’m really not interested in rehashing old MWP arguments.>>>

    REPLY: Having jumped into the thread on that issue, and your position promptly being shot full of holes, suddenly you want to jump back out. LOL

    barry says;
    many of the warm periods on the various graphs (which conveniently pop up when you roll over them) happen at different times, some as much as 500 years apart.>>>

    REPLY: Yes barry, because when something happens on this teeny tiny planet of ours it happens instantaeously over the whole world. NOT!

    barrr says;
    However, This thread is about the UVA emails>>>

    REPLY: Yup. Fire off a misleading remark, and then change the subject. Can you hear the sound of bugles calling the retreat?

    Jesse Fell; Historical evidence is also part of the hockey stick. So if you throw away your hockey stick, you have to give up on your medieval warming period. >>>

    Reply: Total and complete bull. The “hockey stick” was first presented by Mann as a result of a computer program that sifted through the data and assigned higher weights to hockey shaped data. It was demonstrated that no matter what data it was given, it produced a hockey stick graph, and the demonstration was done for a CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. Since then Mann has produced a study based on just seven trees, with 50% of the weighting from ONE tree, and constructed a hockey stick graph from that. Mann and Jones used tree ring data to construct the hockey stick graph for IPCC AR4, but to make it into a hockey stick, they had to discard some of the data and replace it with different data.

    This isn’t an all or nothing argument. It is about the proper use of the available data. NONE of it has to be thrown out. The ONLY thing that need be thrown out is selecting the data that supports the hockey stick story and discarding the overwhelming mass of data that is more credible, more accurate, and which discredits the hockey stick story.

    Jesse Fell;
    Personally, I believe that there was a medieval warming period — but since it appears to have been confined to the lands around the north Atlantic, and maybe the west coast of norther Africa>>>

    REPLY: What, exactly, would “confine” it? Did the wind stop blowing? Ocean currents stop moving? Did convection halt? Was there a really big wall built around the area we don’t know about? Take a gander through the 110 peer reviewed papers I linked to. There are papers from Alaska, Venezuala, Bahamas….

    Jesse Fell;
    So Greenland may have been grassy during the MWP, but they weren’t growing grapes there.>>>

    REPLY: No where in this thread did anyone claim they did. Its really easy to win points in a debate when you discredit things nobody actually said. Odd that you aren’t able to so easily score points on things that people ACTUALLY said, isn’t it?

    Jesse Fell:
    I am not advocating giving up either the hockey stick or belief in a medieval warming period. I’m merely pointing out that both are based on the same types of evidence, and that if you reject hockey sticks because of the nature of the evidence on which they are based, you must also give up your belief in a medieval warming period.>>>

    REPLY: Total rubbish. The hockey stick is based on SELECTED evidence while contrary evidence which overwhelmingly discredits the hockey stick and supports the MWP has been either ignored or DELETED. You are arguing that because Jones and Mann excluded any data which disagreed with them, that ALL the data should be thrown out. The opposite is true. It should ALL be included, and it should ALL be accurately evaluated. Why are you so eager to throw it ALL out because a tiny part of it was shown to be innacurate and misleading? What have you to fear by including proper analysis of ALL the data? Hmmm?

    Jesse Fell;
    Michael Mann is conducting research that is leading to better understanding of climate change, something that will be of benefit to all of us of this planet.>>>

    REPLY: Why then, he should be eager to disclose his data and his methods, should he not? Of course if he’s wrong, and we make major economic decisions based on his work, then we’re courting disaster. Other than that, there’s no reason to double check his work, is there? Well other than the fake computer program and the study based 50% on a single tree I mean….

  115. davidmhoffer,

    Personally, I think that Michael Mann should release his emails — and endure the distortions that will be based on them. It’s the lesser of the evils that he faces.

    I would imagine, however, that he was burned by the CRU affair, and didn’t want to go through that kind of misery again.

    But, you seem to know almost everything that there is to know about what went into the making of Mann’s hockey stick. If you know all that, it must be public knowledge. If that is the case, what is there left for Michael Mann to disclose? If we don’t know what algorithms and parameters and whatnot Mann is using, however, how can you be making these detailed claims — such as, that he excluded data that he knew would not give the result he wanted?

    By the way, all the CRU data, and the computers programs used to analyze it, have been made public, and gone over and over by by many people, including some who were not friendly toward the CRU to begin with. They have found the data to be robust, and the computer program to be reasonable and free of gimmicks.

    As for grapes in Vinland — I brought that up because I thought it was interesting, even if of small importance. Sorry it annoyed you.
    .

  116. Jesse Fell,

    Science requires transparency. But thirteen years after MBH98, Mann still hasn’t released the requested data and methodologies, etc. Nature was forced to issue a Correction to MBH98 based largely on Steve McIntyre’s relentless sleuthing. It was McIntyre and McKitrick who produced solid evidence that MBH98 is nothing but junk science.

    Michael Mann must know for certain that his papers are junk science. Therefore, he fights their release. Michael Mann has been shown conclusively to be a climate charlatan. Why would you defend him? Why would anyone defend him?

  117. Smokey,

    Michael Mann has been vindicated by every investigation into this conduct and scientific methods that has been done, including one by the National Science Foundation. Penn State concluded its investigation with the following words: “An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials” has unanimously “determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”

    Edward Wegman, who was not initially well-disposed toward Mann, conducted an analysis that found Mann’s methods and results to be overall sound.

    Steve McIntyre found a mistake in Mann’s data, which Mann acknowledged, and which did not require him to turn his hockey stick into a pool cue.

    It’s worth noting that Mann’s is not the only hockey stick going. There are others, using different sets of proxy data, and variations on Mann’s methodologies. The result is always a hockey stick.

  118. Jesse Fell;
    There are others, using different sets of proxy data, and variations on Mann’s methodologies. The result is always a hockey stick.>>>

    How does “no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years ” (Phile Jones) equate to a hockey stick? You know the Phile Jones I am talking about? The one who is responsible for the very CRU data that you insist is robust?

  119. Jesse Fell;
    Edward Wegman, who was not initially well-disposed toward Mann, conducted an analysis that found Mann’s methods and results to be overall sound.>>>

    That sir, is the most absurd distortion of the Wegman report thjat I have ever encountered.

  120. Jesse Fell;
    But, you seem to know almost everything that there is to know about what went into the making of Mann’s hockey stick. If you know all that, it must be public knowledge.>>>

    Nope, I don’t, and never claimed that I did. I’ve cited that which is public knowledge. The debunking of Mann’s hockey stick computer program was done by McIntyre and McKitrick and they demonstrated the fraudulent misrepresentation of the data that the program produced to the Wegman commission. That commission’s report, which cite as supporting Mann, actually trashed him and did so with thorough justification. They allowed only that despite the completely fraudulent nature of Mann’s hockey stick program, that AGW was likely real.

    To suggest that Wegman supported Mann’s science in any way is just as fraudulent.

    To your comment however, I’m have no idea if I know “everything” or not. I know what is already public.

    ITS WHAT WE DON’T KNOW AND THAT MANN IS GOING TO EXTROARDINARY LENGTHS TO ENSURE THAT WE NEVER KNOW THAT IS OF INTEREST.

    If everything to know is already knwon, what is he fighting to keep secret? |If there is data or other evidence supportive of his cause, would he not be eager to disclose it and refute his critics once and for all?

    It is obvious that he is hiding something, something that he doesn’t want the public to know about. WE THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS AND WHY HE IS SO DESPERATE TO HIDE IT.

    Given Mann’s track record that IS in the public domain, we have every reason to demand the balance of it, despite of (in fact, in part BECAUSE of) those like you who attempt to turn the public record upside down.

  121. Jesse Fell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 6:04 am
    Mycroft,

    I am not advocating giving up either the hockey stick or belief in a medieval warming period.

    I’m merely pointing out that both are based on the same types of evidence, and that if you reject hockey sticks because of the nature of the evidence on which they are based, you must also give up your belief in a medieval warming period. And, I repeat, I am not in favor of giving up either.

    The hockey stick is a made up bastardised version of cherry picked data
    The MWP was/is fact that has been documented in detail from those times

    Take a look see here for the extent of the MWP not just a NW European event

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

  122. davidmhoffer,

    How were McIntyre and McKitrick able to debunk Mann’s hockey stick computer program if this is one of the things that Mann is hiding — and I would assume that it would be the principal thing to hide, if he were not on the up and up?

    The Wegman commission “allowed only that despite the completely fraudulent nature of Mann’s hockey stick program, that AGW was likely real.” So, if AGW is likely real, how can it matter whether Mann’s hockey stick program is fraudulent? And, in what way could the program be fraudulent, if it came to conclusions that those accusing it of fraudulent admit to be likely true?

  123. davidmhoffer,

    Here’s what Phil Jones said about warming:

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

  124. John Whitman,

    You can go to ATI’s website and demand it. Is there a problem with you doing that?

    It seems a straight forward path for you.

    I did that as soon as I read Chesser’s quote a few weeks ago. I did it a second time just recently. I also twice mentioned that I had written to ATI in this thread, before you posted. I asked the question – “Am I the only one to have done so?”

    Apparently so. No one else here seems to be interested in actually looking at the material. No one is interested in demanding ATI release the unprotected emails. How about you?

  125. Jesse Fell;
    JesseFell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    davidmhoffer,
    How were McIntyre and McKitrick able to debunk Mann’s hockey stick computer program if this is one of the things that Mann is hiding>>>

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Which part of already in the public record versus not in the public record are you having difficulty understanding? M&M demonstrated that any combination of climate data would result in Mann’s computer program drawing almost exactly the same graph, and they did so for a congressional inquiry. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT.

    Which has NOTHING to do with WHAT ELSE Mann is hiding.

  126. barry;
    No one is interested in demanding ATI release the unprotected emails. How about you?>>>>

    As several people have explained to you numerous times barry, ATI is barred by law from releasing anything. Why would I demand of them something that they are fighting to do in the first place, which is get them released? Once the judge gives them pwermission, if they don’t release them, I’ll be raising the issue, as will many others. but demand of them something they clearly can’t do without breaking the law? Nonsense.

  127. JesseFell;
    The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. >>>

    Yup. It is ALMOST significant. Which would be the same as….insignificant. BTW, his number of .12 degrees per decade?

    1. The temperature record is based on instruments that don’t even come close to measuring .1 degrees, let along .01. The error rates are several times the claimed measurement!
    2. Based on the same temperature record, the warming BEFORE CO2 started to increase by any measurable amount in 1920 was…almost exacty the same.

    So pick your poison. If you imagine that the temperature record is accurate enough to spot 1/10 of 1 degree of warming over a one decade period, then you have to explain how it is that the rate of warming before CO2 started increasing and the rate of warming after are nearly identical. Or you can suggest that the temperature record isn’t accurate and that is why you the earlier versus later temps seem to have the same slope…but then you would by definition be admitting that the temp record is useless.

  128. Jesse Fell;
    The Wegman commission “allowed only that despite the completely fraudulent nature of Mann’s hockey stick program, that AGW was likely real.” So, if AGW is likely real, how can it matter whether Mann’s hockey stick program is fraudulent? And, in what way could the program be fraudulent, if it came to conclusions that those accusing it of fraudulent admit to be likely true?>>>

    Again, are you trying to not understand, or do you REALLY just not understand?

    AGW likely being real doesn’t mean that Man’s hockey stick is accurate. If Mann’s hockey stick was real, the earth’s temp would have gone up SEVERAL:degrees in the last ten years or so since Mann first produced it. But, as per your quote of Phil Jones, we’ve gone up PERHAPS one tenth of one degree…in a decade..

    Wegman concluding that there is some merit to the AGW hypothesis says nothing about Mann’s hockey stick graph. AGW could very well be real. But the evidence clearly suggests that if it is, the magnitude is SO SMALL that it can’t even be measured accurately.

  129. “davidmhoffer says:
    September 18, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    But, as per your quote of Phil Jones, we’ve gone up PERHAPS one tenth of one degree…in a decade.. ”

    One quote was made for 15 years, but the other one for 8 years was as follows:

    “C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. ”

    But keep in mind this was made Feb. 13, 2010. Nothing has changed except we can now say that HADCRUT3 shows a drop over the last 10 years. See the bar graph for HADCRUT3 at:

    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global%20temperature%20trends

    P.S. for Jesse and Barry: About the hockey stick graph, there was a reason it was removed from the 2007 IPCC report.
    “It has now been removed from the latest 2007 IPCC report for policymakers because it has become too much of an embarrassment for the IPCC to include it.” See:

    http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm

    So why was it an embarrassment and why is anyone still defending it?

  130. JesseFell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    davidmhoffer,

    How were McIntyre and McKitrick able to debunk Mann’s hockey stick computer program if this is one of the things that Mann is hiding — and I would assume that it would be the principal thing to hide, if he were not on the up and up?

    It’s my understanding that the code for creating the MBH98 hockey stick still has not been officially released. MM found it by accident by trolling public FTP sites Mann used. The code was found in a folder entitled CENSORED. But, running the code produced exactly the output in MBH98. That was how MM found that Mann’s statistical methods were extremely odd, and outside the statistical norm.

    If you know differently, I’d love to see the evidence.

  131. Jeff,
    McIntyre found that the statistical methods used in Mann’s hockey stick were “extremely odd and outside the statistical norm”, but the National Academy of Sciences found no reason to believe that the original hockey stick was “the result of ‘programming errors’, or was ‘not reproducible’, or there was some scientific misconduct involved.” But, apparently, the word of McIntyre is “evidence”, while the word of the NAS is persiflage.

    Why all this faith in Steve McIntyre? He is not a climate scientist himself. He is diligent and has rooted out errors of detail in NASA’s data, and Mann’s — apart from that, he is remarkable only for his determination to discredit the work of trained climate scientists.

    davidmhoffer,

    You wrote: “It is ALMOST significant. Which would be the same as….insignificant.” If almost significant is really the same as insignificant, I’ll mention this to my doctor, who wants me to lose weight became I am “almost” diabetic. Maybe he’ll let me have mashed potatoes and gravy again.

    And, “BTW, his number of .12 degrees per decade?” Part of the bad news is that small changes in temperature appear to be able to trigger large changes in climate. This is borne out by the changes in solar radiation received at the high northern latitudes, in the cycle discovered by Malenkovic; the changes are in themselves small, but they correlate closely with the coming and going of ices ages.

  132. david,

    As several people have explained to you numerous times barry, ATI is barred by law from releasing anything

    Incorrect on two counts, and they’re easy to verify

    (1) Only one person made that argument (temp), not “several”.

    (2) Temp stopped replying when I showed they were wrong. ATI specifically states that the data received by Aug 22 under court order is unprotected – that was the 3800 pages they received on hard disk.

    Also, you are wrong to assert I “jumped into the thread” on the MWP issue. I first joined in to discuss the topic of the the thread. When you can’t even get simple points right, when all is you have to do to get them right is scroll and read, the pointlessness of broaching more complicated matters with you is reinforced.

    3800 pages of emails that ATI are holding when they are free to disseminate them. Only temp has the integrity to say that if that is the case then ATI should be lobbied to release them immediately. For everyone else, the apathy or hostility to that notion reveals the true measure of their interest.

    I’ve written ATI twice on this. I urge anyone sincere about public access to UVA emails to ask them to release the unprotected material immediately. This is their latest press release, and you can make your request in the comments section there.

  133. Werner,

    there are spaghetti graphs in AR4 that include the Mann 99 millennial reconstruction as well as newer work – check chapter 6 and the technical summary. There is no reason why IPCC should make the Mann 99 graph their sole and primary millennial temperature graph 5 years later in the next report (AR4) when there was newer and better work. Plenty of graphs from the TAR didn’t get reproduced in AR4. Science progresses, but some people remain stuck in 2001.

  134. Werner,

    re your link. The author there states in the first paragraph of the article:

    “This graph is the Hockey Stick Graph created by geophysicist Michael Mann. It is also called MBH98 after the three author Mann, Bradley, Hughes and from the year it was compiled 1998.

    The graph is in fact the thousand-year reconstruction from Mann et al 1999. The MBH98 reconstruction starts in 1400, not 1000AD. The author shortly thereafter describes the graph as an “embarrassment”. What delicious irony. :-)

  135. Jesse Fell says:
    September 18, 2011 at 1:45 am
    “Historical evidence is also part of the hockey stick. So if you throw away your hockey stick, you have to give up on your medieval warming period.”

    The two are not compatible, so they can’t both be kept. You got your logic backwards.

    “… but since it appears to have been confined to the lands around the north Atlantic, and maybe the west coast of norther Africa, it can’t be called an instance of “global” warming.”

    Ah, you did your studies over at Climate Brief didn’t you. Welcome to WUWT.

  136. Fell the troll: “Why all this faith in Steve McIntyre? He is not a climate scientist himself”

    Quite right. McIntyre is a REAL scientist – he isn’t a “climate scientist”. He follows the Scientific Method and makes his data, computer codes, and algorithms available for anyone, so they can replicate his work.

    The Lysenkoist frauds you cite here are in no way, shape or form, scientists. Their data and methods are secrets – as you well know. They engage in blatant scientific fraud – to YOUR approval.

    What you have demonstrated here is that YOU are not interested in facts or honest debate based on the Scientific Method. You’re a troll and have beclowned yourself with every posting.

  137. barry, jesse,
    Your barrage of nit picking tiny little details in the face of major points in typical of those who are promoting and agenda and don’t give a hoot for the actual science.

    1. Mann’s hockey stick: Read the M&M paper for yourself and the Wegner report as well. they are both public, I’ve read them both, and I’mnot going to take the time to answer every little misguided and misrepresented detail you bring up to set the record straight. you can read them for yourselves, AND SO CAN ANYONE ELSE WHO IS INTERESTED IN THE FACTS INSTEAD OF ENDLESS NITPICKING ABOUT WHICH EXACT VERSION SHOWED UP WHERE.

    2. Almost significant: Almost being diabetic means 90%+ of the way there. Almost significant tempereature change means less than 5%. Your analogy is not only wrong, it is (I suspect) deliberately misleading.

    3. Mann’s emails: If the ATI has the emails and is in a position to release them, then there would be no reason for Mann to go to court to prevent his emails from being released, would there? Now stop trying to distract the attention away from what ATI has and let’s look at what Mann is attempting to ensure that they (and nobody else for that matter) ever gets, and why.

    4. Sensitivity: This is the stake in the heart of CAGW and it is laughable that promotors of the CAGW story have the audacity to bring it up at all. If sensitivity is HIGH, as you claim, then with CO2 having risen 40% since 1920 we should have seen MAJOR climate changes. We have not. We’ve seen nit picking about which years are the higest temperature on record, but they are highest by such a small amount that they are…. insignificant. The high end of the sensisitivy range predicted by the IPCC is that we will see 4.5 degrees C temperature change for CO2 doubling. Given that this is a logarithmic function (hence the reference to the word “doubling” that translates into a temperature change since 1920 of 3.1 degrees. You can do the calculations yourself. IPCC AR4 is clear as to what the estimated range of sensitivity is, as well as the fact that it is logarithmic. So grab a calculator and do ln2*4.5 to get the number that the IPCC claims we should be seeing based on their estimate of sensitivity. Have we seen 3.1 degrees? No. We’ve seen 0.6 degrees. That’s LESS than the LOWEST sensitivity that the IPCC says we should expect.

  138. Jesse said:
    “You wrote: “It is ALMOST significant. Which would be the same as….insignificant.” If almost significant is really the same as insignificant, I’ll mention this to my doctor, who wants me to lose weight became I am “almost” diabetic. Maybe he’ll let me have mashed potatoes and gravy again.”

    Dear Jesse, “almost significant” is like “almost a goal”, you still lose.
    Come on dude, your confidence in your matter-of-fact statements is slightly out of tune with your show of intelligence. You’re brighter than you look (right now), I know it!! you can do it! Stick around, read, learn…..less big talk more listening…
    All the best,
    Wijnand

  139. It’s obvious that Jesse Fell is not up to speed on any of these subjects. No doubt he gets his incorrect, alarmist talking points from blogs like Skeptical Pseudo-Science, and then tries to peddle them here.

    Fell brags about his perfect spelling ["And, please note the correct spelling: anomalous"], yet he badly mangles Milankovitch, spelling it “Malenkovic.” He’s just parroting his talking points. There have been numerous articles here on Milankovitch cycles, and anyone who is up to speed on the subject would certainly be able to spell the name correctly – especially someone like Fell who brags about his spelling prowess. Thus, Fell is a sock puppet for the alarmist contingent, or he’s not up to speed so he’s winging it. We get fake experts like that here off and on.

    Fell claims: “Michael Mann has been vindicated by every investigation into this conduct and scientific methods…” & etc. Preposterous. Michael Mann has never been subjected to a real investigation. Never. A real investigation is adversarial, with wide latitude allowed in questioning. But Mann’s kissy-face pals have never asked him the pertinent questions, and worse yet, Mann was allowed to have a hand in which questions would be asked! I don’t really think Jesse Fell believes that Mann was ‘exonerated’ of anything; he’s just carrying water for Mann. If Fell truly believes that Mann was subjected to honest investigations in an adversarial setting and exonerated, then Jesse Fell is a credulous lunatic. He can’t be that naive, can he?

    Fell claims that “Steve McIntyre found a mistake in Mann’s data, which Mann acknowledged, and which did not require him to turn his hockey stick into a pool cue.” That is such a blinkered, twisted version of events that it is obvious Fell knows nothing about the background. Spending a half dozen hours at Climate Audit searching and reading the posts for “Mann”, “MBH98″, Mann08″, “Tiljander”, etc. would at least show Fell the basic misconduct – which much more serious than what Fell claims. McIntyre and McKittrick uncovered plenty of scientific misconduct over the past 13 years, and Michael Mann is at the center of all of it.

    Jesse Fell has been seriously debunked by others here regarding every significant claim that he has made. Amazingly, Fell still repeats the debunked Mann canard that the MWP was a local event. Mann tried to sell that horse manure in MBH98, and he was so thoroughly refuted that the IPCC can no longer use Mann’s original Hokey Stick chart. Fell lamely adds: “It’s worth noting that Mann’s is not the only hockey stick going. There are others, using different sets of proxy data, and variations on Mann’s methodologies. The result is always a hockey stick.” Wrong. Heck, it’s not even wrong; it’s a complete failure to understand what is deliberately being done to make routine charts appear alarming.

    When a mendacious zero y-axis is used in place of the gradually rising temperature uptrend from the LIA, it only looks like a hockey stick. In reality, it is a devious and improper use of a zero line on the chart. When the natural warming trend from the LIA is used, there is no hockey stick.

    Jesse Fell’s talking points have been deconstructed, one after another. He is either brainwashed by ubiquitous alarmist claptrap, or he is deliberately spreading alarmist misinformation. Based on his egregious misspelling of Milankovitch, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he gets his talking points from censoring alarmist blogs that spoon feed him alarmist BS and never let him see the truth. WUWT is the internet’s “Best Science” site because there is no censorship, and facts that withstand falsification are the only facts left standing. Alarmist blogs are afraid to allow different points of view. That should tell Jesse Fell all he needs to know about their complete lack of credibility.

  140. “Jesse Fell says:
    September 19, 2011 at 1:37 am
    And, “BTW, his number of .12 degrees per decade?” Part of the bad news is that small changes in temperature appear to be able to trigger large changes in climate.”

    I do not accept this statement to be true, but just for discussion sake, let us assume it is true. Did you know this number came up twice? Once for warming (15 years) and once for cooling (8years)?
    So in which direction will the larger changes occur?

    See:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    (P.S. Thank you David for the reply to Barry in #1.)

  141. David,

    Read the M&M paper for yourself and the Wegner report as well. they are both public, I’ve read them both

    There are two papers by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Which one did you read? I’ve read them both (and returned to them many times), as well as the Wegman report, and the lately retracted Said et al on social systems, which was based on the Wegman report. I’ve also read von Storch and Zorita, Wahl and Amman and a few other papers specifically on MBH98 and the PC issue. I’ve also read numerous blog pages on the matter at climateaudit and at realclimate, as well as a couple here. I’ve read the NSA report on the matter. Furthermore, I’ve read a score or so of papers on NH and global millennial temperature reconstructions based on various proxy sets including bore holes, sediment, coral, tree rings, stalagmites etc, as well as the purely statistical paper of McShane and Wyner. I’ve read Lamb 65, the likely origin of the IPCC 1990 millennial graph. I’ve been at this for 4 years – but as a layman. I know my limits.

    Oh yes, I’ve read MBH98 and 99. It’s surprising how few critics have. It’s why they can’t spot glaring errors – like mistaking one paper for the other. Which is most definitely not a nitpick to point out. An error like that strongly suggests that the author has not read the source material. Accuracy is a premium in science, not something to be waved away when mistakes are made. Rhetoric is the province of politics.

    This whole enterprise of suing UVA for emails has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with rummaging around personal correspondence for a political weapon, a smoking gun. If it was actually about the science, this email fiasco would be moot, because even if MBH98 and 99 were discounted, the understanding of millennial temperatures would remain the same. The preponderance of studies in the scientific literature (most, not all) indicate that the global or Northern Hemispheric temperatures of the last few decades are likely warmer than comparable multidecadal periods of the last 1200 years. If you struck ALL of Mann’s work from the literature, the scientific understanding of millennial temps would remain essentially unchanged.

    You’d need to have read the literature broadly to know that, of course. Here is a good reference page for starters. It is by no means complete.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/

    Here’s another from the same site

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/papers-on-temperature-reconstructions-from-boreholes/

    Happy reading.

  142. Smokey,

    Thank you for correcting my anomalous spelling of “Milankovitch”. You hoist me on my own pedantic petard.
    I DO read WUWT, because I want to find out what the critics of the mainstream view of AGW/Climate Change are saying. If WUWT could change my mind, I would wince about having been wrong, and then be glad that the human race has not after all gotten itself into one hell of a jam, as I believe now.
    I am also reading the following books:
    — “The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast”, an anthology of papers on scientific issues related to climate change by scientists such as Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, G.S. Callendar, Charles Keeling, Roger Revelle — as well as a few by your favorites such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. If this anthology proves nothing else, it shows that the “alarmist” view has roots in scientific discoveries going back to the early 19th century — it was not something cooked up meretriciously in the age of grantsmanship.
    — “Principles of Atmospheric Science”, by John E. Frederick, which is non-tendentious and touches on climate change only in passing. It’s the place to go if you want to learn all about the dry adiabatic lapse rate. (Great for cocktail party conversation.)
    I also like Emanuel Kerry’s “What We Know About Climate Change.” Kerry (a professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science at MIT) thinks that we’ve got ourselves into a serious jam, but he didn’t come to this conclusion quickly. He looked over the science and the various claims based on the science for several years before taking a stand. It’s worth noting the Kerry is a self-described political conservative who almost always votes Republican, has chided the environmental movement for its opposition to nuclear power, has criticized the scientific methods of the “nuclear winter” research group, and is active in an academic organization that opposes campus speech codes, affirmative action, deconstruction, and other “horrors mostly perpetrated by the left.”
    But, I will remain a faithful reader of WUWT. It’s, well, entertaining.

  143. Jesse said:
    ” If WUWT could change my mind, I would wince about having been wrong, and then be glad that the human race has not after all gotten itself into one hell of a jam, as I believe now.”

    Hi Jesse,
    If you believe that we are in a hell of a jam (I presume you think because of the risk of high temps caused by high CO2 concentration), I (sincerely!) wonder what you think of the following graph:

    (not sure if this graph will show up, so also see:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html , graph “Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time”)

    For me two notable time periods:
    – the Late Ordovician Period: an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm
    – the jurassic period: teeming with life, while CO2 concentrations were 1800 ppm.
    This tells me that CO2 is not the bad guy, never was, never will.
    I would be interested in your thoughts.
    All the best,
    Wijnand

  144. Jesse Fell says:
    September 20, 2011 at 7:01 am
    Smokey,
    I’ll read the book you suggest if you read at least one of the books I suggest. Deal?

    Before wasting your money since your mind seems to be closed, take the free way out and read the link Smokey posted. Wont cost you a cent.

  145. PhilJourdan,

    I will check out the link, if you read one of the books. Kerry Emanuel’s would be a good one — its exceptionally clear, and not much longer than a magazine article.
    Otherwise, no deal — and you are passing up a chance to save my intellectual soul.

  146. Wijnand,
    If the hockey stick is unreliable because evidence from the remote past is dicey, how can we be so sure about the amount of atmospheric C02 back when my childhood idols, Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops, were ruling the Earth? I would be interested to learn where these estimates of truly ancient CO2 concentrations come from. This is a question, not a challenge — I’m curious.

    A couple of summers ago when I was visiting family in Columbus Ohio, I had a chance to talk with Lonnie Thompson, a professor of glaciology at the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University. For the past 30 years, Thompson has been collecting ice cores from mountain glaciers in the Andes, principally Peru. He packs the cores up and ships them back to OSU for analysis under strict laboratory conditions to avoid contamination. He sections the ice cores and then analyzes the make-up of gas bubbles in each section, which he can date using standard dating techniques. His ice cores begin with layers laid down centuries ago. During that time, he has found that the amount of atmospheric CO2 has varied only slightly from decade to decade — and then started to jump up around 40 years ago. During the time that Thompson has been working in the Andes — he has clocked more hours in the high altitude “death zone” than any other human being — he has seen the Andean glaciers melt and the moss on which alpacas live dry up and disappear. He has seen several of the hydroelectric plants on which Peru relies for power cut back to 20 per cent of capacity, for lack of glacial runoff. It’s worth noting that Thompson’s interests in glaciers predates the current debate over global warming — he has been driven by curiosity about how glaciers work and what they contain from the beginning.
    When nature’s practice conforms to scientists’ theories, I start to take the theories seriously.

  147. Jesse,
    Sorry to say your reaction is kind of what I expected (but hoped wouldn’t happen): you discard the evidence that doesn’t fit your conclusion. Your only reply to the graph I provided is: “how can we be so sure about the amount of atmospheric C02 back when my childhood idols, Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops, were ruling the Earth?”
    And then on top of that you state that, if one questions Mann’s hockey stick, one has to also question all the data about the remote past? Strange reasoning, since the sources of the two (hockey stick & “my” graph) are completely different!

    I find it remarkable that you are (rightfully so) skeptic of the graph I linked to, but yet uncritically accept the work of Mann!

    The CO2 concentrations (“my” graph) come from multiple lines of evidence. See for instance this paper:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

    More dumbed down description:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    While Mann’s hockey stick is only based on a couple (literally!) of trees, coupled with VERY dodgy statistical methods. I urge you to read “The hockey stick illusion” (I have copy at home) and/or the link provided above: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    But more importantly, since Mann’s hockey stick graph and “my” graph do not contradict each other at all (!), lets assume they are both correct. Then my question still stands: 
    Why would high CO2 concentrations and/or high temps be catastrophic for life on earth, if remote history clearly shows much higher values than those deemed catastrophic by the IPPC?

  148. Wijnand,

    I am not questioning that there is evidence of some sort that in the remote past, the climate was reasonably hospitable to life when concentrations of atmospheric CO2 were high. All I am saying is that the farther back into the past you go, the dicier are the conclusions that can be drawn from proxy data then available.
    You talk about converging lines of independent evidence. We have that for recent times, too, and there are multiple constructions of the hockey stick that produce results very similar to Mann’s.
    You ask why high concentrations of CO2 would be catastrophic IF life flourished in such conditions in the remote past. We know too little about the Jurassic period etc. to understand how the atmosphere and climate interacted then; since then, we know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed, continents have drifted, and ocean currents has rearranged themselves.
    About the present, we know that changes in climate have occurred rapidly, step by step with the increase in levels of atmospheric CO2. See my posting about Lonnie Thompson above. Consider the year of Katrina — the only year that we know of when four, let along three, hurricanes of the highest intensity occurred. Consider the 2003 heat wave in Europe, or this summer’s record breaking temperatures and wildfires in Texas. Or the record breaking drought in western Australia. And next summer, book a tourist cruise through the Northwest Passage — it’s no longer a navigational tour de force. And tell Cabot and Frobisher and Hudson to eat their hearts out.

  149. Dear Jesse,
    Thanks for your response. Tomorrow I leave for France (holiday) until Sunday, so no chance to go online.
    I hope I will have some time to respond 2nite, otherwise we’ll meet again some other time.
    All the best,
    Wijnand

  150. Jesse Fell says:
    September 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    PhilJourdan,
    I will check out the link, if you read one of the books. Kerry Emanuel’s would be a good one — its exceptionally clear, and not much longer than a magazine article.
    Otherwise, no deal — and you are passing up a chance to save my intellectual soul.

    #1 – You do not know which books I have read since I have not stated such.
    #2 – I am not in the business of saving souls, I leave that to my Priest.
    #3 – Science is not about saving souls, but religion is.

  151. Wijnand,

    Bon voyage! I’ve enjoyed corresponding with you — you have challenged by thinking but never my intelligence or intellectual honesty.
    But I am, in fact, a troll. I once had my picture taking standing next to the current Miss Universe. (I worked with her mother and she was visiting Mom at the office.) I don’t advise doing this unless you feel VERY good about our appearance.

  152. The reason Mann is fighting this FOIA? He is a covert agent of the CIA’s Center on Climate Change and National Security.

Comments are closed.