Mann Fighting Release of UVA emails on Hockey stick

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.

That judge must hate his parents.

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.

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”?

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.

Important? I guess since I got an email from Mann back in the day, I should enter the case as well. Either the judge is a publicity hound, or just stupid.

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.

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.

Didn’t Sarah Palin have her office emails FOI’d a while back? Is Mann somehow more equal than Palin?

If….eventually….Mann has to capitulate…are the attachments also covered in this case?

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.

Great publicity to show that Mann is hiding more than just the decline !

Michael Mann is doing a very bad impersonation of somebody who has nothing to hide….

“Next, we need to look at Obama’s Social Security Number.”
Why? Is he hiding a hockey stick too?

Can’t we get them on Wikileaks?

Mann is not acting like a person on the right side of this issue.

Who’s paying the legal bills ? As a famous fictional detective once said – “follow the money” !

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.

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.

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.

I just want to point out that Michael Mann is ‘reading’ a picture book.

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……….

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.

@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.

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

@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.

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?

@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.

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.

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.

Roger Sowell, thanks for your commentary. It’s good to have some idea what the legal issues really are.

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

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

Notice the warmist crickets chirping on this thread…

“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.)

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

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?

@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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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?

In a maze of sticks
Jesse sticks to the story.
Crook at the ending.
==========

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’?”.

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.

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?

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?

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]

Jesse Fell: So you concede, then, that Phil Jones was right to set aside the anomalous tree ring data.
No problem, Jesse, I’ll stipulate that. The problem is that he didn’t also set aside the other 800+ years. Read again:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/

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

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.

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.

“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.

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….?

“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’).”
Barry, if you do not like that one, here is another:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

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.

> 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.

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.

Not new, but something I personally only just discovered, and which might
have some bearing on the current FOIA issues:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2010/01/us-michael-mann-received-500k-economic-stimulus-funds/
Cui Bono ?

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

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….

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🙂

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.

Jesse Fell says:
September 19, 2011 at 1:37 am
Why all this faith in Steve McIntyre? He is not a climate scientist himself.

Neither is Mann. So your point is?

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.

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:
http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
(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

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?

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