Thanks to Michael Mann’s response, a newspaper censors a letter to the editor ex post facto

UPDATES below – some confusion afoot by differing newspaper versions has been discovered. The print version appears to be online.

=================================

Letters to the editor are one of the oldest free speech venues for public opinion in the United States. They go back to the times of the revolutionary war. The Chicago Tribune aptly calls Letters to the Editor “Voice of the people“.

This morning my interest in a letter to the editor was piqued when I read at Tom Nelson’s website, this headline: Remember when it was really important to leave Michael Mann alone to concentrate on his climate hoax research? Now he’s got time to write a rant for the Vail Daily

Dr. Michael Mann’s letter to the editor, a response to a previous letter by Dr. Martin Hertzberg, at the Vail Daily is online here. Excerpts:

It’s hard to imagine anyone packing more lies and distortions into a single commentary. Mr. Hertzberg uses libelous language in characterizing the so-called “hockey stick” — work of my own published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1,000 years — as “fraudulent,” and claiming that it “it was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.”

Mr. Hertzberg then continues the smear by lying again about my work, claiming that “when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply ‘hid the decline’ by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.”

So I wanted to see what got Dr. Mann into such a tizzy, because sentences like the ones quoted in the paragraphs above are all over the Internet, especially after Climategate broke. I wanted to see the full context in Dr. Hertzberg’s letter.

So I Googled the offending phrase Dr. Mann cites, and got this result:

Imagine my shock when I discovered that the Google link goes nowhere. Dr. Hertzberg’s letter has been deleted from the newspaper.

Wow.

Dr. Hertzberg’s letter appeared on Friday, September 30th, and Dr. Mann’s letter appeared the next day, quite a turnaround:

One wonders if the address given for Dr. Mann is a typo, or a geographic misrepresentation to help get the letter published. Either way, the Vail Daily editor looks pretty darn sloppy since this appears in the last line of Dr. Mann’s letter:

Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Meterology at Penn State University and director of Penn State Earth System Science Center.

Dr. Hertzberg does in fact live near Vail, in Copper Mountain, CO. and he would presumably be served by the newspaper of record for that area, which is why the letter appeared in that newspaper. As far as we know, Dr. Mann does not live in Vail or nearby.

The policy and online form for submission and publication of Letters to the Editor at the Vail Daily is worth noting:

Letter to the Editor

Guidelines

Before you use the online form below to submit a letter or guest column to the editor, please read the guidelines below.

The decision to print any submission is completely at the discretion of the Vail Daily editor. Letters and columns must include the author’s name, hometown, affiliation (if any) and phone number (for verification of authorship only). Form letters and letters considered libelous, obscene or in bad taste will not be printed. Anonymous letters will not be printed. The Vail Daily reserves the right to edit all letters. Because of space constraints, please limit your letters to 500 words. Thank you/kudos letters are limited to 150 words and letters containing long lists of names will not be printed.

So, apparently, the letter from Dr. Hertzberg passed the newspaper’s tests for “letters considered libelous, obscene or in bad taste” and was in fact printed, but when Dr. Mann sends a rebuttal, all of the sudden Dr. Hertzberg’s letter no longer passes those tests? I suspect that maybe Dr. Mann may have offered some legalese in some form to go with that letter, and the editor caved to censorship demands rather than upholding free speech.

The Wikipedia definition for freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.

It may be possible that libel was committed by Dr. Hertzberg (whose credential Dr. Mann doesn’t even acknowledge in his rebuttal letter), but without the original letter from Dr. Hertzberg, how would any independent observer be able to judge?

And, in choosing the headline for the rebuttal: Vail Valley Voices: Global warming denier’s claims are falsehoods did the Vail Daily in turn libel Dr. Hertzberg by labeling him a “global warming denier”?

Clearly then, this is a matter best settled by the courts.

I encourage Dr. Mann to file a lawsuit, so that we can finally get complete discovery (something not done by the “independent reviews” Dr. Mann cites frequently) and find out once and for all if Dr. Mann’s work holds up when all of the data, math, methods, and correspondence are laid bare for scrutiny.

Likewise, Dr. Hertzberg may have a court case for denial of free speech, along with libel by the use of “global warming denier”.

The questions of “who libeled who?”, and “was free speech denied?”, can only be answered in a court of law.

UPDATE: As we all know from vast experience, the Internet has a memory. I’ve discovered what appears to be Dr. Hertzberg’s letter to the editor on a website called “pastebin” which you can see and read here. Dr. Hertzberg’s letter was apparently a response to a previous letter, five days earlier:

Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser’s commentary in Monday’s Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.

Since Dr. Hertzberg describes himself as a “doubter” (in the original I saw) it seems the bias of the Vail Daily editor in choosing “denier” for the headline was in fact an editorial decision.

I wonder how long the letter will exist on “pastebin”.

UPDATE#2: It appears that at the same time as I was writing this essay, the Vail Daily decided to reinstate the letter from Dr. Hertzberg. Note the out of sequence date at time for the title:

From this page: http://www.vaildaily.com/SECTION/&profile=1065

Before I made this story I did quite a bit of checking, and the removal was also noted by other websites, for example:

Rabbet Run: Ethon flew in from Colorado with news from one of the bunnies. It appears that the Vail Valley Daily had published a now defunct letter from one Dr. Martin Hertzberg, who appears to live thereabouts. The article which, as the saying goes is no longer to be found, must have been a doozy,

And I looked for it myself by searching the Vail Daily website. I could not find it. For example, it does not show up in search:

http://apps.vaildaily.com/utils/search/index.php?SearchCategory=%25&IncludeNoDateArt=1&daterange=19980101%2C20111002&crit=hertzberg

UPDATE3: The plot thickens. It appears the restored version on Vail Daily here:

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/111009984/1021&parentprofile=1065

Is missing some key sentences found in the version on pastebin here:

http://pastebin.com/L288rdZ7

The name of Dr. Mann has been scrubbed from the letter as are the sentences Dr. Mann objected to in his rebuttal letter.

There’s no mention of this edit in the restored version of the letter. It is still dated Sept 30th. Perhaps Dr. Hertzberg was told to revise it?

Now he claims he’s a “denier” where before he says doubter? Strange things going on.

UPDATE4: Larry (Hotrod) points out in comments that the original print version is still archived by the newspaper here.

UPDATE5: It appears we are witnessing the real time editing of this article in online archives. The original with the phrases Dr. Mannobjected to are disappearing from the main web page and archives and are being replaced with edited versions.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Opinion and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

196 Responses to Thanks to Michael Mann’s response, a newspaper censors a letter to the editor ex post facto

  1. Karl Maki says:

    Hertzberg’s letter is available as a link under “Related Articles” under the Mann piece: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/111009984/1021&parentprofile=1065

    REPLY: Interesting, you are correct, that links works. Perhaps it has been put back. Before I made this story I did quite a bit of checking, and the removal was also noted by other websites, for example:

    Rabbet Run: Ethon flew in from Colorado with news from one of the bunnies. It appears that the Vail Valley Daily had published a now defunct letter from one Dr. Martin Hertzberg, who appears to live thereabouts. The article which, as the saying goes is no longer to be found, must have been a doozy,

    And I looked for it myself by searching the Vail Daily website. I could not find it. For example, it does not show up in search:

    http://apps.vaildaily.com/utils/search/index.php?SearchCategory=%25&IncludeNoDateArt=1&daterange=19980101%2C20111002&crit=hertzberg

    Perhaps it has been moved, reindexed, and/or restored. Clearly though at one point it has gone missing.

    Follow up: it appears that as I was writing my essay, they put it back, note the out of sequence date:

    From this page: http://www.vaildaily.com/SECTION/&profile=1065

    – Anthony

  2. pk says:

    oooooh gremlins.
    c

  3. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    I guess the Vail Daily Blab wanted to beat the Wayback Machine.

  4. R. Shearer says:

    At least Mann acknowledges that it may have been warmer 1ooo years ago. This certainly is not supportive of the ideology he promotes.

  5. Robert Clemenzi says:

    GIYF (Google is your friend)

    the original article

  6. bikermailman says:

    Down the Memory Hole, Winston! For those who are curious where that term came from, it’s from Orwell’s 1984. What he meant if for was a warning, not a playbook!

  7. Letter still exists in their archive.

    http://vaildaily.co.newsmemory.com/
    Look for edition 9/30/2011 and pages A4-A5, and A6-A7
    You can download and print as PDF

    Larry

  8. Resourceguy says:

    There is a strange kind of cycle in scientific bias and the defense of dominant theories that purport to be beyond rational debate. WUWT needs to add a science history reference page on the defunct ether theory of physics to layout the progression of that earlier drama before Einstein added the final nail to the coffin.

  9. Jeff Id says:

    No the tree rings didn’t show a decline without the fake computer algorithm. When you take into account the equally fake infilling of 95% of the data, hacking off and replacing of the Schweingruber MXD series (hide the decline), combined with Luterbacher – trees with instrumental data pasted on, and an apparently random pre-selection process then you get a flattish line all the way through that is not distinguishable from noise.

  10. Barbara Skolaut says:

    “Imagine my shock”

    Uh-huh. ;-p

  11. Doug in Seattle says:

    Karl, the link you provide appears to be from another letter by MH.

  12. Eric says:

    Hmmm..Hertzberg’s article doesnt mention Mann at all? Is there another article or is Mann so used to refuting all criticism of his work that he reads it into everything?

  13. tom T says:

    This is not that surprising. I have had several letters to the editor published By The Stowe [Vt] Reporter. The ones on global warming were followed by editor notes that pointed readers to web sites that support the AGW claims. When I wrote to them refuting their sources they refuse to publish those letters. It was rare for them to publish editor note and I never saw them publish one under a liberal letter.

  14. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Karl Maki says:
    October 2, 2011 at 11:11 am

    The letter as archived has the Mann bits removed, when compared to the Pastebin version.

  15. Interstellar Bill says:

    Once the Con Man has been running it long enough,
    he has pretty much made himself forget it’s actually a Con,
    so well-practiced it has become over the decades.

    When presented with factual counter-arguments that expose the Con,
    he replies with exaggerated indignation and over-the-top vitriol,
    the mark of the fully Self-Deceived. (Normal people stay calm.)

    And the Marxists accuse us of False Consciousness (!),
    which by the way is nothing-but a dressed-up neologism for ‘Self-Deception’,
    something that’s been discussed by philosophers for millenia.

  16. Eric says:

    Interesting…the article linked in the 1st comment is missing the sentences regarding Mann…but the next article linked has them….

  17. Doug in Seattle says:

    Robert’s link is the same as Karl’s. That letter to the editor has no mention at of Mann. If that is the letter to the editor that Mann is referring to, then I guess Mann must be sending out form letters that just assume than anyone speaking out against the meme must be targeting him..

  18. TomRude says:

    Mann O Mann:

    “The highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate,” New York Times, June 22, 2006, among many others).”

    That’s why he links to … the New York Times, not the proceedings.

    “Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings, and more recent work by several groups shows that recent warmth is unusual over an even longer time frame.”

    The Caspar Jesus paper? LOL

  19. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Mann’s desperation knows no depths.

  20. Louis says:

    @Karl Maki, the Hertzberg letter you link to does not mention Mann’s tree-rings or have any of the quotes mentioned in this article. Did Mann misquote him? Or is it a different letter than the one in question?

  21. geronimo says:

    Mann has threatened legal action and the editor, unaware of the issues, M&M, Wegman and the climategate emails has, as the Brits would say, “bottled it” and withdrawn the article (To bottle – not have the courage to go forward).

  22. PaulH says:

    I am certainly no fan of Mr. Mann and his fellow travellers, but one has to be very careful when using terms like “fraudulent”. Fraud has a rather exact legal definition, and if you start using such terms you are bound to raise someone’s hackles.

    Having said that, I cannot find the passage that Mr. Mann complains about (“it was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program”) in Dr. Hertzberg’s letter. I wonder if Mr. Mann was replying to a different letter to the editor, one that only he can see? ;->

  23. Betapug says:

    Scott Glasser, MD. wrote on 12 September:

    “I am merely an amateur. Now imagine how the world’s climatologists and researchers observe our environment. These are the brains that determine how fast the tectonic plates move and predict the path of hurricanes. They invent the machines that NASA shoots into space to rendezvous with small objects moving at thousands of miles an hour millions of miles away, and they dig the ice cores to study what the environment was like 800,000 years ago.”……

    “Lastly this: While I truly appreciate the Vail Daily’s wonderful policy of publishing so many of our letters, I take issue with its continued policy of placing the comments of certain extremist individuals under large boldface type — headlining their often hateful, implausible statements and thereby falsely lending added credence to their rantings. It is unfair and irresponsible. The issues we face are daunting and important. Can we please level the playing field?”

    Vail Valley Voices replied:

    Dear Readers,

    We’ve received your feedback, and are evaluating the options available for a different commenting system. One thing’s sure, the old system won’t return as it was. We still have lots of ways to share your opinion, including Letters to the Editor. Thanks for bearing with us.

    Thank you!

  24. Smokey says:

    This appears to be Dr Hertzberg’s original letter to the editor:

    Vail Valley Voices: More hot air than science in global-warming theory
    Martin Hertzberg
    Vail, CO, Colorado

    “Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the handmaiden of truth” — Robert Weston.

    Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser’s commentary in Monday’s Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.

    I am a research scientist who also served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Navy. I am also a lifelong progressive Democrat.

    For the 25 years that I have been studying the theory that human emission of carbon dioxide is causing global warming and climate change, it has never ceased to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people, including our president, have been taken in by that scam.

    There is a simple way to tell the difference between scientists and propagandists. If scientists have a theory, they search diligently for data that might actually contradict their theory so that they test it rigorously or refine it. If propagandists have a theory, they carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that might contradict it.

    The anecdotal drivel cited in the Glasser article regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide, average global temperatures, ice area coverage and rate of sea-level rise was carefully cherry picked or is totally false.

    For the totality of the available data for the past several decades, go to http://www.climate4you.com. The data show nothing remarkable — just the normal variability in all those weather-related parameters.

    Knowledgeable scientists, including the more than 30,000 such as myself who have signed the Oregon Petition, know that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not correlate with human emission of carbon dioxide, that human emission is a trivial fraction of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, that the oceans contain about 50 times more dissolved carbon dioxide than is present in the atmosphere, that recycling of carbon dioxide from the tropical oceans where it is emitted to the arctic oceans where it is absorbed is orders of magnitude more significant than human emissions, and that the carbonate-bicarbonate buffer in the oceans makes their acidity (actually their alkaline pH) virtually insensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    The data for the glacial coolings and interglacial warmings for the past 500,000 years always show that temperature changes precede atmospheric carbon-dioxide changes by about 1,000 years. That indicates that temperature changes are driving carbon-dioxide changes and not the reverse as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC clique claims. As oceans warm for whatever reason, they emit carbon dioxide, and as they cool they absorb carbon dioxide.

    The carbon-dioxide “greenhouse effect” argument on which the fearmongering hysteria is based is actually devoid of physical reality. The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For details, see “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,” co-authored by myself and several other scientists, which was published earlier this year by Stairway Press.

    In any case, if one compares the effect of water in all of its forms (polar ice, snow cover, oceans, clouds, water vapor in the atmosphere) with that of human emission of carbon dioxide, the carbon-dioxide emission is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane.

    Glasser, who calls me a fool, really tips his hand by defending the notoriously fraudulent “hockey stick” curve of Professor Mann. That curve has the shape of a hockey stick, flat for the past 1,000 years with a sharp rise during the past few decades. It was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.

    Every knowledgeable climatologist knows that tree rings are unreliable proxies for temperature because they are also sensitive to moisture, sunlight, pests, competition from adjacent trees, etc. Furthermore, when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply “hid the decline” by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.

    Knowledgeable climatologists knew that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled Greenland and grapes grew in northern England, was much warmer than today and that its presence in all regions of the world was overwhelming. Similarly for the Roman Warm Period that preceded it and for a whole series of natural warmings and coolings until one gets back to the big one: the interglacial cooling of about 20,000 years ago.

    And that all happened without any significant human emission of carbon dioxide.

    The conclusions being promulgated by the scientifically illiterate diplomats who control the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are fraudulent concoctions that have already been denounced by many of its scientific members.

    Those diplomats, like the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency, have huge egos and a lust for power. That is far more important to them than the triviality of scientific truth. Once committed to one side of such an issue,

    they will rarely admit that they have made a mistake. Once having invested their political capital and our economic resources to start the huge, massive inertia wheel turning, it takes too much courage, energy and loss of face to stop it.

    That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The conclusions of the IPCC need to be repudiated lest they continue to discredit the United Nations’ legitimate functions: its programs to improve the standard of living of the underdeveloped nations, its programs to combat hunger and poverty, its support of the conventions against genocide and torture, and its support of the International Criminal Court’s prosecution of war criminals.

    Dr. Martin Hertzberg writes from Copper Mountain.

    REPLY: This doesn’t match the one on pastebin, this appears to be a revised version – Anthony

  25. The following is in the letter in the archives and I believe is the segment Mann is complaining about:

    Glasser, who calls me a fool, really tips
    his hand by defending the notoriously
    fraudulent “hockey stick” curve of Professor
    Mann. That curve has the shape
    of a hockey stick, flat for the past 1,000
    years with a sharp rise during the past
    few decades. It was fabricated from
    carefully selected tree-ring measurements
    with a phony computer program.
    Every knowledgeable climatologist
    knows that tree rings are unreliable proxies for temperature
    because they are also sensitive to moisture,
    sunlight, pests, competition from adjacent
    trees, etc. Furthermore, when those same tree-ring
    data actually showed a decline in temperature for
    the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors
    simply “hid the decline” by grafting direct measurements
    (inadequately corrected for the urban heat
    island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.

    The letter by Hertzberg is responding to a previous letter by Glasser which included comments about Mann’s research.
    Larry

  26. Mike says:

    Here is a link to the letter Martin Hertzberg was replying to.

    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110926/EDITS/110929906
    Fools deny global warming
    Scott Glasser
    Vail, CO, Colorado

    Glasser’s letter is quite good and at no point does he call anyone a fool. My guess the copy editor chose that title for Glasser’s letter. If so the editor of the Vail Daily deserves to be rebuked for this. I think this is what inflamed Hertzberg and possibly caused him to cross the. In stating that Mann used fabricated data rather than stating he disagreed with Mann’s interpretation of the data, Hertzberg made a libellous statement. One no to my knowledge has claimed the tree ring data was fake.

    REPLY: It is standard practice for editors to choose titles and headlines. Sometimes they are taken from the story/letter context, sometimes not – Anthony

  27. pokerguy says:

    All well and good. And certainly pathetic they’d remove the letter. But before making him some sort of poster child for rationality and healthy skepticism, consider this from his letter:

    “The carbon-dioxide “greenhouse effect” argument on which the fearmongering hysteria is based is actually devoid of physical reality. The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For details, see “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,” co-authored by myself and several other scientists, which was published earlier this year by Stairway Press.”

    This really does strike me as a form of denial.

  28. crosspatch says:

    This is not uncommon. Newspapers have been editing / deleting content for years since they have gone to more online content. I have been complaining about this for years. Historians in the future will not be able to trust archives from this period because they can be changed / added / deleted at any time.

    But if you really think about it, practices like this started with Benjamin Franklin who fabricated “letters” to the editor, engaged in slanting the perception of opinion by printing real letters having the desired position and not printing letters having a the opposite position or only printing those letters most extreme to make that position unsavory to most average folks.

    Manipulation of the media is an old American tradition. The problem comes because many expect the press to be “fair” or “objective”. That has never been the case. A paper pushes the political agenda of its publisher. The difference is that in the past we had more newspapers, and so more positions, from which to choose. These days most towns are one-paper towns.

  29. bikermailman says:

    Pastebin is showing ‘denier’ now. Methinks there may be something rotten in the state of Colorado!

  30. Joseph says:

    Dr. Mann should demand a debate with his detractors. He should challenge the “deniers” to get on a stage with him in front of TV cameras and look at all the data! Why would he not want to do so?

  31. John M says:

    Gosh, and I thought I was being facetious when I wrote this in response to “Dr. Mark Harrigan (physicist)”

    Next step, we ban all Letters to the Editor in all newspapers. Wait, better yet, we let the likes of “Dr Mark Harrigan (phsyicist)” peer review all letters first to determine if the submitter is entitled to use the word “science”.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/30/congratulations-to-alan-carlin-on-vindication/#comment-757216

    These guys move fast!

  32. Kev-in-Uk says:

    confused? I am!
    can anyone contact this Martin Hertzberg and get HIS version?

  33. pesadia says:

    “Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings, and more recent work by several groups shows that recent warmth is unusual over an even longer time frame”
    This is from MMs letter.
    This is news to me, can anyone confirm that there is any truth in this statement.
    Brilliant letter by Dr Hertzberg, I especilly liked his “hurricane” simile .

  34. JJ says:

    Points to the importance of maintaining verifyable, untouchable archives of all of the claims and predictions of the ‘consensus’. In the age of near totality digital media, history can be changed to fit the needs of the present.

  35. P Walker says:

    Apparently Dr, Hertzberg is an outspoken skeptic and has quarreled with the likes of Monbiot and the RC boys over the last few years . Here’s a link to some of his work :
    http://650list.blogspot.com/2009/02/dr-martin-hertzberg.html
    Keep after them , Doc .

  36. Caleb says:

    Mann is just crabby because there was a forecast for the earliest measurable fall of snow ever, in the hills of PA. (It happened, according to Bastardi’s early reports.) He’s probably afraid to look out the window up at the hills.

    Start of Psalm 121:

    “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills:
    From whence cometh mine help.
    My help cometh even from the Lord:
    Who hath made heaven and earth.
    He will not suffer thy foot to be moved:
    And he that keepeth thee will not sleep.
    Behold, he that keepeth Israel:
    Shall neither slumber nor sleep.
    The Lord himself is thy keeper:
    The Lord is thy defence upon thy right hand;
    So that the sun shall not burn thee by day…”

    I’ll bet Mann just hates that psalm.

  37. kim;) says:

    “That is, once again, a string of lies tied together. This statement falsely equates my work, which was not based on tree rings but rather a diverse network of different types of “proxy” climate data, with tree-ring work by an entirely different scientist, Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia.”

    And Mr Briffa’s data is where?

  38. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    If there was intent by someone at the Vail newspaper to bury this, well, Anthony, you certainly ensured that this got international coverage! Excellent job, you can always toss “assignments” to your readers to do the web searching.

    “Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the handmaiden of truth” — Robert Weston

    Indeed!!

  39. DirkH says:

    From Dr. Hertzberg’s letter:
    “Knowledgeable climatologists knew that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled Greenland and grapes grew in northern England, was much warmer than today and that its presence in all regions of the world was overwhelming.”

    There’s a new paper about a peat bog temperature reconstruction out that confirms this.
    http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/02/german-peat-bog-temperature-reconstruction-shows-strong-central-european-variations/

  40. A Bear says:

    I don’t think the free speech argument works in this case. The US Constitution is pretty clear when it comes to free speech. “Congress shall make no law…” Freedom of speech basically only applies in a public area. The government and the police can’t prevent you from speaking your mind in a public place. However, a private corporation like this newspaper can do what they did. They are perfectly within their rights.

    Now if Congress would pass a law against Dr Hertzberg writing his letter, or the authorities would prosecute him for it, that would be a violation of free speech. In a private environment this doesn’t apply.

    I remember, a few years back, there was an actual lawsuit over this and the ruling was as I just stated. The same applies to every single forum, chat, message board, etc online. There is no freedom of speech as guaranted by the Constitution, simply because these places are private and not under governmental control.

    Is what the paper did outrageous? Absolutely. But it doesn’t violate free speech. If Dr Hertzberg would post it in his own newspaper, no problems, but he doesn’t own this one. They can do whatever they want. That’s how it is.

  41. Martin Brumby says:

    Smokey says: October 2, 2011 at 11:42 am
    “This appears to be Dr Hertzberg’s original letter to the editor…….”

    Seems quite mild and rather diplomatic to me.

    Hertzberg comes across as knowledgable, honest and rational.

    I’d like to hear what he REALLY thinks of the egregious Meltdown Mann…..

  42. Smokey says:

    pesadia,

    That really is an absurd claim by Michael Mann. In fact, Nature was forced to issue a Correction to MBH98. And the “recent warmth” is well within the parameters of the Holocene. Nothing unusual is occurring. The less than one degree temperature change over the past century and a half is routine and ordinary.

    There have been large temperature fluctuations in the past, when CO2 remained under 300 ppm – some as large as 15°C. The current global temperature is extremely benign. As usual, Michael Mann deliberately misrepresents the situation, and he continues to do so.

  43. P Walker says:

    I’d like to know how Mann finds these things . Does he have his own version of Attack Watch ? BTW , WUWT got a big heads up at American Thinker today .

  44. kim says:

    School for Journalists.
    ==========

  45. LevelGaze says:

    @Pokerguy
    “This really does strike me as a form of denial.”
    You think so? You should read Postma and Nahle, among others.

  46. Mike says:

    @ Mike, October 2, 2011 at 11:44 am

    “REPLY: It is standard practice for editors to choose titles and headlines. Sometimes they are taken from the story/letter context, sometimes not – Anthony”

    True. But it is wrong to chose an offensive headline for letter that does not engage in name calling. Hertzber specifically said Glasser called him a “fool”. Hertzber, like many other people, does not realize what you say – though you ‘d think he would since he writes letter to the editor. I think the editor should be rebuked for choosing such an offensive headline.

  47. John M says:

    kim;) says:
    October 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm
    (Quoting Mann)

    “That is, once again, a string of lies tied together. This statement falsely equates my work, which was not based on tree rings but rather a diverse network of different types of “proxy” climate data, with tree-ring work by an entirely different scientist, Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia.”

    Who ever accused Keith Briffa and Michael Mann of being the same scientist? Or of even being a slightly different scientist?

    Also, why is Mann’s address given as Vale CO? Is that how he spent some of those stimulus funds he received?

  48. Anthony Watts says:

    Weird stuff going on. Online versions are appearing differently now. The pastebin version which originally said “doubter” now says “denier”. The sentences Dr. Mann objected to have disappeared.

    The online print version seems to have suffered the same fate.

  49. Kev-in-Uk says:

    anyone done any screen captures of ‘originals’?

  50. Baa Humbug says:

    Seems to me they are really worried about the Slaying the Sky Dragon team

  51. Eric says:

    Anthony

    You should try a contact Dr Hertzberg and see if he will supply you a copy of the actual letter he sent…

  52. Ian W says:


    TheFreeDictionary
    fraud
    1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
    2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
    3.
    a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
    b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

    I think that sums it up rather well.

  53. pokerguy says:

    “Dr. Mann should demand a debate with his detractors. He should challenge the “deniers” to get on a stage with him in front of TV cameras and look at all the data! Why would he not want to do so?”

    Take one wild guess.

  54. Mann seems to be a bit angry.
    I never read the daily vale, or even the Sunday vale

    maybe I should

  55. JohnWho says:

    It is Vail, Colorado, Anthony –

    by all accounts Vail is a suburb of Hollywood, California.

    Not a good place to look for logic, sanity, and common sense.

  56. I just want to thank everyone for keep figting and investigating matters like these. It is appreciated beyond words, thankyou.

    K.R. Frank

  57. pokerguy says:

    @Pokerguy
    “This really does strike me as a form of denial.”
    You think so? You should read Postma and Nahle, among others.

    I’m no physicist. I’m not even very bright. But if this really violated the “2nd law of thermodynamics” the whole ridiculous AGW hypothesis would have been discredited long ago. Use your common sense.

  58. R. de Haan says:

    Anthony, why don’t you ask Mr. Hertzberg for a copy of the original letter he send to the newspaper and his permission to publish it at WUWT.
    That would teach them.

  59. Bill H says:

    kind of reminds you of the EAU/CRU data debacle… now you see it now you dont..

    and then again maybe you do but we wont share how we got it…

  60. Laurie says:

    I left this comment at RealClimate and it’s being held up for moderation. A comment made 4 minutes after mine has cleared already. I’m sure they want to make some kind of reply before releasing my comment (if they do at all).

    Laurie says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    2 Oct 2011 at 2:07 PM
    Regardless of the issues disputed at the Vail Daily Letters to the Editor, Dr. Mann should acknowledge the credentials of his opponent. Failing to do so is unprofessional. He is not “Mr. Hertzberg”.

    Dr Hertzberg has a Ph D in Physical Chemistry from Stanford, earned his B A degree, cum laude, from the Heights Campus of New York University, and was trained as a meteorologist at the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School.

    28WebHubTelescope says:
    2 Oct 2011 at 2:11 PM

  61. pokerguy says:

    I should say “officially” discredited (whatever that means exactly). It’s been discredited enough for me for a long time now…

  62. Bill H says:

    pokerguy says:
    October 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    “Dr. Mann should demand a debate with his detractors. He should challenge the “deniers” to get on a stage with him in front of TV cameras and look at all the data! Why would he not want to do so?”

    Take one wild guess.
    _______________________________________________

    Lets do it court room style.. each is submitted as evidence and then both are given a chance to rebut or support their findings… but strict rules of evidence are kept…

  63. Phil Clarke says:

    The greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics? LOL!

  64. Al Gored says:

    Obviously the editor is an AGW dupe and that newspaper has no credibility.

    Every time these stooges do things like this they just make things worse for their cause.

  65. Bill H says:

    looks like there is a huge amount of creative journalism going on… there are about 9 different versions of the letter now… we really need to get a hold of the good doctor and have him supply us with the original..

    its like there trying to discredit a denier of AGW..

  66. Laurie says:

    It appears my comment at RealClimate has been tossed into the dumpster as it is neither posted or in moderation.

  67. Bill H says:

    Laurie says:
    October 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    It appears my comment at RealClimate has been tossed into the dumpster as it is neither posted or in moderation.
    ———————————————————————————-

    POSTING THE DOCTORS RESUME WAS NOT IN THEIR PROPAGANDA INTERESTS. cant have someone with excellent credentials disagreeing with them..

  68. Curiousgeorge says:

    I’m getting a little weary of the interminable food fights between various individuals on opposing sides of this. I wish formal dueling was still legal. It would settle the issue, and would be far more entertaining than current practices if it were live streamed on the net.

  69. Richard says:

    Michael Mann it is you who are the [snip ]

    From Dr Martin Hertzberg’s article:

    “There is a simple way to tell the difference between scientists and propagandists. If scientists have a theory, they search diligently for data that might actually contradict their theory so that they test it rigorously or refine it. If propagandists have a theory, they carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that might contradict it”

  70. Bill H says:

    better yet is to have Mann and Hertzberg duel it out here in a moderated forum… (evil grin)

    chances of that are less than Zero however…

  71. Aaron Schnelle says:

    Winston Smith over at the Ministry of Truth is hard at work. As usual.

  72. Wil says:

    Great stuff, Anthony. In any case however, the actual version is relatively unimportant – what is important is Mann’s reaction to an out of the way letter few have ever read nor would have ever known about but for Mann. Thanks Mann!

    At the same time we may not like this guy – BUT – he’s managed to turn himself into a virtual industry affecting the lives of countless millions worldwide, perhaps most responsible for trillions of dollars spent on AGW project, and affected almost all government budgets plus the UN from an office most of us have never seen. That’s naked power in its purest form. No one on this side can even imagine this kinda clout. And all at the same time removing science from the equation, frightening scientists worldwide into helpless bystanders and forcing them to play ball or perish. Until science itself turned inward onto itself and is in the process of destroying itself. That’s Power folks! Pure, naked, power no human, not even the might of the Catholic church itself could match this guy.

    You may not like this description and I don’t blame you all, I don’t like it myself. But this is the hard, cold facts as they are here in real life. Mann is no old dude – he merely has to sneeze and we all know. Or write a letter in a newspaper few of us even know existed. See how that newspaper folded? That’s exactly what I mean – 70 odd years old and past the age of retirement and the dude’s still there. Get arrested time after time and still keeps his job. Acts as a public advocate and NO government official has the gonads to fire the guy. What more do you want to prove his power?

  73. Eric Anderson says:

    Pretty astounding. I didn’t find anything in Dr. Hertzberg’s letter that was libel. Truth is a defense.

  74. Phil Dunn says:

    http://pastebin.com/L288rdZ7

    for Dr. Hertzberg’s letter.

  75. SBVOR says:

    1) I wonder why Comrade Mann has not yet gone after Berkeley physics professor Richard A. Muller:
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/03/berkeley-physics-professor-destroys.html

    2) One would think Comrade Mann would be happy to shut up and silently rake in the millions of dollars he got in Obama’s so-called “Stimulus” payola:
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2010/01/541184-in-obama-stimulus-to-climategate.html

    3) In my opinion, [snip and that opinion is over the top per site policy] – Anthony]

  76. Laurie says:

    Clipe:
    Yes, he is a co-author of that book.
    Bill H:
    The AGW scientists complain that they can’t get their message out to people and that evil, big oil funded non-scientists muddy the water. They have what we used to call a “credibility gap”. He might take a tip that to ignore Dr. Hertzberg’s credentials, IMO, make him appear to be arrogant, unprofessional, not very forthcoming and childish. That kind of unprofessional behavior is likely the start of further inquiry for many new skeptics. He can be a big boy and avoid that kind of backlash if he can put his own ego in the background. Dr. Mann would expect to have his credentials acknowledged and he should do the same.

  77. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Hertzberg’s letter included “That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    If he had only left that out…

  78. blahdeblah says:

    I dont think it’s been said yet and i cant resist it.
    “The Daily Veil”

  79. ferd berple says:

    An article reportedly by Dr Hertzberg
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf

    An interesting point the Dr makes. Human CO2 production fell dramatically during the Great Depression, yet this was not reflected in the atmospheric records. How is that possible if the theory that increase must be due to humans is true? Quite simply it is not physically possible. Therefore the CO2 assumptions underlying AGW cannot be true.

  80. Steve from Rockwood says:

    @Eric Anderson. I believe the reference to Mann’s temperature reconstruction as “fabricated” and “fraudulent” and his software as a “phony computer algorithm” are the offending pieces. He goes beyond the possibility that Mann is just wrong or incompetent and implies Mann misled on purpose.
    I know what you’re thinking so don’t make me come over there and agree with you ;)
    Too bad Anthony Watts didn’t specialize in investment fraud. Bernie Madoff would never have made it out of the mail room.

  81. Jerry Haney says:

    I wonder what Dr. Hertzberg would think of the recent artilce in National Geographic Magazine (October 2011) that claims Carbon Dioxide increases before temperature increases.

    Dr. Hertzberg says in his letter : “The data for the glacial coolings and interglacial warmings for the past 500,000 years always show that temperature changes precede atmospheric carbon-dioxide changes by about 1,000 years. That indicates that temperature changes are driving carbon-dioxide changes and not the reverse as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC clique claims. As oceans warm for whatever reason, they emit carbon dioxide, and as they cool they absorb carbon dioxide.”

    But, a recent article in National Geographic (Oct 2011), “World Without Ice” by Robert Kunzig, clearly claims the opposite, that CO2 rises, then the temperature rises. I am really disappointed that a magazine with such wide distribution would print that article without acknowledging the science that refutes such a claim.

  82. hro001 says:

    The intro of Mann’s “letter” had a rather familiar whine to it. Consider the following example:

    In a piece published in your paper on July 9 you allowed an individual named Dave Irons to do a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues.

    Source: http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/hockey-stick-creator-rebuts-critic_2010-07-12.html

    If he keeps this up (as he seems to be doing) he may well earn himself a reputation as the David <I see you, I sue you> Irving of “climate science”.

  83. Laurie says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    October 2, 2011 at 1:29 pm
    Hertzberg’s letter included “That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    If he had only left that out…

    Steve, why should he leave that out? I’m glad he included it. AGW proponents have characterized the “deniers” as ultra conservative flat earthers who don’t believe tobacco is harmful to our health. While you (and I, for that matter) disagree with some of his other views, I’m glad he makes it clear that the AGWer’s characterization is inaccurate by pointing out his own political mindset.

  84. ben says:

    I imagine what has happened is: Mann threatened defamation suit. Cash strapped newspaper has no appetite for a fight and pulls story. Reposts sans potentially libelous material. Problem goes away.

    Whether the letter was defamatory or not, it would cost a fortune to defend and it is easy to see why the response is to pull it, regardless of the merits of Mann’s case.

  85. ferd berple says:

    From Dr Hertzberg’s letter
    The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    If AGW is correct, then we don’t need solar panels or wind farms. The very large down welling IR is all the power we need. Since glass reflects IR, then if AGW is correct, the IR from the atmosphere can be focused with glass mirrors and used to generate almost unlimited green energy, because according to climate science this IR exceeds the energy received from the sun.

    So why is Mann, Gore and the IPCC not leading the charge to generate clean energy from all this IR energy?

  86. Peter Miller says:

    Well, is there anyone out there who believes:

    1. Michael Mann is not a fraud,
    2. Mann’s actions in refusing to freely share his data and methodology are those of a completely innocent man,
    3. Mann’s publications rely on peer review, not pal review.
    4. Only the truly innocent threaten to sue those who disagree with them,
    5. Mannian mathematics is a brilliant new form of statistical analysis.

  87. ben says:

    It would be fun to see Mann sue and have his deception tested before a court.

  88. LazyTeenager says:

    Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser’s commentary in Monday’s Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.
    ———
    This appears to be a quote in which Hertzberg describes himself as a “denier”. Where is the evidence that these are not his words?

  89. SBVOR says:

    @Jerry Haney,

    IMO, the National Geographic of today is nothing but a Leftist propaganda rag — especially on the topic of AGW. They lost all credibility with me a very long time ago.

    If you’re interested, the following post directly cites and directly links to the peer reviewed science which refutes the factually incorrect claim that temperatures historically lagged CO2:
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-co2-primary-driver-of-climate-change.html

    If there is ANY published science supporting the assertion that temperatures have historically lagged CO2, I have never seen it. Even the most prominent alarmists sites admit that CO2 has historically lagged temperature.

  90. Septic Matthew says:

    Hetzberg’s original rant was more damaging to Herzberg than to Mann.

  91. Eric says:

    @LazyTeen

    Yes, you are lazy….if you read the actual post he actually called himself a “doubter” in the original letter that Anthony found…that was soon edited to be “denier”…

  92. So the paper allowed Dr. Hertzberg’s letter that (supposedly) was libelous, allowed Dr. Mann to refute this supposedly libelous letter, deleted and reinstated Dr. Hertzberg’s (with changes to remove the supposedly libelous portions), yet allowed Dr. Mann’s full letter to remain unchanged.

    Dr Mann states that Dr. Hertzberg lied in his letter, yet now that (reposted) letter doesn’t make any statement that called Dr. Mann a liar.

    Seems to me that the Daily Vail should also “edit” Dr. Mann’s letter, too.

  93. The AGW’ers have done their best to subvert the scientific process, the government’s freedom on information laws, and the peer review process. Why should they stop at freedom of speech?

    Manics are manics. They will stoop to anything because to them, their fear out weighs everyone elses’ fear. They are fear filled individuals beyond reason. Logic always loses out with these types because their fear makes them irrational.

    To them, everything is an “evil spirit”.

  94. pat says:

    Ever notice how Mann always defends his “research” (it is usually data gathered by others) by assaults on those that think his conclusions are simply wrong? Personal attacks, threats of law suits, dissemination of personal information, academic retribution, publication embargoes, censorship.
    Never science.

  95. LazyTeenager says:

    And, in choosing the headline for the rebuttal: Vail Valley Voices: Global warming denier’s claims are falsehoods did the Vail Daily in turn libel Dr. Hertzberg by labeling him a “global warming denier”?

    Clearly then, this is a matter best settled by the courts.
    ———–
    If Hertzberg made claims that were easily verified by the newspaper to be not factual then I don’t see why a court case is required.

    I dont need a court case and a judges verdict to tell me that robbing my local bank is wrong or that the sky is blue or whatever.

    And since the daily vail would be at the wrong end of a court case on the same side as hertzberg in determining matters of fact it is their choice.

    The consequences of the logic that the daily vail is required by the US constitution to publish anything are also be interesting. Anthony would immediately become a law breaker for inserting snips into the comments. So obviously the logic is flawed.

  96. Lars P says:

    Jerry Haney says:
    October 2, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    “But, a recent article in National Geographic (Oct 2011), “World Without Ice” by Robert Kunzig, clearly claims the opposite, that CO2 rises, then the temperature rises.”
    What Dr. Herzberg says is supported by the real data from real world – any ice core shows a delay with CO2 lagging behind temperature. The Vostok ice core show a delay of 800-1000 years for CO2.

  97. ferd berple says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    October 2, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    He goes beyond the possibility that Mann is just wrong or incompetent and implies Mann misled on purpose.

    All experiments are subject to experimenter bias, which is why controls and double blind techniques are required. What is missing in Climate Science is Peer Review of experimental design. If anything, Climate Science appears to ignore experimental controls and Peer Review ignores the problem.

    Mann doesn’t need to mislead on purpose. Unless the experiments are themselves correctly designed, they will be corrupted by the unconscious bias of the experimenter, and the experimenter will be totally unaware of what has happened.

  98. ferd berple says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    October 2, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    If Hertzberg made claims that were easily verified by the newspaper to be not factual then I don’t see why a court case is required.

    To verify the facts you first must have the facts. You may have not noticed but Mann is reportedly fighting to prevent his records from being released.

  99. John Whitman says:

    The Vail Daily, in this instance of revisionist activity on Dr. Martin Hertzberg’s editorial, apparently paid close attention to the special revisionist techniques shown by Skeptical Science’s recent revisionist activities (extensively discussed previously at WUWT). Can Revisionist ideas be learned by a newspaper from a censorious and manipulative blog? : )

    Was the Vail Daily, with its revisionist actions on the editorial of Dr. Martin Hertzberg, actions equivalent to book burning a la ‘Fahrenheit 451’?

    John

  100. Hugh Pepper says:

    I guess it’s very difficult , after demonizing Dr Mann for so long, to understand why he could be upset by the Dr. Hertzbergs inaccurate characterizations and inflammatory language.

  101. Doug Proctor says:

    Mann has adopted the righteous rage of the 19th century, when scientists would say about anything to maintain their privilege of being right. But back then they had balls of iron (not steel yet) and could take as well as receive. MM has a lifelong career of reestablishing his reputation and savaging his critics. It is an appropriate close to a less-than-illustrious debut.

  102. SBVOR says:

    Anthony,

    The Veil Daily [sic] has — in cowardly fashion — republished a heavily redacted version of the original letter. The following paragraph (which Comrade Mann whined about) has been entirely deleted:

    “Glasser, who calls me a fool, really tips his hand by defending the notoriously fraudulent “hockey stick” curve of Professor Mann. That curve has the shape of a hockey stick, flat for the past 1,000 years with a sharp rise during the past few decades. It was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.”

    The next paragraph was also altered. There may be more. That’s just what immediately jumped out at me.

    Compare the two versions of the letter:
    http://pastebin.com/L288rdZ7
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/111009984/1021

  103. kwik says:

    SBVOR says:
    October 2, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    This link here;
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-co2-primary-driver-of-climate-change.html

    I have read that Fisher et.al. paper. Hertzberg is correct. Fisher et.al. says CO2 lags temperature.
    Which, as far as I could see, Al Gore didnt show in his movie, The Inconvenient truth.

    Very inconvenient, indeed. The curves in Al Gore’s The inconvenient Truth are shown in the movie as proof of “Be afraid”. Be very afraid. For children in schools.

    But we cannot see the lag…..

    And if this introduce some sceptisism, you are a “denier”. Denier of what? Lag?

  104. SBVOR says:

    @kwik,

    Yes, and…
    Fisher, et.al. is just one of four papers I directly cited and directly linked to. As I said, I have never yet found any published science suggesting that temperature historically lagged CO2.

  105. John Whitman says:

    Doug Proctor says:
    October 2, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    [ . . . ] MM has a lifelong career of reestablishing his reputation and savaging his critics. It is an appropriate close to a less-than-illustrious debut. [emphasis by JW]

    —————-

    Doug Proctor,

    Nice.

    John

  106. pokerguy says:

    “The greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics? LOL!”

    Both sides are not without their embarrassments…

  107. Jim Patrick says:

    PaulH said: I am certainly no fan of Mr. Mann and his fellow travelers, but one has to be very careful when using terms like “fraudulent”. Fraud has a rather exact legal definition, …

    Legal fraud has an exact definition; fraud does not. Whether hackles are raised is immaterial. If Mann truly thinks the term is libel he can sue this book’s publishers and authors —including Hertzberg— who claim “willful fakery and outright incompetence” or “crooked climate scientists fake climate temperature numbers”, in addition to “fraud” and “fraudulent”.

    There is a good reason Mann has not and will not sue; Mann has deceived and misrepresented, commonly called fraud. In addition, Hertzberg is a seasoned, experienced, expert witness and no stranger to the courts; Mann would be a fool to actually initiate legal action versus scaring editors with the prospect of it.

    A Bear said: “I don’t think the free speech argument works in this case.”

    Sure it does. If the newspaper was a private forum like a church basement, that speech —perhaps opposing the church’s core beliefs— can be suppressed or denied. Speech in private forums is only as ‘free’ as the owners allow. Conversely only the governments of the US are legally and constitutionally prohibited from censoring speech.

    But even though it is privately owned, the newspaper offers a public forum and has targeted Hertzberg’s letter for censorship. What the paper did is not illegal or unconstitutional, but it is clearly censoring Hertzberg’s free speech.

  108. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Laurie says:
    October 2, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    ==========================
    Because Laurie, referencing Afghanistan and Iraq when addressing global warming makes Hertzberg sound like a whiner rather than an expert (Phd in science, meteorologist etc). What does he know about the war in Iraq? It’s almost a subject version of an ad hominem attack. The science of global warming is fraudulent, just like the American invasion of Iraq. Hertzberg labeling himself as a democrat means nothing either. What would you say if he presented factual information on global warming and then went on to suggest that the health risks of tobacco smoke were over-stated as well?
    In his 2008 “The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide” Hertzberg does a much better job. The link was already provided in this thread.
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf

  109. Laurie says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    October 2, 2011 at 2:25 pm
    I guess it’s very difficult , after demonizing Dr Mann for so long, to understand why he could be upset by the Dr. Hertzbergs inaccurate characterizations and inflammatory language.

    We should stop picking on Dr. Mann. We should stop pointing out things he says and twisting them to mean something else, even if any other meaning is difficult to support. Dr. Mann is one of the few “real climate scientists” and we should accept what his studies show instead of asking about his data and methods. Any scientist not recognized by Dr. Mann as a “real climate scientist” should know his/her place and never consider alternative views and certainly not in public. Anyone, scientist or not, who thinks Dr. Mann has published some “golly whoppers” and lists reasons for believing they are, in fact, untruths, should be threatened with lawsuits, although those lawsuits will never materialize. All criticisms of Dr. Mann have been thoroughly and independently investigated and they didn’t need information from those bringing the charges to make their findings. Finally, policy makers need to believe this famous and highly compensated scientist and implement his recommendations immediately. It’s almost too late!

    Do I correctly characterize your point of view, Hugh?

  110. sorepaw says:

    I am certainly no fan of Mr. Mann and his fellow travellers, but one has to be very careful when using terms like “fraudulent”.

    Indeed.

    One should be careful to apply such terms only to those who have in fact committed fraud.

    In other words, only to people like Michael Mann.

  111. Smokey says:

    Michael Mann owns realclimate and censors comments he doesn’t like. Mann uses Gavin Schmidt to also censor comments. Schmidt is paid with public tax money, so it is actually censorship. Schmidt posts comments throughout the work day, which IMHO is misappropriation of government funds.

    I can see why Mann is upset with Dr Hertzberger, because Hertzberger tells the truth about him. Check out this link, courtesy of Ferd Berple upthread.

  112. DirkH says:

    Ahem. Nobody mentioned The Esteemed Dr. Michael Mann v. Dr. Tim Ball, it seems.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/
    Maybe that Vail Valley newspaper wanted to avoid having to purge their servers; so they filter letters for the term “Mann”, and got an alarm when the term showed up.

  113. Twiggy says:

    Tom T

    I am from Stowe and know of what you speak, the editor of the Reporter is an and preaches at the warmest alter. He is reasonable, yet blind from MSM, I believe it comes from being from a political family by the name of Duke.

  114. Dr Herzberg has written one of the most succinct, accurate, clear summaries of the bad science of AGW that I’ve seen.

    SBVOR says: October 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    In my opinion, Michael Mann ranks among the top five most corrupt scientists in the entire history of humanity — right up there with the charlatan who committed outright fraud in falsely linking vaccines to autism

    Now here’s something that saddens me here. While generally agreeing re. remarks on AGW, I often find uncontested remarks in other contentious areas that are similar to those we rightly decry here – remarks that appear to originate with disinformation / propaganda sources that present shoddy science as “what science says” and aim to discredit researchers of integrity who challenge it.

    I did a lot of research around this subject – having personal interest. While MMR was not problematic in itself, a preservative that was used in some vaccines was very clearly the rogue, and there was considerable effort expended to cover this up. The preservative is thimerosal (thio-mer-sal) a mercury compound which should never even have been considered for use, certainly not used on infants. I got the impression that Dr Wakefield suffered grievous misrepresentation. I’d compare his situation to that of Dr Tim Ball.

  115. Steve from Rockwood says:

    ferd berple says:
    October 2, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    All experiments are subject to experimenter bias, which is why controls and double blind techniques are required. What is missing in Climate Science is Peer Review of experimental design. If anything, Climate Science appears to ignore experimental controls and Peer Review ignores the problem.
    =========================
    Ferd, this cuts both ways. When the original temperature profile appeared in the IPCC report (showing a medieval warming) were there any skeptics to challenge it? Did anyone verify its accuracy? To me that graph looks like a doodle sketch and not a scientifically derived data set.
    Mann can cite peer review in all his papers. He was vindicated by independent panels. Most climate scientists agree with his work. You have to invoke a conspiracy theory (or collective incompetence) to explain how Mann could be wrong.
    I prefer the collective incompetence theory whereby most scientists get to where they are by hard work and a lot of patience. The work doesn’t have to be right, but by design, if you don’t really know what you are doing, how can you disagree with others in your field? In this way your field ends up being dominated by a few who have their way, surrounded by a large group of second raters who are ready to publish follow-up papers confirming your work, happy to feed at the trough. In this world Peer Review doesn’t ignore the problem, it isn’t aware there is a problem.

  116. Philip Clarke says:

    Smokey – it’s Hertzberg. But do carry on, I am enjoying this uncritical and open-armed embracing of a scientific numpty immensely.

  117. DirkH says:

    ferd berple says:
    October 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm
    “If AGW is correct, then we don’t need solar panels or wind farms. The very large down welling IR is all the power we need. Since glass reflects IR, then if AGW is correct, the IR from the atmosphere can be focused with glass mirrors and used to generate almost unlimited green energy, because according to climate science this IR exceeds the energy received from the sun.

    So why is Mann, Gore and the IPCC not leading the charge to generate clean energy from all this IR energy?”

    As IR is available day and night, albeit in lower intensity than sunlight, this is actually being researched. The idea is to collect IR photons with antennas; so if you want to collect, say 10 micrometer wavelength photons you need an antenna of that size. The difficulty is to collect the output of billions of these antennae. See
    http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/82996.aspx

  118. SBVOR says:

    Anthony deemed my opinion “over the top”:
    “In my opinion, [snip and that opinion is over the top per site policy] – Anthony]”

    I do not dispute Anthony’s right to his opinion or his right to moderate his blog as he sees fit. To the contrary, I thank him for the opportunity to express those opinions he does not find to be “over the top”.

    But, so as to defend his assertion that my opinion is “over the top”, I would respectfully request that Anthony cite five scientists throughout the history of humanity whom he finds to be bigger frauds than Michael Mann.

    I’ll start the list with two examples:
    Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html
    Trofim Lysenko:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

    Alternatively, Anthony could — if he chooses — suggest that Mann has done nothing which rises to the dictionary definition of fraud:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud

    Or, he could (as is his right) decline to publish this comment.

    [REPLY: You are entitled to your opinion. Anthony's position has always been to not attribute malice to where incompetence will suffice. If you have concrete evidence of fraud, we'll post it. If it is your considered opinion.... well... -REP]

  119. I can’t say if it’s the original, but Google Cache still has a version “as it appeared on Sep 30, 2011 06:19:25 GMT”.

    I keep the following JavaScript in my bookmarks (Safari on Mac OS X, although I don’t know if that matters):

    javascript:location.href=%22http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:%22+encodeURIComponent(location.href)

    So when I want to see the cached version of a page, I can hit that button on my bookmarks bar and, if Google has a cached version, immediately see it (and, of course, archive it).

  120. Laurie says:

    Steve from Rockwood:

    Paragraph 2 from your link:

    “Shocking isn’t it? You might ask, how can a lifelong Democrat
    like myself reject my party’s position on global warming and join the
    camp of the skeptics, virtually all of whom are Republicans or neocons.”

    He is preempting the anticipated stereotype (for himself, at least) that he’s a war-mongering, uneducated, conspiracy theorist, neocon and probably a cigarette smoker, too. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to point out when the piece is intended for consumption by the general public. It is also helpful when a scientist (truthfully) says he’s never received a dime from “Big Oil”. You do know that’s what the AGWers say about skeptics.

  121. DirkH says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    October 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    “I prefer the collective incompetence theory whereby most scientists get to where they are by hard work and a lot of patience. The work doesn’t have to be right, but by design, if you don’t really know what you are doing, how can you disagree with others in your field? In this way your field ends up being dominated by a few who have their way, surrounded by a large group of second raters who are ready to publish follow-up papers confirming your work, happy to feed at the trough.”

    No, that’s not how it works. In my master thesis I implemented and compared a dozen edge detection algorithms (image processing) from published papers. Most of the papers were a waste of time – I had the impression that somebody believed to have a smart idea, tested his idea on one or two images and published. Nearly none of them performed well on a simple circular shape.

    Sturgeon’s Law applies. When asked why 95% of SF novels are crap, he answered “95% of everything is crap”. And that’s true for published science as well. Science progresses by mercylessly weeding out the crap. Mann’s work belongs to the 95%. And his first hockey stick has already been weeded out; thanks to a gardener called McIntyre. Mann produces more versions of it and those will be weeded out as well.

    It takes time.

  122. SBVOR says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:

    “While MMR was not problematic in itself, a preservative that was used in some vaccines was very clearly the rogue”

    The CDC says:

    “Three U.S. health agencies (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)) have reviewed the published research on thimerosal and found it to be a safe product to use in vaccines. Three independent organizations [The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)] reviewed the published research and also found thimerosal to be a safe product to use in vaccines. The medical community supports the use of thimerosal in influenza vaccines to protect against potential bacterial contamination of multi–dose vials.”

    “Numerous studies have found no association between thimerosal exposure and autism.”
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

    CNN got this one right:
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

  123. Philip Clarke says: October 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    … I am enjoying this uncritical and open-armed embracing of a scientific numpty immensely.

    I took the trouble to read Dr Hertzberg’s letter in toto, and was delighted with all his points, all of which I have researched and arrived at essentially identical conclusions and emphasis. I used to be a warmist, and thanks to websites like Skeptical Science which I had absorbed in detail, I had to do a lot of deconstructing of a lot of issues when finally I realized that there was serious evidence challenging the warmist thesis.

    Who’s really uncritical here? Who’s truly a numpty? What’s your evidence?

  124. SBVOR says:

    Lucy Skywalker,

    Postscript to my previous comment…
    Just because a vaccine contains trace amounts of mercury does not necessarily mean it is harmful. In fact, although unproven in this case, the phenomena of a biphasic dose response (aka Hormesis) suggests that small doses might even be beneficial:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/

    What is clear is that:
    “Numerous studies have found no association between thimerosal exposure and autism.”
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

  125. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Laurie says:
    October 2, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Laurie: “he’s never received a dime from “Big Oil”.” Yes, I guess preempting has become a necessary evil.

    Here’s an interesting link from a grade 12 student who was selected to cruise the Arctic on a scientific program. I find the following paragraph typical.

    “The fact that the Amundsen [a Canadian ice-breaker] requires oil industry funding for climate change research suggests how little our society understands the value of the irreplaceable gem that comprises nearly one-third of our country [Canada] — a gem that is in danger of disappearing.”

    Link here: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1062941

    Perhaps he should return to the Arctic in February for a follow-up article on the disappearing gem. He’s a pretty good writer though.

  126. Mike Jonas says:

    pokerguy said “if this really violated the “2nd law of thermodynamics” the whole ridiculous AGW hypothesis would have been discredited long ago

    True. As I understand it:-
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there cannot be a net flow of heat from a cooler object to a hotter object, without work.
    AGW says that a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greater proportion of outgoing IR to be sent back in.
    Since the net flow out is always positive, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated.

    Funny thing is, I don’t think I have ever seen it explained like this anywhere – just a lot of ’tis!, tisn’t! stuff.

  127. SBVOR says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:

    “I got the impression that Dr Wakefield suffered grievous misrepresentation.”

    CNN says:

    “Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers — a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield’s paper last February.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

    Unless CNN got the facts wrong, I find it impossible to conclude that “Dr Wakefield suffered grievous misrepresentation”. To the contrary, I have to agree with the CNN headline (which contains an “F” word (used by the British Medical Journal) which — “per site policy” — I dare not mention in this comment).

    (Anthony — just a little friendly ribbing about the “F” word.)

  128. DirkH says:
    October 2, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    There’s a new paper about a peat bog temperature reconstruction out that confirms this.
    http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/02/german-peat-bog-temperature-reconstruction-shows-strong-central-european-variations/

    I printed and scanned Figure 6 from the report on the peat bog temperature reconstruction.
    The raw scan is here http://folc.ca/images/duerres-maar.jpg (at 300 dpi resolution) and http://folc.ca/images/duerres-maar_72dpi.jpg (at 72 dpi resolution)
    Figure 6, enhanced a bit and report text cropped, http://folc.ca/images/duerres-maar_e.jpg (at 300 dpi resolution) and http://folc.ca/images/duerres-maar_e_72dpi.jpg (at 72 dpi resolution)

  129. Philip Clarke says:

    Lucy and Smokey.

    See for example, this example of Hertzberg’s ‘science’ : http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

    And this demolition : http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/

    Just for the record, [snip - you don't get to ask others to do things "for the record" on my blog - Anthony]

  130. SBVOR says: October 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. We already know from AGW that official science bodies are not trustworthy. I had reason to do a lot of research – because I am, or was, on the spectrum. Plus I care about truth. Thiomersal is a mercury compound. Mercury, as in mad hatters disease and what affected gold prospecters – and there’s serious evidence from dentistry too (also suppressed I believe).

    Try this URL compared with yours

  131. charles nelson says:

    I would be interested to find out if that Vail local newpaper was carrying quite a lot of advertising for Solar power/hot water, renewable energy etc?

  132. Kev-in-Uk says:
    October 2, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    anyone done any screen captures of ‘originals’?

    I have saved the PDF files I down loaded from their archive as of my comment as of 11:19 am mountain time.

    Larry

  133. Septic Matthew says:

    Lucy Skywalker: Dr Herzberg has written one of the most succinct, accurate, clear summaries of the bad science of AGW that I’ve seen.

    You can’t be serious.

  134. SBVOR says:

    Lucy Skywalker,

    1) “Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

    Your citation does not contain the word “reproduce”:
    http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf

    Ergo, the advocacy organization which published your citation failed to even attempt to address the single most damning aspect of Wakefield’s paper — a paper which the British Medical Journal described as “fraudulent”:
    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

    I am not one who is prone to the logical fallacy of appeals to authority. I operate solely upon credible evidence. The credible evidence on this one is very, very clear (and CNN reported it accurately).

    2) Again…

    A) Just because a vaccine contains a preservative (thimerosal) which, in turn, contains trace amounts of mercury does not necessarily mean mercury at that dosage is harmful. In fact, although unproven in this case, the phenomena of a biphasic dose response (aka Hormesis) demonstrates that small doses of various toxins are proven to be beneficial:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/

    B) “Numerous studies have found no association between thimerosal exposure and autism.”
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

    3) “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison….” Paracelsus (1493-1541)

    Water, oxygen and literally everything else is toxic (and will kill you) at the proper concentration.

    Never concern yourself with the chemical, only the dose.

  135. Berényi Péter says:

    It is next to impossible to undo things on the Internet.

    Original version (snapshot of the page as it appeared on 30 Sep 2011 06:14:46 GMT):
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QQSZh0LkkxcJ:www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/110929829/1021

    “Improved” version (re-edited on 02 Oct 2011 18:08:00 GMT):
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/111009984/1021

    There were three edits done to improve quality retrospectively:

    1. Title changed from “More hot air than science in global-warming theory” to “Researcher disputes evidence for global warming”.
    2. Deleted: “Glasser, who calls me a fool, really tips his hand by defending the notoriously fraudulent “hockey stick” curve of Professor Mann. That curve has the shape of a hockey stick, flat for the past 1,000 years with a sharp rise during the past few decades. It was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program”.
    3. Deleted: “Every knowledgeable climatologist knows that tree rings are unreliable proxies for temperature because they are also sensitive to moisture, sunlight, pests, competition from adjacent trees, etc. Furthermore, when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply “hid the decline” by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line”.

    That’s it.

  136. Richard G says:

    PaulH says:
    October 2, 2011 at 11:34 am
    “… one has to be very careful when using terms like “fraudulent”. Fraud has a rather exact legal definition, and if you start using such terms you are bound to raise someone’s hackles.”
    _______________________________
    Is “Balderdash” acceptable?

  137. Ivan says:

    If you need to capture a web page for future reference (before it gets “disappeared”), consider using the following:
    http://www.webcitation.org/

  138. stevo says:

    [REPLY: Ahh, then you agree then? WUWT has no obligation to allow comments referring to "deniers".

    -REP]

  139. PhilH says:

    Fred Berple: Mann did act on purpose when he created his hockey stick graph. Steve McIntyre pointed out some years ago that Mann did a run of his data without bristle cone pines and the MWP reappeared. Then he deliberately “censored” this finding and did not report it, and he never has.

  140. Steve Garcia says:

    Well, all I can say is that with his letter (and his website at http://www.climate4you.com) Dr Hertzberg has won a fan. For those who have not visited it, I suggest it is a good one for Anthony to add to his blogroll, even if it is not a blog, per se. It is full of data, charts, and maps.

    Dr Hertzberg also refers to Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who did a paper or two with Dr Pielke. Dr Akasofu’s 2009 paper, Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change, at http://tiny.cc/j84ft is worth a read. In it Dr Akasofu proposes the upward trending oscillation that has been discussed here on WUWT in recent months, but he proposes it as the natural rebound from the Little Ice Age and shows that if we take out the effects of the trend line (which he shows is only 0.5°C/C), there is very little effect man can have made on the climate. The paper is a good read, though long.

  141. David Falkner says:

    “You can say whatever you want in America, as long as it has no effect.” – Lenny Bruce

  142. Stuart Lynne says:

    GAAK… shades of 1984 and thoughts of Stalin era air-brushing come to mind. Fortunately (a fact that the editors of this newpaper have failed to grasp) the internet does indeed have a memory. Once your site has been crawled trying to make changes will be noticed and pointed out.

  143. John Blake says:

    Why not simply contact Dr. Hertzberg to request the initial version of his letter, plus his overview of conflicted developments to date? As for AGW gauleiters such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. the sooner and more definitively their serial excretions are exposed, the better.

  144. stevo says:

    [Snip. ~dbs, mod. Read the site Policy.]

  145. Dar Pot says:

    > Just for the record, are you prepared to assert in public that Micheal Mann has committed scientific fraud, and if so, what is your evidence?

    Evidence is Mann’s Hockeystick was and still is wrong; Otherwise we would be seeing serious increases in global temperatures, as indicated by his Hockeystick chart and testified too by Mann.
    As before, the burden of proof is on Micheal Mann. Thus far he has refused to provide proof (his data, his work, and his method); which points to Mann having something to hide, like fraud.

  146. Laurie says:

    31.The open-armed embrace of Dr Hertzberg over at WUWT is something to behold. One hopes we are witnessing a defining moment. As I write the Wattbots are searching the internet’s various caches for the original text with a view to reproducing it in full, complete with violations of the second law of thermodynamics and the defamatory codicils. Go for it, Anthony.

    Comment by pjclarke — 2 Oct 2011 @ 6:07 PM

    Philip Clarke makes a comment acceptable to Real Climate. Why am I surprised they find snark more postable than a reminder about professional courtesy?

  147. don says:

    Technically speaking, unless the Vail Colorado newspaper is an official organ of the state, deleting a previously published letter to the editor is not legally “censorship.” They are certainly entitled to be unfair, unbalanced, bigoted, gutless wonders–after all truth is still a defense against threatened libel in the US–and otherwise scientifically challenged, and still apparently get intelligent people to buy their product. Such is life.

  148. Pamela Gray says:

    I don’t know about fraud, but the Wakefield/autism argument is not the best one to choose from, unless you consider its entire history. Before Wakefield, and before the internet boards, we had forced institutionalization due to a scientific consensus that autism was caused by “cold mothering”. Children were removed from their mothers, and siblings as well, while the mother underwent wilting scrutiny and in some cases, even endured charges of child abuse. Those few that attempted to raise scientific doubt were vilified. When doubt turned into new understanding, those that continued to hold onto their cold mother consensus eventually payed a heavy price. Historical biographies do not paint a pretty picture.

    Climate scientists would do well to study the entire history of autism’s checkered scientific consensus. Wakefield’s hypothesis (and damage done scaring parents away from vaccines) pales in comparison to what came before his rise and fall.

  149. Bill Illis says:

    The hockey stick and its rabid defence by Mann and many others, proves prima facie:

    – that we cannot trust climate science to be objective and self-correcting.

    Why didn’t Mann just give up on this charade long ago? He and they could have just let it die like so many other wrongly done statistical/math models of which there are thousands and thousands of examples. It would be been easy enough and Mann could have continued publishing his version of cimate science.

    It doesn’t make sense. But then who said this science does. That in itself says something important. We are not dealing with sensible, logical group here.

    When will they admit they were wrong about something? NEVER is the answer.

  150. TBear (Warm Cave in Cold-as-Snow-Sydney) says:

    Well, let’s not lose perspective.

    Firstly, Dr Hertzberg appears to describe himself as a `denier’. Seems he wears that tag as a badge of honour. Matter for him.

    Secondly, accusing Dr Mann of `fraud’ is a strong allegation. So far as the Bear knows there is no evidence of scientific fraud. Yes, there are strong arguments against the veracity of the `Hockey Stick Graph’, but it is a bit leap from `he got the science wrong’, to `he is a fraudulent operator’.

    Thirdly, one interpretation of what is happening with the movable Hertzberg/Mann letter exchange is the editor is trying to seek a balance between publication and exposure to a libel suit, This may just be an example of a professional editor acting with prudence.

    Let’s not be so blind as we are unable to see – as Hertzberg and many others accuse Mann, Big Al Gore, the IPCC, Mr Jones, Trenbert, Hansen and their various little bushland friends.

  151. Beth Cooper says:

    Peter Miller commentsthat’Mannian mathematics is a brilliant new form of statistical analysis.’
    (As in following scenario.)

    Man in street: ‘How do you know that?’
    Mann in white coat: ‘I know it because I have a PHD in Climate Science.’
    Man in street:’Oh yes, I think I’ve read some of your emails. Aren’t you a Doctor of Data Doctoring?’

  152. Smokey says:

    Philip Clarke says:

    “Smokey – it’s Hertzberg.”

    My apologies to Dr Hertzberg, I was going by my faulty memory. But since that’s the lame response of Phil Clarke, it shows he has nothing substantive to argue.

    Clarke adds:

    “I am enjoying this uncritical and open-armed embracing of a scientific numpty immensely.”

    Phil, wake up. The numpty is Michael Mann.

  153. Jeff C says:

    Lucy – Thanks for speaking up for Dr. Wakefield, the man’s reputation was trashed because he suggested the possibility that the MMR vaccine could be linked to inflammatory bowel conditions found in a dozen autistic individuals. He didn’t say MMR caused autism, he did not even recommend vaccinations stop. He simply suggested that parents consider using separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines spaced out in time instead of the combination MMR vaccine. When challenged by the BMJ (who has strong financial ties to MMR vaccine manufacturers GSK and Merck), he refused to retract the paper or back down. For that he had to be taken out.

    The BMJ claimed they had no conflict of interest in the matter when they posted the article on Wakefield. Only after being challenged by John Stone, a UK vaccine safety advocate, they issued a correction noting the potential conflict of interest and their financial ties to GSK and Merck. The BMJ editor, Fiona Godlee, later claimed it never occurred to her that a conflict of interest might exist. This is the paragon of virtue who stood in judgment of Andy Wakefield.

    SBVOR – you should know your facts before you trash someone. The MMR controversy has nothing to do with thimerisol as the MMR vaccine never contained mercury. MMR is a live virus vaccine, a mercury preservative would have killed the virus strains thus rendering the vaccine ineffective. The detrimental health effects of thimerisol in pediatric vaccines is a very valid concern, but it has nothing to do with Andy Wakefield.

  154. Chris Smith says:

    1984.

  155. Alex says:

    A quote from Mr. Mann’s letter to the editor of Scuientific American:

    “More then anything else this interview was simply a lost opportunity.Not only can Scientific American do better, it will need to.”
    He seems nowadays to be more interested in directing editorial policies of newspapers then research.

  156. John Marshall says:

    Dr. Hertzberg is a longtime skeptic for good reason. He is an expert in thermodynamics which gives him the edge in the theory of GHG feedback. It does not happen which makes the GHG theory null and void.

  157. Septic Matthew says: October 2, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Lucy Skywalker: Dr Herzberg has written one of the most succinct, accurate, clear summaries of the bad science of AGW that I’ve seen.

    You can’t be serious.

    I have to agree with you! I worded myself badly. I should have added that in that letter, he did not actually demonstrate / prove / explain / give evidence for the science about which he comments – which I have done, click my name – but his conclusions are much the same as mine.

  158. Philip Clarke says: October 2, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Lucy and Smokey. See for example, this example of Hertzberg’s ‘science’… And this demolition…

    Thanks for those references. I was looking for stuff on the other planets and I suspect you’ve given me what I needed. Now in accord with the principles of Scientific Method, I reserve judgement until I have studied both articles carefully, and looked for skeptics’ responses to the SoD article. I have to agree with Herzberg’s letter at least; and there’s plenty of evidence we have a true scientist here. I may well end up finding I can use Hertzberg to overturn your Scienceofdoom “debunks”. Or it may be a case where a good scientist makes mistakes… as happens to the best.

  159. Brian H says:

    Hilariously, Prof. Mann is credited with being a perfesser of a non-existent field at Penn:

    Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Meterology at Penn State University

    Words fail me. And the Daily Bumpf, too, apparently.

  160. Allan M says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    October 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    pokerguy said “if this really violated the “2nd law of thermodynamics” the whole ridiculous AGW hypothesis would have been discredited long ago”

    True. As I understand it:-
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there cannot be a net flow of heat from a cooler object to a hotter object, without work.
    AGW says that a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greater proportion of outgoing IR to be sent back in.

    And the warmer earth sends it straight back out again.

  161. Theodore says:

    Well, they have spent many years riding themselves of troublesome climate journal editors. So I guess it is only natural that they move on to newspaper editors that dare to allow any factual evidence against global warming to be published.

    I don’t know why the paper is worried, they must not know that Mann will not sue for libel. He can’t sue for libel because it opens him up to discovery and the person he sues will be able to subpeona his work and e-mails related to the hockey stick. And as Michael Man, has said in his legal filing in the UVA case, if a judge ever sees those emails it would destroy the reputation of a lot of climate scientists.

  162. Gail Combs says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    October 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    pokerguy said “if this really violated the “2nd law of thermodynamics” the whole ridiculous AGW hypothesis would have been discredited long ago”
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Allan M says:
    October 3, 2011 at 3:19 am
    True. As I understand it:-
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there cannot be a net flow of heat from a cooler object to a hotter object, without work.
    AGW says that a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greater proportion of outgoing IR to be sent back in.

    And the warmer earth sends it straight back out again.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    We are talking a non-electric blanket. All a blanket does is retard the amount of heat moving from your body to the cooler surroundings. The blanket does not in and of itself produce heat. That is the same thing water vapor does on a cloudy night. It retards the escape of IR radiation at certain specific wavelengths to outer space but does not “produce heat”

    Unless there is a warm front moving in the temperature will always drop at night when the sun is not adding energy to the environment. The amount of the drop in temperature is modified by the amount of water vapor – think desert night.

    I am using water vapor because H2O modifies the environment in observable ways, the same can not be said for CO2 or we would have heard of it by now. Hence the IPCC’s need for positive feed backs involving water.

  163. izen says:

    No publication can afford, or should persist in publishing libelous comments, especially when the target of the libel has notified the publisher.

    That Hertzberg’s comments are libelous is obvious from the numerous vindications of Mann’s research from direct investigation of his results to the unanimous comfirmation of the results from other researchers investigating the same issue. All confim that the present rate and magnitude of the warming is exceptional in at least the last thousand years.

    The only possible support for Hertzberg’s comments on Mann come from the Wegman report, but that has now been withdrawn because of extensive plagerism and errors in the statistical analysis.

    Hertzberg is apparently quite content to self-describe as a ‘climate denier’ so Anthony Watt’s hypersensitivity to this term to describe him seems missplaced.

  164. Orson Olson says:

    “Dr. Hertzberg does in fact live near Vail, in Copper Mountain, CO. and he would presumably be served by the newspaper of record for that area, which is why the letter appeared in that newspaper.”

    Yes, Dr. Hertzberg does indeed reside at Copper Mountain. While living in his county, Summit County, I once met him at a public event (although he would not remember), and the other nearby ‘newspaper of record’ is the Summit Daily.

    Both this and the Vail Daily are distributed freely from newsboxes as well as online, by the same parent company, I believe.

  165. Ken Coffman says:

    Is it time for another listen to The Hockey Stick Blues?

    http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_9363502

  166. Mike Jonas says:

    Allan M says: “And the warmer earth sends it straight back out again

    True, pretty much all of it (for earth as in land), but the ocean is another story.

    One reason this CAGW story has lasted so long is that some of it is true, or near enough .
    – CO2 is a greenhouse gas. ie. Atmospheric CO2 absorbs some outgoing IR and re-radiates some of it down again.
    – This doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    – This does have a warming effect. The oceans can be warmed by it, even though IR doesn’t penetrate beyond the immediate surface.
    – Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even though man-made emissions are tiny compared with the natural toing and froing of CO2, and even though atmospheric CO2 would have increased a bit anyway over the last 30+ years, and even though CO2 doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere as the IPCC says it does.

    But falsehoods have been woven around those truths.
    – Massive imaginary cloud “feedback” with no known mechanism, no scientific evidence, no justification.
    – Absurd explanations of how temperatures can rise before CO2 increases yet CO2 is the major force, and of how an ice age can start in spite of that increased CO2.
    – An imaginary surge in man-made aerosols to explain the lack of warming ~1940-1970 (and the last decade or so).
    – Demonising CO2 to the point that every single aspect of it is supposedly harmful. Even its warming effect!!!
    – Claiming that the 1930s, the MWP, the Roman warm period, etc, were not warmer than today (Michael Mann’s appalling hockey-stick).
    – Claiming that the lack of a tropical troposphere ‘hot-spot’ does not disprove CAGW.
    – Explicitly bypassing the possibility that there can be indirect solar effects, in spite of Svensmark’s tested theory that there are.
    – Omission of the effect of ocean oscillations on observed global temperature.
    – And so on, and so on. As each step forward is made by the skeptics of CAGW, so the deceptions and lies and distortions and ad hominems and intimidations grow to cover the cracks.

    Added to that is the cruel coincidence of the satellite age with a natural 30-year warming phase, and the opportunistic adoption of 30 years as a suitable period for assessing a climate trend.

    Having successfully created the biggest scientific lie in history, these guys are not going to walk away from it voluntarily.

  167. More Soylent Green! says:

    The Ministry of Truth never sleeps.

  168. Old Hoya says:

    I am not a fan of Prof. Mann’s work but I think adjectives like “fraudulent” have legal implications that the paper does need to consider. You can point out the weaknesses and idiosyncratic methods that went into construction of the Stick and the overt political agenda of the Hockey Team but I don’t think you get to use “fraudulent” without meeting a pretty high standard of proof of intent.

  169. izen says:

    @-Gail Combs says:
    “I am using water vapor because H2O modifies the environment in observable ways, the same can not be said for CO2 or we would have heard of it by now. ”

    Actually there are 50 years of observations that confirms the modification of the environment by CO2 in the measurement of downwelling IR and outgoing LWR with the spectral ‘fingerprint’ of CO2.

    http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Uphysik/PhysicsClimate/2009JD012105.pdf

    This is considered by the vast majority of scientists, scientific organizations and the scientifically literate to be the ‘smoking gun’ of the CO2 effect on climate which makes the attribution of much of the warming seen over the last few decades to CO2 uncontroversial to all but the ideologicaly dogmatic.

  170. Ken Coffman says:

    How many people believe radiant energy can be emitted toward space, be absorbed and re-emitted and come back to the Earth’s surface…and make the surface warmer than it was? It might make the surface temporarily warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN by slowing down cooling a little…but it cannot increase the peak temperature or the average temperature. If you disagree, then I’d love to see the experiment that proves it. Good luck.

    Life is like an intelligence test.
    – Glen Wilson

  171. Paul Milligan says:

    Anthony,

    Would it be possible to time-date stamp your updates? This could be useful for those of us who arrive late to the party; allowing us to determine how much further investigation could help the group’s understanding of the problem.

    REPLY: Yes, I’ll make that a point to follow in the future – Anthony

  172. Smokey says:

    Izen says:

    “That Hertzberg’s comments are libelous is obvious from the numerous vindications of Mann’s research…”

    Thanks for the laugh.

  173. SBVOR says:

    Jeff C (erroneously) says:

    “SBVOR – you should know your facts before you trash someone. The MMR controversy has nothing to do with thimerisol [sic] as the MMR vaccine never contained mercury. MMR is a live virus vaccine, a mercury preservative would have killed the virus strains thus rendering the vaccine ineffective. The detrimental health effects of thimerisol [sic] in pediatric vaccines is a very valid concern, but it has nothing to do with Andy Wakefield.”

    1) The ill-informed and the lawsuit driven may still love Dr. Wakefield. But, both The Lancet (who retracted his paper) and the British government (who stripped Wakefield of his medical license know that the BMJ correctly exposed Wakefield’s paper as fraudulent.

    2) I never conflated the two issues (nor did anybody else — other than you). Lucy Skywalker raised thimerosal as a separate issue and I responded (separately).

    3) There is no science to support your assertion that “detrimental health effects of thimerisol [sic] in pediatric vaccines is a very valid concern”. Those who believe otherwise lack even a rudimentary understanding of toxicology. See my previous comment for more facts on this matter (facts backed by science).

    REPLY: OK that’s enough of this off-topic Wakefield stuff, further comments on this subject will be deleted – Anthony

  174. MattN says:

    Did Dr. Hertzberg say anything that hasn’t already been said 1000 times?

    Someone needs to call Mann’s bluff. If he threatens a libel suit, go for it. The discovery phase would be very entertaining…

  175. mwhite says:

    If it’s libelous go to court.

  176. D. Patterson says:

    don says:
    October 2, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    Technically speaking, unless the Vail Colorado newspaper is an official organ of the state, deleting a previously published letter to the editor is not legally “censorship.” [....]

    The Vail Daily engaged in censorship of the letter to the editor as defined by the common usage and by the legal usage ot the term. It is lawful or legal for a private publication to censor contributions to the publication, and in certain cases such censorship by a private publication is mandated by law. The fact that the Constitutional right to free speech limits the ability of governments to censor free speech in no way changes the fact that private entities can and do engage in censorship which is not subject to the Constitution’s prohibition of censorship by governments. In common usage defined by the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition, to censor is “to examine in order to suppressor delete anything considered objectionable.” Likewise, a standard reference for U.S. courts of law, Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, defines a censor in part as “One who examines publications, films,and the like for objectionable content.”

    The Vail Daily deleted some and/or all ot the letter to the editor at various points in time due to what Dr. Michael Mann complained was objectionable content. The Vail Daily was legally privileged to delete and thereby censor content it soley determined to be objectionable.

    The subscribers and other readers are likewise legally privileged to criticize and/or discontinue their reading and subsciptions to any publications which they deem to have engaged in any legal censorship which they find to be objectionable.

  177. SBVOR says:

    Mann attempting to defend his Hockey Stick in court…
    That would be some smack down.
    Can we get it on Pay Per View?
    Nope, never gonna happen — Mann will never take it to court.

  178. izen says:

    @- Smokey says: Re:- Mann ‘hockey stick’ vindicated.
    “Thanks for the laugh”

    Your welcome, here are just some of the research results from independent groups using a variety of methods which have vindicated the original Mann and Bradley work –

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html
    http://www.martinkodde.nl/glacier/data/bibliography/1810995712675.pdf

    And not forgetting of course the National Academy of Science exhaustive work on the whole issue –

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

    In fact there has not, AFAIK been ANY research on 1000yrs of past climate since the MB98 paper that has shown results outside the error bars on that paper – perhaps Moberg comes close. But by any measure Mann has been vindicated by subsequent work in this area of recent paleoclimate.

  179. izen says:

    @- Ken Coffman says: October 3, 2011 at 8:50 am
    “How many people believe radiant energy can be emitted toward space, be absorbed and re-emitted and come back to the Earth’s surface…and make the surface warmer than it was? ”

    Only those that either do not grasp the AGW theory or those that are intentionally misrepresenting it for ideological reasons.

    “It might make the surface temporarily warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN by slowing down cooling a little…but it cannot increase the peak temperature or the average temperature.”

    Correct, the ‘greenhouse’ effect is like a coat in cold weather, it just slows down cooling.
    (one by reducing convection, the other by reducing radiative loss.)

  180. SBVOR says:

    Izen says:

    “here are just some of the research results from independent groups using a variety of methods which have vindicated the original Mann and Bradley work”

    1) The real issue is how Mann went about constructing his Hockey Stick. Can we say “hide the decline”? Nice diversion:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/03/berkeley-physics-professor-destroys.html

    2) Here are some studies contradicting Mann’s Hockey Stick:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041281.shtml
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
    GISP2 Data:
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/recent-hysteria-arctic-now-warmest-in.html
    Vostok Data:
    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time.html

    3) But, by all means, please continue to defend Mann’s Hockey Stick — it only serves to further illuminate the true nature of the CAGW camp.

  181. Septic Matthew says:

    Lucy Skywalker: I worded myself badly.

    that’s happened to us all. I am relieved. I share you discomfort.

    I have noticed that some others write very reasonable papers in the peer-reviewed literature and then say or write outrageous stuff when blogging or speaking extempore.

  182. Trevor says:

    ‘If he had only left that out…’ ….. he said he was a progressive Democrat.

  183. D. Patterson says:

    Trevor says:
    October 3, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    ‘If he had only left that out…’ ….. he said he was a progressive Democrat.

    Progressive and Progressive Democrat are a ephemism for a Progressive Communist; for example the Progressive Communist Labor Party.It is also arguable that being a Progressive is an oxymoron, because the results of the policies end up being Regressive in science, economics, and social welfare. The willful subversion of the scientific method by self-declared Progressives is one such nexample of regressive behavior. The corruptiion of the peer review process in scientific publications is another example of regressive behavior.

  184. John David Galt says:

    I’m with you: a court trial and discovery are the only way to settle this issue once and for all. (Not the science issue — those are never settled — but exactly how Mr. Mann selected his data, and whether or not it was fraud.)

    So let’s have a contest to see who can publish an article or song so insulting that it provokes Mann to follow through on his threat to sue for defamation. Mann will judge that contest himself. The real judge will judge the more important one.

  185. ruralcounsel says:

    As a Penn State alumni, I apologize for the heavy handed intimidation tactics of Prof. Mann. Penn State Alumni Association, take note: this impacts my decisions on gifting.

    The University can’t protect him forever with half-assed “investigations” designed to whitewash. In the long run, as his sleazy behavior and questionable research methodology become common knowledge, it will impact the reputation of PSU. PSU owes us all a better effort.

  186. ruralcounsel says:

    Old Hoya: “I am not a fan of Prof. Mann’s work but I think adjectives like “fraudulent” have legal implications that the paper does need to consider. You can point out the weaknesses and idiosyncratic methods that went into construction of the Stick and the overt political agenda of the Hockey Team but I don’t think you get to use “fraudulent” without meeting a pretty high standard of proof of intent.”

    True perhaps if trying to prove criminal fraud in a courtroom, but not as a matter of opinion. People are legally allowed to have unflattering opinions of other people. At least for now.

  187. citizenschallenge says:

    [snip. D-word violation. ~dbs, mod.]

  188. thingadonta says:

    We have to get rid of trying to get rid of the medieval warm period

  189. we need to get rid of pretending that the medieval warm period has anything of significance to tell use regarding the consequences of society producing and injecting ±two and half tons of CO2 into our only planet’s atmosphere every freak’n month.

    Wake up.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    oh, regarding Martin’s fantasy, it’s interesting how serious critiques are meet with a wall of silence. . . . dare I say denial.
    FYI: “Martin Hertzberg… a denialist in action”
    http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2011/10/martin-hertzberg-denialist-in-action.html

  190. citizenschallenge says:

    sorry that’s “giga”tons,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

    Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=72

    World GHG Emissions Flow Chart
    http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=/World-FlowChart

  191. bill G says:

    The science behind global warming is very clear and in fact in its broad findings, very simple.
    But the Deniers are out there for sure.

    One day we will nail one of them in the form a direct link to Big Coal or Big Oil. But Dr. Mann is to be congratulated for speaking out in strong clear terms about Herzberg. Usually scientists do not speak this way. They are not public people very often. They mostly just want to get back to their labs and pursue the science. Thank you Dr. Mann.

    Mostly the Denier bunch are political conservatives. Why to they get so incensed about this one area of science. They can literally foam at the mouth over this issue. There are MANY hot issues now, but this one really sets them off. Even the non-science conservatives. They treat this like a matter of religious principle. Very curious.

    One Denier even came to a scientific talk in Australia with a hangman’s noose that he said he wanted to use on the meek scientist giving a paper on some aspect of climate change. Something mental going on with these guys.

  192. RACookPE1978 says:

    So many errors, assumptions, and dogmatic, religious-fervor.

    Mostly the Denier bunch are political conservatives. Why to they get so incensed about this one area of science. They can literally foam at the mouth over this issue. There are MANY hot issues now, but this one really sets them off. Even the non-science conservatives. They treat this like a matter of religious principle.

    This is because the enviro spokesmen worldwide and their politicians (liberals, socialists, Luddites, gaia-theists all using the industry of CAGW to further their religiously-held views) have specifically called for the death of people. They have uniquely held the “rights” of animals (of their “view” of the earth) over the well-being of real innocents worldwide.

    But the Deniers are out there for sure.

    One day we will nail one of them in the form a direct link to Big Coal or Big Oil.

    So, you – and your fellow CAGW theists – hold that “science” can be bought. For what price please? You must have evidence of “science” being bought and paid for. from your evidence (which skeptics can show worldwide for the CAGW industries) what evidence do you have a ANY skeptical scientist being corrupted by a sponsoring group? Does the source of money mean the “results” are corrupt? (That is, assuming you can actually find any source of money actually available to corrupt the science.)

    What is the “price” that you believe is needed to purchase a “scientific” conclusion? If a one-time fee of $400,000.00 in the mid-90’s to one think tank buys a “scientific” judgement, then what does your CAGW industry earn for its 80 billion dollars? What “science” is bought for 1.3 trillion dollars a year in tax revenues from CAGW carbon fees and taxes?

    Mann’s Penn State earned several millions in taxpayer fees for malaria research just days after “cleansing” him by Penn State’s whitewash committee. The UN’s IPCC was specifically formed to create a CAGW scenario to specifically get Western money transferred to the UN’s consumers (international bureaucrats, their third world sponsors and the corrupt CAGW industry of bankers, politicians and the universities and third world and first world industries feeding of the enviro’s guilts and prejudices.

    Your CAGW dogma has no evidence, nothing but extrapolations and self-interest and corruption. Your CAGW is deliberately used to kill millions by poverty, disease, filth, bad food, and bad energy (or no energy at all). All so you can “feel better.” Your CAGW deliberately withholds food, clean water, clean sanitation, and lights, power, and health from billions in the name of … What?

    Oh – Global warming is very real. It is 1/3 of one degree of warming in 25 years. Then no warming at all for 12 years.
    Global warming is very real: The earth has been warming since 1650 all by itself.
    Before that, it has been cooling for 400 years – all by itself.
    Before that, it has been even warmer than today – all by itself.
    Before that, it has been cooler than today – all by itself.
    Before that, it has been even warmer than today – All by itself. (Do you see any pattern here?)

    There is no link between CO2 and temperature: Temperatures have increased, been steady, and decreased while CO2 has been steady. Temperatures have decreased, been steady, increased, and been steady while CO2 has increased. So …

    Yes, liberals are more likely to view CAGW with exuberance and enthusiasm: They live for its results of “solving” CAGW: harm and death to the innocent and powerless, greater power and money to the powerful (liberal) politicians and academics and bureaucrats and corrupt brokers of their schemes. Today’s liberals NEED CAGW to invoke control of the world’s economies.

  193. citizenschallenge says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    October 9, 2011 at 12:22 am
    So many errors, assumptions, and dogmatic, religious-fervor.
    {…}
    Yes, liberals are more likely to view CAGW with exuberance and enthusiasm:

    They live for its results of “solving” CAGW: harm and death to the innocent and powerless, greater power and money to the powerful (liberal) politicians and academics and bureaucrats and corrupt brokers of their schemes. Today’s liberals NEED CAGW to invoke control of the world’s economies.
    =======================================================
    RACOO,
    decorum does not allow me to tell you what I think of your above drivel,
    >> Which tellingly did not include one item of Climatological interest.
    Why do folks like you never address the science, or observations?
    What’s with all the pathetic misdirection?

    You dear sir
    are the one wrapped up in emotional/economic/political fantasies – willfully oblivious to the unraveling real world around you.

    But, if you were actually curious about the biosphere outside your window, the links I offered… offer you good learning opportunities.

  194. bill G says:

    [snip - you are welcome to resubmit without labeling people as deniers ~mod]

  195. bill G says:

    [SNIP: That is perfectly correct. The word is not permitted. As far as confirmation goes, you can always find evidence to confirm whatever it is you want to believe. We also do not permit snark. Contribute in a meaningful way or continue to get snipped. -REP]

Comments are closed.