Michael Mann Responds to Climategate Allegations

This video from the AccuWeather website. Since Dr. Mann is in the same city, it is easy for them to get an interview, which they did.

Click the image to launch video
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 2, 2009 4:18 pm

Re MSM Media: They will simply forget about AGW. Notably Australian newspapers are simply publishing anything that has nothing to do with AGW very interesting development all of a sudden it just ain’t interesting….LOL I think you will find this worldwide with MSM. It will simply vanish as a subject. Slowly the research will be wound back etc…

December 2, 2009 4:20 pm

Obviously since it was Jones email store that was hacked, we don’t know what we don’t know about what Mann’s email store would show (and no, that is unequivocally NOT a call for a second hack job, this time on Mann). Having said that, it does seem that Mann comes across in what we do have much better than most of the others. Indeed, they seem to a degree to be keeping him at arm’s length and not really engaging him on their own doubts about his work.

December 2, 2009 4:20 pm

Intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest.

December 2, 2009 4:24 pm

What a nothing interview – they didn’t ask any real questions of him. Disappointing as they could have actually maybe shed some light on the situation and Mann’s thoughts on it.

December 2, 2009 4:24 pm

“So, it’s a distraction…”
Oh my, was that all he could come up with, so lame.

December 2, 2009 4:24 pm

Professor in climate change scandal helps police with enquiries while researchers call for him to be banned
By Fiona Macrae
The scientist at the heart of the climate change email scandal was today interviewed by police about the scandal.
Two plain clothes officers arrived in an unmarked car in the afternoon and took Professor Phil Jones to Norfolk Police’s headquarters in nearby Wymondham to give a statement.
Sources said the interview concerned the theft of emails from the university and alleged death threats since the contents of the emails were released, adding he was being treated as a ‘victim of crime’ rather than a suspect in any criminal investigation.
Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory added: ‘He is one of the people assisting police with their enquiries.’
A spokeswoman for the University of East Anglia refused to comment and said Professor Jones would not be adding to a statement he released on Tuesday.
The professor refused to comment at his detached home in Wicklewood, a few miles outside Norwich.
Meanwhile, researchers are calling for Professor Jones to be banned from contributing to agenda-setting United Nations reports.
Eduardo Zorita, an expert in European climate trends, said that future reports from the UN’s International Panel of Climate Change would lack credibility if Professor Jones was involved in their compilation.
As director of the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climatic Research Unit, the professor has provided temperature data key to previous reports used by governments around the world when setting climate change policy.
Dr Zorita also said that the content of thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia’s computer system and published on the internet confirmed that some global warming research was riddled with ‘machination, conspiracies and collusion’.
He and colleague Hans von Storch were mentioned in more than 30 documents, with one email referring to Professor von Storch as ‘frankly an odd individual’.
Other emails have been seized on by climate change sceptics as evidence that researchers have been manipulating raw data and discussing ways of evading Freedom on Information requests.
In one of the most damaging emails, Professor Jones seems to suggest using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.
In another, he appears to respond to news of the death of climate sceptic John Daly with the words ‘in an odd way this is cheering news!’
Others show British researchers apparently dismissing the work of scientists challenging the global warming orthodoxy as ‘crap’ and a top American climatologist admitting it was a ‘travesty’ that scientists could not account for the lack of global warming in recent years.
Dr Zorita, of the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht in northern Germany, is an expert in climate change over the past 1,000 years and contributed to the most recent IPCC report.
He said that he was aware that his call for Professor Jones and others who wrote controversial emails to be banned from contributing to future reports could harm his career, but ‘the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible any more’.
He said: ‘I can confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU files.
‘The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.’
The researcher added although he does not believe that manmade climate is a hoax, he and other researchers have been ‘bullied and subtly blackmailed’ to fit in the scientific mainstream.
‘In this atmosphere, PhD students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the “politically correct picture”,’ he said.
‘Some, or many, issues about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of these attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.’
The comments come in the wake of Professor Jones’s decision to stand down from his university work while an independent investigation is carried out.
The professor said that he ‘absolutely’ stands by the science produced by the centre – and that suggestions of a conspiracy to boost the evidence for man-made global warming were ‘complete rubbish’.
Issues to be probed include data security and whether the university responded to Freedom of Information requests.
However, the university was tonight unable to confirm if the data that appears to have been manipulated will be reanalysed.
Environmental chemist Professor Peter Liss will become acting director and further details of the review will be released ‘within days’.
Professor von Storch, director of the Institute of Coastal research, said: ‘This is a brave act on the side of Phil Jones and may be the only way to restore his authority as an excellent scientist.
‘What is left for Phil Jones to do is to restrain from doing review work for journals, and, of course, he should stay away from the IPCC and similar assessment exercises.’
He added that the investigation should be led by a non-Briton and include input from climate change sceptics.
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the British-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘What is important is that the university comes clean on this and they don’t fudge the inquiry.
‘We need total transparency on this.
‘If they try to set up some kind of whitewash panel which an inquiry that does not have the total trust of the public it will make matters worse.
‘We have called for a High Court judge to chair the inquiry just to make sure that trust is restored.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z0YZrQavVh

December 2, 2009 4:25 pm

Let’s hope “policymakers, in general” are smart enough to recognize fraud when it is presented to them, too.
The fact that the data can not be reconstructed or independently verified sure would seem like a major problem to me.

December 2, 2009 4:26 pm

Well if I didn’t know better, I’d say he seems a trustable fella. I suppose that is why we’ve ended in the situation we have.

December 2, 2009 4:29 pm

He smiles an awful lot in that interview in a way someone being deceptive does, thinking they are outwitting the audience. I would love to see an expert on facial expressions analyse that video.

Aaron W.
December 2, 2009 4:30 pm

What a snake, I wanted to punch him through my computer screen. Also accuweather didn’t seem too concerned over the emails.

December 2, 2009 4:30 pm

Baaaaah! Complete non-answer. Face it Mann you’re a fraud and deserve to be “frogmarched” before the public who you’ve attempted to swindle. Bernie Madoff is a glass of spilt milk in comparison to this scam.

December 2, 2009 4:32 pm

Climategate will not go away any time soon, too many people have heard about it through the Internet and word of mouth. The MSM is irrelevant at this point.

December 2, 2009 4:33 pm

Wiow this is interesting! :”Initially promoted by Enron”
Cap-and-trade, a scheme initially promoted by Enron to allow traders to profit at the expense of taxpayers, is currently before the U.S. Senate. According to the U.S. Treasury, this proposal includes between $100 billion and $200 billion in additional taxes a year, costing an additional $1,761 per family — equivalent to a 15% hike in the personal income tax.
Remove if too OT

December 2, 2009 4:36 pm

That was pathetic.

December 2, 2009 4:37 pm

“Policy makers are smart enough to recognize that”
The policy makers are starting to wakeup to the deception. You should recognize that and get better excuses.

December 2, 2009 4:43 pm

I wonder whether the IPCC AR5 would come out in due course. Its publication will at least be heavily delayed?

Dave Wendt
December 2, 2009 4:45 pm

I was moved to do a long rant in response to this, but I read a blog post today that covers most of my thoughts with much greater verbal skills than I can bring to bear
Tell me lies,
Tell me sweet little lies.
— Fleetwood Mac
As we all learn whenever we feel the teeth of truth’s bear trap snapping closed the first lie told to escape the trap is, in retrospect, the most illuminating. This “primal” lie is the one told in haste and either repented or embroidered later as the truth begins to inexorably emerge. That is why to connoisseurs of lies the first and freshest lies are always the most delicious when it comes time to fry them up.
So it is with the first and most primal lie of ClimateGate; “the emails don’t amount to much at all.” This was the first lie to come out of the mouths of the Alarmists and their supporters and it was yummy. This lie was, indeed, the main “Talking Point” (i.e. Group Lie) for a number of days until a deeper examination of the emails themselves and the read-me files and the comments in the programs gave their first lie and indeed their whole enterprise the lie.
Looking back it is easy to see that the emails, far from being just trivial statements exchanged between pals, partners in deceit, and collegial others, were indeed the window into the entire mind-set that drove and sustained what is looking to be the largest and most far-reaching hoax in the history of science; a hoax perpetuated across decades by dozens if not hundreds of “scientists” for the sake of “saving the planet” and money, and fame, and status, and power. Indeed, this hoax makes Bernard Madoff look like a street-corner three-card-monte hustler. Looking through the window provided by the emails you can discern, with no effort of imagination whatsoever, the much greater real-world environment in which the hoax was born, grew, took on a life of its own, and was fed and sustained until it swept the whole world into its maw.
Think about your own collection of emails written to friends, associates, and colleagues over the years. They form, taken en masse, footnotes and journal entries that document your life. Email does not exist in a vacuum. It replicates in outline the conversations, phone calls, meetings, work sessions, bull sessions, conventions, and all the other multifoliate actions that define your days. So it is with the HadlyCRU emails.
You don’t need to read the thousands of messages. Just read around in them and you’ll get the picture soon enough.
Read it all at the link, it’s worth the effort.

December 2, 2009 4:47 pm

I feel that it was a damaging interview for him and climate scientists. It hit all the main topics and the average person will go away thinking where there’s smoke there’s fire.

December 2, 2009 4:47 pm

“It’s a distraction?” – Michael Mann, say what? Now who’s the denier?
Mann’s sure playing it cool, which is to be expected considering the size of his balls for fudging the data all these years as the creator of “ManN Made Global Warming Climate Change”. It’s not just Mann’s career at stake, it’s his freedom should any of the fraud allegations be proven in a criminal case against him. He might actually believe his own lies in which case proving “actus reus mens rea” could be difficult.

George E. Smith
December 2, 2009 4:50 pm

Well Mann said it; iut is a distraction.
Meanwhile the World Health Organisation ranking world health risks in 2004, placed Global Climate Change at number 24 on a list. Number one was underweight, while number 10 was overweight. Unsafe sex came in at number two on the list.
And that underweight problem scored at 90.4, while climate change managed a miserable 5.4 score. I’m sure it is in some SI units that I am not privy to.
In short, climate change is barely on the radar screen of WHO concerns. but that didn’t stop the new UN General Secretary or whatever his title is, from saying he would make it his #1 concern for the UN.
Yes Dr Mike (I guess we can call him that) climate change is a distraction alright.

Julian in Wales
December 2, 2009 4:52 pm
December 2, 2009 4:53 pm

I love the last comment: “It’s a distraction, and I think policy makers in Washington are smart enough to understand that.”
Yeah, just stroke that liberal ego. Works every time. If you agree with me, you are smart.

December 2, 2009 4:56 pm

He finishes up with policy … pretty transparent stuff. Nature is on board protecting this now as well.

Larry Geiger
December 2, 2009 4:59 pm

Dendrochronology is not a mature science yet. Certainly not for studying the temperature record. I think that Mann may have acually been sucked into something way over his head. If this wasn’t so important to global economics, he would have continued to study and publish and might have eventually, in collaboration with many other scientists, created some useful knowledge.

December 2, 2009 4:59 pm

I wish the interview wasn’t edited so much. I was trying to read his body/facial expressions but the clips were so short that it made it difficult.

December 2, 2009 5:06 pm

The only TENURED LIAR on the Penn State campus.

Henry chance
December 2, 2009 5:07 pm

I posted on the very first thread that Mann would claim the e-mails would be taken out of context. Mann yu are not very bright. an e-mal has a subject line which annouinces the context and the topic. It announces to whom the message is sent and what the goal is.
You can’t say you didn’t say what was said.
Sure it is a distraction. Thatis true of every scandel.
Mann has proven in writing he is a vindictive person.
Man also tells us very clearly in writing that he is manipulative and will manipulate editors to delete articles and keep people out that question him.
Mann gets to read this and see that he can’t fool the skeptics.
This is worse than expected.

December 2, 2009 5:08 pm

Funny thing here…
When Republicans or conservatives are outted for something the person doing the outting is a brave whistle blower or some such nonsense…
When the tables are reversed its a crime of some sort: Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over ‘Climategate’

Spenc BC
December 2, 2009 5:09 pm

Here is a fair assessment of the Moonbot debate here in Canada last evening. Synopsis: Climategate kicks a$$!

December 2, 2009 5:09 pm

Just a few comments though, again, as I said, hard to tell, but he did seem to be looking down quite a bit, which isn’t a good sign. Also, when he said that “no emails were deleted” he was nodding “yes” – as in “yes” they were deleted and at the end of that sentence he seems to lick his lips a bit. Oh, and he wasn’t blinking at all when he said that – I suspect right after that clip ended he blinked a bunch, a release of the stress caused by lying.

December 2, 2009 5:12 pm

This might cheer everyone up a bit:

Mark T
December 2, 2009 5:13 pm

Larry Geiger (16:59:15) :

If this wasn’t so important to global economics, he would have continued to study and publish and might have eventually, in collaboration with many other scientists, created some useful knowledge.

He’s a known liar. Expecting any more integrity from his research under difference circumstances is not warranted. Liars lie, even when they have no need to lie.

December 2, 2009 5:13 pm

Doesnt seem to play in Australia :'(

December 2, 2009 5:14 pm

I guess I will stop calling him Piltdown Mann after that performance…. Not.

December 2, 2009 5:15 pm

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.
Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.
“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Well, Senator, we’ve looked at ’em for quite some time now, and we see some very bad things were done in the name of AGW.
And it all depends on who leaked the emails.
Looks to be internal.
Keep reading Senator, you will eventually find that AGW was concocted, and while you are at it, why don’t you lean on somebody to get the destroyed data back into the public record.

Jack Green
December 2, 2009 5:19 pm

The crime is the coverup and the real damaging data is the Fortran Computer Code. Forget about the emails. The experts out there need to examine the code because it is the tool that many so called scientists relied upon. It will be their undoing along with the coverup. Nail them Anthony!

Henry chance
December 2, 2009 5:23 pm

Mann has an inflated ego. His reference to “it is a distraction” tells us he thinks it is a noble calling. That line tells us he is incredibly self important and this interferes with his gift to the planet. How dare the insignificant people waste his time.
The smug expression on his face indicates denial. This denial explains why he is too important to release his data to people that have the nerve to question his proclamations.
I noticed he rapidly released more studies after his exposure. I wonder if he has faced a classroom full of students since the big bust.

Mark T
December 2, 2009 5:28 pm

Uh, different, not difference, in the above post.
Just got an email from Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort: most snow in 30 years in the month of November, 18 feet, 4 times the average.

December 2, 2009 5:33 pm

Ref dearieme (16:29:17) post linking to the Dailymail
Love the picture caption:
‘Victim’: Professor Phil Jones

Henry chance
December 2, 2009 5:34 pm

Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400, AD 1600… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! mike
p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first.
This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
Meltdown Mann and one of the CRUtape letters

Mariss Freimanis
December 2, 2009 5:44 pm

Smugly superior condescension matched only by astounding arrogance. Mann shows he has the wherewithal to dig himself a truly deep hole.

December 2, 2009 5:45 pm

tokyoboy (16:43:40) :
I wonder whether the IPCC AR5 would come out in due course. Its publication will at least be heavily delayed?

Maybe it will come out in comic book format.

December 2, 2009 5:46 pm

He lost a little weight. Has he been a tree ring diet? MMMM So much data to hide.

December 2, 2009 5:51 pm
December 2, 2009 5:55 pm

re: DotEarth on Roger P. Sr. ( http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ )
Headline “Critic of ‘Climate Oligarchy’ Defends Case for CO2-Driven Warming”
Has anyone seen any comment by Roger Sr on Andy’s take on Roger’s statements?

December 2, 2009 6:03 pm

What are the implications of this exchange?
See 1213201481.txt.
I have trouble understanding why this simple exchange is not the end of Michael Mann. Does Penn State, by turning Nelson’s blind eye, support this sort of thing?
1. Mike to Phil, requesting Phil’s H index ( a measure of publishing success) for application as a fellow of the AGU:
Hi Phil,
I’m continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel
room in Trieste–the weather isn’t any good!). If its possible for a case to
be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as
supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of
the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I’m told is important!
Surprisingly, Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I’m guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had
something to do w/ that 😉
Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value
of “N” where “N” is the number of papers an individual authored/co-authored
that have more than N citations. N=40 (i.e., an individual has published
at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I’m guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind figuring out that number and sending–I think it would be useful is really sealing the case.
2. Phil tells mike that the index is 62 if other ‘phil jones’ are not removed, 52 otherwise:
Off to the US tomorrow for 1.5 days in Asheville.
On 1, this is what people call the H index. I’ve tried working this out and there is software for it on the web of science. Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got
52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52.
3. Mike tells Phil he will use 62 regardless:
HI Phil,
OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.
Phil Jones was subsequently admitted as a fellow.
Does this mean, as it certainly appears to mean, the Phil Jones was fradulently admitted as an AGU fellow?

Patrick Davis
December 2, 2009 6:05 pm

OT, not sure if this has been posted before there are so many to read…but…
Scientists resigns from the Australian CSIRO.

December 2, 2009 6:06 pm

Neal (16:53:01) :
I love the last comment: “It’s a distraction, and I think policy makers in Washington are smart enough to understand that.”

He just showed himself. He is a Progressive Socialist just like the President and just like the Euopeans pushing this agenda. He showed his arrogance.

December 2, 2009 6:10 pm

All I could think when I saw his face was…
Hide the Decline! Hide the Decline!

December 2, 2009 6:15 pm

Snow forecast for Dallas Texas Friday. There is no global cooling, pay no attention to the snowman in Texas.

Sean Peake
December 2, 2009 6:17 pm

I know it’s tempting to criticize Mann for this interview (it’s like kicking puppies—it is way too easy)‚ But let’s not adopt the warmers’ deflection mechanism. We need to go after his work, not his words. The mission is to uncover the truth, not to seek retribution. If we get distracted by the latter we play into the warmers’ hands and got-cha MSM journalism. Just a thought.

Robert of Canada
December 2, 2009 6:18 pm

“Taken out of context” Ha hah aha hah a effin hhaha!!
That is the lamest excuse available to a person in deep doo-doo.
Also, the crimatologists are all throwing each other under the bus. Just check Judy Curry today (sorry, lost link). She threw railroad engineer Pachuri under the … er .. train.
In French, there is a phrase : “sauve qui peut generale” which basically translates as “everyone for themselves” (hey, I am Canadian)

December 2, 2009 6:21 pm

“Michael (18:15:08) :
Snow forecast for Dallas Texas Friday.”
and here in Houston. We had one day of snow last year, for some people it was the first time in their lives that it had happened; now two years running.

December 2, 2009 6:27 pm

DT (18:10:50) :
All I could think when I saw his face was…
Hide the Decline! Hide the Decline!

In my mind’s eye I saw the official folks gathering for the Copenhagen summit and imagined a small chorus outside singing the Hide The Decline song with a helper dressed in a polar bear outfit holding up the lyrics on white cards. It probably wouldn’t be covered by the MSM, but it’d make for a great WUWT photo op!

Robert of Canada
December 2, 2009 6:27 pm

Patrick Davis (18:05:12) :
OT, not sure if this has been posted before there are so many to read…but…
Scientists resigns from the Australian CSIRO.

Big news. Incredibly, althought this guy bought the BIG LIE, he was run out of town because he didn’t buy the “LIE”. He was opposed to ETS and for a direct Carbon Tax.
Please. mate, tell me why a scientist is advocating policy?

P Walker
December 2, 2009 6:28 pm

While the wheels may be falling off the the global warming aspect of AGW , the A still remains . The emphasis will slowly , subtley change to oceanic acidification , as has been pointed out in other threads recently .

Doug in Seattle
December 2, 2009 6:30 pm

blastzilla (17:13:33) :
Doesnt seem to play in Australia :’(

Doesn’t play in Seattle either. Looks like all the WUWT traffic was sucking the life out of their server and they severed the link to the video.

December 2, 2009 6:31 pm

Im being sarcastic here… WUWT move on.. Global warming is over you are no longer required. LOL

December 2, 2009 6:32 pm

A top NASA scientist says he would rather see no agreement at the Copenhagen climate conference because the whole approach to climate change is so deeply flawed that it would be better to start from scratch.
James Hansen told The Guardian newspaper that he believed any agreement that might emerge from the upcoming conference would be deeply flawed.

Covered. Inability to scroll? – A

December 2, 2009 6:32 pm

This is somehow off-topic, but is this how you do science in climatology?
I may be way off, so please correct me if needed.
Post-normal science:
“James J. Kay described Post-normal science as a process that recognizes the potential
for gaps in knowledge and understanding that cannot be resolved other than through revolutionary
science, thereby arguing that (in between revolutions) one should not necessarily
attempt to resolve or dismiss contradictory perspectives of the world
(whether they are based on science or not), but instead incorporate multiple viewpoints
into the same problem-solving process.”
Let us do some workout for post-normal mathematics:
Assume that 1=2 and everything else is as in elementary school,
Damn it! It’s not that intresting.
No problems post-normal science in physical sciences will help us:
A moon is the cheese! Let us assume that a gravition constant stay constant,
even when the moon is the cheese. Is this correct??? Hard to say, but let us
assume that it is…
Let us assume that we have a branch of “science” with a idiotic dogma, which is based on nothing…
Let us assume that all the experimental results are corrupted.
Let us assume that a theory of everything is already here…
A miracle just happened :
Wellcome to the Brave New World!

December 2, 2009 6:32 pm

DaleC H index is just an author’s citation index. I would not read anything untowards into that. Anyway their citation index will probably = 0 in the near future LOL

December 2, 2009 6:33 pm

He’ll bury himself.

December 2, 2009 6:45 pm

Boxer will do her best and Chair and majority party to prevent the investigation from occurring. Markey said some similar thing, even more partisan. The narrative from them is that Warming is occurring, they will not be denied, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Not the words of a group of “caring” representatives, is it?

December 2, 2009 6:49 pm

VG, the point is that the 62 number includes people other than the original Phil Jones, thus it does not represent a valid citation index.
At least that is how I read it.

December 2, 2009 6:53 pm

“I think policy makers will see that (it’s a distraction).”
Pretty blatant about the directions he’s giving them, especially with his smug “you can’t touch me” smile.
As Voldemort said, “I can touch you NOW.”

Bill Illis
December 2, 2009 7:00 pm

Michael Mann has a lot of talent and one of those talents is the ability to push a straight-faced distortion of the facts, the answers to an interviewer’s questions, the math, etc.
Plain clothes police officers took Jones away? Neither explanation makes much sense to me. The media is really jumping on-board now. ClimateGate is getting “series”.

December 2, 2009 7:00 pm

The weather service predicts San Antonio and Bexar County has a 60 to 70 percent chance of receiving a half-inch to an inch of snowfall on Friday. The record for earliest measurable snowfall was set Dec. 14, 1898, when 2.7 inches fell.

Robert of Canada
December 2, 2009 7:02 pm

For those who know the Ignobel Prizes, here is a chance to ridicule these jack-asses. Nomintae Jim Hansen, or Al Gore, or Michael Mann, or Phil Jones, with a prize. I personally nominated the whole HadCRU. This is where to send your nomination. Or you can go to the Ignobel Prize web site (google it).

Michael Larkin
December 2, 2009 7:07 pm

BBC radio 4 “The world tonight” has an interview with Micheal Mann and some other relevant info. Listen from around 0:18.30 to 0:34.

December 2, 2009 7:15 pm

That was it? That is all he said?
‘Move along, proles, nothing here to see.’
He wishes, desperately, it were so.

December 2, 2009 7:18 pm

Dave Wendt (16:45:04) :
Jeez, Dave, I’m so disappointed you chose not to give us the LONG rant… ;})

James Chamberlain
December 2, 2009 7:20 pm

I have big concerns that P Walker is correct. If AGW theory fails, there is still a way to go after the “A”. Many “discoveries” over the past year, and especially, recent days indicate this. Acidification of oceans, ocean uptake of CO2. It reminds me a bit of the “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” shift. This time it will be the “carbon emergency” or something.

December 2, 2009 7:27 pm

More front than Myers!

December 2, 2009 7:28 pm

Sean Peake (18:17:26) :
I’m all in favor of uncovering the truth, let the chips fall where they may. I’m also the vindictive sort. I’m all in favor of retribution. The Statist elites Mann is appealing to really don’t care about proletarians. Oh, you’ve got a college degree and a profession? What makes you think you are not a prol in the new economic order?

blown away
December 2, 2009 7:32 pm

You’ve broken my heart in two, Micheal Mann.
It’s over.

December 2, 2009 7:37 pm

The 52 vs 62 looks to me conceptually the same as telling lies on a CV. Maybe Jones in a later email not released said “hey mike, ya can’t say 62 – it’s just not true”, but the point for this thread is that Mann showed himself perfectly comfortable with using a deliberate misreading of an extra 10 index points to get his mate Phil into the AGU as a fellow. In effect, this is a claim to publications which never existed. Had the extra publications been explictly cited, and then shown to have never existed, they would both be sacked immediately. For those baffled by the conflicting mathematical and statistical arguments, this point is immediately accessible. Why don’t journalists ask mike (he always uses the non-hierarchic lower case of himself) what is going on here. I would be very interested in his defence.

December 2, 2009 7:48 pm

Robert Soros,
In response to Michael Mann’s highly dubious assertion that he made all his data available, let me quote Rep. Joe Barton to 0bama:
“You lie!”
Mann is a liar. [I’ve followed Climate Audit re: the Mann et al shenanigans].
But of course, I could be wrong. So let’s prove it one way or another. Have Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick publicly provide a detailed list of all the raw data, all adjusted data, all methodologies, and anything else they may need from Michael Mann, et al, for the purpose of falsification of the CO2=AGW hypothesis. Michael Mann must provide all of the requested information within 72 hours [very easy; a few dozen mouse clicks, a DVD burner, and a copy machine are all that are necessary to comply].
Watch Michael Mann squirm like a cornered liar on the witness stand.
Prove me wrong — if you can, Michael Mann.

December 2, 2009 7:56 pm

RE John 17:12,

December 2, 2009 8:00 pm

“Maybe it will come out in comic book format.”
I would suggest Sergio Aragones do the art work.

December 2, 2009 8:03 pm

“It’s a distraction, and I think policy makers in Washington are smart enough to understand that.”
The same tactic he used in his email grooming that useful idiot Revkin: “Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?”
I’m looking forward to him telling us the state of his ring when he gets out of prison.

December 2, 2009 8:10 pm

Smokey (19:48:09) :
let me quote Rep. Joe Barton to 0bama:
“You lie!”

Make that “Joe Wilson” and you get the cee-gar.

Claude Harvey
December 2, 2009 8:11 pm

The man failed the “possum test”. When they smiles like possums when they answerin’ tough questions, they guilty as sin!

December 2, 2009 8:13 pm

The U.S. mainstream media: click
Their response to the leaked emails: click2
More seriously: click

December 2, 2009 8:17 pm

_Jim (20:10:16),
You are right, thanks for the correction.

December 2, 2009 8:25 pm

“I think policy makers will see that (it’s a distraction).”
Copenhagen Temperature 1881-2007

Mr Lynn
December 2, 2009 8:50 pm

Speaking of ‘policy-makers’. . .

Obama science officials defend warming research
Dec 2 03:18 PM US/EasternWASHINGTON (AP) –
Top White House science officials defended the validity of global warming research against repeated Republican attacks Wednesday that cited leaked e-mails from some climate researchers.
The e-mails from a British university’s climate center were obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent.
At a Capitol Hill hearing, the president’s science adviser and the chief of the agency in charge of climate research said the e-mails did nothing to undermine scientific consensus on climate change. Some Republicans said they showed a “culture of corruption” among scientists.

/Mr Lynn

joshua corning
December 2, 2009 8:51 pm

Michael Mann, Dec 2004
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction.
Phil Jones, Nov 1999
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)


December 2, 2009 8:51 pm

More corruption:
“A former top climate scientist who had become of one the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday….”

April E. Coggins
December 2, 2009 8:53 pm

I laughed out loud when I viewed the video. It was a pathetic attempt by a previously protected member of “the Team”. Now, he is simply an unsympathetic scientist twisting in the wind.

December 2, 2009 8:54 pm

Today’s excellent Wall Street Journal article: click
Check out the comments. People are getting fed up with climate fraud.

December 2, 2009 8:56 pm

From a report that I read today:
\\Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), one of the authors of the letter to the EPA, said in a news release Wednesday that the e-mails “read more like scientific fascism than the scientific process. . . . It’s time to take back the notion that the ‘science is settled.’ “//
What was exposed in the CRUgate emails was a form scientific fascism in which resentments and disagreements become the focus and obsession of the scientists in question, all in the pursuit of power and influence. It’s one thing to disagree with those with whom you disagree, it’s another to attempt to destroy their professional lives and to celebrate their deaths. The argument that “we are in possession of the absolute truth and no one else therefore needs to have an opposing opinion,” is fascist to the core.
Fascism is alive and well in American and European culture. What is not widely understood is that it is a leftist authoritarian brand of fascism and just as virulent as the so-called “right-wing” versions of the 1920s and 30s.

Julian in Wales
December 2, 2009 9:12 pm

I have always been impressed by the Roman Catholic point of view (Dantes Divine Comedy) that the strength of goodness is that it tends to harmony and the weakness of evil is that it tends towards disharmony. Today’s events seem to illustrate this point.
The Michael Mann video clip seems to me to be part of a longer interview given for R4 where he seriously dumps on Phil Jones and Phil Jones, when given the right to reply by R4 did not take them up on the offer. These two are already at each other’s throats.
A new strand of disharmony is started by Hansen who seems to have gone of a jag of his own with his interview with the Guardian where he advocate ruining the Copenhagen conference because it is all too tame. These people are no longer singing from one song sheet which must be very good news for anyone who wishes to see the IPCC’s reputation for being a reputable organisation collapse in on itself.

December 2, 2009 9:17 pm

I noticed the CBC in Canada did a fairly prominent story this evening within the first 15 minutes of their ‘The National’ daily marquee news broadcast on climategate……surpirisingly they didn’t really try to discount it & acknowledged
the severity of it’s implications & CRU Jones stepping down etc. I figured the CBC would be the last place to cave in what with their leftist/ecoist agenda.

December 2, 2009 9:21 pm

Has the leaker been found ?

December 2, 2009 9:35 pm

Attention Canadians: If you have your doubts about AGW go to “Common Cents from Cameron MacKay” and sign the Petition asking for a Royal Commission to get to the truth of these AGW claims. Your involvement could only save us from Billions of Dollars in taxation in the future.

December 2, 2009 9:36 pm

When Nature put a “hot Antarctica” on the cover to highlight Steig’s paper despite recent cooling of Antarctic, I thought that Nature might be more of an advocacy journal vs an objective scientific journal. But there new editorial “Climatologists under pressure” linked at RC clearly show that their hubris and advocacy.
They want to portray the Jones and Mann as harassed victims, instead of the brazen manipulators that they have revealed themselves to be. Did CRU dump the raw data o protect them selves from harassment? Is avoid harassment an Orwellian way of saying avoiding attempts to replicate the reserach?
They believe they have accounted for all sources of natural climate variation, Nature stated “Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. ” Yet it is precisely Jones, Mann et al’s manipulations that have tried to limit publications about natural variations and hide the historic natural variation by manipulating temperature reconstructions. The “higher I look the crookeder it looks!”
There needs to be a demand for those modelers to show how and why they have weighted the various forms of natural variation, or they will continue to hide behind this.

December 2, 2009 9:38 pm

The condensending “I think policy makers are smart enough to recognise that” is very telling of Prof. Mann’s inner workings. There is no honest character in this man. His body language and verbal undertones of self importance and ego are red flags. We cannot trust Mr. Mann with the millions of dollars of public research money, or with judgment regarding future political policies that so profoundly impact our society. Prof Mann: step asside so we can move forward with honest folks at the helm.

Jeff Alberts
December 2, 2009 9:46 pm

The smug expression on his face indicates denial. This denial explains why he is too important to release his data to people that have the nerve to question his proclamations.

To me it indicates elitism. That we small little peasants aren’t capable of understand his enormous brain or the concepts he attempts to convey.

Roger Knights
December 2, 2009 11:37 pm

Sashka / New York / December 2nd, 2009 3:58 pm
From dot earth
“What the “consensus” scientists (aka climate oligarchy) need to understand is that they are NOT dealing in (noisy) data, (inadequate) models and (uncertain) projections. They are actually dealing in trust. Unfortunately they have just lost most of whatever little currency they used to have.
“The only way for them to get the trust back is to clean up the house. This means firing joneses and manns, opening the data, revealing the data analysis methods to the last point, acknowledging the uncertainties in full etc. Holster the guns, uncircle the wagons, put the cards on the table and exercise humility. After a few years the dust will settle and science will continue to work its course: slowly, carefully and honestly.”

This is the important point about the CRUtape Letters: they reveal that the Climate Research Oligarchy is incestuous, unprincipled, and untrustworthy. That’s the point to harp on. That’s why this story has legs and will prove to be a deal-breaker.
Don’t stress on the measurement fudging. They can talk their way out of that, and it’s minor. Pielke Sr. in that dot earth thread made the same point about the relative unimportance of the technical fudging.

December 2, 2009 11:48 pm

Re jones being taken away by police. If you read the articles again they all state he was questioned around the emails being stolen, not around their contents.
Let’s not get our hopes up.

Roger Knights
December 2, 2009 11:57 pm

“The article wraps up with this sentence, “The degree of skepticism [on climate change] among real scientists is very small.”
They’re sheep who can only tell which way the wind is blowing. They’ll come around.

December 3, 2009 12:30 am

In Australia we have a simple test. “Would you buy a used car from this man (Mann)?
The simple answer is “not on your life”

Brian Johnson uk
December 3, 2009 12:38 am

Michael Mann reminds me of a film from 2 decades back that says it all. The only snag is he needs to be a young female to fit the title but then that is nothing compared to inverting data to generate another hockey stick falsehood.
The film? Imdb has it.
“Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama” (1988)
What a title! : )

Indiana Bones
December 3, 2009 1:16 am

Is it possible that Bostonian Sumner Redstone and his CBS Network are finally starting to see the climate through MIT’s Dr. Lindzen’s eyes?? CBS, after avoiding the story for ten days has published a skeptical-minded article online:
“… it looks like climate change skeptics have finally found their voice. And scientists and politicians endorsing dramatic limits on economic growth to limit carbon dioxide have been reminded where the burden of proof properly lies. ”
It is not that skeptics are ‘desperate to discredit global warming’ – they are properly disturbed by the strong arm tactics the climate cabal used to get their way.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
December 3, 2009 1:52 am

Out of context my backside. Even if you ignore the emails the comments in the programming code are totally damning.

Hoi Polloi
December 3, 2009 1:57 am

Look at the video without sound (we know what he’s gonna say, right?). The body language is revealing…

Cold Englishman
December 3, 2009 3:14 am

So they wangled Phil “Cheers” Jones into the AGU. Here are some core values from their web site:-
Our Values
AGU’s mission, goals, guiding principles, programs, policies and procedures are built on a foundation of widely shared values. We value:
•The scientific method.
•The generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge.
•Excellence and integrity in everything we do.
•Free exchange of ideas and information.
•A diversity of backgrounds, scientific ideas, and approaches.
•The worth and dignity of individuals.
•The volunteerism of members and the dedication of staff.
•Responsible stewardship of AGU resources.
•Accountability to the public.
•Unselfish cooperation in research.
Maybe Phil should consider his options!

Cold Englishman
December 3, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Mailman (23:48:43) :
Re jones being taken away by police. If you read the articles again they all state he was questioned around the emails being stolen, not around their contents.
For those unfamiliar with the way British Bobbies work, the significant part of the report was not that they were questioning him about theft from the University, but the fact that they took him to the Police Station, to question him.
This means that they questioned him probably under caution and ON TAPE. This is much more significant that turning up to his office and asking which box is the server that got nicked? Bear in mind that some folk have made formal complaints to the police.
We await developments

December 3, 2009 3:27 am

Of course Mann knows about emails being delete. In the leaked emails Jones informed the others that he had deleted most of his emails 2 months ago and urged the others to do the same.
Mann is openly lying!

Peter B
December 3, 2009 3:29 am

DaleC (18:03:10)
On the “H=62 is better than H=52” issue.
I think that illustrates Mann’s (lack of) character perfectly. Mann has no scruples whatsoever in using the value that will be more advantageous to him – right after being directly told that it does not represent the truth. He casually says that 62 is better than 52 – never mind that 52=truth (the figure for Phil Jones’s publications) and 62=false (including publications by another man of the same name). Factual truth is of no importance to Mann. Yet, he does not lie outright as in inventing a figure out of thin air – he keeps what he might call (paraphrasing him) “plausible deniabilty” by using the 62 result which allows him to claim that he did not notice that there was another Phil Jones in the publications listed.
There, in that e-mail, one can see the origins of the hockey stick. That man has no business having anything to do with science. He lacks any committment to factual truth.

December 3, 2009 3:35 am

I am the all powerful Oz! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
What a brutal questioning by the media. Tough, hard-hitting questions….Bah!

December 3, 2009 4:14 am

Looks to me like Mann eats too many pies. That can’t be good for the climate. Is he a vegetarian?

December 3, 2009 5:40 am

Isn’t Accuweather based in Central PA? As in, near Penn State? As in, part of The Team? Just askin’….

December 3, 2009 7:38 am

“Larry Geiger (16:59:15) :
Dendrochronology is not a mature science yet. Certainly not for studying the temperature record.”
As I posted on another thread, please don’t confuse dendrochronology (tree-ring timescales, used by archaeologists for decades) with dendroclimatology, the voodoo used by the AGW crowd. It’s like confusing astronomy with astrology.

Antonio San
December 3, 2009 7:45 am

Is that it? That’s all?
It is worse than we thought…

December 3, 2009 8:08 am

Wow, I never realized sh*t could talk.

December 3, 2009 8:18 am

If anyone out there is interested in true science, you must read the following report:

December 3, 2009 12:23 pm

Doug in Seattle & blastzilla :
‘Doesnt seem to play in Australia’
Here’s the YouTube link if you’re still interested:

December 3, 2009 12:24 pm

What Mann doesn’t say:
“I did not delete any emails following Phil Jones request.”
“I did not email Gene and ask him to do the same or send Phil Gene’s address”
“I have not manipulated data.”
He simply says “there is no evidence” and he “could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones”.
I expected an unambiguous denial about both the deletions and the data manipulation.

December 3, 2009 1:31 pm

I hadn’t noticed before but it is mentioned on the video image of mann that the conference starts on Dec. 7 – already a day that will ” live in infamy…” as the Pearl Harbor 1941 attack.
How suitable!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights