It has started – the infighting begins in the court of public opinion.
Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague
Here’s an excerpt:
One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.”
Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.
“I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.”
Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.
Complete story here at the Telegraph:
Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague
h/t to Kate at SDA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he TOO had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.
I have not ALSO manipulated data. Meaning Jones has? Is that an admission?
OK Jones has manipulated data – thats confirmed. Now we just have to nail you and Schmidt and Wigley
How many “data sets” are relied upon by the scientists and politicians in this matter? How many have the raw data publicly available?
How many data sets are bogus “proxies” like using one tree in Russia to determine world climate?
How can any “scientist” believe AGW when the data is so suspect?
“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!
It has been said before: Don’t attribute to malevolence what when incompetence will suffice.
“Prof Mann then argued however that there was ‘absolutely no evidence’ that he too had manipulated data”
That is the Bart Simpson defense – “I didn’t do it, no one saw me do it, you can’t prove anything!”
“Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: ‘I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.’”
Where is his contemporaneous e-mail reply documenting his disapproval to the suggestion to delete e-mails?
qui tacet consentire videtur
Mann’s statement doesn’t quite yet qualify as throwing Jones under the bus, IMO. It’s more like shifting himself behind Jones as the bus approaches. The big shove is yet to come.
There must be another whistle-blower lurking somewhere in the bowels of one of these great, scientific institutions. Someone who has knowledge of other e-mails or of more ‘value added’ data proving what a crock the AGW theory is. Perhaps he/she looks in on this and other such sites to see which way the wind is blowing. Well, I’d say the wind would be well and truly at the back of anyone who would now raise their head and whistle another merry tune.
Need some more encouragement, mr/mrs/miss/ms whistle-blower? Imagine the kudos for having put the last nail in the coffin of AGW; imagine the book-rights, the tv interviews, the (I knew it all along) politicians desperate to be photographed shaking you hand… on second thoughts, forget that last one. Imagine also, the gratitude of the vast majority of honest mortals in your profession who are being painted with the same dirty brush of institutionalized corruption currently being used to blacken forever the reputations of your once, beyond-reproach leaders.
All together now, “Whistle while you work…”
I notice that they’re making accusations of media manipulation.
Let me say that again – the ALARMISTS are accusing the SKEPTICS of media manipulation.
Are you kidding me??? That would be like John Kerry calling Larry the Cable Guy a snob.
I suppose they’re all upset because this occurred right between the GE/NBC “tips for living greener” week and the Rock Star President’s jetting off to Copenhagen to attend the Climate Summit (while picking up the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him for… well, awarded to him).
Cheer up, guys, it could have been far worse – it could have been timed to ruin the week-long Earth Day festival of public school enviro-indoctrination. Or it could have coincided with the DVD release of An Inconvenient Truth (or its made-for-TV cousin The Day After).
So many of his correspondences raise questions. Eg.
From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Something far more interesting
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Phil,
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some
direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and
the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked
by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with
you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with
manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it
would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some
overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal
of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that
in the least.
Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing
of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to
make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly
thing in the world.
In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you
need from me (cv, etc.).
cheers,
mike
If you’e studying counterfeiting, that could make you good at avoiding counterfeiting, or…
Mann should show us the e-mails he didn’t delete.
It’s not only the individual scientists that have to be investigated but the entire system.
Dave (10:23:10) : That is the Bart Simpson defense – “I didn’t do it, no one saw me do it, you can’t prove anything!”
Actually, it’s the OJ Simpson defense. Only in this case, the glove fits.
“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
OK so which definition of manipulate does he mean?
1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner:
2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously:
3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain:
“What I find amazing is the charge, repeated once again by Mann, that skeptics wish to influence climate change related policy decisions for their own benefit. From the Telegraph article:”
This is known as projection. He accuses his others of doing what he is himself doing
Next we’ll hear Phil Jones pointing the finger at Mann. 🙂
Jerry, I too went to PSU (’82 Geophysics) it the same College as Mann (E&MS). I’ve written them and strongly demended that they look into this thoroughly and not just whitewash it. They responded with a form letter which didn’t make me feel confident. They cite an investigation (academic) in 2006 into his seminal work which makes me believe that they are going to say that it’s been done. But that was then and this is now and there are new facts that should make this investigation shall we say, very different. We can hope. Copy attached for those curious…
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.
In recent days a lengthy file of e-mails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those e-mails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.
Cool, they’ve started a circular firing squad.
More popcorn!
PaulH (10:16:37) :
“It’s hard to believe in 2009 (almost 2010) that these allegedly intelligent people don’t understand how email works”
You are right, then all the raw data they supposedly deleted can be found in a lot of servers around the world.
That’s for a new WUWT post: “Raw CRU data recovered!”, that would be great.
If Mann didn’t manipulate data, the lack of competance in his work must be staggering! Funny, how that seems to always support AGW.
” Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.”
Does that sentence imply he knew that what was being said was wrong, but did nothing about it at the time? It would have been easy to have written a note to Jones to advise against – any sign of that on the record?
“I can’t justify the action, …”
Same question: what did he do about it at the time?
Where do professional responsibility and moral authority come into all of this? Or is it only appearances that count – do they only matter when they get into the public domain?
So my request would be for evidence of having consistently occupied the moral and professional high ground now as well as back then.
Yes, there may be another whistle-blower waiting for the right moment.
I do not have any faith in the statements of those who hid thier formulas/data and barred access to peer review. Until it’s out in the open, it is classified junk.
“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
OK so which definition of manipulate does he mean?
1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner:
2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously:
3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain:
“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
Ah! I’ve just worked it out. He means it in the medical sense…
To handle and move in an examination or for therapeutic purposes:
…and the data in question is out of Star Trek NG.
Here is something to keep in mind about the two University investigations. The UEA would not be known outside of a small portion of England if it wasn’t for the CRU. The CRU is a cash cow for the UEA because it attracts students to it’s programs, brings prestige being used by the IPCC and so forth. So the UEA has a financial interest to make sure nothing happens to the CRU’s reputation.
On the Other hand Penn State is the exact opposite. The PSU football team brings in more money to the University in one year then Mann has in the entire time he has been there. You ask most people what is the first thing they think about when you say Penn State and its Joe Patnero and the Football team. So the University doesn’t have a large financial interest in Mann, its all about prestige and if Upside Down keeps running his mouth, PSU might decide he is not worth the aggrivation.
Circular firing squad forming up.
“Hard Science” is on trial here, real scientists best get off their grants and speak up, before it’s too late. Time is growing critically short.
I think Mann was just a lot more circumspect and smart enough not to incriminate himself by email. My guess is that Americans in general – certainly educated ones that read the news occasionally – ought to understand the potential for courts, etc. to go spelunking around in an institution’s files and computers.
Note his response to Jones’ request to delete email messages was neither a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ but just the address of someone else Jones wanted to contact about doing so.