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
no one has commented on
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/pdf/462545a.pdf
have I missed something
This is a statement from Nature Re Jones et al…here is the staement
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.
statement
AJStrata has it right… Mann ‘contacted Gene about this ASAP’. It will be minor to prove he forwarded, or re-emailed this request to Gene. Also minor to prove whether or not he deleted email locally that day (even though it is backed up, the local deletion would be recorded).
That may hold off a newspaper for a week or two, but it will only get you in more trouble in any kind of serious review (eg. a court). Gene may want to choose his words carefully too.
Well the fact is the warming can’t be faked. No one has except the authors of these posts. There is no decline to hide. The trend holds regardless of tossing a sub dataset.
The prisoner’s dilemma of game theory in action. I dare say the Nash equilibrium ends with all concerned out on the street corner with the cardboard sign saying “Sober and homeless”.
AJStrata (09:51:34) :
I guess Mann forgot about this
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.
———————————-
I’d seen that email before but I hadn’t noticed his interesting choice of words – he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim about your own work.
This brings to mind “the rats deserting the sinking ship”.
When they start throwing each other under the bus, IT IS ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING!
Well the head of PSU just got notice that the state legislature is going to be watching and they better not be whitewhasing Mann, with the implied threat of getting the money cutoff.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23612181/Sen-Piccola-Letter-on-PSU-Prof-Michael-Mann
Snowmaneasy
no one has commented on
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/pdf/462545a.pdf
from snowmaneasy’s link:
“The theft [the leaked emails] highlights
the harassment that
denialists inflict on
some climate-change
researchers.”
That was a good read. History is watching.
Before this is over, the FBI will be drawn in. Think of the billions in grants that were bilked, the carbon credits and ethanol investors that were scammed. Makes Madoff look like chump change.
Prof Mann said the same thing to the PSU newspaper.
Mann is quoted as saying: “Someone being constantly under attack could be what causes them to make a poor decision,” Mann said, though he didn’t specifically say Jones’ e-mail was inappropriate.”
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
MikeH (12:16:48) :
I too read that as an admission of wrongdoing & commented to that effect at the time.
DaveE.
mikey (09:55:26) :
Let the the back-stabbing begin!
I have a faint hope that one or two of Mann’s or Jones’s colleagues will break rank, and start singing if they think the proverbial poo is going to hit the fan.
Though a sceptic based on the fact sceince is not absolute, i never actually thought there was a grand conspiracy. I am really wondering about it now.
What i find as alarming as the CRU emails is how much of the media is gaming the reporting in a totally unambiguous way. Its like they dont care how biased and dishonest they look any more.
It makes me feel sick thinking our society is this morally and intellectually dishonest.
———————————————–
You know mikey, you’re not the first person I’ve heard here lately mentioning the ‘c’ word: conspiracy. I.e. feeling uneasy that there appears to be one, and the media appear to be covering it up. Like the whole lot of them – the MSM – are reading from a script. Well, it does look that way I must admit.
Goebbels said:” tell a big lie often enough and people will believe it”…
Goebbels would be well, well impressed with our present day MSM.
Totally compliant with their masters and masterfully competent in their art of mass-deception and brainwashing.
May the pressure from the masses of us (thanks only to the alternative media and the increasing numbers of people reading it) weaken the multiplying cracks in the wall of deceit and lies so much that any binding international deal in Copenhagen can be averted.
But, you know, they’re going do it anyway. They’ve been planning it for years (see green-agenda.com). This is a big move on their part. Really big. These guys don’t let things get in their way if they can help it. If things do get in their way they just delay their plans – this is how they work: incremental.
“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”.”
It is the accidental(?) manipulations that most concern me. They are going to cause enormous burden for future auditors trying to re-reconcile the Earth orientation parameter record with the various ‘adjusted’ climate series.
It is time that the climate scientists acknowledge that the challenge is interdisciplinary. A blindered (“I don’t see it because I’m not looking”) unidisciplinary approach can’t avoid looking foolish to those watching from other perspectives.
I imagine some of the folks in geodesy having a jolly, hearty laugh if they know the details of what is going on …but they are probably hesitant to speak up because they know they’ll be stoned as ‘deniers’ for speaking truth, if the admins above them would even allow that – & to be honest, I don’t think they would in organizations with tight control, on grounds such as ‘national security’, since the top geodesy experts are involved in pinpoint military targeting etc. – i.e. the admins easily know persuasive tricks in such clear-cut cases where it’s a breeze to conflate issues.
Given their hockey team in Toronto, you’d think they would be all over a chance to trumpet a local hero. There will be a good movie made about Steve M one day, where the people that wrote the emails will be the bit players.
Mann is a foregone conclusion. Penn State has to fire him before he’s indicted by some Congressional inquiry – which trashes the school along with his ego.
“If you’e studying counterfeiting, that could make you good at avoiding counterfeiting, or…” MMann
Counterfeiting what Phil? It is tragic to see how this handful of arrogant, self-anointed shadow people are collapsing good organizations that have hitched themselves to climate change. Unfortunately some honest charitable causes will go down with the climate ship – only because they did not exercise due diligence to ferret out rats before boarding.
Had the climate change campaign been willing to admit poor judgment even a short while ago – they would not have been brought so low.
Pride – the door to self-destruction.
Any evidence that Mann objected to any of the emails before they became public?
debreuil (12:29:33) :
One can only hope it’s soon enough that Steve can play himself. 😉
DaveE.
What HAVE I done wrong?
DaveE.
[Your comments are being posted. Sometimes it may take a while. With the increasing traffic there are sometimes delays in approving comments. ~dbs, mod.]
Snowmaneasy, that Nature piece is one of the most egregiously offensive pieces of apologia I have ever seen. If there was ever any doubt that that rag has lost all traces of scientific objectivity, this certainly cements it.
Is there a meltdown over on RealClimate?
I just read this in Pop Mechanics from Dr. Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences says the following at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html
“In tracking news reports and other commentary online, I have noticed vigorous exaggeration of the import of the stolen messages by global warming critics, and a relative silence on the part of the wider science community. But on the climate science commentary site RealClimate.org, I saw a statement from the moderators that “science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person.” Such statements—while true—could lead readers to conclude that the apparent misconduct revealed in the stolen e-mails is normal, and within the bounds of ordinary scientific discussion. I believe that would be a mistake. ”
He also stated “though CRU has confirmed that most of the e-mails are genuine, some of them could have been forged or altered. Nevertheless, I think it is important for scientists to clearly state that if basic data were withheld, or if there was unprofessional tampering with the peer-review process, we do not condone these acts.”
Is it too much to ask to put a “WUWT” in the destination screen on the bus?
🙂
With deepest regards and gratitude to the Source of the leaks, merry Christmas and the best of new years to you!
Oh yeah Dr. Mann? What does this mean:
“From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: not so fast – an update
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:40:37 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
sounds good Phil, I agree on the forecast. I think its at least
‘plausible’ ;)”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=762&filename=1167928837.txt
After more careful reading of that letter from the State Senator to the head of PSU, it sounds more like can his butt or else to me.
First the Senator mentions how organizations and individuals are writing in asking that the state withold funding until appropriate action is taken about Mann.
Then in the next paragraph the Senator states:
“I do not believe at this time that Penn State’s pending appropriation should be jeopardized…..”
Notice he said at this time
Then in the third paragraph he asks that the results be sent to him and depending on the results the State committee might form its on investigation, if warranted.
Sounds like a get him out of here or else statement to me.