Paul Chesser at the American Spectator tips me via email to a TV news report from WHTM-TV in Harrisburg, PA. WHTM is the TV station whose DMA covers State College.
Chesser writes:
Following up from yesterday, the ABC news station in Harrisburg did a fair-and-balanced story about the Commonwealth Foundation‘s call for an outside, independent investigation of Penn State’s Climategate scientist, Michael Mann.
Here’s the video news report:
Transcript here:
ABC27: Penn State at Center of Global Warming Debate
Lookin’ good Mann.
Mann got half a million ($500,000.00 dollar$)
Stimulus funds.
What is he supposed to look like? Despair?
If he had George Soros as a sugar daddy also, he should be in a chipper mood full time.
Many Thanks to:
anna v.
savethesharks
Kevin
J F Hultquist
Doug in Seattle
J. Pedan
Baa Humbug
and Mike Ramsey.
Your responses to Pamela Grey are right-on. I always look for Pamela’s posts as she normally has something profound to say; not this time.
Mike Ramsey wrote:
“I think that it is a mistake to put the arsonist and the fireman on the same moral plain.”
I sense that Pamela is politically conflicted.
markm
Regarding $600 toilet seats. If I remember correctly, it was revealed some years ago that many of these overpriced government items were actually “padding” added to other projects in order to cover up certain “black programs” such as the stealth bomber. The idea was to spread the true cost around the entire federal budget in order to keep the vital projects secret. If there is no line item for “stealth bomber” no reporter is going to snoop around to find out more. Or am I just remembering the plot to some Hollywood spy fantasy?
Responding to:
Mike Reed (08:59:48) :
Hey Mike,
Whether it is, as another poster wrote, the economic law of “economies of scale” for the high price of one-off, and highly specialized toilet seats, or to hide “black programs”, I am for it.
Unfortunately, these accounting schemes are used to fund ACORN type programs or AGW type grants.
Nothing in life is perfect. No governement can operate efficiently. High overhead costs for gubmint projects will not go away.
markm
Premise: The country’s in a pickle.
Conclusion: 57 varieties (?).
Remember the line from one of those sci-fi movies, where the enor5mous secret underground UFO research labs are shown to a visitor, who asked, “Where did all the money come for this?” and the general replied, “You don’t think we really paid $600 for hammers, do you?”
@TGSG, mpaul, Steve in SC, et al
Maybe we should ask the President how many states there are. I believe he is aware of a unique number.
Oh, come on, don’t be mean. That $541,000 of stimulus money is for 3 years so it’s only $180,000 a year. I wonder how much that works out per tree ring?
MarkM (08:20:19) :
It is clear to me that the battle will be lost or won based on getting accurate measurements of specific humidity above the 850 hPa. If the data shows that the specific humidity either remains constant or declines as CO2 continues to increase then the Man(n) made AGW hypothesis is completely discredited. In a peer-reviewed journal, Patltridge 2009, comes to the conclusion that the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity for the period 1973 to 2007 indicates that the specific humidity above 850 hPa has declined as both CO2 and the global temperature anomaly went up. There are caveats that the quality of the data may not be as good as desired. He did pick a large subset of the available data because that subset (“latitudes between 50° S and 50° N and to altitudes at which the zonal-average specific humidity is greater than 0.5 g/kg”) is most likely to be good.
Why is this important? Gray sums this up in his 2009 paper, “Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity”
“Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that a doubling of CO2 would cause the upper tropospheric RH [Relative Humidity] not just to stay constant but to actually increase. His assumed upper tropospheric increase of water vapor (q) for a doubling of CO2 led to a water vapor increase (Δq) in the upper troposphere of as much as an extremely unlikely 50 percent. These large vapor increases caused Hansen to require that his model have a tropical (30oN-30oS) upper tropospheric warming for a doubling of CO2 of as much as 7oC (Figure 10). A 7oC warming at the upper level emission level is equivalent to a 23 W/m2 enhancement of OLR [Outgoing (into space) Longwave Radiation] for a doubling of CO2 forcing of only 3.7 W/m2. No wonder Hansen got such high values of global warming for a doubling of CO2. This logically followed from his extremely high and unrealistic water vapor assumptions.”
Pamela Gray (21:06:46) :
“Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants?”
Al Gore says the debate is over and that no serious scientist disagrees with AGW. Obviously that’s baloney. I would say there hasn’t even been a real open public debate between scientists on both sides of the issue. I think many of us on the skeptic side just want that debate to happen. But when the warmers call for skeptics to be jailed for speaking their minds we get angry. Shouldn’t we get angry with people who want not only to force their cap and trade plans on us but also want to suppress free speech.
Mike Ramsey (09:55:35) :
Hey Mike,
Thanks for the post; it was interesting reading. Your post is an example of why I am addicted to WUWT.
Was your post for general information, or were you making a point that relates to my 0820 hrs post?
Is the Gray that wrote “Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity” related to Pamela Gray?
Sorry, I am a little confused. I understand that I am a neophyte when it comes to the science and players that are referred to on this site.
Thanks Mike,
markm
Kay (06:52:13) :
Can his PhD be stripped from him? If so, what would he have to have done in order for that to happen?
Kay,
This would be highly unlikely to happen, unless it was proven that his dissertation contained blatant plagiarism or some other egregious form of academic dishonesty, such as fabricating data. Mann would have had get all of that by his dissertation supervisor and other faculty readers, perhaps even a reader external to Yale. Not impossible, but very improbable IMO, because this process is usually a more rigorous (if not downright nasty) form of peer-review as it reflects more directly on the supervisors and readers.
However, I was very curious to know what exactly Prof. Mann had researched for his Ph.D. Below I have copied his dissertaton abstract, available from the ProQuest (formerly University Microfilms) database. What strikes me about the abstract is the total absence of the words “tree rings” or paleo-anything, or even “carbon dioxide”. I am left to wonder how and why Mann made the leap from oceans to dendrochronology so quickly, and with such meteoric success!
Even though I am not a scientist, I am by nature a skeptical person and I have toiled long in the Ph.D. universe. And so, this “divergence” of Mann’s research interests ca. 1998 strikes as somewhat odd. I’m sure others here are better informed about Prof. Mann’s research, past and present. When did he start looking at tree-rings? What in fact are the areas of overlap between studying the oceans and trees? Was it his signal-processing techniques? Inquiring humanists want to know!
***************************************************
A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system
by Mann, Michael Evan, Ph.D., Yale University, 1998 , 283 pages; AAT 9835268
Abstract (Summary)
A combination of empirical data analysis techniques and simplified coupled ocean-atmosphere modeling is applied to investigate empirical and theoretical characteristics of organized decadal-to-century timescale climate variability. A multivariate time series methodology for isolating and reconstructing significant quasi-oscillatory spatiotemporal signals in empirical climate data is developed and applied to a variety of instrumental and high-quality long-term climate proxy datasets. A simplified model of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system is developed to investigate dynamical mechanisms which may be important in describing observed signals.
The empirical analyses demonstrate consistent evidence for organized modes of large-scale climatic variability on interdecadal (15-30 year) and century (60-100 year) timescales. The interdecadal mode exhibits a pattern dominated by inter-related variations in atmospheric circulation and surface temperature in the Pacific which bears resemblance to a delayed-oscillator mode observed in previous coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model (GCM) experiments. The century-scale mode shows a pattern of high-amplitude variability in the polar North Atlantic, and North Atlantic signature in both temperature and inferred atmospheric circulation anomalies bearing some similarity to a century-scale signal related to the ocean thermohaline circulation which has been isolated in another coupled model study.
The simplified theoretical model used to investigate possible dynamical mechanisms describes the zonally-averaged thermohaline and wind-driven circulation of an idealized global ocean. The effects of horizontal gyre circulations, atmospheric responses to ocean surface temperature changes, and the delayed response of gyre circulation variations to changes in atmospheric windstress are each parameterized. The internal dynamics of the model is investigated by long stochastically forced integrations. In the absence of a gyre dynamics representation, a 200-300 year oscillation is isolated that is associated with advection of salinity and temperature anomalies by the meridional overturning. When gyre-scale dynamics are parameterized, a 70-100 year oscillation that is more consistent with observed century timescale climate oscillations is isolated, involving a combination of meridional overturning and gyre-scale dynamics. When the delayed response of gyres variations to wind variations is accounted for, modes with decadal (10-20 year) timescales are identified, somewhat similarity to the delayed-oscillator mode described earlier.
Indexing (document details)
Advisor: Saltzman, Barry
School: Yale University
School Location: United States — Connecticut
Keyword(s): gyre circulation
Source: DAI-B 59/05, p. 2093, Nov 1998
Source type: Dissertation
Subjects: Oceanography, Environmental science, Geophysics, Atmosphere
Publication Number: AAT 9835268
ISBN: 9780591887242
Pamela:
” Pamela Gray (21:06:46) :
Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants? ”
Please consider the contrast of the following:
1) the acceptance of an idea without a provable basis in reality (belief)
2) the establishing of an idea by use of man’s rational capacity backed by evidence of reality that can be independently verified (scientific proof)
I find that it is fruitless and confusing to use belief in any scientific discussion. IMHO it is also just as fruitless and confusing and dangerous to use belief in political or social discussions. Man is part of reality so discussions on how we govern ourselves or organize society should be based only on scientific proof scenarios, not beliefs.
John
MarkM (10:20:43) :
Mike Ramsey (09:55:35) :
Hey Mike, Thanks for the post; it was interesting reading. Your post is an example of why I am addicted to WUWT.
Was your post for general information, or were you making a point that relates to my 0820 hrs post?
A little of both actually. My response was that the facts, and specifically the data, will decide the issue of AGW. I was providing the scentific counterpoint to the moral argument that Pamela was making; we are on the up-and-up and there is a clear way forward based on the data.
When I first started looking into AGW it was with a completely open mind. “There is a lot of smoke, I better go see how big the fire is” sums up my thinking at that time. But the more I looked the more incredulous I became. After reading “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” by Dr. Miskolczi http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
I became convinced that CO2 induced global warming was impossible. BTW, I caution you that it is not a light read. The physics is pretty thick. But after several readings and a Saturday spent with a white-board walking through the math for myself, I became convinced.
Is the Gray that wrote “Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity” related to Pamela Gray?
No, that would be William M. Gray. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be funny.
Sorry, I am a little confused. I understand that I am a neophyte when it comes to the science and players that are referred to on this site. Thanks Mike, markm
Np. Happy to help.
BTW, I found a pointer in usenet to a good introduction that was written for the political heads of the Environmental Protection Agency by inside staffers. The current crew in charge of EPA suppressed the document because it disagreed with their opinion that CO2 needed to be regulated. Could you image the result if the Bush Administration had suppressed a paper by Mann? Not on the same moral plain at all! See here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa&usg=AFQjCNEDeoMjV65L8YSVrePrculeZo9idQ
Follow the link to the PDF.
Mike Ramsey
@ur momisugly Sharon (10:42:48) :
Kay (06:52:13) :
Can his PhD be stripped from him? If so, what would he have to have done in order for that to happen?
“Kay,
This would be highly unlikely to happen, unless it was proven that his dissertation contained blatant plagiarism or some other egregious form of academic dishonesty, such as fabricating data. Mann would have had get all of that by his dissertation supervisor and other faculty readers, perhaps even a reader external to Yale. Not impossible, but very improbable IMO, because this process is usually a more rigorous (if not downright nasty) form of peer-review as it reflects more directly on the supervisors and readers.”
Sharon, thanks for that. I’m not a PhD so I don’t know how that process works.
Interesting about his dissertation as well. There’s not just the “divergence” of his interest in 1998…he published MBH the same year he received his PhD…as the lead author. How did he manage that? That’s a heck of a leap to acquire that much expertise in such a short time.
This may be an unfair assessment considering I’m not a scientist, but it’s almost as though the research in MBH was not his own.
Kay (07:01:50) : edit
Did anyone see this?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Michael_Mann_Money_011410.html
“Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist”…Mike Mann. The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009. The tone of the article isn’t even the point…this guy got half a million dollars and for what?
I did 😉
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/mann-gets-stimulus-packag/
E.M.Smith (12:09:24) :
In the end all them will take a ride on their pal Jimmy”s train to oblivion. They are not useful anymore for their patrons….a kind of Tutankhamen’s curse it’s over them.
Mike Ramsey (11:24:19) :
You wrote:
“My response was that the facts, and specifically the data, will decide the issue of AGW. I was providing the scentific counterpoint to the moral argument that Pamela was making; we are on the up-and-up and there is a clear way forward based on the data.”
Hey Mike,
We must remember that a little political marketing goes along way. The acceptance of AGW theory almost worked because of a succesful political marketing campaign.
John Whitman (10:49:26) wrote:
“IMHO it is also just as fruitless and confusing and dangerous to use belief in political or social discussions. Man is part of reality so discussions on how we govern ourselves or organize society should be based only on scientific proof scenarios, not beliefs.”
Hey John,
Societal norms are not based on scientific proof alone. We have political structures to take decisions which don’t have scientific data that declares a clearcut path; these decisions become subjective at one point.
Most societies have their most basic tenants based on beliefs; these beliefs are somewhat parallel to the ten commandments. “Thou shall not murder” is a belief. If we were purely science based, murder would be a negative act for the murdered, and a positive act for the murderer, and nothing more. Natural law, or creator granted rights, are based on a belief structure, otherwise the norm would be: “the man with the gold, rules.”
I know my examples are simple ones; however, most free societies start with a belief structure that makes murder a grievous offense. Because of our belief structure, killing is only allowed in self defense, declared war, or after due process of the law has been accomplished. Subjective beliefs.
Politicians have to make decisions based on “shades of gray”. Another simple example: if a little socialism is a good thing, is lots of socialism a better thing? The definition of “a little socialism” is subjective. Political science is not a “hard” science.
Public education is required for a free market or prosporuous society to succeed. Would it be counter productive to increases taxes to confiscatory levels in order to give all humans a free PHD education, regardless of individual capability? What exactly is the tipping point? Subjective…
We need politicians to make subjective decisions; too bad they don’t rely more on objectivity and science, and less on subjective feelings.
Thanks all, I enjoy this forum!
markm
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/economic_stimulus_bill_update/
I don’t know how all this panned out wrt to specific grants, but I’d guess Mann’s half-mill was just a small part of the overall disbursement of funds to climate scientists in the last year. The results of all that “research” and all those funds are yet to come – there should be a lot of it.
Bill Parsons,
“I don’t know how all this panned out wrt to specific grants, but I’d guess Mann’s half-mill was just a small part of the overall disbursement of funds to climate scientists in the last year. The resuolts of all that “research” and all those funds are yet to come – there should be a lot of it.”
Possibly more entertaining would be to see if any of this climate stimulus funding went to nonexistent congressional districts or zip codes. This would provide open and shut fraud evidence.
MarkM (12:28:07) :
Mike Ramsey (11:24:19) :
You wrote: “My response was that the facts, and specifically the data, will decide the issue of AGW. I was providing the scentific counterpoint to the moral argument that Pamela was making; we are on the up-and-up and there is a clear way forward based on the data.”
Hey Mike, We must remember that a little political marketing goes along way. The acceptance of AGW theory almost worked because of a succesful political marketing campaign.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Anthony and his cadre of WUWT moderators and supporters are good men and women who chose to do something.
BTW, did you checkout that EPA link?
Mike Ramsey
“theduke (19:43:32) : ”
TheDuke, Kentucky is also a commonwealth (along with most non-states like VI, PR, Guam). Kentucky was not one of the originals, but since it was “cleaved” from one (VA), it decided to keep the status.
How old is Mann. Isn’t he like in his mid 40’s? Did he just get his PhD in ’98? What took him so long? Mid 30’s is kind of late for PhD in science unless he took a detour early on. Did he fail out? Have to restart or retake classes? Did he have to change dissertation directors frequently?
Inquiring minds/etc…
Mike Ramsey (12:52:55)
Hey Mike,
I did read that press release regarding EPA. I totally believe what CEI posted. EPA’s agenda is not to save the planet; it is the creation of a fair and just society. CO2 is the vehicle.
What did Churchill say? …so many owe so much to so few…? We freedom loving truth seekers owe this cadre (your term) so much. They have probably changed history–time will tell.
Thanks Mike,
markm
Here’s at Least One Job ‘Created or Saved’ [Greg Pollowitz]
Stimulating:
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2YTY4YjExMWUyMDMwYTM=
Ron de Haan (14:02:50):
Way to go Ron!
Here is the first paragraph from the article that Ron posted the URL for:
“Washington, DC – In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.”
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2YTY4YjExMWUyMDMwYTM=
All of us unemployed people should feel good about this saved job! Yea right!
markm