Guest Commentary by Paul Driessen
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
Carr and 809 other Virginia scientists and academics signed a petition launched by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, protesting Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. The American Association of University Professors likewise opposes Cuccinelli, who is seeking documents from UVA, to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute Mann for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, by presenting false or misleading information in support of applications for state-funded research.
Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”
It’s time to clear a few things up.
Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann. Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”
The Climategate emails revealed another deliberate “trick” that Mann used to generate a late twentieth-century temperature jump: he replaced tree ring data with thermometer measurements at the point in his timeline when the tree data no longer fit his climate disaster thesis.
Not surprisingly, he refused to share his data, computer codes and methodologies with skeptical scientists. Perhaps worse, Climategate emails indicate that Mann and others conspired to co-opt and corrupt the very scientific process that Carr asserts will ultimately condemn or vindicate them.
This behavior certainly gives Cuccinelli “probable cause” for launching an investigation. As the AG notes, “The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere. The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process, will take place.” Some witch hunt.
There is simply no room in science, academia or public policy for manipulation, falsification or fraud. Academic freedom does not confer a right to engage in such practices, and both attorneys general and research institutions have a duty to root them out, especially in the case of climate change research.
Work by Mann and other alarmist scientists is not merely some theoretical exercise that can be permitted to “play itself out” over many years, if and when the “academic arena” gets around to it. These assertions of climate crisis are being used right now by Congress, states, courts and the Environmental Protection Agency to justify draconian restrictions on energy use and greenhouse emissions. They would shackle our freedoms and civil rights and hammer our jobs, economy, health, welfare and living standards.
If the science is wrong – or far worse, if it is manipulated, fabricated, fraudulent and covered up – then grave damage will be done to our nation, liberties and families, before the truth gets its boots on.
As to “scientific debate” over global warming, there has been virtually none in the academic arena. The science is viewed as “settled,” debate has been squelched, and those who seek to initiate debate are attacked, vilified, harassed and shipped off to academic Siberia.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, another former UVA climate researcher, was fired as Virginia State Climatologist by then-Governor Tim Kaine for raising inconvenient questions and facts on climate science. When Greenpeace demanded access to Michaels’ emails, UVA promptly acceded – before contesting AG Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s.
The 810 protesters and their UCS and AAUP consorts were silent. Their principles and objections do not seem to apply to shrill activist groups infringing on the academic and scientific freedom of “politically incorrect” researchers, even when there is no suggestion of dishonesty. Other “skeptical” climate researchers have met with similar fates. The pungent scent of hypocrisy fills the air.
No surprise there. The massive US government climate change research gravy train alone totaled some $9 billion in grants during 2009, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. IPCC, EU & Company climate grants – plus billions more for renewable energy research – fatten the larder still further. Now that money, prestige and power are threatened.
Climategate and other revelations about the lack of evidence for the “manmade climate disaster” thesis have sent belief in AlGorean gloom and doom plummeting. Global warming consistently comes in dead last on any list of environmental concerns. Three-fourths of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $100 a year to prevent climate change. China, India and other developing nations properly refuse to sign a carbon-cutting economic suicide pact.
The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University (Mann’s current institution), East Anglia University (home of Phil Jones and the Climategate emails) and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct – which may be rare but must be dealt with when it happens.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. Britain stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But meanwhile, a lingering stench remains over double standards; World Wildlife Fund press releases and rank speculation masquerading as peer-reviewed science; computer models enshrined as “proof” of looming climate disasters; and billions being squandered on research purporting to link global warming to nearly every malady and phenomenon known to man.
We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price – in soaring energy bills, fewer jobs, lower living standards and lost freedoms – for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.
We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)
It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.
We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.
Four years ago I somewhat believed in AGW as it had been warmer. Then I began to investigate and started to get skeptical. When I found that Mann, Hansen, and the team was hiding data and methods, I became alarmed. I do not understand how this could be allowed, especially by the true believers of AGW. Hiding the data and methods just reeks of fraud. The true believers should have been all over this. Supposedly, catastrophic changes were going to take place and these apparent fraudsters were delaying action by not allowing their work to be replicated? The warmists not only allowed this, they covered for these guys (and turned me totally against them.)
I doubt that Cuccinelli will be able to find much against Mann because the people handing out grants have been so lax that I doubt they put any definitive language in the contracts. I do have hope that he finds something strong enough to cause future grant applications to have stronger requirements. Suggestions:
A. All data and methods used for work under this grant application are required to be open to the public within one year of any publication and upon the end of this grant. The location of where this information will be made available must be included in the grant application. No fees are allowed and this information must remain available for ten years.
B. All previous work done under grants from this foundation must have all data and methods open to the public. Please provide documentation that this has been done.
C. Please list any and all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that have been filed in regards to any work that pertains to this grant. Please explain why a FOIC request was required by the requester if the information and methods were related to previous grants. No grants will be made to any organization that has unresolved FOIA requests pertaining to work funded by previous grants. Organization specifically includes entire universities and not just departments.
Marc Blanck : “If there has been malfeasance on MM’s part, it should be handled within his profession. If his profession won’t deal it with, then the profession will fall into disrepute (as appears to be happening). To turn this into a question of criminality (which implies “beyond a reasonable doubt”) strikes me as ultimately counter-productive. Do we want a liberal AG in Massachusetts to investigate Dr. Lindzen?”
Marc: There is no reason to investigate Dr. Lindzen. He has not manipulated any data that could make anyone contend or believe his research data was constructed or used in any manner inconsistent with scientific methods and principles. There is a huge difference between finding errors in research by peers or review vs. finding manipulations that were done that are so blatenly wrong they raise the suspicion of scientific misconduct. Such is the case of the climate record constructions used by the IPCC to convince the world that the earth’s climate is warmer now than in anytime in history, and that the recent warming was alarmingly rapid due to GHG emissions. Public money and resources paid for this climate research and data.
There is not only that but along with it came vicious attacks by these groups that control the money and power in climate research that was used to systematically destroy and ruin the careers of anyone who dare questioned these assertions about AGW. And now we find as much legal resistance by academics defending AGW to turn over their work for examination.
This stinks to the max and is unnaceptable. I am glad Cuccinelli is leading this charge and he needs to continue to persue it full throttle. If Mann, Hansen, Jones and Briffa were deliberately and falsely constructing the climate record so as to tout their AGW theory, (which proposes huge tax increases and energy fees be implemented on the free world in a manner that can make them the largest taxes and fees levied in human history in the name of a false science ) and Cuccinelli can prove this, then they all need swift criminal prosecution and stiff prison sentences should be meted out to all of these guys and ANYONE the trail of deceit in the investigation can lead to. To let this go uninvestigated is ignoring one of the potentially biggest white collar crimes in theft against the public ever conceived next to Wall Street and people like Bernie Madoff.
Nick says:
“The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century)”
I think that should be 4.5F.
professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
I think that has been demonstrated time an again already it’s high time these guys faced the same sort of accountability that doctors, nurses and engineers do.
““Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.””
This sort of argument is perfectly fine if this were a private entity using private funds to do private research. The research is not done using private funds, but public. The Research is not being done for private use, but for public use determining laws that will take away extremely large amounts of our freedom and our money. Thus, this is not something that a few friends can discuss over a beer and come to mutually understood conclusion without affecting anyone else in the process.
cohenite:
Nope…45F per century is right. The title in the graph should say 1 to 2.5 c degrees per decade.
One assumes that the UVa thinks that allegations of church misconduct should be dealt with in house too, And allegations of police misconduct, corporate governance….. After all none of this misconduct affects the public at large
This is pretty shocking as (mentioned above)
http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/mann-is-the-man-at-wikipedia/
Icarus should have his charts updated so he flies A LOT CLOSER TO THE SUN next time.
Jeff C. says:
May 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.”
…(P)lease provide links and quotes to back up the potentially libelous statement regarding Dr. Wakefield quoted above from the article. It has never been shown Dr. Wakefield “falsified studies”; the GMC charges regarding Wakefield involved allegedly unethical practices in his recruitment of subjects for the study.
_________________________________________________________
Below is a pair of links with brief exerpts from each. If Dr. Wakefield can get a libel award out of anyone after this week’s decision, I’d be shocked.
Nailed: Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR – autism fraud
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
(NOTE: this is a summary from Lancet) But, as journalists queued to report on parents’ fears, Brian Deer was assigned to investigate the crisis, and unearthed a scandal of astounding proportions. He discovered that, far from being based on any findings, the public alarm had no scientific basis whatsoever. Rather, Wakefield had been payrolled to create evidence against the shot, and, while planning extraordinary business schemes, meant to profit from the scare, he had changed and misreported data on the anonymous children to rig the results published in the journal. Before Deer’s inquiries, Wakefield had appeared to all the world to be an independent, if controversial, researcher. Tall and square-headed, with hooded eyes and a booming voice, he was the son of doctors (a neurologist and a family practitioner), had grown up in Bath, a prosperous, west-of-England spa town, and joined the Royal Free in November 1988, after training in Toronto, Canada. His demeanour was languid – he was privately educated – and, born in 1956, he was a lingering example of the presumed honour of the upper middle class. But the investigation discovered that, while Wakefield held himself out to be a dispassionate scientist, two years before the Lancet paper was published – and before any of the 12 children were even referred to the hospital – he had been hired by a lawyer, Richard Barr: a jobbing solicitor in the small eastern English town of King’s Lynn, who hoped to raise a speculative class action lawsuit against drug companies which manufactured MMR.
‘Dishonest and irresponsible’: Doctor who triggered MMR vaccine scare is struck off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280840/Andrew-Wakefield-Doctor-heart-MMR-vaccine-row-struck-off.html
Andrew Wakefield, 53, whose research claimed there was a link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella jab, was yesterday branded dishonest, misleading and irresponsible by the General Medical Council. He has been banned from practising in Britain after being found guilty of more than 30 charges of serious professional misconduct. In the longest, most expensive hearing in its 148-year history, the GMC accused the doctor of ‘bringing the medical profession into disrepute’. The five-strong panel, which began its investigation in July 2007, concluded Dr Wakefield had behaved unethically and ‘abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner’.
***********
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I note that UVa is properly contesting the AG’s action.
The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century), but that aside, the question is, where does the Va AG come in? Cna any state AG make similar demands?
The claimed basis for the AG’s demand is a possible breach of state FATA – misuse of Va taxpayers funds. But as the UVa response points out, of the five grants cited, four were from federal bodies, and the one state-funded grant had nothing to do with hockey sticks, was awarded to a different principal investigator (with Mann as a co-investigator), and pre-dated FATA anyway.
******************
Nick – anyone or any organization that takes government money is making a deal with the devil. The devil isn’t predictable. If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens. Why is this so hard for you to understand. It isn’t about science, it is about law.
Lee Kington says:
May 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm
“…What the public, and many it seems in the science world, are seeing is that the scientific debate is stifled and or controlled with bias. While Mann’s work may eventually be universally discredited what is the time span for that to happen? Before or after we straddle this nation with economically destructive policies? Before or after Mann receives 10′s of millions of more dollars in research money which may well be a waste?….”
___________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for putting it so well.
I would like to add this.
What happens if Cuccinelli is silenced, and the nation implements the economically destructive policies already on deck? We already see the results of these type of political policies in California’s insolvency
Iceland, and Greece, and Switzerland and Spain are bankrupt or close to bankruptcy and others such as the UK and Japan are facing a financial crisis. The news down plays it but the USA is not exactly healthy either. Some are already asking Is the United States Bankrupt? Even the Huf and Puff is seeing the handwriting on the wall although they do not get the real cause correct.
The question academic scientists fail to ask is “WHAT happens next?” The answer is simple really. If the USA bankrupts we end up with an IMF/World Bank imposed SAP:
“Balancing national budgets can be done by raising taxes, which the IMF frowns upon, or by cutting government spending, which it definitely recommends. As a result, SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk….”
In other words academic scientists who have been going along with the CAGW program are busy cutting their own throats, as grants dry up, universities are stripped to the bone, or close their doors for good thanks to the Structural Adjustment Policies. Unfortunately they are cutting the throats of all the rest of us too.
Oh yes, do not forget that Obama has already signed on to the new Financial Stability Board with real teeth, imposing “obligations” and “commitments” on its members. So the USA may not be able to avoid SAP like Iceland did.
I sure hope Cuccinelli manages to put a spanner in the works or the deity help us all.
The real threat to the climate-change industrial complex will be from US Senator Jim Inhofe, assuming that the GOP reclaims control over the Senate in 2010. That is not out of the realm of possibility.
If that happens, Jim will regain the chairmanship of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment & Public Works, and from there he’ll go after the academics, NASA etc. He’s already said as much.
Fraud is fraud, big (public) money is involved and, thus, charges should be filed.
Whether the motivation was to push an agenda and make money or to attract more funding is irrelevant.
This has nothing to do with healthy debate of real disagreements in science. Fraudulent data is not science and cannot be debated, just exposed, rejected, and litigated as needed.
Coho,
I agree that a reasonable estimate of recent trend would be 4.5F/Century. But that doesn’t gel with the shrill charge (now in limbo) that this is physically impossible (it happened). That comes straight from brownthunder’s original Soon graph, which made just that mistaken characterisation.
And the really silly thing is, this has nothing to do with Mann at all. He just plotted instrumental temperatures, which were not a product of his research. It was Soon who tried to derive a slope and got it wrong. And it is this post, years later, which echoed that to mounted a shrill charge that Mann was withholding data to cover up this “error”.
And Jim, it was law I was talking about. Cuccinnelli has limited powers in law to investigate misuse of Va taxpayers funds, not to set science to rights. And of his alleged five grants, four were federally funded, and one was from Va but not to Mann. Properly invoking actual law to justify anti-Mann vindictiveness has been a failure of this post and thread.
Jim: “If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens.”
Jim: In the usuall sense, yes. But what if the government, ( who is academia’s biggest client on AGW ) wants climate research to reflect AGW is real and a problem that can only be corrected through taxation and regulation? Are you aware that the government ( and the AGW research spiggot was first turned on high by Al Gore in the Clinton White House in 1992 and good ol’e Al is already a multi millionaire from his involvement in spreading provenly wrong climate alarmism ) only funds universities willing to “prosecute ” CO2? How can this be deemed legitmate scientific research? AGW science only seeks one answer about climate and that is the conclusion that humans are to blame from CO2 emissions.
This is stuck on stupid forever and blatently ignoring the real dominant processes at work and not spending a penny to figure out how all of the physical connections really work to alter climate, combined with the fact that AGW science is embedded in the concept of “climate models” which are not physically real enough to give any suitable answer about future climate and whose constructions are secrets of the the crowds running them that support AGW. Yet these crowds lie and falsely boast of the skill they have developed with modeling. Just look back at the original projections made around 1990. The modeling is a complete failure with all of the dirty laundry being swept under the carpet so you will hopefully forget about it:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf
With this record, how can ANYONE in government in ANY form of leadership advocate for cap and trade or ANY climate bill that stiffles the economy with higher taxes and regulation? Politicians blatently ignore hard cold facts in favor of promoting this rot which is far from being proven. According to modeling projections by Hansen around 1990, the current global temperatures are supposed to be around 1.35 DegC above the 1979 mean. We are far from this. Could it be that the government is a benefactor to using the dishonest science to raise taxes and plunder the taxpayers wallet? Sure looks like it to me!
What a nightmare! You have no understanding of freedom from the state.
You expect a free and open scierntific debate when the state is brought in to attack one side of the debate.
Just because Mann does and says things you don’t like isn’t a reason for the state to come down on his head. What’s to stop your friends from coming under this sort of attack? There’s too much politics in climate science already.
I would be much more comfortable with “clawback” kind of efforts than criminal prosecution for this kind of thing. “Clawback” meaning if proven, an institution like UVA would be forced to cough up the funding they received originally (perhaps with interest penalties as well).
For one thing, I think that kind of effort would be *much* more successful as a deterrence and in actively involving institutions in proactively reviewing research. To me, the goal shouldn’t be retribution –it should be avoiding the need for retribution.
The problem I have with criminal prosecutions for this kind of thing is I feel quite strongly that they can morph in very unhealthy ways. We’ve already seen the more virulent kind of AGWers calling for “crimes against humanity” trials. To the degree the skeptic community supports criminal prosection for “climate crimes”, in my view the skeptic community steps into a trap.
Said another way, every action that tends to lead Michael Mann closer to jail (or a noose, as the more out-there types have promoted), also leads Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre closer to the same fate. Personally, I will not support going down that road.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leftist political organization, has been very concerned for years about “politicizing science”. They’re afraid they’re going to lose their patented monopoly on the process.
*******************
Chuck Wiese says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Jim: “If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens.”
Jim: In the usuall sense, yes. But what if the government, ( who is academia’s biggest client on AGW ) wants climate research to reflect AGW is real and a problem that can only be corrected through taxation and regulation?
*****************
I am aware that Uncle Al as well as others here and in the UN are getting rich from “green” initiatives and technology. I was speaking to accountability in the usual sense. It is common for states to administer Federal programs. In the course of these duties, states dole out money and they also are responsible for fraud detection and investigation. Unemployment Insurance is an example of this. I’m not sure if the Federal grant monies are administered in the same manner, but it isn’t a slam dunk that if it was a Federal grant that the Virginia AG can’t investigate.
Jim says:
May 30, 2010 at 7:16 pm
***********
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I note that UVa is properly contesting the AG’s action.
The anti-Mann diatribe in this post is ridiculous (starting with the 45F/century), but that aside, the question is, where does the Va AG come in? Cna any state AG make similar demands?
The claimed basis for the AG’s demand is a possible breach of state FATA – misuse of Va taxpayers funds. But as the UVa response points out, of the five grants cited, four were from federal bodies, and the one state-funded grant had nothing to do with hockey sticks, was awarded to a different principal investigator (with Mann as a co-investigator), and pre-dated FATA anyway.
******************
Nick – anyone or any organization that takes government money is making a deal with the devil. The devil isn’t predictable. If you take government money, you are accountable to the government and the citizens. Why is this so hard for you to understand. It isn’t about science, it is about law.
And the law does not authorize the AG to conduct this investigation!
It is indeed true that if you take government money you are accountable to the government and its citizens, consequently the grant-awarding bodies designate auditors and other investigatory authorities. Such audits are routinely carried out, however the Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG.
I think the Dr. Andrew Wakefield comparison should be removed from this article as there has been ample a demonstrable evidence that Mercury in Vaccines has deleterious effects on the development of brain tissue.
Hepatitis B Vaccines alone contain more than 100 times the EPA limit levels for Mercury exposure.
However seeing as how there has never been a single double blind study done on the efficacy or toxicological side effects of of such compounds as Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, live monkey viruses etc.
I would argue that the proponents of Vaccination would be the better analog to current AGW proponents. Using Wakefield as an example is ironic more than anything since it is the mainstream of science that has attacked and disbarred him much in the same way that AGW skeptics were/are persecuted by the mainstream leading lights in their respective field. And make no mistake that the Vaccination issue is any less political than AGW as the WHO blunders “medical science” on a level that is on par with the IPCC.
Oops
“However seeing as how there has never been a single double blind study done on the efficacy or toxicological side effects of of such compounds as Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, live monkey viruses etc. ”
Should have read as:
However seeing as how there has never been a single double blind study done on the efficacy of Vaccines or the toxicological side effects of such compounds as Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, live monkey viruses etc. that are used as adjuvants in the vaccines.
Ross McKitrick sez: ‘But for those who hope for legal remedy for perceived damages arising from illegitimate climate science or faulty regulatory processes, they better be prepared to invest the time and effort to master the details before taking such actions public.’
Or even if they merely wish to expose a fraudster through the usual academic process. The efforts of the gun nuts to impeach Belleisles took years, even though he had simply invented data. You would think that could have been wrapped up in a few days: Show us the data, Belleisles, or else.
But that isn’t how it works.
David Goodstein’s ‘Fact and Fraud’ is required reading on this topic.
I am glad Mr. McKitrick came and made his comment as I was concerned for a while that he wasn’t wanting science to be trumped by governmental investigation as if science is above the law. I’ve read numerous warmist websites congratulate Mr. Mckitrick for standing out against AG Cuccineli. However, like usual the warmists just can’t seem to get it right. I don’t see anything in any writings by Mr. McKitrick or by Mr. McIntyre where they have said that government shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of science. The only thing I’ve seen Mr. McKitrick say here or anywhere is:
1. That is not exactly what we said or accomplished, such and such is
2. If Cuccineli or any other AG is going to go after Mann or anyone else they better get their facts straight and go at this correctly.
(Mr McKitrick correct me if I’m wrong)