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.
Wonderful article. In addition to all the items listed in the article, we must not overlook the fact that Climategaters have done a great harm to science education. At best, Climategaters have claimed that a science in its infancy is a mature science and that it has proved the AGW hypothesis. At worst, Climategaters have proved that they have no understanding of scientific method yet they have been relentless in pushing their computer models and their hunches about Earth’s climate as if they amounted to good science conducted in accordance with scientific method. Again, they have done a great harm to science education. Climategaters will not discuss scientific method. There is not one of them who has engaged in a debate on scientific method, unless you count some post-Kuhnian dreams about post-modern science.
Computer models are like Ptolemy’s epicycles. As individual hypotheses, epicycles have no bearing on physical reality. As one grand empirical hypothesis, the system of epicycles has been known to be falsified since it was created. The history of Ptolemaic astronomy is the history of tinkerings with epicycles in the face of empirical observations that were wildly at variance with the system. Copernicus took the first step beyond tinkering when he placed the Sun at the center of the solar system. Kepler followed with genuine hypotheses that could be used for prediction in a dynamic solar system. Kepler’s laws were universal statements about regularities in nature, as are all scientific hypotheses. But there is not one scientific hypothesis in the Climategaters account of Earth’s atmosphere; that is, not one beyond those that explain the behavior of the CO2 molecule. As Climategaters explain, CO2 alone cannot explain the rise in global temperatures about which they warn. The something else that is needed is an account of the “forcings” that amplify the effects of CO2. But Climategaters have not one partially confirmed, universally quantified hypothesis about forcings. Not one. What Climategaters have is a raft load of hunches about the connections among Arctic melt, drought in North Africa, and just about anything that can be associated with climate. But there are no hypotheses to tie together these diverse phenomena and provide a framework that gives meaning to each of the phenomena against the background of global climate. Climategaters know these facts that I have described. The fact that they will not acknowledge them shows that their passions have overcome their science. They are doing great harm to science education and have truly earned indictments from state and national governments, not to mention international bodies.
₳ɳʊ says:
May 31, 2010 at 8:37 am
“It’s one thing to claim meteorologists are climatologists.But astrophysicists ?”
It would be much, much worse if someone claimed a clima-guy was an astrophysicists.
Or if someone claimed a clima-guy was a meteorologist, or a physicist.
That would be unbearable.
savethesharks says:
May 30, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Wren says:
Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.
=========================================
Let’s see the evidence. Demonstrate. You make an assertion like that? Show charts, graphs, and real-world, real-time evidence.
The burden of proof is solely on you. Let’s see it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
======
cohenite says:
May 31, 2010 at 12:47 am
Wren has made his assertion that temps are validating Hansen; failing some evidence from him Hansen must get a fail:
http://landshape.org/enm/more-climate-illogic/
———————————————————–
It’s not much work to compare Hansen’s published temperature projections for 2010 with observed temperatures.
In Hansen”s 1988-2020 global land-ocean temperature projections, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the B Scenario has temperature 1 degree C higher in 2010 than in the 1960 zero base year(see p. 9347 in link).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The corresponding actual change in global land-sea temperature from the first quarter of 1960 to to the first quarter of 2010 was 0.8 C, not exactly on the mark with the projected change of 1.0 C for the annual average, but darn close, and the year 2010 has three-quarters to go. The Quarterly averages were calculated from the linked table.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.tx
I’m not aware of an up-to-date graph comparing Hansen’s projections to observed temperature, but the following link has one that goes to 2005, and shows how the actual temperatures start catching up with the projections.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.
Responding to 1personofdifference way above: I would be surprised if there are websites out there congratulating me for criticising the Cucinelli action since I haven’t said anything one way or the other prior to the comment above.
But if more comment is needed (so to speak), my thoughts begin at the 2:15 mark here.
Some people don’t seem to understand the U.S. Constitution. Amendment X, in its entirety, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions are not prohibited by the Constitution. His right to act does not have to be granted by the federal government; the Constitution gives him whatever rights are not delegated to the US nor prohibited to the States. If he thinks he has a case, he is, in fact, duty bound to bring it. As an experienced academic, I know how slow, unpredictable, and spasmodic are most academic processes, including peer review; the idea that the academics could or would police this farrago of academic dishonesty and thuggery by themselves is simply laughable, given the vested interest they have in maintaining the status quo.
If “Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena”, then “scientific funding should come from solely the academic area.” Once an “arena” uses public funds, the public has a legitimate interest in ensuring those funds are properly used.
₳ɳʊ says: May 31, 2010 at 8:37 am
“It’s one thing to claim meteorologists are climatologists.
But astrophysicists ?
You must be joking.
But they are certainly qualified to do research on the Sun and Sun-like stars, and collaborate with real climatologists.
As the famous Nobel-prize winning economist Dr. James Hansen once said – “People shouldn’t make stuff up about me – just check your facts, ok ?”
===============
Would that be Dr. James Hansen, the astrophysicist, then?
Marc: “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?”
A lot of misinformation being tossed around. First off the Cuccinelli investigation is NOT a criminal investigation. It is a civil action that is allowed by state law.
If you go to a bank for certain commercial loans you will likely sign an agreement that will allow the bank to audit your records and the bank will not need to establish a reasonable cause for auditing you. They can audit you if the don’t like the look of your face.
The State of Virginia clearly does not want to be taken advantage of by its contractors nor by its institutions. So it has created this law that allows for this investigation without establishing any reasonable cause and it becomes part and parcel to doing business with the State.
Likewise, Mann if he is honest should have nothing to fear either. Its my opinion that people are jumping to conclusions that this will be legally decided via an interpretation of science. If it does result in bad news for Mann it will likely be a result of some email or other communication he sent that establishes he intentionally misrepresented something. One who believes Mann does not do that should not have any concern. If your concern is the twisting of some unguarded statement; well that goes with the territory.
Cohenite Writes: “Hansen’s Scenario B projection obviously is better than no projection at all or a projection of no increase in global temperature. From looking at the chart in the Journal of Geophysical Researchl, I also think his projection is more accurate than a simple extrapolation of the 1960-1988 trend.”
Cohenite: Baloney! Hooey! Hansen’s scenario C is still projected above current temperatures in 2010 when that scenario stops ALL CO2 increases in the year 2000 at 368 ppmv. We are now at 389 ppmv so it is clear the modeling is a complete failure and artifact of science. ALL climate modeling to date is UNPHYSICAL and UNABLE to accurately simulate or replicate the real physical processes of the earth atmospheric interface because of gross over parameterizations of those processes to maintain computational stability, AND the modeling obviously has serious issues with radiative transfer because of the inability to model the earth’s hydrological cycle, which is the single most imortant process that handles the heat and energy exchanges between the surface and atmospheric interface.
Climate models are NOT physical and scientific with respect to how these jerks and frauds are portraying them and misleading politicians into believing they are. For you to claim ANY scenario is better than none is scientifically vacant and lends no credibility to any of these jerks. There has been no proof offered to date that CO2 has caused or driven the recently terminated warming trend and there are no measurements that have been obtained that demonstrate this either.
**************
Dr. John M. Ware says:
May 31, 2010 at 11:07 am
Some people don’t seem to understand the U.S. Constitution. Amendment X, in its entirety, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions are not prohibited by the Constitution.
***********************
It is interesting to read James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Ultimately, the States were not allowed to elect the President and the two Legislative bodies. The People elect the members of the two houses of the Legislature and also the President, although the President is elected through the Electoral College. Likewise, the State’s government officials are by and large elected by the People. Therefore, both the Federal and State governments ultimately answer to and draw their power from the People. The Federal Government does not answer to the States and the States do not answer to the Federal Government, although the Federal Governments laws do override the States in some cases.
The UCS think, say, thatthe peer review system will decide if there is problem the climatologist, and I use the word loosley, findings. the bigger problem in my mind and apperantly others as well is the fact they hijacked the process by only allowing reviewers that they approved of muchless conspiring to and haveingdone,firing of editors who did not do thier bidding, trashing the reputationof any one who did not toe the line as they saw fit!!!!!!! The CRU had a programmer that spent 3 yrs. trying tofigure out the mess they created and put it in a MODEL, he could not replicate the theorys. So far the UCS has not come down on them or said anything public aboutthis, WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This whole mess should be brought to civil court and not criminal, the burden of proof is different. Lawyers out there correct me if i am wrong and no Pamela notmy typing skills, which i hope are getting better, a little joke between us. I believe this will bear more fruit as a whole, acedamia will have to account, Univesitys , GISS, NASA and others and not just the scienctist for thier duplicity in the in the matters. And for good measure ther is also a conflict of interest problem for the likes of Gore, Pauchuri, Obama and others for the long list of companys that they sit on the boards on or thier ownership of said companys or stock for which they have an AGENDA to make richer and the world poorer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ramble but these , IMHO, are a few pionts to ponder. I look forward to talking about this, Anthony, possibly a story thier to write for the blogs out thier much less MSM to investigate, I wont hold my breath on the last part.
Ross McKitrick says:
May 31, 2010 at 10:55 am
Responding to 1personofdifference way above: I would be surprised if there are websites out there congratulating me for criticising the Cucinelli action since I haven’t said anything one way or the other prior to the comment above.
But if more comment is needed (so to speak), my thoughts begin at the 2:15 mark here.
====
Great movie! Worth watching again.
Many here have said or implied “academics should police their own” or words to that effect. Those folks have missed the point. Cuccinelli is not only within his authority as AG to ask for the information he has requested, there is no one else within the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia who is more entitled. The AG is the top legal enforcement person in Va. and therefore, represents all the other citizens. He is INVESTIGATING a potential case, not prosecuting one (yet–though that may come in the future, depending on the findings). The potential case involves large sums of PUBLIC–not private, not “academic”– money.
If wrongdoing is found, what then? Do you expect “academic police, prosecutors, and courts” to assess guilt, levy fines or sentences, and if so, who enforces those fines? Who are they paid to? (Or do you believe there should be no repayment if fraud is determined?) There is no all-powerful academia with jurisdiction to force the truth to come out. There is no all-knowing academia with jurisdiction to determine whether or not crimes or civil frauds have been committed. There is no all-wise academia with jurisdiction to determine what sentence or penalty should be assessed if guilt is determined.
We in the USA live in a society that has agreed the fairest way to handle potential issues of wrongdoing–be they littering or murder–should be handled through our system of courts, complete with attorneys to protect the interests for both sides, judges to ensure fair proceedings, juries to render verdicts, and bailiffs to enforce the sentence of the court. That is how Americans do things, even things involving academics.
As much as the average person justly fears the prospect of going to court, I guarantee that average person would be much more fearful of having decisions made on the basis of belonging to–or not belonging to–some exalted group…like academics.
How cute!
Spelling your screenname with non-standard characters, my that must make you feel special.
Also will make it harder to search for your name, which would be good for trying to prevent your old comments from coming back to haunt you in the future.
Did you check if that will display on all browsers? That would have been the polite thing to do.
Frankly, I think ⋀⋂⋃ would have been a better choice, Unicode: 22c0 22c2 22c3. Has a nice clean look.
Your reference to Dr. Andrew Wakefield is misleading. He is more like Dr. Patrick Michaels; getting terminated for challenging the established view. See this
I should add to my post above (at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/#comment-400532 ) that although I think it would be unwise for the AG to proceed against the UVA on a matter of substantive science (which is a slippery slope), I don’t think that what he’s done so far is objectionable. He has a right to take a gander at the records. (And he hasn’t gone on the warpath by so doing — his action was not revealed by his office, but by outsiders, presumably someone at UVA.) But he shouldn’t take the next step of filing an action, unless he finds a clear-cut procedural violation.
Thanks Anthony
This has been more fun than a Keystone Cops movie.
Mr McKitrick, I may have been thinking of Mr. McIntyre.
There have been several websites making comments that they were proud that one of the two of you would be standing out against the attacks on Michael Mann.
I appologize if I dropped the wrong name. 🙂
If anyone thinks this investigation is out of line and thinks that Academia should be left to the judgement, need I remind you of Mann’s whitewashed investigation at Penn State and the hand washing over in Britain in the case of Phil Jones? Colloquialism indeed.
Perhaps I should go try to rob a bank and have my cousin stand outside and tell the police… no need for alarm he’s just using historic rhetoric and bravado to test the alarm system.
Do you think they’d let me walk by them with the money bags?
Phil. says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Methinks you should spend some time studying the US Constitution. The States do not derive their powers from the Federal Government, indeed, any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were explicitly mentioned as belonging to the States by that very same document. For that matter, both the States and the Federal Government derive their powers from the people they represent.
Yet another “legal scholar” without half a clue of what he is talking about. Apparently Nick Stokes and Phil. went to the same Law School in the Honduras. They have good medical schools down there too, I here, did you guys pick up one of those diplomas there as well?
Mark
If Mann was a Republican pushing science that conservatives liked, he would have lost tenure already, been sued, had injunctions filed to shut him down, had his credit report made public, and be surrounded by mobs of activists with bullhorns blaring 24×7. And everything he has ever said or done would be dribbled out on the NYT front page.
And the US AG would be leaking the grand jury investigation out on a daily basis.
kwik says:
May 31, 2010 at 9:33 am
[–snip–]
In Norway we have , I think they call them Sociologists (?), with PhD’s …..they study gender-stuff. And they refuse to include ANYTHING from biology; Genetics. It was a great scandal here now with a TV series called “Brainwash” that shows this very clearly to the taxpayers. They (The “scientists”) said flat out that they dont need any data from research within genetics, because all gender stuff comes from your environment and upbringing.
*
*
You might be interested in this short but true story which will absolutely destroy those so-called ‘scientists’ contentions.
It’s about a boy who was raised as a girl because of a medical mishap.
http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html
Mark T says:
May 31, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Phil. says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Such audits are routinely carried out, however the Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG.
Methinks you should spend some time studying the US Constitution. The States do not derive their powers from the Federal Government, indeed, any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were explicitly mentioned as belonging to the States by that very same document. For that matter, both the States and the Federal Government derive their powers from the people they represent.
The Virginia AG is claiming authority under the Va FATA statute to investigate Mann’s activities while at UVA. That statute is restricted to grants funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, of the 5 grants named in the CID only one was funded by Va and that one predated the FATA statute (and the PI wasn’t Mann).
I just googled VA State Code and could not find “academic freedom” – I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m doing it wrong. Lots of references to misuse of public funds, fraud, disclosure, etc. The school and the academics may want to have a lawyer review their next press release.
Dr. John M. Ware says:
May 31, 2010 at 11:07 am
Some people don’t seem to understand the U.S. Constitution. Amendment X, in its entirety, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions are not prohibited by the Constitution. His right to act does not have to be granted by the federal government; the Constitution gives him whatever rights are not delegated to the US nor prohibited to the States. [–snip rest–]
*
*
I agree completely with the expressed sentiments.
Where I disagree is that matter of the U.S. Constitution ‘giving’ rights. That is the only place you are incorrect, inasmuch as the said Constitution is all about the expressly enumerated powers only. Individual rights aren’t even broached therein, and because they aren’t mentioned there is no enumerated power to meddle with them.
And in point of fact, even the ‘Bill of Rights’ is actually a bill of express prohibitions against government action regarding all of our rights.