I don’t have a lot to say about this, but I would suggest reading the comments over at the Climate Audit thread on the subject.
The acount of Richard Lindzen’s testimony in the report is interesting.
~ charles the moderator
UPDATE: Dr. Mann responds to the news in a video interview below.
H/t to Luboš Motl
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Doug Badgero says:
July 2, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Bernard J,
[–SNIP–]
I have one simple question, although you may be as technical as you like in your answer. What evidence causes you to believe that the majority of recent warming is anthropogenic?
[–SNIP–]
VILLABOLO:
Doug, do you realize how silly it is to ask such a broad and general question? From what I’ve seen Skeptics themselves do not have a coherent answer to how “Nature” is causing Global Warming. Or the fact that there even is Global Warming.
Where are the papers and equations proving Lord Monckton’s claim that CO2 has 1/6 the heat insulating capacity that evil Physicists claim? Where are the actual mathematical equations that disprove what demonic Astrophysicists say, namely that the Sun”s minor fluctuations are incapable of causing Global Warming! They are obviously part of a genocidal, one world Communist conspiracy for disagreeing with his baseless, quack science pretensions.
Like that old lady in the hamburger commercial many years ago said, “Where’s the beef?”.
Walt The Physicist says:
…. the second best is Ken Caldeira from Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology (spreading the sulphuf oxide particles in upper atmosphere to cool down the planet supported by Gates and Bono).
I’m not sure you understand.
“Gaia” Lovelock, the Greenest Scientist of All, found out a Russian (Buyko) had this idea to Cool the Planet with Sulfur in an Emergency.
Lovelock advocated building it to “keep it in our back Pocket to use in case we were Desperate”.
“Dr. Ozone” (Paul Crutzen) denounced it as dangerous, while support grew (even though the cost started at $200 Billion for Airplanes)
… In 2006 Crutzen CHANGED SIDES, based on studies of Mt. Pinutubo’s 20-million-ton Blast.:
He said something like: ‘GOD HIMSELF has tested Sulfur — through his Mt. Pinatubo’s Volcanic Explosion — & found it both safe & effective’
= an FDA test for SAFETY & EFFICACY, right ?
Meanwhile, PHONY GREENS concocted demonizing CO2 & Sulfur as a Scam to INCREASE PARTICULATES (Diesel Soot) AND POISONS (Mercury in flourescents — they never want to force us to use LED’s, note ) …
While the Copenhagen Consensus of REAL GREENS found a zero-risk Plan for less cost: Spray Sea Water for Cooling via more reflective Clouds ($6-to-9 Billion).
… Between Crutzen finding he could use 1/320th of Pinatubo’s 20 million tons & the use of — instead of expensive planes – – 5 hoses elevated by Baloons to 21 miles high – – the cost dropped to $40 million, plus $15m per year.
>>Ken Caldiera was funded as the Spokesman Against Crutzen
He .. ALSO turned coat after he studied the matter further, a couple years ago – – though green blogs still have his Quotes.
As he says, NASA Greenhouse experiments showed not JUST that it was safe, but that the High Altitude Component was what had increased Plant growth — REDUCING CO2 GROWTH.in the Atmosphere to a fifth of it’s normal gain..
>Super-Freakonomics came out with a $20 million scheme to “just” build the 2 Polar sites,because the Main risks of Warming are from Arctic Ocean Ice Melt-off leading to Ocean Current Shutdown, or the Southern Icecaps Catastrophically SLIDING Off (PS we now know this will happen.only over 1000s of years, a semi-unknown fact because what gets Quoted is a Geologist saying “Catastrophically Fast” when 3000 years is, to them, FAST. Greenland may have actually started this: but the Fastest Model has only 21-to-40 % in 400 years)
>> A year Ago Obama’s Global Warming Advisor signed on to the idea — & was blasted for it.
– – You do realize that $20 million is 20 THOUSAND TIMES cheaper than the $400B/year Cap & Trade Bill ???
Smokey says:
July 2, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Internal investigations are always a sham; either used to get rid of undesirables, or to exonerate wrongdoers. True justice requires a jury, cross examination, and each side calling their own witnesses.
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
Does that apply to Lord Monckton? You know, the Skeptic who:
1) Cut up a temperature chart, the UAH Globally Averaged Satellite Based Temperature Chart, right on 1998, in order to give the false impression that it supported Global Cooling?
If you want to look at this chart and figure how ingenious his TRICK to ALTER the chart and create a false DECLINE is, please see the chart duplicated by Roy Spencer at the beginning of Anthony’s article: “June 2010 Temperature, cooling a bit as El Nino fades.” Look at the transition between 1979-1997 and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/
2) Consistent misquotation, distortion and fabrication of scientist’s statements in order to give the impression that they support his views.
3) Outright falsehoods that are the photographic negative inversion of the facts, such as stating that the 5 major global temperature data sets prove his claim of Global Cooling when the exact opposite is true. (statement located at 1:23 on the following video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw&feature=related
It hardly matters what one believes about Global Warming or Cooling. What matters is that he is stating the exact reverse of what those data sets, like the one posted on the El Nino thread, states.
If this is the “science” by which one makes decisions of major importance (and please don’t bore me with “Cap and Trade” which many educated “AGW” do not support) then who is calling for the imprisonment of people like Lord Monckton who are the ones supported by the Oil Companies such as Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers?
You are always projecting what you are guilty of unto others. Slandering an entire scientific profession of being in it just for the money when there are many other ways of making more money is a measure of moral torpidity. Do you even know that only 34% of Climatologists are employed by the Federal Government (Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm#emply)?
Why not go ahead and declare the Moon landing a fraud based on this logic of “Government Employees and Administrations are faking things to get funds”.
You want to talk about the REAL MONEY? Look at those who deal in hundreds of billions of dollars instead.
Smokey – ‘Climate science’ as currently construed is broader than meteorology, there’s a fair amount of physics, organic chemistry, geology, etc.
Not that the practitioners of ‘climate science’ are always well-qualified in those disciplines, or that they wouldn’t be better off having a statistician’s understanding of the limits of data accuracy, an engineer’s training in the technical constraints of data collection equipment, and/or a professional database administrator’s training in data management.
That reminded me of something……now what was it?
Ref – Bernard J. says:
July 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Q: How many horse thieves, cattle rustlers, bank robbers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, wife beaters, etc., (to include everyone committing all lesser offenses in the criminal code) have been tried and imprisoned and even executed by their peers?
A: Every one!
Your appeal makes no sense. In fact, it’s an insult to your own intelligence. How many traffic tickets have you received? Did the cop who wrote it have the same specialty and background that you have? Why does that matter one wit? Answer, it doesn’t! The crime we are speaking of is one that we are all familiar with and it has nothing to do with Mann‘s education or profession.
Mann has the integrity of a Wall Street Stock Broker (well, the worst of them:-). And, as one of his peers, I know whereof I speak.
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, — a mere heart of stone. ”
— Charles Darwin
Oh dear.
I seem to have upset a number of folk, who mostly do not seem to have been able to parse my previous post.
Please note that I explicitly indicated that I was not appealing to authority, and that I deliberately used terminology to reflect this. For those who need reminding:
I was attempting to determine who, amongst those had posted previous to my first posting, were comptetent – through actual experience – to make the comments that they had on this thread.
It seems that the answer is “not many”, and that of those who do qualify, there has been no commentary by them in the professional area. Why is this, if one is claiming to challenge world authorites?
As to McIntyre’s perceived superiority over Mann with respect to competence in climatology, I have another question – upon what criteria is such a claim made? The claim implies some comparison of each of the two gentlemen’s qualifications, their experience, their professional corpus operis, and the relative correctness of their positions on the disputed matters at hand – and I have seen nothing tested in the professional arena that raises McIntyre over Mann.
Blog Science and protestations of conpiracies to hide the truth are collectively another matter entirely, but as they sit next to conspiracy theories that the British Royal family is actually a group of alien reptilians, they count rather little in the overall scheme of things…
And for what it’s worth, one of my neighbours and good friends is an atmospheric physicist. He himself draws quite a distinction between meteorology, climatology, his branch of atmospheric physics, and other sundry related, but nevertheless distinct, disciplines. A general undergraduate degree alone, in physics or in meteorology, is hardly solid grounds for establishing bona fides in which to claim authority over world-recognised professionals in the field. If one were to presume to do so one would require a very robust and conspicuous body of work with which to make a challenge, and the simple fact is that I have not seen anything that remotely fits that description.
My challenge to those here who disagreed with my first post was essentially aimed at establishing their credentials for making the claims that they do. I see no solid response to that first challenge, and I await with anticipation any response that might succinctly demonstrate the indisputable ‘science’ that those same proponents base their claims upon.
Enough with the sound and fury, gentles all – simply present a case that would actually hold up in a court of law, under the scrutiny of a Supreme Court judge. Humour me on this – a one page opening statement should suffice to capture the jury on the first peak of its retention curve.
Nota bene, I don’t think that the ‘whitewash’ defense would cut it, somehow…
Bernard J,
I enjoy these debates, because you have picked the losing side, so you’re going down with the ship. You say:
Well then, let me enlighten you. By limiting your statement to only ‘professional’ qualifications, and by what you have seen, you are hiding behind the same wall that Michael Mann hides behind. The perfumed denizens in the ivory tower of academia truly live in their own world, insulated by tenure from the precarious situation of ordinary working folks. No wonder you think you’re special.
It is not McIntyre’s ‘perceived’ superiority over Mann; it is real intellectual superiority. Their ‘relative correctness’ has been established, and the doctor has been shown to be fraudulent. Steve McIntyre has conclusively shown that Mann’s work is bogus: the IPCC no longer uses Mann’s original hockey stick chart in any of its publications. And the IPCC absolutely loved Mann’s chart. The pale imitations it now uses do not have nearly the visual impact of Mann’s original — but fraudulent — chart.
The fact that Michael Mann still refuses to engage in any kind of debate with Steve McIntyre says it all. The reason Mann hides out is because McIntyre has forced the IPCC, Nature and everyone else not afflicted by Festinger’s cognitive dissonance to admit that Mann’s hokey stick chart is mendacious, and it also shows how thoroughly insular and corrupt the climate peer review clique is.
If you think that letters after your name immunize you from legitimate criticism, you are living in a pre-internet fantasy world. Your pompous young hero has been thoroughly debunked by a non-PhD. Tough noogies, but the truth has won out over the scam artist, and trying to defend Mann’s scientific misconduct based simply on his doctorate shows how far the mighty have fallen. Michael Mann has done more damage to academic degrees than you realize.
Finally, your allusions to a court of law are laughable. That is the very last place your boy hero wants to be — judged by an impartial jury that has heard opposing witnesses, arguments, and evidence — rather than by Penn State’s internal whitewash of his scientific misconduct.
villabolo,
You, like most warmests, ignore the null hypothesis of natural variability. If you wish to claim that skeptics inability to explain why the earth has warmed naturally is on equal footing with the warmists claim that it is anthropogenic, because they can think of no other cause, I can accept that as a starting point. Then we both must acknowledge that an appeal to authority cannot occur, because no authority exists. The best that can be said about warmist behavior of the last two decades is that they have misrepresented the uncertainties in their science or they have been blinded to those uncertainties by their own arrogance.
And there was nothing silly about my question. If CAGW was strongly supported by the science I would expect perhaps the following:
1. A laundry list of unprecedented events that constitute a large body of circumstantial evidence that something unusual is occurring
2. A basic theory, based on first principals, to support causation due to CO2.
3. Empirical evidence, or a first principal theory, to support the existence of the necessary positive feedbacks.
To date I have seen convincing evidence of only the second item and the existence of the third item seems unlikely.
Bernard J,
What of Edward Wegman, do you place Mann above Wegman? How do you reconcile a disagreement between two people you see as equals?
But…but…he must be guilty! If he’s not guilty, then we’re wrong! But we can’t be wrong, because we’re right–after all, nobody’s proved us wrong, as far as we know or have noticed or are willing to admit, . No, that can’t possibly be true. That in itself is reason enough to propose (then choose, then accept, then repeat, then consider established, then repeatedly cite as settled fact) a nine-step theory to explain a one-step fact. Plus, he said stolen when they were really just, oh, I don’t know, borrowed.
Hack, hack, hackity-hack. Rave and burn. Repeat if necessary.
ice9
ice9
ice9,
As I stated above: “Internal investigations are always a sham; either used to get rid of undesirables, or to exonerate wrongdoers. True justice requires a jury, cross examination, and each side calling their own witnesses.”
I have been involved in many internal investigations as a part of my carreer. I have never seen nor heard of a single exception to what I stated above. Justice requires an adversarial setting, and internal investigations such as Penn State’s and Muir Russell’s kangaroo court are all simply exercises controlling the P.R. spin. Internal investigations are always used to either exonerate wrongdoers, or to jettison undesirables who may be a problem to the organization or to those in power. Feel free to ask anyone who is involved in similar internal investigations. An adversarial setting is the only way to separate truth from fiction and internal politics. As has been pointed out here, there is no way these sham investigations would ever dare to call McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman, or anyone else as witnesses who understand the shenanigans that Mann used. They do not want the truth. They want a pre-ordained result exonerating their rainmaker, and that’s exactly what they got.
The same complaints about a stacked deck would have been made by the alarmist contingent if Mann was an undesirable who had to go. The real problem is that internal investigations have zero to do with right or wrong.
In my own casual investigation in this thread I note that chek went missing as soon as I asked him the credibility question, and our other dense friend constructed an elaborate strawman argument trying to attack his superior, Lord Monckton. This discussion and article is about an internal investigation, but when a strawman is all you’ve got, then that’s what you use. Lord Monckton had nothing whatever to do with these internal investigations, and bringing his name up is simply a red herring argument. It is interesting to note, though, that some ankle biters are so fixated on the man who rubs their noses in the playground sand in every debate. ☺
Then there is Bernard J, who apparently believes that simply because the conniving Michael Mann has letters after his name, then his version of events must be accepted over everyone else. Note to Bernard: unquestioningly accepting Mann’s version of events is what happens only in an internal investigation. Rather, Bernard should be up in arms regarding the devious doctor Mann — who has done more to bring disrepute on science and to sully academic achievement than almost anyone else.
“Michelmann thinks he’s so smart
Totally inventing the hockeystick chart
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line;
Hide the decline, hide the decline….
Hide the decline, hide the decline”
Once he’s been convicted and jailed, perhaps that video will be resurrected.
Warmist sourpusses simply have no sense of humor.
“Saving the planet” is such a burden, after all.
The Score
Mann 2
Mann’s critics 0
Wren says:
The Score
MannWhitewash 2Mann’s criticsImpartial Justice 0.
There. Fixed.
Smokey says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Wren says:
The Score
Mann Whitewash 2
Mann’s critics Impartial Justice 0
.
There. Fixed.
—-
Wishful thinking is comforting, but doesn’t change outcomes.
My guess is after the Virginia thing is over, it will be …..
Mann 3
Mann’s critics 0
Predictably, the WUWT choir is in perfect congruence with the 9/11 Truthers.
Multiple investigations find no wrongdoing?
THAT PROVES THE CONSPIRACY!!!!
This would be funny if the witch hunt weren’t so cruel.
[REPLY – Seeing as how you are your own worst enemy, I will be even more cruel — by letting this post stand as it is. ~ Evan]
Ref – Wren says:
July 3, 2010 at 7:43 pm
“A pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor..”
As an academic, Mann is a has-been with a whitewashed record. How proud his parents must be. Don Quixote was a piker compared Herr Dokter Mann, just look as the size of their windmills.
Adam R. says:
“This would be funny if the
witch huntWhitewash weren’t so cruel.”Fixed.
A question for all those defending the actions of Mann. Do any of you have the capability to articulate a cogent argument as to why you believe humans are causing significant changes to the earth’s climate. It seems the warmist argument has become nothing but an appeal to authority and attempts to impugn the qualifications and motives of those that disagree with you.
With regard to Mann’s actions, I personally believe they speak more to arrogance than they do to fraud. His repeated verifiable lies about his communications with Steve Mc indicates to me that he now knows that no one on his side of the issue cares if he lies or not. How do you defend that?
I received the following email from Nature about a post (included in their email) I made on their web site concerning Dr Mann and the PSU whitewash.
Dear William Yarber,
The following post you wrote on the Nature News website has been hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions.
As a graduate of PSU in AeroSp Eng, I am disgusted with Dr Mann, his fraudulent “hockey stick” graphs, his blatant refusal to admit his crimes and the shame he, and the current University President, have brought to this great university.
He knew that the tree ring data from 1960 on indicated cooling when thermometer data indicated warming. So he manipulated the data by replacing the tree ring data with thermometer data to “hide the decline”! This is fraud. It also questions the accuracy of the tree ring data prior to 1960 and the validity of tree rings as a temperature proxy. Plus, he did not address the “divergence” issue, or his inability to resolve the decline, in his first paper. This failure is equally suspect and damning.
The worst crime is that he did it twice. When his ’97 “hocket stick” graph was debunked by McIntyre, he used different (also suspect) proxies to make another “hockey stick” graph.
This isn’t slander, this is the truth and Dr Mann apparently can’t handle the truth.
Bill Yarber
BS ’69, MS ’71
Contains unproven allegations.
-Nature News editors
It is not an allegation but a fact that Dr Mann replaced data from his tree rings with thermometer from roughtly 1960 on for his first “hockey stick” graph published in ’97 or ’98 (date seems to vary by source). Steve McIntyre proved that when he was finally able to obtain and analyzed Dr Mann’s tree ring data and computer code. It was also confirmed by Dr Jones in one of the “climategate” emails where he mentioned that he has used Dr. Mann’s trick top hide the decline.
It is also obvious that if the tree ring data diverged from thermometer data from 1960 on, that the entire data set for the tree rings prior to thermometer data is now suspect due to the unexplained divergence. Since trees respond to variable other than tmeperature (sunlight, humidity, rainfall, etc) then it is vital to have very close correllation between tree ring data and thermometer data to have any confidence in using tree ring data for a temperature proxy prior to thermometer data.
Finally, Dr Mann did not address or explain the “divergence” of the data or mention in his paper that he simply replaced tree ring data after 1960 with thermometer data. This is data manipulation since Steve McIntyre showed that the tree ring data from 1960 on, if used in Dr Mann’s computer program, whould have resulted in a downward trend, the infamous decline.
So these are all facts, not allegations, bu they don’ agree with Nature’s preconcieved notions so it is necessary to remove my comments from their blog. That should tell you all you need to know about the veracity of Nature and their various publications and opinions.
As to Dr Mann, my initial post on Nature says it all!
Bill Yarber
wobble says:
I feel bad for all holders of any science degree from Penn State – such degrees have now been depreciated.
I fear not Penn State only.
I know of only one situation in which the platform of a computer matters. This is when the floating point representation is used and the round-off handling is different on the different machines (ie: the infamous 1+1=1.9999999). In iterative calculations, these differences can build up to significance. However, if this occurs, it means that the calculation is sensitive to data variances six to sixteen orders of magnitude (depending on the data type used) smaller than the 1 or 2 significant-digit precision of the input data. If this is true, then Mr. Mann is unworthy of the title Doctor, and his data is not worth the electrons used to display it. My undergraduate numerical methods professor would have failed me for such an elementary error.
That’s right.
Penn State has shielded Mann. THEY OWN THIS NOW!