Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
When peripheral issues dominate the climate news agenda, it’s normally a sign that not much is happening on the scientific, political or legal front. So the fact that the blogosphere (and increasingly the mainstream) is so heavily focused on the No Pressure video and Ken Cuccinelli’s renewed subpoena of Michael Mann’s emails would tend to indicate that the climate is quiet.
But that’s not really the case. September was really warm, globally, increasing the odds that 2010 might be the warmest year since modern instruments began recording the temperature. Arctic ice, on the other hand, is recovering spectacularly quickly from a strong melt this summer. The University of Colorado seems to be saying that despite this warm weather, sea level declined….
So there is climate.
Judith Curry has put a firm stake in the ground on her weblog, discussing the potential and, perhaps more importantly, the limitations of models in climate science. The NOAA is discussing heat in the depths of the ocean and the Royal Society has revised its position on climate science overall, while here at WUWT you can easily scroll down to find interesting and relevant reports on papers and discoveries.
So there is climate science.
And the sharks appear to be circling for Rajendra Pachauri, with establishment organisations preparing the way for calls for his departure. Expectations for the climate summit in Cancun are rapidly being adjusted downwards, as are hopes for any kind of U.S. energy bill this year.
So there is politics.
To have discussion dominated by a twisted little video and what I believe a mistaken attempt to criminalize scientific error risks letting more important things slip out of control, or at least off our radar screen.
I have written enough of the No Pressure video and really don’t think there is much more to say. Big mistake, shows bad intent, use it as a reference point for evaluating further messages from the climate establishment.
And anyone who has read the book Steve Mosher and I have written knows that I think very poorly of what Michael Mann did–his actions in defense of his Hockey Stick chart were wrong, bullying, cheap and destructive of scientific publishing protocols and procedures.
But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.
I’ll get a lot of flack from you on this–and don’t be shy, I can take it. But remember as you write–District Attorneys are not always Republican, and controversial scientists can be skeptics at times, too. Don’t let your desire for a short term victory in the daily news cycle let you ignore what would be an erosion of all our civil liberties, I beg of you.
And let’s turn the discussion back to matters that we will at least remember three months down the road. Science, news and politics bring us enough material for discussion. We’ve noted the scandals, observed the wheels in motion. I’m not saying forget what has happened recently.
But let’s get back to the subject at hand.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Dear Mr. Fuller,
How anyone can still believe in the CO2-myth after having learned that CO2-levels follow warming, is a complete mystery to me. The fact that CAGW-scientist do anything to prove it is the other way around, shows that there is a hidden agenda: maybe ther own purse or maybe some higher goal. On top of that, they are backed up by governments and governmental organizations. And that’s why the fight against the warmists will be a long and nasty one: there is no reason in the CAGW-cult. It’s a believe in the mind of a lot of people. The only way to stop the nonsense is to keep showing the wrongdoings, since arguments seem to have no effect.
One question for you:
Have you ever tried to warm a bath by warming the bathroom? According to the CAGW-theory an atmosphere can warm an ocean. Please enlighten me.
Kind regards,
Scarface
Thomas Fuller, you are such a squish, dude.
And Mann is — as revealed by the Climate Gate emails — credibly accused of scientific fraud and resulting misuse of funds, profiting from same with his salary and grants. Which would make it a financial fraud. That is why he is being investigated.
Maybe he’s innocent. He certainly has a right to be presumed innocent. However, let the subpoenas sally forth.
Living in the UK, where the previous labour government bought into “global warming” with such disatrous results (they funded 10:10), and where the current coalition government is still buying (with taxpayers money) unilateral surrender to the carbon dioxide molecule, I like the headline that Sept 2010 may be the warmest on record. In the UK, it wasn’t. Summer 2009 was going to be a barbecue summer in the UK. It wasn’t. Winter 2009/10 was going to be a warm one. It wasn’t.
Climate isn’t weather, and weather isn’t climate. But in the UK such forecasts and postcasts keep eroding public confidence in the AGW message. Poking fun at such predictions is about the only time journalists from the MSM are allowed to question climate issues. So bring on the UK barbecue winter forecast! I’m getting in extra firewood though, from renewable sources of course. Did you know that wood does grow on trees?
So you think that the Splattergate film is nothing more than a side-tracking event do you Mr Fuller?
Then maybe you should drop a hint or two in David Cameron’s ear because this is the influence advocacy groups like 10:10 have over UK green policies:
Cameron and Huhn tend to go orgasmic over crap like this to the point they not only listen but also enact. They even use OUR money to fund this steaming pile of warmist facism. Then they pass Bills on it the the severe detriment of the nation’s purse. Still think the film is an irrelevancy?
As for September being really warm – when are the warmists going to explain that to the chilly UK weather?
The question for me is,
IS THIS A CASE OF THE END JUSTIFYING THE MEANS?
(which I abhor in principle) but I do not think there is an easy answer here.
Tom:
It’s really important to note that the request (and any subsequent acquiescence) to delete emails was made AFTER receiving David Holland’s FOI request for them, NOT in advance of it. It’s important because the distinction impacts the legality of the behaviour. The enquiries’ finding, that the deletion request was in advance of FOI, is not supported by the chronology of the evidence.
I agree with you regarding Cuccinelli’s pursuit of Mann. While Americans are busily guarding separation of Church and State, they’re failing to draw a line between Justice and Politics. This inevitably leads, as Lord Turnbull notes, to “more Widgery than Saville”.
Following the suspicions about Mann’s behaviour raised by the Climategate emails, I think it is important he gets the chance to clear his name. We need better science than that which is being done by the IPCC cabal, which is no better than cargo cult science.
Public trust in science overall has been seriously damaged. Hiding potentially criminal activity doesn’t help the cause.
See how easy it is to make mistakes. Some reading the above post think it has been written by Anthony, it hasn’t, it was just posted by him.
Is there Scientific error or fraud?
Thomas Fuller:
‘But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann)’.
Ok. Now try pinning Kevin Rudd’s policies on Jo Nova. She’s Australian too, after all.
RLawrence, UK resident.
Sooner or later some part of the AGW scare must end up in court and be tested in law. Why not the most iconic misrepresentation first?
After that any other suggestions?
“What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.”
Tom, how much smoke has to be there before you realize there may be a fire and go and investigate ???
“…But it didn’t rise to a criminal level…”
Yes it did. To knowingly commit fraud is criminal.
It a sort of feel-good blindness to give “the-benefit-of-the-doubt” in this situation. To knowingly commit fraud is criminal.
The ends do NOT justify the means. To knowingly commit fraud is criminal.
You can’t gain mercy by whining, “I had to do it to support my family.” To knowingly commit fraud is criminal.
Even if you are but a foolish puppet, in order for truth-seekers to discover who was pulling your strings your strings must be exposed, and the strings must be followed to the string-puller. To knowingly commit fraud is criminal.
When the world is at sea, and asks you for a chart, and you produce a chart which shows clear sailing where in fact there is a swamp, and you know darn well the chart is not reliable, you have done more than “guessed wrongly;” you have put the lives of all who counted on you in danger. To knowingly commit fraud is criminal.
I think this forum’s strength is its attention to the scientific debate, it used to have a weakness of not really accepting that there is a political dimension that also needed to be addressed. Recently you seem to have taken that side on board as well which I think is a good thing, but it would be a mistake to let the politics get in the way of the science. I think your balancing act has been about right.
I think you are wrong on the fishing Anthony.
Had Mann been completely open, honest and transparent about how science has been conducted with public money then there wouldn’t be any need to go digging in to how that money has been used.
The real issue here should be the fact the AG HAS to go to court to get this information!
Given manns history of secretive and suspect behaviour then the sooner science like this is stamped out the better for everyone.
Mailmsn
If the University of Virginia had quietly handed over the documents requested at the first time of asking this would in all likelihood no longer be a story.
Because they did not, it now is.
What I find the strangest, is that after all this time Michael Mann still has a position in academia, and is still getting grants. If there was justice, he would have at least lost his position at the very least for what happened and the white-washes just show that the universities are not going to cooperate. That kind of leaves us at a catch 22…
We can cheer on Cuccinelli in VA, or we can watch Michael Mann get away with it. I hate the method being used with Cuccinelli, and lets be honest, no one can defend what is basically a fishing expedition, but in the end, this might be the only way to nail people like this who are eating off tax-payer monies in a recession no less when hard-working people are struggling. To me, I don’t know what is better. Both options here are terrible. Lets face it, the skeptic position is going to take some creative work to unravel the decades of bad science, and whether one solution is better then another….well thats just the real world for us. I think the thing we can all do that is constructive though is watch the investigation as much as possible and be the first to cry foul when it goes to far. Other then that, I am not sure what else there is to do in that regard. Again, two very bad positions…
Anna V
That was my contention also, that had Mann admitted an “error” or at least recognised that he had taken a wrong turn in science, we and he, would not be where we all are now.
CAGW all but dead and buried in real science, with the moribund body propped up by economists and politicians and financial profiteers hopeful at reviving some semblance of a failing agenda before voters blow the final whistle!
Sadly the last nail in the coffin (or stake through the heart) looks like it will HAVE to rest on criminal investigation, sworn evidence, and the legal equivalent of pushing that red button so loved by our green persuaders/dictators.
Tom,
I agree with Paul in Sweden.
Consider these two scenarios:
1) Mann analyzes his proxies correctly and thus gets no hockey stick. Result: a “boring” article that probably has zero chances of being published in Nature – and certainly would have not causes the meteoric rise in his career. An outcome that he, upon seeing his results, could easily foresee.
2) Mann analyzes his proxies with several methods – until he finds, or designs, or even stumbles upon his de-centred PCA analysis, and, suddenly, the hockey stick graph appears – and everybody says, “we have a winner” – since, it must be pointed out, at the time something like the hockey stick was precisely what the IPCC establishment was waiting for (which is why they so uncritcially embraced it).
If Mann went from (1) to (2) fully aware of what he was doing – I would suggest that something like Cuccinelli’s investigation is justified.
If he went directly to (2) – or went from (1) to (2) in good faith – then he’s simply incredibly stupid, incompetent, and delusional. The idea that it’s simply a “scientific error” etc is just sand in people’s eyes. Either way, I suggest he deserves everything that Cuccinelly throws at him.
Am I missing something? Is there any other intepretation?
We must never let up the pressure, especially hard to maintain during periods of perceived quiescence, as Thomas Fuller remarks. That’s what militants wait for, because they never do let up. They just keep hammering the same mantras, however many arguments they lose – these are soon forgotten or glossed over. – It’s a strategy that works: governments haven’t stopped pouring money into these scams just yet, have they? – so the warmists still keep the upper hand.
If people like Cuccinelli can stall this to some extent, he’s not wasting his time.
“September was really warm, globally”. Maybe relative to the 1960-91 mean yes. But within the the last 10 years this September appear to only be beaten by the “cold” 2007.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
“Don’t let your desire for a short term victory in the daily news cycle let you ignore what would be an erosion of all our civil liberties, I beg of you.”
The wisest words I’ve seen from Mr Fuller yet.
September, warm globally?
Perhaps in the northern hemisphere (but after a cold winter). Here in the southern hemisphere its been a damn cold winter. Our local BOM advises about 2 degrees C colder than average.
Not sure how the “warm September” is justified but it’s worth questioning the how’s and why’s of that one.
“But that’s not really the case. September was really warm, globally, increasing the odds that 2010 might be the warmest year since modern instruments began recording the temperature. Arctic ice, on the other hand, is recovering spectacularly quickly from a strong melt this summer. The University of Colorado seems to be saying that despite this warm weather, sea level declined….”
The take away thought: It was warm, but it wasn’t. It was cool, but it wasn’t.
Dear Anthony, have you noticed that these past week, news reports on UFOs have been increasing in the mainstream media? Maybe I am just being paranoid.
Now that the climate change scare is failing, are the elitists (UN, bankers, Al Gore, etc.) now attempting a new tactic of using UFOs to scare people and gain totalitarian control over the world? You know:
“We come in peace, but you must do what we say or you will all die.” Do you remember the TV series “V”?
If they can make Avatar, what is it to fake a few UFOs in the sky? Maybe I am just paranoid. I just find it strange that UFO stories have started to propagate while the mainstream media and google try their best to kill the 10:10 story. That’s the other disturbing thing: google has started censoring stuff that shows the ugly side of the global warming alarmists.
I just wrote a post on a related topic a few minutes ago:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/10/golden-rule-of-politics.html
I hope you are suitably amused.