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
Where I live, bang in the middle of the Med sea, September was 0.1C BELOW average, August was just above average while during July we had nights when we had to sleep with a cover on, instead of sweating it out under an electric fan. (Air conditioners are a no go now, becuase electricity costs have gone through the roof due to carbon taxes and other international fraudsters that go by the name of oil traders or such like. Meanwhile we havn’t had a heatwave for many years. The Med sea is getting colder methinks.
And then there’s the UHI effect on the official temps records, which in my opinion, due to ever encroaching saphalt/runways next to the main weather station, is having an increasing effect on temp records.
Who would have thought forty years ago that one gets better TV news from Russian TV?!!!
1. the implied threat to my civil liberties of this investigation of Mann is like a pail of water thrown into the ocean compared to the threat to my civil liberties, health, wealth, and that of the generations that come after me from proposed solutions to AGW. Investigate away.
2. I for one have no interest in returning to the matter at hand. While I fear you are right and the 10:10 video will fade from memory in a few months, I will keep it alive for as long as possible. It is the most damning evidence yet that AGW proponents have lost any interest in the science and are advancing it by any means possible. While I don’t want to paint all warmists with the same brush, the point is that the 10:10 video is representative of a disturbing trend. It has shock value that woke a lot of people up, including a lot of warmists, and we should continue to pound away at the central point it raised. The bulk of the pro AGW arguments in the media are not as extreme as 10:10, but they rely none the less on imagry, half truths, scare mongering, intimidation and out of hand dismissal of contrary science and opinions as coming from persons of defective intelligence or upbringing. I never miss an opportunity to show that the bulk of the pro AGW “evidence” has little to do with science, and other than the blatant violence, shares far more with the 10:10 video than with real research. Why, I ask, are the bulk of the pro AGW arguments based on marketing spin and dehumanizing attacks on skeptics instead of science? Answer; Science has failed them and so they have turned to everything except science to advance their agenda.
10:10 was a wake up call, and I’d rather keep as many people awake as possible, asking them what agenda is served by that video, and why the less violent propoganda none the less has as little science in it as the 10:10 video.
No Pressure.
If I had a business enterprise and a major client asked me to justify just how his money had been spent and to outline the communications I used in spending his money wisely, plus outcomes achieved; it would be a no-brainer. Of course he would be entitled to a full, frank and transparent report.
Why the difference between science and the real world, Michael Mann?
Scientific error? As someone with a science degree the “hide the decline” he participated in was not error it was fraud. Mann was using proxies and then when they refused to cooperated he patched instrumental records on and got his hockey stick. Since this involved public funds it may indeed be criminal. Since he has called for the prosecution of prominent skeptics he should be held to the standard he has articulated.
A lot of people here could do with reading this: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/
I don’t defend Mann in general, but in this thread he’s come in for a lot of stick from people who can’t reconcile his actions with honesty. It is possible, though. Think of it this way: no-one bar a crook will produce work with unacknowledged flaws that he knows about and understands, but, by the same token, if someone doesn’t understand what it is they don’t know, then they won’t understand that their work is flawed.
If you want to challenge Mann’s work, do it on value-for-money grounds, because they kind of evidence you actually need to prove criminal wrong-doing just won’t exist.
Government can hurt those no one else can.
===============
You say “But let’s get back to the subject at hand.”
So that begs the question, just what is the “subject at hand”? I’ll offer my answer: honest science!
And since the Climategate emails show, at least to me, that they were doing science dishonestly (and very much so), then our primary “subject at hand” is to root out the dishonesty. Why? Otherwise, the science is bogus. Kaput! We’ll know nothing and be blind as bats.
And if you don’t understand that, Mr. Thomas Fuller, you’re not a scientist and shouldn’t be directing the discussion.
Golf Charley at 12:23am:
“Did you know that wood does grow on trees?”
Well, I know that at least. What would be better is for these big government types in the global warming/climate change cabal to realize that money DOESN’T.
As for the subpoena regarding Dr. Mann, I fail to understand why his work conducted while in the pay of the State of Virginia would not be public knowledge, or would not be available to the proper authorities elected by the people of that state. Somethings rotten in Charlottesville, and if takes a subpoena to find out what that stench is, then so be it.
And Mr. Fuller, if you think the Democrats/Progressives haven’t investigated anyone or destroyed their reputations, and that this particular subpoena is plowing virgin ground, you’ve been asleep for several years now. Those tactics have been used by the Democrats for years. The lawsuits and subpoenas used against Sarah Palin and Tom Delay are cases in point.
And yes, Dr. Mann was supposed to be a scientist, and non-political, but he and his ilk launched themselves into the political arena, and have potentially been causal in the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the distortion of food markets that have cost lives and caused misery in the developing world. And they have enriched themselves in the process. Yes, it is long past time to investigate these phonies.
Presumably the terms under which the State of Virginia granted funds for Mann’s research are expressed in some form of binding document? I’ve never had such funding, but I doubt if they just write you a cheque. Does anyone know what those terms might include? And if we don’t, and Cuccinelli (and Mann) presumably do, isn’t it a bit premature to speculate as to whether or not he has “probable cause” for his, er, probe?
Thomas, I hear, understand and agree with what you’re saying. Yes, as far as this segment of the blogosphere goes, it would be nice to return to the science as that is what is important.
On the other hand, the turn of the argument to gossip/non-science-controversy is actually a huge win for those who want to protect science. It is a win because it reveals this entire ordeal for what it is, Politics. It strips the cloak of authority off of those who would wrongly attempt to appear authorities on this topic, and it lets the grunt scientists get back to collecting data. Michael Mann has proven himself to be less than a scientist. A scientist would have clearly stated his uncertainties. A scientist would have allowed and even encouraged people to find fault with his work. Michael Mann decided to play politics and hide potential flaws in his work. So a man who is supposed to be above reproach showed true character weakness when he had sold a political platform (climate catastrophe) to politicians and then publicly hid behind rules and procedures to prevent his claims from being weakened. Michael Mann made the choice to enter the realm of politics and he should suffer for it. The only reason to disagree with this is if you consider Michael Mann to still be a true scientist, which he has demonstrated that he is not. The same goes for Hansen, who has clearly demonstrated that political work is more important to him than science. I say let these men get what’s coming to them when the political sharks do finally circle them. The grunts who collect data and form hypotheses are not harmed by these events. The conclusions formed in the future from such work may be questioned more by the general public, but this is true of science in general. In fact the whole world would be a lot better if everyone in the general public questioned what scientists say.
I say, the scientists who so boldly said that their science was “Settled” and sold a political platform to the worlds ruling class chose on their own to enter the realm of politics. The entire reason this website exists is because of this. Now their sales-pitch is being revealed to be less-than-grounded in reality and I believe the political fallout should not be prevented. Scientists who choose to get in bed with politics deserve what is coming to them. The coming public awareness of the predictive failures of oversold scientific conclusion will only cause the public to question science more, which can only be good for science.
In short, I see nothing wrong with enjoying the mudslinging for now, and yes, I’m a scientist.
DavidS says:
October 6, 2010 at 1:12 am
“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?”
—————
The readers above have not spent years studying this post, have not been handsomely paid to scrutinize this post, have not been appointed to an international committee to convince the world that Anthony wrote this post, have not tried to subvert the peer review process in order to convince people that Anthony wrote this post, have not tried to suppress other readers who tried to point out that fact that Anthony didn’t write this post and aren’t trying to get the world to spend trillions based on the basis that Anthony wrote this post.
What were the similarities again?
Thomas, re Splattergate: I am a habitual Guardian CiF watcher to check on the state of their current Green weirdness. Visiting there yesterday, I read a very long and slightly surreal justification for the 1010 video. I checked in again today and the entire article, along with numerous pro and anti responses, had gone as if it had never existed!
Re Cuccinelli: I disagree with your views on his so-called ‘fishing expedition’. The institution in question, in previously denying Cuccinelli’s requests for information in his position of responsibility for protecting his state’s Revenue, has made itself and Dr Mann an object of suspicion. If they had previously demonstrated that any suspicions that Mann had defrauded the taxpayer in any way were baseless, that could be accepted, but the enquiries thus far into the behaviour of Mann and other researchers subsequent to the release of the ‘climategate’ emails are such egregious and obvious ‘whitewashes’ that no suspicions have been allayed. Considering the amount of evidence that falsifies Mann’s Hockey Stick, if Cuccenelli finds Dr Mann to be merely incorrect rather than dishonest, that would seem to be a positive result for Mann and perhaps the institution in question may welcome that finding as being the more palatable.
We have FOIA laws. Looks like the university wants to disobey the laws. Now they must produce documents under court order. Looks like they refuse that also.
“Perhaps in the northern hemisphere (but after a cold winter). Here in the southern hemisphere its been a damn cold winter. ”
Nah, it’s been — literally — freezing up here in the West of Canada too. If the Warmers claim that this year was ‘OMG the warmest ever!’ then a lot of people are going to be laughing at them.
But, allow me a parting shot on the Cuccinelli/Mann thingy . . .
I see no moral or legal issues with an empowered representative of a government legal body (Cuccinelli) acting openly within the framework of the legal system. The legal system will sort out what is due process and appropriate by all parties involved. The legal system grinds slowly and finely . . . . but it is tireless. Cuccinelli doesn’t appear to be the kind of man who tires at all . . . he is tireless too.
If Cuccinelli is overstepping his authority, which I personally doubt, then the legal system will stop him. I really don’t see the problem. This IS ALL PUBLIC that Cuccinelli is doing . . . . not like Mann’s very apparent (to me) HIDDEN manipulations/machinations/intimidations.
I expect that Cuccinelli will eventually find his way into some of the documents at the UoV; once in then he will easily find cause for expansion of the search. I conclude that is what UoV (and indirectly Mann) are concerned about. I do not assess that they are ideologically standing up for the idea of academic freedom.
John
Tom, you’re confused…..again. If Mike Mann had acted and operated without our money, then you’d be correct and no need for an investigation. This isn’t the case. It needs to be thoroughly investigated to see if he’s misused any of the public funds. If one doesn’t want this type of scrutiny, then do not accept the money or find a different vocation. It is really not that difficult. This is just one example of the pratfalls of people believing the public should fund and be involved in all aspects of our lives. The government, of course, has a vested interest in the advancement of science and science should have its benefactors. That said, the scientists DO NOT HAVE FREE REIN WITH MY MONEY! It needs to be ensured that our money wasn’t used to intentionally mislead the public. This isn’t a fishing expedition, its called “due diligence”.
Off topic. Anthony, have you seen the ad in this discussion?
what are they thinking?
AGW Fearmongering: Scientific Error or Criminal Fraud?
You be the judge.
[snip]
• The Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago was warmer than today.
• The Holocene Optimum from 3000 to 8000 years ago was warmer than today.
• The last three Interglacial periods were warmer than the current one.
• The claim of 0.6 degrees C rise during industrial times was unverifiable because the scientist refused to disclose the evidence and then the government ‘lost’ the data.
• Four of the warmest years on record in the US were in the 1930s not the 1990s as claimed.
• 1934 was the warmest in the US not 1998 as claimed.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) adjusted historic data down to make the modern record relatively warmer.
• Temperature increases before CO2 in all records.
• CO2 levels currently at 388 ppm are the lowest in 300 million years.
• There’s a limit of at most 1.4 degrees C to the amount of temperature can increase even if CO2 doubles or triples.
• In the 20th century human production of CO2 didn’t fit the temperature record. From 1900 to 1940 human CO2 production levels were low but temperatures increased the most. From 1940 to 1980 human production levels increased the most but temperature declined.
• The models predicted the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface but the opposite is happening.
• The Earth is cooling with record low temperatures everywhere, contradicting the IPCC hypothesis
• The CRU whistleblower’s FOI2009 disclosures showing fraud, collusion and misrepresentation with intent to deceive the public.
(i.e., reference — Dr. T. Ball: “These are more than enough facts to show the hypothesis is wrong. Polls indicate the public is learning, but AGW proponents and politicians are not and continue to push their political agendas”)
=========================================================
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.
==========================================================
Sunshine is a wonderful disinfectant.
All this stuff should be released for all grants at ALL universities.
Those who try to hide something usually have something to hide.
Tom,
I disagree with your comment: “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”
IMHO neither the Cuccineli case or the ‘Splattergate’ video would represent “short term” victories. Since ‘Climategate’ (big crack) we have seen many small cracks opening up in the CAGW fortress: recent admission of NOAA for the need of improvements in temperature sensing systems, and more peer-reviewed papers showing natural variability linked to the PDO and AMO (Arctic ice extent) among many others (links below).
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/paper-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more.html
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ushcn_letter_-_final_-_7-29-10_secured.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042616.shtml
Add the many IPCC ‘gates’: quality control issues uncovered at the IPCC, Al Gore & Pachauri’s pranks and the recent rebellion at the Royal Society with subsequent editing changes of their ‘Climate Guide’. The fact that the RS change was most likely “lip-service” as alleged by some is irrelevant, the fact remains that their fellows ‘forced’ a change; how often has that happened in this arena and at this level?
Sceptics/scientists have still attained only a modicum of momentum. IMO every opportunity to expose, and when necessary litigate, occurrences like the two examples you mention (Cuccinelli and Splattergate) should be encouraged, supported, vocalized/discussed with friends and family, with continued/repeated debate on the internet and at every opportunity.
It is reassuring that mainstream science has now pretty much rejected the “climate science cabal” and we do not hear people parroting “consensus” nearly as often as we did before climategate, now it appears there may be a reversal to that tendency. The fact that the CAGW crowd are trying to change the terms (global warming=climate change=climate disruption) is a testament to many “short-term” victories.
Remember, as mentioned repeatedly above, that Mann brought this on himself and his cohorts, and they need to be held accountable. A continued push is needed to get the truth out to the public-at-large, only then will the MSM be unable to ignore what is going on…but even then, will they give it air time?
If you watch the news, when it comes to the spending of taxpayers money, the message comes across that it is the gub’ments money, and did not come out of our hard work/pockets!? These guys (Mann et al) apparently think the same thing: ‘it’s their money and they want it now!’ This mentality has to stop, the gravy train has to stop.
And finally, our civil liberties are already being/been eroded, and at an accelerated pace, by public “servants” using exactly the same tactics that Mann and the makers of the splattergate video employ: obfuscation and propaganda campaigns.
I hadn’t seen that Copenhagen video. It’s interesting and noteworthy that amongst the population of CAGW “believers” they use the appeal to emotion fallacy quite often. And to try to convince the skeptics/unbelievers they use the standard fire-and-brimstone/you-will-go-to-hell false dilemma fallacy.
This, btw, is classic cult behavior. You lure people in by convincingly creating some kind of false either-or situation that demands choice/action. Then to maintain peaceful belief status, you appeal to the believer’s desire to believe in all things good and heroic about their beliefs.
hunter says:
“But ‘peer review’ in climate science has become cover-up and tribalism. As we saw in Britain, the government reviews were obvious whitewashes.”
=======================
Exactly right, but remember the “cover-up and tribalism” that peer review establishes is by no means limited to climate science. It is the essence of the peer review system itself. See the excerpts I posted earlier on this, as well as comments by others on the same subject.
Those who think that the government has the means to redress these wrongs…. it certainly does. If it wanted to. But why would it do it, when the entire idea of a CO2 emissions threat has been relentlessly driven into our heads precisely by the vast resources of gorvernment itself? Why would the corporate-government complex undermine its own campaign? I used to believe in all this cant about AGW. What drew my attention to the issue and prompted me to research it was that I noticed a huge concerted increase in the intensity with which it was being promoted, around 2007, with researchers in practically every field jumping on to the merry wagon to get a share of the pie. It was unmistakeably a concerted and hugely expensive effort emanating from the corporate controlled media and the government funded university research system. And it still is and will be as long as they want it to be. Skeptical blogs like this one are wonderful, they provide some much needed breathing room against intellectual asphyxiation, but we often lose sight of the fact that the real Goliath can deflect slingshots much more easily than the fictional one.
quote (2007):
“How did we get here? How did such an arcane subject [AGW] only yesterday of interest merely to a handful of scientific specialists, so suddenly come to dominate our discourse? How did scientific speculation so swiftly erupt into ubiquitous intimations of apocalypse? These are not hypothetical questions but historical questions, and they have answers. Such events as these do not just happen; they are MADE to happen. On the whole our ideas tend not to be our own ideas; rarely do we come up with them ourselves but rather imbibe them from the world around us. This is especially obvious when our ideas turn out to be the same as nearly everyone else’s, even people we’ve never met or communicated with. Where did this idea about the urgent crisis of global warming and CO2 emissions come from and get into our heads, given that so few of us have ever read, or even tried to read, a single scientific paper about greenhouse gases? Answering such a question is not as difficult as it might seem, for the simple reason that it takes a great amount of reach and resources to place so alien an idea in so many minds simultaneously so quickly, and the only possessors of such capacity and means are the government and the corporations, together with their multi-media machinery. To effect such a significant shift in attention, perception, and belief requires a substantial, and hence visible and demonstrable, effort.”
From: The Corporate Climate Coup
http://tinyurl.com/3dg7r8
Artwest,
There are some things others say, that are so clear, concise, and to the point that you kick yourself in the rear for not thinking of it. Your post at 6:59am was one of those times for me. Touche’.
Mann “hide the decline” is joined by UVa “hide the documents” hiding what? It must be reallllly scary as UVa is quoted as using private monies to fund their legal road block.
See the September 3, 2010 WSJ letter of mine contrasting Harvard and UVa in their contrasting responses to allegations of “scientific misconduct.”