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
Tom, I understand your views politically, and as a result all the moreso appreciate your participation and insights. Many of us do follow other things, so aren’t fixated on a particular story — I was glad to see Judith Curry’s discussion on models the other day, for example.
I agree it is time to let Splattergate go — it has done a lot already and letting it quietly simmer (rather than continuing to beat a dead horse) is probably the most effective strategy at this point. I have to disagree about Mann, however. I didn’t know, and don’t give a hoot whether, Cuccinelli is a Republican. If the investigation is appropriate, it should proceed.
Mann knew that he was hiding the divergence problem in published work. It is also possible (although still unclear — could be plain old incompetence; but perhaps he knew; he certainly should know now, as it has been pointed out to him) that he knew his hockey-stick algorithm was junk and would produce a pre-determined result. If he produced or published his work on taxpayer funds, or if he testified (I don’t know if he did, but others may remember) about the implications of the hockey stick to Congress or state officials (or if he provided materials specifically to be used in such testimonies by others) in an attempt to promote government action against climate change, then this may constitute fraudulent testimony to a government agency.
There is also evidence of some mismanagement of taxpayer funds, as well as the possibility that he deleted emails after the FOI requests, at Jones’ demand, etc. These should be investigated.
Getting to the bottom of what Mann knew and did is much more important than whether the single month of September comes in warm.
Well at least you got in a link to your book, so that’s mission accomplished.
Steve in SC says:
“Those who try to hide something
usuallyalways have something to hide.” QEDThis isn’t about disclosing nuclear defense secrets; this is about the weather, and how public funds may have been misappropriated.
There is plenty of evidence in the Climategate emails exposing the shenanigans Mann and his clique used to keep the climate gravy train grants on track. One email may mean little. But taken together, each one is a brick in the wall – and it’s a big wall.
If not the Attorney General, who else is in a position to get the public answers as to whether there was fraud?
It is the A.G.’s job to get those answers. Certainly no one else represents the citizens. And the cries of “witch hunt” puts the spotlight of suspicion on those like Mann and Penn State, who have had a blank check up until now.
If Mann has nothing to hide, then simply cooperating with Cuccinelli would quickly resolve any questions. Instead, Mann continues to stonewall. What does that tell us?
I hate to ask, but it must be asked:How much of the opposition by skeptics to the Virgnia AG is due to his being a conservative Republican?
If Andrew Cuomo was doing this in New York, would he be vilified like this as well?
We’ve got ’em on the run. Unleash the hounds.
This just reeks of 10th of a penny round downs which also were not considered “stealing” until someone discovered the skimming, did the math and crapped themselves over the size of the theft. How is making 1+1=3 for grant money and subsequently screwing another researcher out of a potential grant (unless they are infinitely available in America and the UK) not criminal? Its illegal to claim false expenses in taxation, illegal to bear false witness in many venues, and I know here in Canada falsifying expense reports in the Health care system will get the most senior unionist alive not only fired but in court for criminal charges. I’m not seeing how the excuses for the Hockey Team work at all.
“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.”
So you consider this video promoting the humour of the execution of people with a dissenting opinion to be of lesser importance.
“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 yet you beg for people to be more concerned about civil liberties.
What about the liberty of holding an opinion, even if it is a dissenting one?
Tom of course is the better light, arguing against an investigation of Mann on the basis of liberty. I’m more cynical and calculating. On the facts as I know them, they have no case. It is highly improbable that they will ever find anything or make any charges stick. the end result is that Mann gets another vindication. And those who attack him lose credibility.
The issue is making charges that can stick. Repeatedly I see my friends in the skeptic camp ( I’m a lukewarmer) make a consistent strategic error. They over charge cases. They ignore the real problems and focus on the false problems. The only opponent of the “team” who has made any impact is the most measured critic: Steve McIntyre. He sticks to the facts. Doesn’t over reach in his suppositions of wrong doing. Always has a solidly researched position.
The defenders of Climategate and the inquires were thus given the following choice:
1. investigate the wild claims made by the sloppy of thought and practice
2. investigate Mcintyre’s more detailed and more measured charges.
They defended against the weakness case and claimed victory.
Some people attack the investigators. But those who make frivolous over the top charges, played and play directly into their hands.
D. Patterson says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/ill-trade-you-cuccinelli-for-splattergate-with-a-player-to-be-named-later/#comment-500924
Great comment, DP, should be a headline post. It really brushes away the academic cobwebs and reveals the monstrous spider hiding beneath them. Squash that arachnid, Cooch! Stomp it good!
They have lost and interest there is less warmist activity, declining with the continuing avalanche of evidence which disproves their beliefs. Think back to how smug and self satisfied the Warmists were last Autumn in spite of the noisy but apparently “insignificant” band of deniers in the blogasphere. Something more interesting is holding their attention now as the increase in “biodiversity” scare articles in (non Guardian) UK papers indicate.
Here are a couple of quotes from a recent Guardian article to show you what they are up to.
One for the bankers and Al Gore investments LLC etc
and the next to push the legislative angle
Tom Fuller,
There are no untouchables here . . . . move along, move along.
John
Now here us a fellow who has taken up your offer of a trade…
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/3-offensive-images-of-climate-change/1122
Why Climate Change Deniers Should Be Blown To Bits!
By R.T. Jones
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010
A couple of weeks ago, a new short film by comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis was released for the 10:10 environmental campaign. And apparently, that film offended a lot of people.
I actually thought it was kind of funny. But I do have a sense of humor.
So why were people so offended?
Why indeed? Could he be right?
It is lacking the “Joker”: May I suggest Al?
Scarface says:
October 6, 2010 at 12:11 am
“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.”
I know…this baffles me to no end. Scientists and lay-people alike continually confuse correlation with causation. It’s like saying every time the rooster crows the sun rises, so I’ll shut the rooster up to prevent the sun from rising. Or everytime I see everyone with unbrellas it’s also raining, so if I can get people to stop carrying umbrellas, I can stop the rain.
In the case of the ice core data, it is clear temperature lags CO2 by several hundred years. And even without the lag, just because they are correlated doesn’t mean one causes the other!!!
Christ, but I’lll trade you hellishly cleverly devil’s advocate Cuccinelli for Wizardly Pratchettly Professor Lidzen (who I might add has +3 bonus level points for being so god damn Santa Clausey, I mean it’s friggin Cuccinelli smile scary just photoshop his beard and the left over wizardry hair to completely white and who’d you get but Santa Cola. . . aha, like I said scary.)
Ken Cuccinelli’s actions to date look to be well in line with Federal and Virginia law, or so it would seem to this outsider. If fra$ud should be proven and justice takes its course, then many around the world would have cause to rejoice. When scientists commit fra$ud the damage done extends a long way beyond the parish pump.
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
Well I don’t know which emails you read, but I read the ones confessing to false-accounting, tax-evasion, and by nature of the tax-evasion – money-laundering. The FOIA is small-fry in comparision, as those are felony offenses.
I’m also quite surprised by your assertion “without an allegation of such wrongdoing” – do you have access to any tip-offs that his office may have received? Or did you just model it?
By his position of being the Attorney General, Cuccinelli is perfectly entitled to seek such information, as confirmed by the judge in the last case. No erosion of civil liberties at all. If the State truly followed the precautionary position, it would suspend all payments until the evidence was handed over, investigated, and found to be all-clear. It’s their money – their rules. It’s a good job for the University that they don’t – isn’t it?
I would also point out to others, that there have been no accusations – that comes after all the evidence has been gathered, and a decision made on whether there is a case to answer. Even if it is decided that there is, there is still the matter of the trial – a jury may decide that there is no guilt involved. Only after a conviction, would the University/Mann be guilty.
But remember as you write–District Attorneys are not always Republican
There is a saying around the subject of trials: “If you have the facts – pound the facts. If you have the Law – pound the Law. If you have neither – pound the table.” When I see something along the lines of “Ah, but he’s a Republican.” I’m hearing a table being pounded.
I find that disappointing in the context of a WUWT article.
“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”
Tom,
You are oh so wrong about this. Who has provided the vast funding required to so politicise the scientific process in such a way (hint – an organization that lacks any sort of democratic legitimacy finally formed as it has been via the Lisbon Treaty by denying virtually all of its 500 million citizens the right to have a direct vote on its existence).
“the eu’s funding for climate research is based on the proverbial assumption that the science is “settled,” the debate “over.” Skeptics, so to say, need not apply. That the earth is warming, that the causes are anthropogenic, and that the consequences will be devastating — all these propositions, despite their largely empirical character, are treated as axiomatic by the eu’s program and hence placed outside the realm of legitimate inquiry. ”
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
Not only providing the funding for the ‘science’ behind CAGW but also to the lobbying groups supporting it, massive sums to WWF, Friends of the Earth, Climate Action Network etc.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/propaganda-by-proxy%3A-how-the-eu-funds-green-lobby-groups/
And wasn’t it the UK govt. that funded the ‘drowning puppy’ ad. on television and provided much of the funding for the uttely vile 10:10 propaganda video (and no WillR – it wasn’t particularly funny at all, not even for British black humour – we tend to favour the underdog, not the authoritarian).
Small wonder that the CRU ‘inquiries’ were such a whitewash with the authorities utterly complicit.
Cooler winters and hugely increasing energy costs are forcing many into fuel poverty and now we have various rumblings that climate may be such a problem that it requires special methods to deal with it!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2010/05/are_we_doomed_by_democracy.html
So yes we are worried about our ‘civil liberties’ and a judicial review is urgently required – there are many of us here cheering on Cuccinelli and desperately hoping the US can succeed where the UK has so utterly failed.
I stand with Cuccinelli on this one:
We need closure; was there fraud or not?
We need someone/something to put the fear of God into scientists who do crappy science and then continue to try to defend it. As the post says:
“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.”
We need more publicity, so more people realize just how far away from logic, decency, and the scientific method much of “climate science” has gotten.
We need the “progressives” to lose another issue where they are trying to take the high ground.
Thomas, you are completely wrong about Cuccinelli. His investigation is not about putting Mann behind bars. It is all about getting the state’s money back because Mann knew the stuff he was putting out was not true. There is plenty of evidence of this, according to the subpoena, because he referenced his own papers which he knew were wrong. Cuccinelli has every right to conduct his investigation. His investigation does not infringe in the least on academic freedom. It seeks only to recoup funds paid out on fraudulent science. Science has never been free to be fraudulent.
Fransisco – the change is that in the US at least and to a lessor extent in other places governments are moving into place that are hostile to the notion that government knows best. I am sure you are aware that the motivation to move hard on Cap and Trade like programs was the intersection of energy providers looking to establish long term financial streams with environmental groups who want to control people (if not explode them) with financial services industries who also wanted to create a new revenue stream with a new commodity trading system with governments who wanted to tax it all so they could extort campaign contributions to remain in office and be treated like lords amd ladies.
It was greed – with the government as a willing accomplice. I always love those who decry big business – they cannot get into your wallet unless the govt forces you to let them. That is one of the biggest motivators for getting the govt out of the economy.
Mr. Fuller – I realize no need to pile on. I will refrain from looking to you for legal advice. Stick to science. You are wrong on multiple counts on matter of case law. Since Mann utilized continuing misrepresentations in order to secure continuing govt largess, he is defrauding with each grant request once he knew he wasn’t just making mistakes. McIntyre pretty much kills the mistake argument. We know it was deliberate – we probably don’t know exactly when it became so – but it is well within the rights of the state government who funded his research to start asking questions. Indeed I agree with one of the earlier posters. The University is making noise not because they are worried about acadmic freedom, but because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and large state run universities are the next economic bubble to burst. No need to add to the bad press that is coming their way. Millions of people are tied into the development of this education bubble. Its coming. And it will be ugly. I just hope the governmet nwill be willing to at least suspend all the student loans they allowed to be created due to their own stupidity and negligence.
On this one, Tom, I’d beg to differ.
The Whitewater investigation of the Clintons was exactly a fishing expedition by Ken Starr. There would have been no impeachment if there had not been an expansion of the investigation of the Whitewater real estate investments of the Clintons into his personal (sex) life. And the Lewinsky affair had only the flimsiest of connections – and well after the fact – to the real estate deals. Whitewater ended up turning up nothing of consequence in the Clinton’s behavior having to do with the Whitewater deals.
Had it not expanded, Clinton would have never been subpoenaed nor testified – nor subsequently lied under oath. It was that well-after-Whitewater lie that got him impeached – and that was on something totally peripheral to any of the real estate deals. In fact, the Office of Independent Counsel’s final report included only one passing mention of the Whitewater deal.
This is not said here to take either side about the Clintons. It is said to rebut Tom’s assertion that “We don’t do that here.”
Sorry, Tom, but we DO.
And BTW, that final report found “insufficient available evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt” as to culpability by the Clintons in the deal. In the US of A, that means that it was not prosecutable – that the Clintons were not guilty. If it were prosecutable, rest assured, they would have been.
So, starting out as a case (that eventually cost $73 million) about a real estate deal, it then morphed into an investigation of whether Hillary had hidden incriminating files (they were found and, no, they didn’t incriminate, after all), and then it was about Bill’s “snake charming” a WH intern. And besides “Slick Willie” letting the intern play with his Willie, and then him lying about it (a LOT of us would have, given the circumstances) – it all ended up with a failed impeachment trial before the Senate. And the impeachment had its real genesis in the fishing expedition(s) of Kenneth Starr.
To Tom Fuller and others opposed to Cuccinelli’s probe, can you tell us how you think publicly-funded scientists OUGHT to be dealt with when they flout, or may reasonably be suspected of flouting, the principles of the scientific method?
Much of this debate seems to be conducted as though Cuccinelli were not merely investigating Mann, but had already suspended the presumption of his innocence – a presumption I assume still prevails in the Virginia courts.
From What I’ve read in the Washington Post, the University has spend $350K and perhaps the AG has spent a similar amount on this case. The $214K grant to Mann that they are now investigating (the only state grant) is about the effects of land use in Africa on climate and has nothing to do with the hocky stick and paleo studies. Interestingly, the AG doesn’t even including Mann’s collaborators on the grant in question on his list of people whose emails should be investigated. Perhaps the AG just wants to get a stack of emails so that he can find something to quote. In his filing, he blames Mann for using the words “our community” in a book review that Mann wrote for Real Climate, suggesting that the word “community” is indicative of “post modern science” and other crimes and conspiracies.