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 FP, I truly, honestly believe this should be handled through professional organisations, university procedures and the passage of time. I’m convinced that Mann’s work is so flawed that it will disappear–it’ll quit getting cited and new research will show where Mann went wrong.
It will take longer than the judicial system. That’s okay by me. I keep saying this is a marathon, not a sprint. I want our laws and their ethical basis to still be around at the finish.
The ‘system’ of science has dealt with other frauds, incorrect research findings and fad-inspired papers many times in the past. It can do so again with Michael Mann.
‘Robert of Ottawa says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:16 am
Who would have thought forty years ago that one gets better TV news from Russian TV?!!!”
Yeah. Ironic. 🙂
Overall. I’ve also found it to be a ‘reasonable’ TV news service. All things considered.
Oh, Fuller, give it up! The CONSENSUS is against you! 🙂
Please indulge my pedantry.
A flack is a publicist or press agent. Flak is Fliegerabwehrkanonen or anti-aircraft fire. This is what one gets for saying or doing something that some people think objectionable.You will get no flak from me if you spell it “flak”.
Yes, but what happens to the readers of your works and society in general if and when your honest belief and faith are misplaced and censors investigations and news of the corruption of professional organizations, university procedures, governments, and news organizations? What happens when criminals of like mind and purpose assist each other to gain control of organizations and use them for unethical and/or criminal purposes? What happens to the public during “the passage of time” in which a self-censoring news organization is complicit with the corruption of society’s institutions and thereby prolongs “the passage of time” before the unethical conduct and the criminality are exposed to public responses?
“In a recent conversation with a retired teacher, the discussion was ‘how do we cleanse the erronious climate science from school corriculums, and school teachers minds?’
Without the Cuccinelli investigation of Mann, and hopefully a public trial of M Mann et al for committing fraud, the answer was ‘not for 50 years’.
So you see, this investigation gets at the heart of the matter,”
How about more science. If AGW is wrong, do more research that shows that. Publish
papers that do more than go after temperature reconstructions, which are hardly the only thing propping up AGW.
Witchhunts and personalizing the issue aren’t really persuasive to scientists like those that that wrote the NAS reports this year reconfirming mainstream science acceptance of AGW
I don’t thin Cuccinelli will get his CID from the judge. It’s been denied once and the new one is weak
Dear Anthony, have you noticed that these past weeks, news reports on UFOs have been increasing in the mainstream media? Maybe I am just being paranoid.
Well spotted Paranoid Android. I had posted earlier on WUWT (though it was lost in the “miasma” of Splattergate) the following (in part):
“Anyway, we have aliens and ufos to worry about now. Our national broadcaster in Australia, the ABC, recently played this (transcript) on their flagship current affairs programme: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3023532.htm. Combine that with the UN’s recent on/off alien ambassador report and I think you will find the dog whistle implies it is time to shift from global warming to ufos, aliens etc as the next big scary thing!”
The ClimateGate e-mails and other evidence demonstrates the Alarmists have corrupted and rigged the peer review publications process to suppress the publication of any peer reviewed papers which can tend to show AGW is not occurring. You are suggesting a course of action which the AGW proponents have been colluding to suppress.
It may be reasonably argued that a number of the NAS members who you say must be persuaded are the same proponents of AGW Alarmism which is engaging in unethical practices to suppress any publications and efforts that tend to refute the AGW Alarmism they are attempting to promote. Indeed, the witchhunters are the proponents of AGW who correlate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to air temperatures in much the same way witchhunters correlate accused withches with floating pieces of wood.
If only we could simply act on the ideal of ‘ Gentlemen’s Agreement’, my handshake is my bond…but the clash between democratic and non democratic mores entails one side subverting open forums and acting as though the ends justify the means. So what do we do? If we don’t act tough we go under, but ‘tough’ must still mean fair or we subvert what we hold dear. Better to have it out through the processes of our democratic institutions than allow cliques to subvert open enquiry in our universities and elsewhere.
Mr Fuller
I agree with 90% of the previous comments. Let me, however, be pedantic.
Flak comes from Flugzeug abwehr kanone.
It is never, ever, “flack”.
or even, pedantically, Fliegerabwehrkanone, for any contrarian German linguists among us.
Tom Fuller:
The ‘system’ of science has dealt with other frauds, incorrect research findings and fad-inspired papers many times in the past. It can do so again with Michael Mann.
Yet your own book was based upon leaked “work” materials. So, no, the “system of science” apparently needs some help? And, once again, why shouldn’t Cuccenelli have what he needs in order to do his job?
Steven Mosher says:
October 6, 2010 at 10:09 am
I agree with your comment: ‘The issue is making charges that can stick’, but keep in mind that there are a multitude of people out there that do not know who Mann is or what the ‘hockey stick’ is, let alone the many nuances of, or the obfuscation / manipulations that have occurred in the arena of climatology.
IMO many Americans, under the current politcal climate, regardless of how many times these people are vindicated by “inquiries”, will naturally gravitate towards the conclusion that it is due to some kind of “cover-up”. We all have to continue to get the word out whenever possible (except at dinner parties), since the MSM will not do their jobs reporting the truth.
Let the lawyers and AG’s have there day in court and let their pursuit be, indeed, after ‘charges that will stick’. But I don’t believe that this is beating a dead horse (not your words). I can only imagine that most of the players in this: Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, MSM, et al know/knew exactley what they were/are doing. They are not “stupid” people. They also knew/know why they were/are doing it, otherwise they would have come clean years ago: been forthcoming with methods, data, and would have immediately corrected their errors when they were informed of them…like good scientists do. Obviously they have the backing of the “powers that be”, and motivations that have nothing to do with science or discovery.
My point being: go after the charges that will stick but don’t judge a vindication of culprits as necessarily a loss of credibility. Many of the people I discuss these issues with anticipate whitewash and are smart enough to see through it when it occurs.
How many times have we read here at WUWT the AGW crowd actually citing the Wegman and North reports of old as vindicating Mann’s work? In face of low-handed tactics such as this being utilized I tend to agree a poster above that wrote, “let out the hounds!”
Tom Fuller says:
October 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
“It will take longer than the judicial system. That’s okay by me. I keep saying this is a marathon, not a sprint. I want our laws and their ethical basis to still be around at the finish.”
—-
Our laws and their ethical basis have already suffered. Given the response, or lack thereof, of governments, politicians, and the kings of industry to these issues I don’t understand how you can say, “That’s ok by me”. Millions of our dollars are being spent for nothing more than to line the pockets of the privileged. Monies that could have been spent actually improving lives.
This may, and probably will be a marathon. IMO it should be a sprint to end this madness. Every avenue, every opportunity should be explored and persued. In the face of such an extraordinary propaganda machine that the AGW crowd have at their disposal I’m afraid we may have no other choice but to bury them with everthing we can muster. Too bad there’s not more like Cuccineli who are at least willing…I don’t care what political affiliation they belong to: republican, democrat, libertarian, christian or buddhist.
Ooops, or religious affiliation…
“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).”
Maybe I missed something, but is there any evidence that emails were actually deleted? I thought there was only an email asking to delete emails. Can anyone give evidence for Tom Fullers statement that CRU actually did delete emails that were important for a FOI request?