Michael Mann and Donald Kennedy

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

With Dr. Michael Mann out on the hustings selling his innocence, as I discussed a few days ago, I was pleased when I came across this clear explanation of some major issues in the so-called inquiry by Penn State into the Mann’s actions. I urge everyone to read it, and follow up on the citations therein. There are numerous other problems with the inquiry, but that hit the high points.

Figure 1. The effect of Michael Mann, as seen by Chris Bok. But I digress.

Here was the mind-boggling part to me. To my astonishment, other than Michael Mann, the people running the investigation of Michael Mann reported interviewing exactly TWO PEOPLE besides Mann himself. I was, as the lovely English expression has it, “Gob-smacked”.

Remember that Dr. Mann recently said:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.

I knew it was bad, but interviewing two people now constitutes a “thorough investigation” of alleged serious scientific malfeasance? The investigators didn’t even understand that the famous “Mike’s Nature trick“was a clever way of hiding adverse data, a big scientific no-no. They didn’t interview anyone who actually understood the issues.

Two interviews and close the books? That is a pathetic joke. Penn State was my father’s alma mater, Class of ’26, I’m glad he didn’t live to see how far they have fallen. Penn State should demand that its name be taken off the document.

However, because this is a story involving Dr. Mann, you know there’s gotta be more to it than that they just interviewed two people, there’s bound to be a further twist to the story.

Here’s the inside joke. The two people interviewed were Gerry North of the “North Report” and Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science Magazine.

Gerry North I can kinda understand, because he chaired an earlier (and also widely criticized) enquiry into Dr. Mann’s hijinks. So he was a friend of Manns, and he’d covered up for Mann before, keeping his committee from even looking for scientific malfeasance, much less finding any. So I can understand them interviewing North, makes perfect sense.

But why did they pick Donald Kennedy, Editor of Science Magazine, as the other person to interview? I have no idea. By a curious coincidence, however, there’s a back-story here. Donald Kennedy was the first scientific figure I ever emailed to try to get something done.

I regret that I didn’t understand the importance of saving these documents at the time. In any event, my email to Kennedy has not survived my numerous computer changes and crashes since then, or it’s there and I can’t find it. But I recall it well, it was my first appeal.

In it I pointed out that science depends on the data being archived to allow for replication. I noted the efforts by Michael Mann to conceal the data used in his infamous “HockeyStick” paper. So I appealed to Kennedy to actually use the policies and power of his journal, Science Magazine, and ask Mann to archive the data used in his studies.

See, at that time, I was kinda naive … ya think?

I got blown off totally. Not even the courtesy of a reply. Which I later found out was no surprise. Kennedy, as editor of Science Magazine, has often allowed the publication of pro-AGW articles without requiring that they archive their data.

However, you don’t have to take my word for the abuse that Kennedy has done to the scientific process. He is noted for saying on PBS:

… the journal has to trust its reviewers; it has to trust the source. It can’t go in and demand the data books.

Look, with all due respect, Kennedy may be the editor of Science Magazine, but that is absolutely untrue, and Kennedy knows it. Most journals have policies that require, not recommend but require, that data used in published papers must be archived by the time of publication. Kennedy simply has not wanted Science to uniformly enforce that policy.

The crazy part is, there’s no wriggle room. Science Magazine’s instructions for authors say:

Data and materials availability All data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science. After publication, all reasonable requests for materials must be fulfilled. Any restrictions on the availability of data or materials, including fees and original data obtained from other sources (Materials Transfer Agreements), must be disclosed to the editors upon submission. Fossils or other rare specimens must be deposited in a public museum or repository and available for research.

That’s totally clear. Data must be archived. So when Kennedy says Science Magazine “can’t go in and demand the data books”, he’s just blowing in your ear and tickling your tummy. Not only can they do so, it is their stated policy to do so.

Kennedy is also the man who refused to publish Benny Peiser’s devastating response to Naomi Oreske’s laughable claim of a “scientific consensus” based on her simplistic analysis of climate papers. Typical for the man. Steve McIntyre has an interesting look at Kennedy here.

In any case, there you have it, folks. The “thorough investigation” into Michael Mann talked to three people including Mann. One, Gerry North, had covered up for Mann before, as cited above. The other, Kennedy, had refused to ask him for his data, despite magazine policies requiring just that. Both Steve McIntyre and I wrote to Kennedy asking him to enforce his own magazine’s policies. He refused.

And after all of that, are you ready for the icing on the cake, the final twist in the tale? As you would expect, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the three people interviewed in the “thorough investigation”. Mann agreed to the publication of the Report of the “thorough investigation”. The Report Guidelines state:

A written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, a copy of all interview transcripts and/or summaries, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry.

But oops … there’s no transcipt of what Mann said. Not only do we not have his answers, we don’t even know what questions he was asked. That is pathetic bumbling, take the investigators out and fire them, I want my money back.

And Michael Mann has the ineffable effrontery to declare himself “exonerated” by that grade-school quality report? Dr. Mann, you have not been “exonerated”. You have not even been investigated, and you are pulling all of the political levers you can reach, and making all the public appeals you can squeeze in, to ensure that you are never investigated. Like I said, I understand your actions, they make sense to me. In certain other lights, I have more skeletons than available closet space myself, so I understand why you are on the campaign trail.

I just want people to understand you for what you are, and to see what you are trying to do, which is evade investigation of your actions. It has nothing to do with “anti-science” on either side of the political aisle. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s all about you avoiding responsibility for what you have done.

I call again for an independent scientific inquiry into Dr. Mann’s activities. Yes, I know that may be fantasy. And I know that many people think the legal route, a la Cuccinelli, remains the only hope. But I’m opposed to that. I’ve been thinking about why I oppose it, and here’s why I don’t like Cuccinelli’s approach.

I grew up on a cattle ranch, some miles away from a small Western US town. In our world, there were certain unwritten Rules. Oh, yeah, we had the Ten Commandments, but these were the real rules, the iron of the social order. Breaking them meant that people would cut you dead socially, not invite you, not talk to you … and in a tiny town that cut deep. The four Rules were:

You could cheat at business, people did. Folks didn’t like it, but it didn’t put you outside the pale. You could cheat on your husband or wife, folks figured man is born a sinner, people didn’t like it but understood the human urge. You could cheat in a horse deal, that was almost respected in a strange way if it was outrageous enough and the purchaser was what we called a city slicker. But a man who would cheat at cards was a social outcast ever after.

You could steal, particularly from the Government, and still get talked to. People didn’t like a thief, but a man could be a good man and not always scrupulously return what he’d borrowed, as we used to say. But if you stole one head of livestock, you were a damned low-down rustler, and you might as well just move out of town.

Cowboys punched each other sometimes, that was so common it was called a “dustup”. But you couldn’t hit a woman. Likely leftover from the 1800s when there were few women on cattle ranches. Probably some men beat their wives, but if so, it was never admitted, and it was seen as a grave moral failing to hit a woman. Paradox, but go figure.

And finally, you couldn’t call the Sheriff to settle your differences. When my dad found out someone from a neighboring ranch was bonking my mom whenever the constellations chanced to align, he and the guy met in the middle of the only street in town, in front of the combination store/bar/post office/gas station, and they definitely had a “dustup” … but nobody ever heard of a “restraining order”, and nobody ever, ever called the Sheriff. Except maybe to arrest a rustler. If he wasn’t caught in the act …

I have (mostly) held to those rules without much change for a lifetime, which is why I hate to call the Sheriff on Michael Mann. I’d prefer that the scientific community would be in charge, rather than lawyers and Attorneys General and their ilk. I wish Penn State hadn’t folded like a frat party card table holding too many kegs. I have been saying for years that I wish someone with some weight in the climate science community would take up the slack, and call out the egregious malfeasance, including the malfeasance of Penn State’s “thorough investigation”.

Naive … ya think?

Anyhow, mostly I wish Michael Mann would summon the nerve to stand up and produce the evidence. Instead, he’s all about poor me, he’s exonerated, those mean politicians are picking on him, it’s an attack on science, we misunderstand him … bad news, Dr. Mann. It’s not science that people want to investigate. It’s you.

Anyhow, here’s a protip for whoever is involved with Mann’s ongoing PR campaign — an innocent man welcomes and even invites an investigation. He knows he is innocent and has nothing to hide. Pre-emptively fighting against the investigations makes it look like you have a guilty conscience …

I reiterate the offer that Dr. Mann can publish his defense and evidence and present his ideas here on Watts Up With That.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Again Willis, you amaze me. Very nice writing. The whole thing conveys reality as it should be. I hate the legal investigation into Mann but he stinks. It isn’t right what he has done, but nobody has proof. The proof is likely in those emails, except that it was probably deleted. When Cuchi came out, I was dead set against it. His latest self exoneration though was too much. I don’t care anymore.
I had to let an employee go this week for excessive absenteeism ~ 20 percent. Firing isn’t as fun as Trump makes it look like. We gave the employee a last warning to which we got lectured about unfairness. Then I stopped caring.
I don’t care anymore, time to teach the dude a lesson.

David A. Evans

Unless I’ve misread it, Cuccinelli is not looking at science at all. He seems to think there may have been financial malfeasance. If that is the case, then surely he is exactly the right person to do it.
DaveE.

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta

Great post Mr. E.
I could not disagree more however, about the course of action required. I have believed for a couple of years now that the only way all of this nonsense is going to end is for a jurisdiction, such as my massively maligned Province of Alberta, to lay criminal charges of fraud against David Suzuki, Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann et-al, arrest them if they are foolish enough to set foot in our territory there-after and prosecute them for their grievous crimes against our economy and our good name.
Force them to defend themselves, their actions and their science, under penalty of law, in plain view of their accusers.

Nick

An innocent Mann might welcome any investigation,but why should he welcome a transparently political fishing expedition,Willis? Oh,and instead of demanding Mann archive his data “to allow for replication”,you could always have used the diverse source data that Mann drew together for his multi-proxy study,and done your own study with your own methods. You still can if you’re willing.

Trucker Bob

Once again Willis a well constructed article, a good read. This is a personal opinion so please don’t take offense, as you point out yourself publication editors are not enforcing their own rules, and until they start I believe to expose their shonky dishonest ways every opportunity to take legal action should be taken.
FYI. I live in OZ where we were brought up with an unwritten law of (don’t dob), if this little phrase is not known in other countries it just means don’t tell, don’t rat on anybody but when it comes to parasites like Mann et al, I say go get him.

Robinson

But oops … there’s no transcipt of what Mann said. Not only do we not have his answers, we don’t even know what questions he was asked. That is pathetic bumbling, take the investigators out and fire them, I want my money back.

Aren’t these things legally binding? Is it not possible for a court to force disclosure?

Enneagram

Remember that Dr. Mann recently said:
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive

Sorry!, WE DID NOT!

Spider_Pig

Excellent post. It’s amazing to me that these organisations blatantly go against their own policies and procedures. It makes it appear they have something to hide…

Rhoda R

Science Magazine is owned by the American Association for teh Advancement of Science (AAAS). But for the life of me I can’t find who sponsers them. What do we know about AAAS?

Willis, you are always a good read, entertaining and informative. Naive . . I think. Thanks for being who you are!

RockyRoad

I agree with David Evans–it isn’t about the science with Mann; it is about misconduct with grant funds. Call the sheriff; call the police; call the feds (their money was part of the grants); get a swat team.
Throw the climate science rustler in the pokey!

The worst it has happened already to the Global Warmin/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ etc., etc.: They are a JOKE…..and for such “sensible egos” that´s like being constantly executed.

huxley

It’s not a fishing expedition. Cuccinelli’s case began with a citizen’s legal FOIA request to UVA for Mann’s emails.
UVA refused the request by saying that the emails had been deleted, then later admitted that the emails might exist on a backup server, but still refused access to the emails because the emails could not be implicated under Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) on a legal technicality.
You can read a newspaper account (about 3/4 down) here: http://tinyurl.com/25nbofy
You can read Cuccinelli’s 7/24/2010 petition (pp.13-15) here: http://tinyurl.com/22ubcpv
As far as I’m concerned, given the questions raised by the CRU emails, the questions about Mann’s procedures in developing the hockey stick, and this fishy business with the FOIA request, Cuccinelli has more than enough reasons to investigate Michael Mann and UVA.
The high talk of academic freedom versus witch hunts reminds me of nothing so much as Nixon’s insistence during Watergate that he would not turn over the White House tapes because doing so “would cripple all future presidents.”
Sure, it would be preferable to settle this in the scientific community and on a good faith basis, but that’s not going to happen with Michael Mann anymore than it did with Richard Nixon.

I have been saying for years that I wish someone with some weight in the climate science community would take up the slack, and call out the egregious malfeasance, including the malfeasance of Penn State’s “thorough investigation”.

I agree completely. At least the dust-ups are often fun, especially when Steve McIntyre decides it’s time for the gloves to come off.

Nick says:
October 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm [ … ]
Nick, you haven’t a clue. Michael Mann used a small subset of the available data in order to get the results he wanted [the Hokey Stick]. He hid the rest of the available proxies in an ftp file named “Censored”. If he had used the whole proxy database instead of cherry-picking, there would have been no hockey stick.
.
And kudos for another excellent article by Willis. You can almost hear the crickets chirping on realclimate and climate progress.☺

@ Rhoda – available from the annual report. ( http://www.aaas.org/publications/annual_report/2009/aaas_ann_rpt_09m_acknowledge.pdf ). Yes it’s a PDF, but the link takes you to those pages. Please note that “Corporations and Foundations” and “Other Sources” have no monetary values attached.
Ciao.

Willis Eschenbach

Nick says:
October 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm

An innocent Mann might welcome any investigation,but why should he welcome a transparently political fishing expedition,Willis?

When Mann is on record as being asked to illegally delete emails and to ask others to do so, and Mann answers in the affirmative, it is not a “fishing expedition”. At that point we know what we are looking for. For you to call a legitimate reason for an investigation of scientific malfeasance a “fishing expedition” means that either you have not looked at, or are ignoring, the evidence. Good luck with that.

Oh,and instead of demanding Mann archive his data “to allow for replication”,you could always have used the diverse source data that Mann drew together for his multi-proxy study,and done your own study with your own methods. You still can if you’re willing.

1. The issue was whether Mann had made a mistake in creating the Hokeystick, not whether I should go out and collect data. That’s a red herring. When we finally got access to the code and the data, it was determined that he had in fact made several mistakes. The error could have (and should have) been revealed shortly after publication … but Mann refused to let people see his data and code, which delayed his exposure. Your persistence in defending his anti-scientific action of hiding his data and code is discouraging, but not unexpected.
2. It is totally incorrect to claim that someone could have “used the diverse source data that Mann drew together”, because some of the data he used was not archived. That was the point of the request for the data, because we couldn’t use the data Mann used … you sure you’re following this story?

Methow Ken

Best expose of the Penn State white-wash I’ve seen so far.
This should be in the Washington Post and the NY Times. . . .
But of course it won’t be. At least people can read it on WUWT.

huxley

It’s not a fishing expedition. Cuccinelli’s case began with a citizen’s legal FOIA request to UVA for Mann’s emails.
UVA refused the request by saying that the emails had been deleted, then later admitted that the emails might exist on a backup server, but still refused access to the emails because the emails could not be implicated under Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) on a legal technicality.
You can read a newspaper account (about 3/4 down) here: http://tinyurl.com/25nbofy
As far as I’m concerned, given the question raised by the CRU emails, the questions about Mann’s procedures in developing the hockey stick, and this fishy business with the FOIA request, Cuccinelli has more than enough reasons to investigate Michael Mann and UVA.
The high talk of academic freedom versus witch hunts reminds me of nothing so much as Nixon’s insistence during Watergate that he would not turn over the White House tapes because doing so “would cripple all future presidents.”
Sure, it would be preferable to settle this in-house and on a good faith basis, but that’s not going to happen with Michael Mann anymore than it did with Richard Nixon.
[ second time for this post — sorry if it becomes a duplicate ]

RockyRoad

Methow Ken says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Best expose of the Penn State white-wash I’ve seen so far.
This should be in the Washington Post and the NY Times. . . .
But of course it won’t be. At least people can read it on WUWT.

That’s ok… it will probably get wider coverage here.

Gary Pearse

Nick, Willis’s point is that he doesn’t support the AG’s legal approach, either. But what is wrong with Mann agreeing to at least say he never deleted any emails and show the evidence he has that he didn’t. Tell me you are not at least a bit disappointed in the Climategate revelations. Its okay for the AGW scientists to not be perfect.

a jones

Smokey says:
October 16, 2010 at 6:59 pm …
And kudos for another excellent article by Willis. You can almost hear the crickets chirping on realclimate and climate progress.☺.
______________00000000000000——————
You have bemused me there. I mean we do have crickets in the UK and we certainly play cricket here.
But i am not quite clear as to why they would be chirping in the way you suppose. Idiom I imagine. Please explain for us ignoramuses.
Kindest Regards.
REPLY: You can hear “the sound of crickets chirping”. It is an American colloquialism, used to describe what happens when the other side of an argument is forced into a mute silence by facts or issues they do not wish to confront or draw attention to. Another way to say it it is “so quiet you could hear a pin drop”. In the USA, especially in the country, the loudest sound at night, for a couple of hours after sunset, is the sound of crickets chirping. – Anthony

GG

I think this is all a waste of time.
What these people are doing is not “bad science” etc. It`s outright criminal fraud. And until people like WUWT, ClimateAudit, politicians, and other scientists start demading criminal investigations of these people – and jail sentances, then nothing will change.
I love the work of WUWT, Climate Audit etc, but all they are trying to do is prove that liers are lying. Mann, Hansen et.al., know they are lying, that`s why they continue to lie and decieve to cover up their previous lies. Proving this to them, only gets them to lie some more.
This will only stop when they are brought to account in a court of law – and made to pay back every cent of tax payer money they defrauded – or they should spend a long time behind bars for embezelling public funds throught deliberately fraudulent “science”
Just my oppinion.

Eric Anderson

Nick, you don’t even know what you are talking about. Jibberish. Sad . . .

artwest

Sorry to have to disagree here but for CAGW to definitively die and to minimise the chances of similar scandals happening again there is going to have to be blood on the walls.
It can’t end up as a quiet polite disagreement between gentleman scientists. The time for that was years ago before the billions wasted, the lies, the vilification of critics, the corruption of science and politics and the damaging of honest scientists careers.
The public are going to have to be clear about the scientific, and maybe other, crimes committed and anyone who might be ever tempted to follow suit is going to have to know that they risk public disgrace, a ruined career and maybe prison.
Any quiet shuffling away of CAGW is going to leave the ringleaders able to claim that they were really right all along and the re-writing of history will begin even as spending continues on insane policies which would never have come into being without CAGW.
We need the facts and honest rigorous public inquiries and if possible, court cases.
This isn’t to be gratuitously vindictive – although plenty of people have every right to feel a grim satisfaction – it’s a necessary cleansing and an example for future generations.
The monster of CAGW needs decapitating, a silver bullet, a stake through the heart and, especially, exposure to sunlight or it won’t die.

a jones

Anthony: Very clear and thankyou for that.
Kindest Regards

Willis,
I grew up on a farm outside a slightly larger town, but with similar unwritten laws. In regard to the unwritten law prohibiting a man to hit a woman, I believe the explanation is incomplete without the first corrolary, which is that should a man be hit by a woman, he had best not admit the source of his black eye let alone complain about it.
We also had a saying about the legal system that is germaine to this discussion. It was “when two farmers have a fight about a cow, two lawyers will wind up with a side of beef each”. The point was that most disagreements were best settled without a sheriff or police or judge being involved, and I am betting that your sheriff was just fine with things being settled via a dust up. But should it have come to pass that your father’s “dance partner” was recruiting half the town to show up and assist him in the dust up, I’m pretty certain that both your father and the sheriff would have recognized that matters had escalated to a point requiring intervention from official authorities.
I don’t know what knowledge is in Cuci’s head or what his real strategy actually is. If I did, I could evaluate it on its own merit. But in terms of Mann’s “science” and the agenda advanced by it, this isn’t a dust up anymore. It isn’t two farmers having an argument over a cow. Its about a half dozen known rustlers claiming all the cattle in the county are theirs, and producing poorly forged paperwork to prove it as the cattle are being loaded into trucks with the approval of the local brand inspector.
A dust up won’t settle this and the science community has had ample opportunity to police themselves. It seems that those brave enough to point out that the paperwork is forged in crayon and the brand inspector is stamping his approval on it in advance of it being forged are not only few and far between, they are frequently limited to those such as Dr Lewis who, though his condemnation should reverbrate through the halls of science, in fact has little to lose in terms of his position or career for he is largely retired. Those whose careers lie largely before them seem indiferent at best, complicit at worst, because there is nothing to be gained by exposing the rustlers and every chance that they may get shot in the back for doing so.
Hence, I see little alternative but to call the sheriff and request that he perform his duty. It may cost me a side of beef, but the alternative is to lose the whole herd.

I fear that the scientific community cannot oust poor performers.
Bill Maher quoted on his show recently that 1 in 150 doctors and 1 in 100 lawyers will be thrown out of their profession during their careers. He contrasted these figures with 1 in 2,500 teachers (illustrating another problem). I wonder what the figure for scientists is?

Judd

Perhaps this is just me but everytime I look at a photo of Dr. Mann with his arm draped over a slice of a tree trunk and see those beaty little eyes and that condescending little almost smirk I think to myself, what a crook. The presence of the celebrity scientist is to be regretted. Very few of the true powerhouses in science ever acquired celebrity status. But they made the world a better place. Michael Mann has not, will not, and cannot accomplish making the world a better place. His goal appears to have presented a scientific paradigm so as to transform the world and therefore acquire lasting status. But that transformation would certainly carry huge human costs. It’s time for it to end.

artwest

Nick said:
“Oh,and instead of demanding Mann archive his data “to allow for replication”,you could always have used the diverse source data that Mann drew together for his multi-proxy study,and done your own study with your own methods.”
As many/most of the people critical of the Hockey Stick don’t think that the proxies so far used (and quite possibly any proxies) are appropriate to usefully indicate past global temperatures, certainly within a few degrees, what on earth would be the point? They’d just be wasting their time coming up with a graph they thought was equal rubbish.
It’s not unlike claiming to have met an alien then, when asked to provide evidence, demanding that doubters go out and find their own alien.
In any case, if someone is making an assertion it’s up to them to provide the evidence for it. If they refuse to, then most people will draw the appropriate conclusion and disregard the assertion.

Theo Goodwin

You find yourself within a paradox. You know that the scientific community is corrupt yet you continue to call upon it to police itself. You cannot accept the fact, plain as the nose on your face, that you must surrender some or all of the trust that you have invested in the scientific community. At this time, they have established that they are a gang of rustlers, but they won’t move out of town. In this case, you have to call the sheriff. Otherwise, their crimes will grow. You are not willing to see town folk hurt for the sake of these scum, are you?

jaypan

Excellent work. Thank you, Sir.
However, aren’t you too much a gentlemen, while they are not, Willis?
If it were scientific malpractice only, you would be right.
But it’s much more, as we all know.
Climategate was a year ago, right?
These crooks are still playing their games and MSM are still not really picking up.
Think it’s time to leave it to the Cucinellis, in order to get the job done, finally.

Dave L

Willis,
I attended the Lindzen-North Climate Debate held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, on 27 January 2010. During the debate, Climategate came up — North announced that he had not read any of the Climategate e-mails. Lindzen on the other hand was familiar with the CRU e-mails and discussed some of their revelations.

As I understand the scientific method:
Your results aren’t science until someone else replicates them.
That is pretty close to what the Royal Society originally set down back in the 1600s, and it is still good enough for real scientists.
So, to Mann: Put up or shut up.

Phil

When discussing Dr. Mann, it might be helpful to the readers of this forum to focus on the following.
The first link is to a blinking gif that compares Dr. Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” with and without the thermometer record added onto the proxy record (Dr. Mann actually published the version with the thermometer record added). http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/mbh99_mikestrick.gif
This gif was posted in the following comment:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/#comment-219592
Then, fast forward to the following comment (http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/#comment-219874), in which it is recalled that Dr. Mann stated at the blog RealClimate:

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

P.G. Sharrow

Why would the heavyweights in Climate Science investigate Mann and the others. The heavy weights in climate science are the conmen. Someone totally outside the club must carry out the investigation for it to be valuable. This has nothing to do with science. this is deliberate fakery with a world wide cover up. pg

vigilantfish

Willis,
Excellent post as always and with some jawdropping information. Like many others, here, however, I have to disagree with your distaste for a legal or governmental inquiry. When I think about how university administrators function, from bitter experience, I get a sinking sensation in my stomach. Administrators have only the remotest interest in helping professors teach (You would not believe the computer programs at my university – course titles restricted to 32 characters and spaces, no system for imposing prerequisites, and numerous other follies; but the programs serve administration fine, so there is no response to professorial complaints.) and even throw up roadblocks to their conducting research. On top of this, political correctness is the default mode governing university speech and conduct, and political correctness recognizes no truth, only utility. Therefore there is no philosophical foundation – let alone recognition of urgency – for conducting a real in-depth inquiry into the malfeasance of a high-performing, well-recognized researcher who is still telling the body politic what it wants to hear. I am not sure that Cuccinelli’s approach will work, either, as it is not clear that he has developed a solid case for a deeper investigation, but the is to be welcomed. Waiting for a proper academic inquiry will be like waiting for Godot.

Dave Dardinger

Smokey,

He hid the rest of the available proxies in an ftp file named “Censored”.

I’m afraid you’re confused here. Mann didn’t hide proxies there. He hid a run he’d done without the NA tree rings (i.e. without Bristlecone Pines)which showed the resulting multiproxy reconstruction was not statistically significant.

Doug in Seattle

Alas, but someone did call the Sheriff. In fact, they called several sheriffs (Penn State and the other Climategate Inquiries).
But what do you do when the Sheriffs are in cahoots with the cattle rustlers? You call on the Marshall (Cuccinelli) to get to the bottom of the mess.

Julian in Wales

Some things are worth cheating, such as taxes, but others hold no benefit. Ironically it is when there is no benefit that the bells start ringing. “If you cheat at golf, then you will cheat at anything.”
My Japanese wife has a saying “steal once, forever a thief”.
I cannot find the reference, but was there not an incident recorded in the CRU papers where Mann is fiddling the number of papers he is credited with publishing to look good?
And then there is the Tiljander data that has been inverted, and even after he was found out he continued to use inverted data.
These sorts of incidents are enough for me. I have a gut reaction to them; walk away.

Jeff Mitchell

I would like to see both the UVA and Penn State investigated as part of a larger investigation into the worldwide corruption in climate science. In a couple weeks, if all goes well, Congress may be able to do this investigation and show all the bad actors from Mann to Hansen to Phil Jones and their sycophants. I’m behind Cuccinelli’s investigation. The scientific community did not do its job and now someone official should handle it.

Nick

Yes, in MBH99 the thermometer record from 1902 is overlaid at the end of the reconstruction period. It is distinguished as ‘raw data AD1902-1998’. It is not being identified as reconstructed data,and as such,it is not ‘grafted’ onto the reconstruction in the sense that it is being passed off as something it isn’t. Is Mann’s RC comment that ambiguous?
Being initially casual about archiving and unco-operative about engagement with critics is hardly as ‘un-scientific’ as obsessively pursuing only one of the three authors, banging on about it for years and barely noting the breadth of the field or its oft repeated caveats.

John F. Hultquist

Well, I still live near a small western town and just came in from feeding the horses – really!
So, being a bit late to this discussion I’ll just point you to this:
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-codewest.html

MikeTheDenier

Methow Ken says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Best expose of the Penn State white-wash I’ve seen so far.
This should be in the Washington Post and the NY Times. . . .
LOL. Yeah right. Do you really expect these liberal supporting rags to “out” anyone in the Gorebal warming community???
Good luck with that..

Robert M

I have to disagree with you on this one… Lets give the fraudulent snake oil salesman a fair trial and throw him into a nice prison. Hopefully with a cellmate that is three hundred pounds of tough love!
[careful now – a fair trial does not pre-suppose a guilty outcome 😉 ~jove, mod]

Ben D.

artwest says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:48 pm
In response, I take a different approach. I think if you start the “bloodying the walls” you let the true criminals get away as they slink away and the superstars like Mann take the fall all by themselves. The point being that if its done scientifically (the investigation) it will fall all the terrible scientists in one sweeping blow, but I think a lot of us that want this approach are seeing how futile it is to hope that true justice will come out of it, or even anything closely approaching it.
A lot of the scientists who are just as guilty as Mann et al are going to end up free and spending their lives still on taxpayer roles as researchers despite spending their entire lives on this. I have no doubts that our system has created the system where this can take place…it might sound circular, but its all of our faults for letting it get this out of control. Too many people are corrupted by the groupthink… and too few people are standing up against it. And too many want to see blood on the wall even if its just token Mann blood.
Sure, I would like to get rid of that smile too, but I doubt that would be justice considering all the other scientists who went off his work and did their own business there too. They should be held accountable, but mark my words, they will get off by saying “I thought the science was sound…”. “I was only working off of what was done before me, I can not be held accountable.” Unfortunatly, they will probably get away with it.

jorgekafkazar

Willis, yer forgettin’ one thing. This varmit yer talkin’ about didn’t just cheat at cards, he didn’t just steal a cow, an’ he didn’t just hit a woman. He poisoned a water hole.

Willis Eschenbach

Nick says:
October 16, 2010 at 10:06 pm

Yes, in MBH99 the thermometer record from 1902 is overlaid at the end of the reconstruction period. It is distinguished as ‘raw data AD1902-1998′. It is not being identified as reconstructed data,and as such,it is not ‘grafted’ onto the reconstruction in the sense that it is being passed off as something it isn’t. Is Mann’s RC comment that ambiguous?
Being initially casual about archiving and unco-operative about engagement with critics is hardly as ‘un-scientific’ as obsessively pursuing only one of the three authors, banging on about it for years and barely noting the breadth of the field or its oft repeated caveats.

I can never tell if you are pretending not to get it, or if you actually don’t get it. Read the dang citations, that’s why I include them. “Mann’s Nature trick” involved grafting proxies on to instrumental temperature data, and then disguising the splice to hide the decline of the proxies when the temperatures were rising.
This is absolutely grafted on and is passed off as something it is not. Nick, your blindness on this question is quite convenient, and not at all convincing. I suppose if you want to defend a con man, that’s your privilege. It’s just that you’d more clueful (and convincing) if you did your homework first.

J Felton

Excellent post Mr. Eisenbach.
I commend you on your subdued attitude, and indeed, more men should adhere to it.
May I offer a different opinion.
Judge Matthew Begbie, one of the first judges in BC, Canada, where I’m from, once said this.
” My idea is this, if a man insists on behaving like a brute, after fair warning, and won’t quit the Colony, treat him like a brute and flog him.”
Mann and his cohorts have been given more then enough chance to respond, and defend themselves from the acusations that haunt them, but theyre response has been to attack and deny, not explain.
It’s time they were flogged.

jaymam

Julian in Wales: October 16, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“I cannot find the reference, but was there not an incident recorded in the CRU papers where Mann is fiddling the number of papers he is credited with publishing to look good?”
I think it was the number of Jones’s papers that were being exaggerated by Mann.
1213201481.txt
From: Michael Mann
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: request for some additional info.
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008
HI Phil,
OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.

talk to you later,
mike
————————
Mike,

Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the
software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through
and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got
52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s,
so go with 52.

Cheers
Phil