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.
The When and the How seem pretty evident at this point, I’m much more interested in the Why. I want to know the motive(s), that’s when things always get interesting in situations like these.
Aynslow, thanks for the background!. Here is some more:
In 2005, Science magazine had an editorial, titled “Silly Season on the Hill”, generally ridiculing members of Congress for developing sudden interest in science, here and there. That was however the backdrop against which the harassment of Mann by Rep Barton was painted.
The editorial wrote:
The author: Donald Kennedy.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5739/1301
Dr. Mann — Doctor of Data?
I agree that it would be nice if the scientific community could sort itself out, but it does not appear to be able. To use your analogy: Do you blame the sheriff when he is called in, or the people who made it necessary?
Congratulations for that funny cartoon!: It´s proved beyond all doubt: All this issue of GW/CCH/CDSR and its followers, backers and funders, is one of the biggest JOKE ever. The King IS NAKED!
Willis, although I can understand your desire for this to be handled within the scientific community rather than the court system, I as a non-scientist have to disagree. The general public for the most part only hears the propaganda spewed by greenpeace, MSM and greenie politicians trying to get voted into office. Most of the general public doesn’t hear anything about the (so called) enquiries made, the only reason I know anything about them is because I stumbled onto this blog after someone complained on an MSM news report comment section about the MSM completely ignoring the leaked e-mails. For the propaganda to start being annuled there has to be a big enough media event that the MSM can’t ignore. They cannot hide/ignore a public court case as easily as they can a scientific enquiry.
Methow Ken said:
> 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.
Perhaps I’m a bit naive (like AW years ago) but I know every large newspaper has an “ombudsman”, a detached, impartial spokesperson, who investigates questions and concerns about the newspaper’s content and coverage.
For WaPo it’s Andy Alexander (who welcomes constructive feedback):
BLOG: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/
EMAIL: ombudsman@washpost.com
For NYTimes it’s Art Brisbane (who I’m not sure about, but be polite):
BLOG: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html
EMAIL: public@nytimes.com
I think it’s time for these gents to learn that many of us intelligent and concerned scientists and laypersons (i.e. not an unruly mob with pitchforks and torches) will no longer buy this climate scam (or their newspapers’ involvement in it).
When Cuccinelli announced his effort I was ambivalent. I felt that the public disclosure of evidence would be a very good thing, but that going beyond that might be counterproductive.
With every subsequent revelation, of the Penn State nonsense investigation and Mann’s trumpeting it as exoneration, his crap op-ed, I’m feeling more and more like the guy needs to be made an example of.
I’m sorry, I know this is off topic, but it just makes me laugh so hard.
ROFLMAO…
Great post on Mike “The Stick” Mann, Willis, as far as it goes, and don’t forget all those Western women who could hold their own, too, in their own ways. Other commenters suggest the larger picture — administrators of universities running it for their own purposes with government and foundation funding, and minimizing the effectiveness of true (faculty) professors of their fields; the false scientific research is funded to support political control (by whom a very important question — one to be asked of Donald Kennedy and AAAS — which gang of rustlers are you working for?); whatever laws scientist-frauds and their universities break must be investigated by every law enforcement officer, the more the merrier.
“As far as it goes” for your post, Willis, is probably the most important distance to travel. No Constitution, no code of justice or “unwritten rules “is worth the paper it is written on if individuals do not abide by it or stand up for it. Where are those scientific giants and everyday researchers with integrity? The code of the scfientific method is not so different from the “unwritten rules”. I admire your credentials. Mine are not from ranching. I grew up in the city, but my outlook was “the West” and all that meant: father grew up on a homestead; his grandfather lost his life in the gold fields of the Yukon; maternal grandfather prospected all over the West. And they all were entrepreneurs. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Where are the dust-ups? There should be hundreds of them?
I hope they will begin in geology, the one field that has to know about human insignificance in eons of detail. I have mentioned my sadness about geologists drinking the kool-aid and just deleted a blog called highlyallochthonous because of blogger AJ’s post on 10/15. There have been other posts to which I have objected, but this was the most egregious, and included outreach to children and adolescents. It is obviously oriented to the new demon “climate disruption”. Quote and link: “Of the various water-related posts I’ve read today, the one that sticks out in my mind as an absolute must-read is this post on Columbia University’s Earth Institute blog about the crucial connections between water and energy. Lakis Polycarpou does a fantastic job of laying out these connections under the following headings: ‘The way we use water consumes energy. Conventional energy production is crucially dependent on abundant supplies of freshwater. The quest for new sources of cheap, abundant energy threatens existing water sources. Use of fossil energy is warming the climate—which disrupts the water cycle and threatens both water and energy resources.’ This effort seems to be located in the U.N.
Water seems to be one of the next great battlefields for those who would control the world and all its resources, impoverishing all human beings except their elitist selves. An overstatement? I don’t think so.
Thanks to Aynsley Kellow (2:12 a.m.) for his battle-readiness. I would have a new book to order except for the price: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287330517&sr=8-1. Any place one get a (used) copy for a reasonable amount?
Those small town amusing rules are nothing to laugh. They are not meted out in quaint-like manner either. At the very least, you lose your livelihood. If you can get out of town uninjured, consider yourself lucky.
I’ll just chime in here to agree with many posters above. Only multiple legal inquiries, addressing multiple avenues (e.g. financial, scientific) will properly address the climate science malfeasance. An adversarial approach, with rules of evidence and criminal penalties for perjury is necessary at this point. The opportunity for self-policing (at least IMO) ended years ago. It certainly ended with the leak of the CRU emails.
Nick
You don’t appear to understand. If Mann doesn’t archive his data than it can’t be reproduced it is therefore by definition not science. It really is as simple as that.
Someone else taking some other set of data or the same data and mianipulating it in some way that may or may not be similar does nothing to support Mann which as it is unreproducible is simply garbage. It really is as simple as that and anyone with even a high school science background should be able to understand that.
Willis, I’m reminded of some other expressions. First, when it comes to climate science, it is the fox guarding the hen house. This isn’t a dust-up between two parties! When you are appeal to scientists to out bad scientists, it is like the fox guarding the hen house because the scientists who would out the bad ones are rightfully afraid of losing their job. In many ways, it is like a protection racket employed by organized crime organizations. “Sure is a nice grant you received. It would be a shame if anything should happen to it …” The climategate emails show that the foxes take definite action to silence dissent.
So when you appeal to climate scientists to step up and condemn the actions of bad scientists. That is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, a saying I heard Sean Connery mention in a movie. You cannot win asking scientists to step up. Remember: bad climate scientists are much like Al Capone and organized crime. They are (or were) both glamorized by the media, they are both rich, and they are both powerful. If you want to take down the modern day Al Capone, you have to fight back with something stronger.
The only way to fully expose these charlatans is by the courts. There is no other legal option. Sure, time will prove them to be liars and the internet will permanently preserve their words so that they can never cause malfeasance again. The repeal of prohibition would have ended Al Capone too, so time was also not on his side. Justice is not hoping the bad guys will fade away. Justice is bringing people to trial for their crimes. I want justice. The only way to get justice now is the court of law. I wish every state was doing what Virginia is doing. That is the only way left to get justice. And even in that way, the judge and jury can easily be bribed.
Mr. Eschenbach: You must stop bringing a knife to a gunfight. You will never win hoping the hens will overthrow the fox.
Nick says:
October 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm
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.
Nick I suggest you watch this.
The cartoon is priceless, the only thing missing is the flow of grants in support.
Heh, yep, same rules in the area I grew up in. And I still instinctively operate in that manner.
Recently, I came home to find my ’66 Mustang had huge dent in the passenger front fender. Now, I live in a farmhouse, but I don’t farm the land. The family that farms the land (3 generations) is in and out of the property constantly, we also had a team of roofers repairing some damage of recent storm, and wood cutters getting at the fallen trees. Many would react by picking up the phone and calling the police. I had the expectation that someone would come back by and tell me what happened. To my dismay, no one ever “fessed” up to the deed. Turns out the roofers had a trailer which when hitched is the exact same height as the impact mark. As happenstance would have it, about a week later, another larger dent appeared with altogether different markings. This time, however, the farmers wife called, the farmer showed up, explained, he had already called his insurance agent and assured me that it would be repaired. It was.
The point is, Willis, while I agree with the rules, it only works if the majority are playing by the same set of rules. Mann is like the roofers. Only Mann did a hit and run on all of us.
Like you, I’m much chagrin to call the sheriff, and I deplore the knee jerk reaction to such. But what is the people’s recourse? For those happily cheering, I hope your expectations aren’t too high. There is a large distinction between scientific malfeasance and provable violations of the law in which Cuccinelli is charged to enforce. For those confused, unless the state has a parallel law to the Federal government, subverting the FOI act is a federal matter beyond the purview of the state’s AG.
The precedent this is setting is outright scary. But, it wasn’t Cuccinelli or any other skeptic that “raised the ante”. It was the alarmist that did so, but why wouldn’t they, they cheat at cards, too.
Willis,
Here is a quick but amusing story based on a real experiment that explains why the climate science community cannot be counted on to put is own shop in order.
Take a large cage and place in the centre of it a large step ladder. Suspend a banana over the top of the step ladder. Lock 10 monkeys into the cage. After some period of time, one of the monkeys will proceed up the ladder to get the banana. Upon setting foot on the ladder, the entire cage is sprayed with ice cold water from fire hoses.
In short order, the monkeys learn that there is a price to be paid for trying to reach that banana. The smarter ones figure it out right away. The slower ones either catch on soon, or the rest of the monkeys beat the snot out of them for trying. After a while, none of them even consider trying to get that banana.
Take one of the ten monkeys out of the cage and put in a new monkey. The new monkey hasn’t a clue about the ice water and fire houses so sets out to get that banana. The rest of the monkeys beat the snot out of him. He quits trying. He doesn’t know why that banana is off limits, but it is. Take another of the original monkeys out of the cage and replace it with another new monkey. They soon learn too that the banana is off limits. 7 of the monkeys pitching in to teach the lesson know why, but one of them doesn’t, just that it is off limits.
Continue the process until all of the original 10 monkeys are gone from the cage. The banana is still off limits, any monkey that attempts to get it will recieve a beating, and not a single one of them know why. But that’s their reality and the beatings are real, though the reason for them is 10 times or more removed.
That is the reality for climate scientists today. They get a beating from their peers and superiors for even suggesting having a closer look at what happens when you step on that ladder, and those giving the beating don’t even know the reason anymore, but they will work hard to prevent it. Perched high atop the ladder are a handfull of researchers like Lindzen and others, calmly eating a banana, for the fire hoses have long since been turned off and Lindzen knows that they were only a temporary influence. In fact, they have been off for at least 15 years.
The scientists who note that nothing came of Lindzen climbing the ladder and eating the banana are all told the same thing.
Yes, but he’s not a “real” monkey. Er.. scientist. No, wait. Let’s go with monkey.
This is the new real media!
Here is where you get the truth.Here is where the investigatiing journalism is done thorough and open.MSM is the systematic lying puppets för the establishment.What if the internet and scientific blogs wheren`t. Only few would now the truth.
Thanks all of you guys for sharing your knowledge.
Mann is a selfish, big headed guy who will go to his grave blindly defending the rabid self-esteem he has for himself.
paulhan says:
October 17, 2010 at 4:11 am
The reason I don’t like the the legal route is that it will never bring closure to the “science”.
Again I disagree Paul. In an adversarial court trial, the credibility of the defendants would be on trial. All of their public statements that have injured the aggrieved, all the their actions (deleting e-mails) and the subsequent damage to their gravitas would smear like-wise their data. What other scientist would want to put their own neck on the line having seen the destruction levied upon Mann or Phil Jones in a proper criminal or civil action? The release of the e-mails from the CRU at EA was the beginning of the end. The jailing of Jones or Mann for destruction of evidence or simple perjury should be the natural and I daresay, expected outcome of that selfless act.
The way to deal with Mann is to cut his funding.
Given the state of the nation and the political discontent therein, I have hope that will eventually come true.
I believe there’s cause to investigate Mann’s actions. However, I don’t believe that “an innocent man welcomes and even invites an investigation.” Unwarranted investigations are used to intimidate and harass innocent people.
Investigations should be prosecuted by someone with an interest when there is sufficient cause to do so. Expecting the targets to welcome every investigation them is unrealistic and would eliminate the natural tension between adversaries that tends to reveal the most truth, most convincingly, in the long run.
In fact, I’d be very suspicious of the thoroughness of any investigation that was “welcomed” by its target.
I’m interested in the “cowboy code”, because some of it fits the behaviour of the rightly-named King Alfred the Great.
One key factor in Alfred’s success was his outrageous compassionate integrity and out-of-the-box actions. He learned cunning and dexterity from hunting animals. He offered the vanquished Viking Guthrum the choice of death or conversion to Christianity. Guthrum chose conversion, and thereafter was allowed to return to rule – you’d never guess – EAST ANGLIA. He became a bulwark against further invasion and a loyal subject to Alfred – while Alfred took Guthrum’s Viking tactics to heart and, inter alia, established the English navy. It’s a powerful story, well worth a read.
The relevant cowboy issues:
* Don’t inquire into a person’s past. Take the measure of a man for what he is today.
* Never steal another man’s horse… Never even bother another man’s horse.
* A cowboy always helps someone in need, even a stranger or an enemy.
* Never shoot an unarmed or unwarned enemy.
These revolve around “don’t take their horse” – their primary means of building any kind of future. Mann is fighting desperately -and so will all the fraudsters, unless they can be promised they can keep their horse, even if nothing else.
Translated, this means we need a well-developed amnesty action plan that has teeth, whereby all the defrauders (problem is, THERE’S SO ****** MANY OF THEM, in politics and the media as well as in Science) are guaranteed that all punitive charges will be dropped, on condition that they relearn Scientific Method and reapply it, retrospectively, to make amends where necessary. Sounds frakkin’ impossible… but we have an impossible situation on our hands – the whole official scientific establishment corrupted at the top levels. Extreme situations can inspire drastic creative solutions and even miraculous help, if we ask for help at the highest levels.
Now when we get a skeptics wiki, it will be a lot easier to name names and collect info to decide what amends is needed in each case for all the major offenders. This wouldn’t be a desmogblog-like collection of ad homs, it has to be the very opposite: the path to healing. Where’s the salaries going to come from? Well, drops all round should make transition to the new reformed science manageable with existing levels of State help, without drastic job loss; that gives time for the market to restabilize and Science to continue in a far better way.
JC — Thanks, I rummaged around on the site but couldn’t find that.