The more recent revelation is that Dr. Mann claims that:
This has been known for a year and a half that all I did was forward Phil’s e-mail to Eugene.
But….apparently he did not intend Dr. Wahl to act on it as if it was an instruction:
I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him. I didn’t delete any e-mails and nor did I tell Wahl to delete any e-mails.
I’m struggling with this. At the time, Mann wrote to Jones “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.” How could a private mail from Jones to Mann be used against Wahl? Jones asks Mann to ask Wahl? and this could be used…. against Wahl? huh? Wahl hasn’t done anything wrong. Yet. The claims being made are ridiculous and clearly conflict with Wahl’s testimony.
I think I finally get it. These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke, just like the public misunderstood the sophisticated humor of the Nixon Administration as demonstrated by this video clip.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps if Mann had deleted his email
before he read it,
we wouldn’t be talking about this.
Mann’s “tree ring” circus moves on.
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this.
Because some of us want to be able to have confidence in the “facts” that are used to justify a massive alteration to our standard of living which would require that we stop eating meat, stop driving cars, stop heating our homes, stop breathing out…
I see Anthony got an honorable [sarc] mention from Mann:
“This is, in short, a despicable smear that, more than anything else, speaks to the depths of dishonesty of professional climate change deniers like Chris Horner, Marc Morano, Stephen McIntyre, and Anthony Watts.”
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/a-reply-to-michael-mann-and-eugene-wahl/#ixzz1GEf9zRXs
I just wish that real scientists like Mann wouldn’t use such dry technical jargon when objectively discussing challenging evidence [sarc]. But, as would be expected from such a skilled manufacturer, quite the job of splicing these four different ‘Big Oil’ proxies [sarc] into a nice simplistic picture. His cheerleaders will no doubt add the Koch Brothers or one of the other usual AGW Goldsteins to this story in case their followers need further incitement. Day of Rage!!! at Huffington Post – if they dare to even mention this there.
Sounds like a Clinton. “I did not have sex with that server.”
Noelle: “Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here.”
Yes, the emails discuss how sunshine hours correlate to temperature way better than CO2.
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Noelle. Downwelling LWIR is 300 W/m^2 on average. A doubling of CO2 would increase it by 3.85 W/m^2 according to IPCC numbers. We have a 40% increase by now so that would increase it by about 1.7 W/m^2 or so. That’s about half a percent increase. Forget AGW – the effect is so small it can’t be measured against the noise. It was only a political lie.
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.
————————————————————————————————
Noelle, what I think you meant to say, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is that you WISH no one cared about this.
Because you are either uninformed, (Unlikely considering the nature of your post.) Or a troll. Everyone who can read, including all of the lurkers here, and Watts Up With That has a few… gazillion, know that the path that leads to all of these “Climate Scientists” committing fraud and perjury and tampering with evidence is BECAUSE a few scientists had questions and WANTED to discuss the science. …insert rant here that would be totally snipped for name calling and spittle on the monitor…
But we have never been able to discuss the science, because one side of this debate has resorted to sabotage, cheating, stealing, lying, and stealing old ladies purses. (Ok maybe not that one.) So that they do NOT have to discuss the science.
The intent of your post appears to wish to skip over the part of the problem where the reason we are not discussing the science, but the cover-up instead is because Mann, Jones and Co. were hiding the “science” not discussing it. Why are you complaining to Mr. CTM? He is not the problem. He is part of the solution.
So Noelle is wondering what the link between these emails and climate science is.
Depends on what your definition of is is.
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.
============
Your misdirection and minimisation aside, this is about climate science.
Its integrity.
“I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.” Bart Simpson and Michael Mann
Where is the e-mail Mann sent Wahl? Is it just a forward?
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Troll alert! We are discussing whether Climategaters conspired to violate FOIA laws. The focus of this forum is not on the science but on the behavior of the scientists.
It occurs to me, Mann does have one remaining defense. He can claim that Phil Jones had hypnotic effects on them. He could claim that, try as he might, he was unable to resist a suggestion from Phil Jones. There, that should do it.
Noelle “I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Did you see this one?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
Or this one?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/sol-is-finally-waking-up/
Or this one?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/why-im-not-worried-about-greenlands-icecap/
Lots more before today too – check the archives bar on the right.
So when the investigators looked at manns emails, did they see an email asking to delete ar4 discussions and the forwarding of that email to Wahl in Manns computer?
Why anyone cares about this?
Simple.
We’re talking about some of the most prominent figures in climate science.
We’re talking about a bunch of guys some of who clearly violated FOI laws to prevent their science from being scrutinized, and and others who may have conspired in order to prevent anyone from determining that they’d violated IPCC procedures in preparing their materials.
We’re talking about individuals whose science – the work they tried to keep from meaningful review, and which subsequently was found to be quite broken – has been held up as a club to beat the rest of us into submission to their goals of energy rationing.
“Would you buy a used climate policy from this Mann?”
A feeble and ineffective attempt at ‘plausible deniability’, at best.
Get all of them into a Grand Jury investigation, under oath, with all criminal penalties applicable for direct lying or failure to tell the whole truth, as relates to the Freedom Of Information requests. Ask them the short and specific questions that do not lend themselves to equivocation, evasion, or half truths answers, just ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘I did’, ‘I did not’, and ‘I don’t have any knowledge of that’. A patient and thorough prosecutor will pick their fabrications apart and get to a reasonable facsimile of the bare truth.
Then charge, try, and convict them. Imprison them if possible, followed by stripping of all academic standing and recision of all published works. Follow this with lawsuits to recover all taxpayer monies from their sponsoring universities and agencies, that were used in any way to perpetrate this fraud.
Heck, the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act) may well apply also, as their active collusion to prevent disclosure and continue funding fits the definition of RICO. That would allow both criminal and civil penalties to apply.
This will send a clear message to all would be academic frauds (not just ‘climate science’) that these deceits will not be tolerated any more. They will be prosecuted.
Here’s an example of the ‘denialist-tripe’ that is routinely censored over at RC;
So the fact that Dr. Mann told the Penn investigators he did not;” . . engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?” now squares with you, in light of the fact that he forwarded the request to Wahl?
Either what Wahl has stated under oath is not true, what Mann told the PSU inquiry was not true (and they failed to properly investigate the matter), or the PSU inquiry mischaracterized what Mann told them in their attempt to protect the university.
No matter how you look at it, it’s a problem. It’s never the crime, but the cover-up that gets you in trouble.
As to the science; if these guys had simply published their data and methodology all along, none of this would be an issue.
In short; AGW is real. It’s magnitude, certainty and the seriousness of the consequence are very much open for debate. The political ramifications are very consequential. Once these scientists became political advocates their work became suspect. Their actions in light of serious inquiry are a problem. Let them deal with that, and let’s start producing real reproducible science based on open data and methodology and an honest debate.
This whole episode is hurting real science. Not the dunderheads who doubt every bit of the science, not ‘Big Oil’, not the serious scientific skeptics, not anyone but the ‘scientists’ who became actively involved in political debate while hiding behind FOI, proprietary data, etc. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! This problem will go away, but probably not while these guys are involved in the debate. Their objectivity is highly questionable. Especially Mann and Jones.
Also; don’t paint everyone who questions the alarm as ‘science-deniers’ and use straw man arguments that characterize everyone who questions the establishment as denying that there is global warming or that man has played a part in that. Not everyone who isn’t an alarmist is a fool or in the pocket of big oil. Any true scientist will see the flaw in the notion that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘we are now certain’ about the consequences, either in physics or in the geo-political ramifications. We may project, we may model, but we cannot be certain, even to a statistically significant degree. (Global surface temp is now more than 2 STD below every single models projections for 2011. There is no certainty).
Warmest Regards,
Bob
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here?
Perhaps the fact that the climate science was DELETED thanks to these emails?
It IS relevant to climate science and it IS about the science. Open your eyes!
“Global surface temp is now more than 2 STD below every single models projections for 2011.”
Links?
2 STD is a big deal, especially if it continues year to year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electric_rules
Noelle says: “…I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Science? There ain’t any. It’s a politically-motivated hoax.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!
Back in the good ol’ days when SNL was funny !!!
Mac the Knife says: “…Heck, the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act) may well apply also, as their active collusion to prevent disclosure and continue funding fits the definition of RICO. That would allow both criminal and civil penalties to apply…”
Hmm. I like it!
CTM: “I think I finally get it. These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke…”
Actually, these scientists completely lack a sense of humour. They weren’t funny when they were school kids, they aren’t funny when they grow up to become adults. They can only get wives and girlfriends because they have steady jobs, not because they have a sense of humour. There isn’t a single instance of a remark made in jest between so many scientists in 1000+ emails that were liberated from CRU. Their lives are pretty wretched actually.