On the Climate Audit thread, The Vergano FOI Request the irascible Nick Stokes provokes another commenter “mpaul”, to lay out all the history in a simple summary that even Nick might understand. I thought it was worth repeating here for readers who have not followed the twists and turns in detail, and also in the hope that Dr. Michael Mann might read it and get a clue. Obstruction doesn’t pay.
From this Climate Audit comment:
mpaul
But I don’t think snooping through people’s private emails is a dignified activity.
Nick, I’ll turn the sarcasm off for a moment. I agree with you on this point. I have been an advocate for Cuccinelli CID process. Say what you will about Cuccinelli’s motives, but the American justice system provides protections for the accused and standards of procedure that do not exist in the court of public opinion.
We have arrived at this point in history along the following path:
(1) Steve wanted to replicate MBH98 and asked for data. Mann initially complied, but then began to obstruct.
(2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.
(3) Mann defended his work by saying that other Hockey Stick reconstructions validated his method and his conclusions.
(4) Attention turned to replicating the other reconstructions. By now, the Team had become extremely defensive and a sort of bunker mentality took over. Years of obstruction followed.
(5) Those seeking the data and methods used in the HS reconstructions became more and more aggressive, eventually turning to FOIA as a tool to pry loose the information.
(6) Then “a miracle happened’. A file containing materials and emails requested under FOIA turned up on the internet. Most everyone would agree that the contents of the emails warranted an investigation. The only investigation that specifically looked into Mann’s conduct was undertaken by Penn State. Penn State cleared Mann noting that Mann stated:
(a) he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
(b) he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
(c) he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
(d) he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.
(7) Critics have charged that the Penn State investigation was inadequate. Michael Mann has subsequently stated that he did, in fact, participate in an orchestrated effort to delete emails covered under FOIA, raising questions about the veracity of statements he made to the Penn State investigators. Penn State seems untroubled by this.
A real, independent investigation, subject to rules of evidence and judicial procedures, is needed. Such an investigation is the only way to put and end to Climategate and is the only way to restore the tattered reputation of climate science. I think both Virginia and Pennsylvania should conduct an investigation. However, if UVa continues to obstruct the CID, then FOIA is the only option and Mann will be afforded no protection of his privacy.
Mann and UVa are playing a losing game. Its sheer folly to attempt to frustrate a State AG in a law enforcement investigation. Cuccinelli has nuclear weapons at his disposal and UVa has water pistols. If Cuccinelli loses the CID battle, he will simply file a lawsuit and obtain the materials through discovery. Or, if UVa really pisses him off, he will convene a Grand Jury. For Mann personally, this would be catastrophic. Mann and UVa should cooperate with the CID process.
It’s sad that we have arrived at this place. But at every juncture in this journey, Mann has chosen the wrong path.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave L. says:
June 2, 2011 at 2:47 pm
If you have not read Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, then you are likely not up to speed regarding this post.
It is also a damn good read and a more than useful ongoing reference book.
I did intend to add that the progress and timescale of the HS problem has prevented ANY possible chance of the perpetrators (Gore included!) ever being able to hold their hands up and say ‘oops, we made a mistake’ – now, it’s just fraud, plain and simple!
crosspatch says: June 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm
“The argument that it is somehow an unsavory act to snoop though someone’s email doesn’t seem to come into play when someone wants all of a government department’s email, does it? I mean, I seem to remember a lot of hoopla surrounding the scooping up of a bunch of Bush Administration email.”
I don’t think you’re remembering right – details? There was the hacking of Sarah Palin’s email, but did you ever see people going through them and looking for every gotcha?
What was noted about Bush Admain’s emails was the massive shift of government business onto private, mainly RNC accounts. Senior public servants like Karl Rove did all their business there. And on the official accounts, millions went missing. Later 22 million turned up which had been hidden away.
Makes Phil Jones’ attempt to get a few erased look small.
A bit more about some other email practices from those times:
Late Tuesday, the Bush Administration admitted that in reviewing documents requested by Democrats for their investigations, it discovered that as many as 50 of its staffers may have violated the Presidential Records Act. The staffers, the White House said, were using e-mail accounts, laptops and BlackBerries provided by the Republican National Committee for official executive branch communications rather than the exclusively political work for which they were intended. Because the RNC had a policy until 2004 of erasing all e-mails on its servers after 30 days, including those by White House staffers, and because some of those staffers may have deleted e-mails on their own, the White House said it could not assure Congress that they have not violated the PRA, which requires the retention of official White House documents. The White Houseofficials who may have broken the law include senior adviser Karl Rove, his deputies and much of their staffs.
golf charley says: June 2, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“Under US Law, are there charges that could be brought against those within UVa, that have aided and abetted the obstruction?”
Which obstruction exactly? Filing (and winning) a lawsuit?
Note mpaul’s point 2 above:
“(2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.”
Nothing was hidden.
Anthony/mpaul,
Mike Mann and a number of other “Team” members made presentations
to Congressional Committees over the years. However, to the best of my
recollection, Mike and the others never testifed under oath.
Nobody was under oath during the Penn State investigation.
One can put enough qualifiers into a statement in a presentation that makes
it sound like you’re saying something that’s a solid, undisputable fact.
An interview or a presentation that’s not done under oath is just a press
conference in disguise. That includes those nifty Powerpoint slide shows that
made the college circuits a couple years ago. When the sophistry is trimmed
away, there’s not much left but someone’s opinion and a ball of verbal goo.
You can’t be prosecuted for an opinion about weather, climate, good science,
bad science, or whatever, no matter how wrong or untrue it might be or be
proved to be in the end. (At least, not yet.)
You can be prosecuted for knowingly making fradulent statements
to obtain or renew contracts and grants. You can be prosecuted for
knowingly making false claims as to your study’s “results” to justify the
grant monies you burned through. You can be prosecuted for
knowingly filing false expense reports.
If people got together in person (say at an academic conference or syposium),
corresponded by snail mail, or chatted over the phone or via e-mail about
getting fradulent material past the state or federal grant application reviews,
some folks might consider that/those activities “conspiracy to commit… “.
The continuing (growing?) interest in Mann’s hockey stick is fascinating. Can someone indicate exactly where his original data for the 1998 paper can be found at present? I have a set (courtesy of Steve McIntyre) from many years ago, and I wonder whether the numbers that generated (synthesised) the graph at the start of this thread are exactly those that I am very familiar with. To be more detailed, these were a matrix of 112 columns of types of observation (plus a date column) and 583 rows (dates).
The methods I use produce no real hint of an HS shape, but otherwise demonstrate plenty of structure in the data.
Robin
Nick Stokes says:
June 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm
“Nothing was hidden.”
The decline. Using Mike’s trick. Remember?
Pay (directly paid; in the employ or service of).
Pecuniary interest (books or movie deals, perhaps some of those blokes owe him financial notes/loan paybacks).
Returning a favor (he owes him/them for some obscure reason).
He’s married to Mann’s (or someone else’s) sister (IOW: a brother-in-law thing)?
It really can be hard to tell …
.
Behind the stokes character is a communist. Behind the above mentioned nick that is.
Pathetic communists always go “above and beyond” in their belief.
A suitable Mannian/Jonesian/AGWian epithet . . .
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
-Eric Hoffer
(The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)
Remember, “It depends on what the meaning of “is’ is?”
When Mann says:
(c) he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist
Does he mean the he didn’t and wouldn’t do it at anyone’s behest; that he just did it based on his own good judgements?
Robin Edwards says: June 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm
” Can someone indicate exactly where his original data for the 1998 paper can be found at present?”
Mann’s PSU site
Bryan A says:
June 2, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“It is truly unfortunately that, in all likelihood, If Mann and others were brought before the Grand Jury in an effort to clean up the entire mess, they would ALL likely plead the 5th to avoid self prosecution. So unless one volunteers to turn states evidence, nothing is likely to come of the effort.”
Given a grand jury experience, Mann would have a nervous breakdown and never recover. He could not bear being that close to the unwashed.
Nick Stokes says:
June 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Now you are engaging in knowingly spreading BS in order to hide things. Do you think we were all born yesterday? Many of us frequent CA and know exactly why your statement above is crap, and that you know it to be crap. There is another word for someone who engages in pathological deception. Maybe you should look in the mirror — you will see it tattooed backwards on your thick forehead.
True to form the captain of the cheerleading squad steps in, “defends” a point that nobody argues, ignores the rest, then declares victory. I hope you approach your profession with the same llack of critical thinking, Nick, because you’ll earn what you deserve eventually.
Mark
Nick: “Nothing was hidden.”
Nick, you are delusional. There was a very clear and concerted effort with the hockey stick to cover up what the data really showed. You’re of course going to point to vague and obscure footnotes or references that indirectly acknowledged what was going on and that no government policy reader could possibly have understood in its full implication from that way it was described by the Team. There is no question that while there were a couple of CYA’s hidden deep in the ancillaries, there was intent to represent the data as something other than what they showed. Was there intent to deceive? Perhaps not. More likely just intent to tell the “correct” story that they knew must be hiding there in the data and that just needed to be liberated for all to see. The Team tricked themselves and there is no point in you continuing to pretend everything was all on the up and up.
Robin Edwards says:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/old/mbh98.html
Nick Stokes says” Nothing was hidden”.
Unfortunately, Nick is disseminating disinformation too often these days and this is merely one more example. For example, at an early stage (and at later stages), I asked Mann for the actual reconstructions for the 11 steps (which he called “experiments”) i.e. his actual results. He refused. I asked Nature to require him to provide them; Nature refused. I asked NSF to require him to provide them; they refused.
That same summer, Mann supplied the same information to CRU, describing it as his “dirty laundry”, sent to them only because they were “trusted colleagues” and requiring them to make sure that the “dirty laundry” didn’t get into the wrong hands.
Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.
Mann’s method of retaining principal components remains a mystery as well. Mann removed this section of his code from what he archived in 2006.
Mann’s recent materials are archived responsibly. In this he differs from (say) Lonnie Thompson, who has failed to provide a proper archive of any of ice cores, even ones drilled over 20 years ago.
I would agree that it doesnt look good for Mann. He should share his data and methods openly without obstruction. I would say to those who are already saying he has comitted a crime, before he actually has a conviction, that caution is required. If he is acquitted by a grand jury where does that leave apparently libellous comments on a blog that state he is guilty before he has gone to trial? Please protect yourself and use words like allegedly or similar when making accusations before a trial has taken place. We can’t decide his guilt on a blog but we can allege that a crime may have taken place. He could also appeal that he could not have a fair trial because of media surrounding the case assuming his guilt. Tread carefully people. I am not a lawyer btw so dont take any of my advice seriously because its probably wrong.
Nick Stokes
That’s like saying “nothing was hidden” by the Nixon Whitehouse because the WaPo dug most of it out.
Steve McIntyre says June 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Steve,
I repeat what mpaul said. You had the data, you had the code, and you were able to reproduce the results. In 2005 or earlier. That is all that science requires. And, as mpaul said, the code and data were the basis of your subsequent criticisms, echoed in the Wegman report.
TrueNorthist says: June 2, 2011 at 4:22 pm
” There is another word for someone who engages in pathological deception. Maybe you should look in the mirror — you will see it tattooed backwards on your thick forehead.”
TN, I think you’re getting irascible. What do you think was hidden by Mann re MBH98?
Nick,
What thread is your comment on? It will be interesting to see the response.
No Mr Stokes, that is not all that ‘science’ requires. ‘Science’ requires a demonstration not only of the end result but its valid and defensible derivation as well.
What did he have to say about the R2 verification?