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.
*Fixed it for ya.
.
In the climategate emails (1212063122.txt ), Phil Jones writes to Michael Mann regarding emails that are the subject of an active FOIA. Here, Jones is shown to be orchestrating an effort to get people to delete the emails.
To which Mann replies, indicating his willingness to participate in the effort:
The NOAA inspector general conducted an investigation into this. They interviewed Eugene Wahl. Here is the relevant excerpt from the interview transcript. Wahl indicates that Mann’s participation in the effort to delete the emails had the effect that Jones intended:
Mark T says: June 2, 2011 at 6:51 pm
“Nobody argues point #2, that you specifically quoted. Steve did get that data. You’re a joke.”
Sure sounds like some people are arguing:
“(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.”
sceptical:”How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”
I presume this is sarcasm?
Anthony Watts says:
June 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm
“I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.”
Anthony, I think Nick means well, but he obviously has a lot invested the CAGW theory…why, I don’t know.
In any case, the Climategate e-mails told me everything I wanted to know about the ethics of “Mike” Mann and his insider buddies in the climate industry…
sceptical says:
June 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm
“The Virginia AG has stated that his investigation is only politically motivated.”
Obviously, that is a lie. It is a bold lie made by someone foolish enough to lie boldly to people who recognize the lie for what it is. WUWT really should not permit such posts and should not permit any posts by sceptical or anyone who makes similar posts.
You professional minded and doggedly determined skeptics continue to expose the frisky and elitist foibles of delusional dupes, by drawing them out in public forums where their bilious bluster can be recorded for posterity.
The book by James Hoggan all about skepticism, doesn’t even mention WUWT, and skims over McIntyre too as it spends whole chapters dissing what I feel are minor players who I’ve barely heard of. When I posted a series of revealing quotes from the book to the author’s PR firm owned blog I wasn’t just comment banned, but IP redirected to Google. Message control is the very essence of AGW theory, so it’s fun to see bit players come out of the woodwork to spastically try to micromanage each and every perceived bit of criticism by us “data terrorists.”
Nick Stokes says:
“Getting there.”
Not really. Steve McIntyre wrote:
Who is Nick Stokes trying to kid? This has been deliberate stonewalling by Mann and his pals. Where is the scientific method in any of these refusals?
More fantasies from Nick Stokes who increasingly just fabricates stories:
In MBH98, Mann’s Figure 3 showed a map of verification r2 steps for the AD1820 step where it passed. MBH98 said that verification r and r2 were considered. In my opinion, the adverse r2 results were intentionally not disclosed in the original article. They should have been disclosed. It was only after the failure of verification r2 was revealed that they argued that R2 was not appropriate.
Even then, they fiercely resisted the admission that verification r2 failed. Wahl and Ammann issued a press release saying that all our results were unfounded and their first submission did not report the adverse results either, even though that had been a prominent issue in MM2005. Even when a reviewer asked them to disclose the verification r2 results, they refused and Stephen Schneider wrongly supported them. It was only after an academic misconduct complaint was filed against Ammann that they admitted the adverse results.
As to Mann having provided information to calculate it – again Nick is fabricating stories. My original request for his actual results was in part to calculate verification r2 and similar statistics. Nor was information available originally to even say how many principal component series were used and with which networks. Nor were the methods accurately described. Partial data became available only after a Materials Complaint to Nature, but remains incomplete. Source code became available only because of the intervention of a House Committee – an intervention that was condemned by scientific associations throughout the world, including the AAAS and NAS. The idea of making source code available was reviled by climate scientists throughout the world.
The unscientific attitude towards facts – and the willingness to simply make things up – displayed here by Nick is all too prevalent in the climate community these days.
sceptical says:
June 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”
Yes, we have all seen the spaghetti graphs that showed behavior similar to the hockey stick graph. So rather than being vague and waving your hands about the alleged vindication, name a specific independent reconstruction that validates Mann’s hockey stick. The caveat is that the data and methods for production the reconstruction are publicly available and the reconstruction is free of legerdemain such as truncation of inconvenient data, short centring and poor temperature proxies.
Smokey says: June 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.”
That’s the difference between the scientific approach and the auditing approach. In the scientific approach the data is available and the method described. Here, as a bonus, you have the computer programs. The results can be reproduced.
The auditing approach is not part of science. And no-one appointed Steve as auditor.
You quoted Feynman earlier. Who was his auditor? Where is his data and code?
You’re losing it, Nick. Really.
A W wrote:
quote
I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.
unquote
I think neither: it is entirely possible that he knows exactly what he’s up to.
Many people, and here I include myself, are not equipped to deal with a bare-faced lie made with conviction. No matter how many times I’ve thought ‘no, that can’t be right, I’ve checked it and he’s telling lies’, I still get the instinctive reaction of ‘there must be something in what he says because nobody would tell an outright checkable lie in a public forum’. If I’m in a hurry and have no time to check again then the lie tends to stick.
The answer, of course, is for someone with the facts at his/her fingertips to immediately point out the lie, but who has time for that?
As to motivation: it could be simple professional commitment to the defended science; some sort of financial interest (I’d love to see the accounts of the two big Green PR firms); ideological (Man is corrupt and must be led to the green light); the meeting of a psychological need in a personality that finds itself, at last, able to feel a sense of belonging to an elite in-group; an irreproachable reason to let a bullying tendency out into the world.
When this is all over the social scientists will have a field day going through the old posts and interviewing the lot of us.
Me, I hate being bullied and I dislike being taken for a fool, so every so often I’ll boggle at one of Nick’s or Doggy’s or whoever’s more blatant pronouncements and go and check, again, and find a half-truth, again, but still, when another lie appears, I’ll first doubt myself.
The sun is rising, a beautiful East Anglian day dawns. I think I’ll fire up the MG (67 Midget without all the emission controls which did so much damage to small sports cars) and potter about the lanes. I hope no polar bears are made to weep.
JF
(waves to Solitaire)
In the middle stage of grief, after denial and then anger, prior to depression and final acceptance (of defeat) is bargaining: – ‘Please let me wake up and find this has all been just a nightmare.’
Does Cuccinelli really have nuclear weapons? Why was he so humble before a judge? Is “simply file a lawsuit and obtain the materials through discovery” really possible, and how serious is the consequence of that move could be? I hope someone who really understand US law and politics could answer these questions. Thank you!
Who is Nick Stokes?
sceptical says:
“How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”
Really? Validated you say… What happened to the MWP and the LIA? It is missing from all the warmists favorite reconstructions. It is clearly there in historical evidence as well as numerous temperature reconstructions. One of the most recent published reconstructions from Brown scientists indicate up to a 4C temperature difference between the MWP and LIA.
Mann may not be a good “scientist”, but he is a good manipulator in his statements to others – so far.
His issue will bloom when he confronts questions from the AG. One can lie on-line, in public statements, private investigations and to the press, but one can’t lie to a prosecutor without serious consequences.
mpaul – thanks for confirming that Dr Mann never deleted any emails nor asked anyone elso to delete any emails. Dr Wahl DID delete mail and reminds us:-
The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009. This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found.
Given that it is now 2011, this fuss over the flaws in a study from last century is bemusing, however iconic at the time. It was the first of its kind and it would have been amazing if it had got every technique optimal first time round. Mann himself later conceded that he would do things differently, but we now have an updated version, with all data and code archived.
For those interested in r2, here is what the NAS panel had to say:-
If the calibration has any predictive value, one would expect it to do better than just the sample average over the validation period and, for this reason, CE is a particularly useful measure. The squared correlation statistic, denoted as r2, is usually adopted as a measure of association between two variables. Specifically, r2 measures the strength of a linear relationship between two variables when the linear fit is determined by regression. For example, the correlation between the variables in Figure 9-1 is 0.88, which means that the regression line explains 100 × 0.882 = 77.4 percent of the variability in the temperature values. However, r2 measures how well some linear function of the predictions matches the data, not how well the predictions themselves perform. The coefficients in that linear function cannot be calculated without knowing the values being predicted, so it is not in itself a useful indication of merit (Page 93).
So Dr Mann chose not to report a metric that ‘is not a useful indication of merit’. Seems like a wise decision to me, rather than an indication of sinister intent …..
Steeptown,
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com/
He describes himself thusly; An Australian scientist (not climate) with an interest in the climate debate.
Not a very useful piece of information, but it’s consistent with his style of posts. You will note that his last contribution to his own website is 17th May, yet he spreads himself over the Internet like a contagion or miasma. Perhaps his Muse has abandoned him to wander withered in mind & spirit, plunged into the depths of personal despair, because of his cognitive dissonance on the subject of the AGW scam.
He’s just a bit sad. Low traffic, low self esteem. Now that’s a Chladni pattern.
Nick Stokes,
It’s so sad, if not tragic, that you and the other AGW believer on this thread should choose to demonstrate that otherwise very intelligent people can be so easily led by people such as Mann and Hansen. Your defense of their actions (recorded) is pied piper-like in it’s tenacity. Science is science. As Smokey has posted above, the great scientists are the honest ones. If only there was a man of Richards Feynman’s quality alive today none of this debate would be necessary.
Phil, it seems to me you are being deceptive in saying that mpaul confirms Mann never deleted any emails or ask anyone else to delete them.
First of all, it seems to me one cannot conclude that he definitely did or did not delete any emails based on the correspondence presented. However, the evidence that Mann did indeed forward Phil’s request as confirmed by Wahl (which now makes it Mann’s request in my view) would lead me to believe that Mann probably DID delete emails and also ask at least one other (Wahl) to delete them as well.
@ur momisugly Phil Clarke. ” So Dr Mann chose not to report a metric that ‘is not a useful indication of merit’. Seems like a wise decision to me, rather than an indication of sinister intent”
Not quite. Dr. Mann chose not to use a standard metric that required knowledge of the values being predicted – data that he is still not prepared to release.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3%5D
Enjoy!
Oh my god. Nick Stokes and Sceptical. With friends like these, Mann needs no enemies.
I highly doubt either of them realize it but all by themselves here in the Scepticsphere©®™ they stoke the fires of passion once again, initiating a fast burn aimed at their hero MM, risking his very incineration.
Somewhere right now, Mann is sitting in the corner of a room with an iPad furiously scrolling through threads here at WUWT and CA, wondering how this happens day in and day out. Well look no further than your volunteer cabal of groupies. I’m talking to you MM, even if you confessed to hiding your data, avoiding data requests and FOIA’s, and admitted that the hockey stick is upside down, these two dead-enders would tell you that you are wrong!
pfffftt! There goes another monitor. LOL funny!