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.
“Note Steve McIntyre’s outrageous e-mail request… /sarc”
Yes, quite vexatious, exceedingly ludicrous and wholly sedatious. /sarc
Andrew
Michael Mann and his defenders are in exactly the same position as Rep. Anthony Wiener is today. They are lying, they know they are lying, their accusers know they are lying, there is no honest, serious doubt anymore about the lying. “Restore the integrity of Climate Science”??? Not only is there no such thing, we are at the point where EVERYONE on both sides now knows there is no such thing!!!
All that is left is the raw power play, the push that “We are powerful enough to impose our narrative no matter what the “Truth” is!” as opposed to Cucinelli, “You’re not more powerful than I am, and I’m gonna prove it.”
This is now just a bare knuckles fight to the virtual death. The warmists have nothing else left – certainly not “Integrity”.
Icarus says:
June 3, 2011 at 9:15 am
James Sexton:
So would it be correct to say that there are no published papers substantially contradicting any of the findings of MBH98?
====================================================
lol, No, that wouldn’t be correct. I can’t tell if you’re attempting to be coy or are simply a novice at this. Start with MM(McIntyre and McKitrick)03, move on to Soon & Baliunas (03 I believe), go back to MM05, you can also read von Storch04, or, you can cut through all of that and go to McShane & Wyner10 which seriously calls into question not just Mann’s methodologies, but the value of the proxies themselves. It turns out, treemometers are as about as useful as fur-lined syrup pitchers when it comes to temp reconstructions. (You can just use the search bar on this site for M&W10) The fact is MBH98 and all the subsequent nearly identical studies(Briffa, Jones, etc.) are of little or no value.
Hope that helps to clear things up.
James
I believe the Mother Jones links were to highlight hypocrisy. They host a repository of emails that they hope will smear Republicans, then cry foul on doing the same thing with the correspondence of their ideological comrades.
A few points: you cannot “plead the 5th” in front of a Grand Jury. You can, of course, refuse to provide evidence, & you can sit in federal prison until you do provide the evidence requested of you. I don’t know the rules in every case or every state, but you aren’t always allowed to have a lawyer at a Grand Jury hearing, either.
& to James of the West: a Grand Jury can’t acquit. They can only decide whether or not the evidence justifies charges & what charges may be justified.
But again: if a Grand Jury demands ALL of Michael Mann’s e-mail, he can either pony up or rot in prison until he changes his mind.
James Sexton Said:
“It turns out, treeometers are as about as useful as fur-lined syrup pitchers when it comes to temp reconstructions.”
Yes, and combining and averaging a bunch of their faulty signals together doesn’t give a better signal, it just smoothes out the BS.
As they say, follow the money and green stocks are flat.
Wonder why?
16C today near Ottawa, June 3rd.
Last night here it was +3.1 C at 4:am here.
I really wish we were warming – not because of the lies of Global Warming, but because I hate the cold and the earth would be far nicer, weather wise, if it was a bit warmer.
Anyone who says the science is settled on this is nuts, seriously.
How can they say that with all the variables at play and all that remains unknown, and IS known to be unknown and could be significant factors like how our earth is affected within our solar system, and within another giant system in space that changes all the time! ( please excuse my clumsy attempts at explaining myself better, not a word wizard with this subject…wish I was!)
Hardly anyone I know believes in GW anymore. Couple of years back it was different.
Anything that pushes green on us, it’s mocked and reject outright now. Including for example, the extra tax dollar now on all communications/media billings for the paper invoice – be vocal and complain – I am. Canada should have a robust wood and paper manufacturing industry with – replanting already proved successful there’s no reason to pay ‘extra’ for this green lie, we should NOT be held responsible financially at this personal level(millions every month) for the other parts of the worlds ‘social problems’ or for the ‘weather’ in years, decades or centuries to come.
Later, out to burn garbage, yard debris, other useless stuff without guilt and warm this frigid area up!/
Good stuff, the flim-flam artists are in a corner 😉
Icarus says:
“As far as I can see, the only thing Nature published was a few minor corrections to citations etc. in MBH98 that had no effect on the results. Correct?”
As James Sexton shows: no, that is not correct.
And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart.
And the IPCC absolutely loved that chart. They published it numerous times before it was debunked. Now they no longer use it, because it has been shown to be a deceptive fabrication. In other words: alarmist propaganda disguised as science.
Anthony/mpaul,
Michael Mann was at the University of Massachusetts for a brief period
in the late1990s. His curriculum vitae indicates he taught a
single class while there: GEO 591 Data Analysis & Climate Change.
See:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
although he doesn’t say anything about his time at the University of
Massachusetts in his posted Department of Meteorology bio at Penn State:
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
When you turn to outside sources, you’ll find his academic titles while
at the University of Massachusetts:
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts, Department of
Geosciences, 1997-1998
Research Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts, Department of
Geosciences, 1998-1999
See:
http://climatechange.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=009952
The University of Massachusetts is covered by the Massachusetts Public
Records Act. Mann’s notes, emails and work, if any, now held by him or
by the University of Massachusetts are subject to requests under the
Massachusetts Public Records Act at:
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Massachusetts_Public_Records_Act
Features of the Massachusetts Public Records Act:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/75-1.htm
In Massachusetts:
Public records are defined as,
“All books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements,
statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of
physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee
of any agency”.
There are twelve ways for information or material to qualify for Exceptions
from a Massachusetts Public Records request.
Mike Mann’s unknown material from his time at the University of Massachusetts
might qualify for an exemption from the Public Records law if he or the
institution could prove the stuff was made up of:
#6. Trade secrets and proprietary business information
We aren’t hearing of the University of Massachusetts being inundated
with FOI requests for Mike Mann’s leftovers from the quality time he spent
at that institution.
I’ll bet nobody’s ever thought to ask.
WUWT ?
Smokey says:
Well, it is technically true, but deceptive, to say that they don’t publish that chart any more if by that chart you mean simply the one reconstruction. And, the reason is that the field has moved on and there are now many more reconstructions, so what they now publish is a figure that includes all of them, including the one that you wrongly claim is “debunked”: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html
Some of these reconstructions do show a somewhat more pronounced MWP and LIA than Mann et al. found, although I think they all basically fall within the error bars shown on the Mann et al. graph and they all show the modern instrumental temperature record most likely exceeding the temperatures determined from the proxy reconstructions for the MWP.
Steeptown says:
June 2, 2011 at 10:32 pm
” Who is Nick Stokes?”
He sure as hell isn’t John Galt! Goes for ‘s(c)eptic al’ as well…..
Smokey, “And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart. ”
And yet the attacks on the scary chart continue. Why are so many so afraid of Dr. Mann’s reconstruction?
The IPCC, and science, have moved forward. Reconstructions since have shown much the same, just more precisely. The only folks not moving forward are those to whom the scientific method is something to fear (scary chart).
James, are there any papers (Wahl 2007) calling into question the conclusions of MM, or did the science stagnant for you as soon as the infallible MM paper was published?
Joel Shore says:
“Well, it is technically true…” blah, blah & etc.
Joel, give it up. The IPCC LOVED Mann’s alarming chart at the top of this article. They would NEVER have given it up if it hadn’t been debunked.
Mann’s phony chart attempted to erase the MWP and the LIA. He was deceptively trying to show that there was no appreciable temperature variation until the industrial revolution. In other words, Mann was falsely claiming there was no ‘climate change’ until CO2 emissions began to rise.
And the IPCC would still be using that chart today, if Mann hadn’t been caught cherry-picking proxies. Because the IPCC loved that chart above all others.
Sceptical says:
“Why are so many so afraid of Dr. Mann’s reconstruction?”
Because it is an inaccurate rewriting of Earth History that attempts to undo countless other published studies. Defending it indicates an ulterior motive.
which has been validated numerous times since
—
It’s hardly surprising when friends of the original author, using the same data and the same techniques arrive at the same result.
This whole debate is vastly different than what I’m used to reading about in the various physics books (lay stuff, like by Gribben & Davies) I’ve read – stories where physicists with ideas & theories actively engage in bets about whose theory will be disproven.
Whatever happened to that sort of approach to science?
sceptical says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:44 am
Smokey, “And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart. ”
And yet the attacks on the scary chart continue. Why are so many so afraid of Dr. Mann’s reconstruction?
The IPCC, and science, have moved forward. Reconstructions since have shown much the same, just more precisely. The only folks not moving forward are those to whom the scientific method is something to fear (scary chart).
James, are there any papers (Wahl 2007) calling into question the conclusions of MM, or did the science stagnant for you as soon as the infallible MM paper was published?
====================================================
lol, boy I love questions directed at me that come with their own answer! So which MM are you referring to? (Notice how I didn’t answer the question but know the answer anyway?) I certainly have no intention in re-hashing the Mann/MM/Wahl stuff other than to state my questions were sufficiently answered at ClimateAudit. I would encourage you to go over there and peruse the site. Also, if you were to read my comment in its entirety, you’d see where it isn’t really relevant, because the proxies themselves are in high doubt. You can have the most elegant of arguments and the most clever of statistical approaches and none of it will matter because treeometers simply can’t give us anything more than a general idea of climate. Its ridiculous to believe otherwise.
Also, “The IPCC, and science, have moved forward.”—— yes, it has, in part of the basis of the flawed hockey stick. No one is afraid of the iconic, yet errant graphic, just disgusted by what was advanced because of it. Does a bad tree bear good fruit? The problem is the idea of catastrophic climate change really took off because of that graph. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. People around the world were screaming it was wrong. Historians, geographers, archeologists…..you name it, …….but the graph attempted to revise history. I’ve no tolerance for history revisionists. They are a contemptible group. Given the money, time and energy wasted on this farcical graphic, I’d say it is way past time we stop taking anything serious that group of people have to say.(the IPCC and the team) We’ve simply have many more important issues to deal with other than some imaginary molecular bogey man.
Best wishes,
James
‘This isn’t about truth at all. It’s about sounding plausible.’
Quite adequately describes the underlying themes of the posts from ‘Nick Stokes’, ‘s(c)eptic al’, and similar. Same cadre, same ‘jail house lawyer’ argumentation of half truths and willful omissions….
Rather than wasting time responding to the disingenuous AGW believers, I whole heartedly suggest that each person reading this and other WUWT posts contact their federal, state and local representatives and focus your efforts on educating them on the fallacies and deceits embedded in the hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming. Educate your friends and families. Provide fact based information to your coworkers, garden clubs, drinking buddies, and political associates. It will be time far better spent than trying to score semantics points with the dwindling cadre of AGW faithful….
The AGW faithful will become evermore vocal and strident now, as we continue to hammer the ‘wooden stake’ of honest science through the heart of the economic blood sucking AGW vampire! There cries of anguish should be just confirmation (and music to our ears!) that the combined efforts of each one of you are succeeding in that honest and open effort. Keep ‘pounding away’ and Thank You to Anthony and each of the knowledgeable posters to WUWT! You provide such reliable ‘ammo’ to folks like myself that shotgunning the ‘clays’ and ‘balloons’ launched by the AGW folks has become progressively easier and easier!
Sincerely – Many Thanks and Keep Up The Good Work!
glacierman, “Because it is an inaccurate rewriting of Earth History that attempts to undo countless other published studies.”
Which published studies was the reconstruction attempting to undo, or did you mean “countless” as in without count because ther are none?
Sceptical,
Not once have you commented on my post.Here is a partial quote from my post:
“Secondly,it contradicts decades of well established research in several fields.Such as History,Archaeology,Botany,Biology and of course climate science.Research that TO THIS DAY still insist that the MWP and LIA existed and was widespread.
Thirdly,there are many published science papers attesting to the existence of the MWP :
Medieval Warm Period Project
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
You need to wake up to reality.”
I have pointed this out to other H.S. lovers (that is never global anyway),over the years.That there are many other fields of research.That clearly establishes the existence of MWP and LIA.
They chose to ignore it and continue to be irrational over a long discredited paper.A singular claim AGAINST decades of verified research of the opposite position on the existence of the MWP and LIA.
The laughable part about Dr. Mann’s H.S. paper is that it is based only for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.Plus a significant proxy he used (Bristlecone pine) grows in a few scattered regions,high elevation parts of Western America.They occupy a climatic niche that is seen mostly over 7’000 elevation.
Quoting from Wikipedia:
“Bristlecone pines grow in isolated groves at and just below the tree line. Because of cold temperatures, dry soils, high winds, and short growing seasons, the trees grow very slowly. The wood is very dense and resinous, and thus resistant to invasion by insects, fungi, and other potential pests. As the tree ages, much of its vascular cambium layer may die. In very old specimens, often only a narrow strip of living tissue connects the roots to a handful of live branches.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
Not a compelling proxy to apply to an entire hemisphere with.
LOL
“sceptical says:
June 3, 2011 at 12:48 pm
glacierman, “Because it is an inaccurate rewriting of Earth History that attempts to undo countless other published studies.”
Which published studies was the reconstruction attempting to undo, or did you mean “countless” as in without count because ther are none?”
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
He was referring to Earths HISTORY.
Hint: Greenland and Vikings.
Nick Stokes – 3:25.
Nice summary, Nick. The lack of perspective/proportion is indeed breathtaking. Skipping lightly over the sockpuppets, false credentials, nitpicks, Nazi comparisons, personal remarks, mountains and molehills I would remind folks of some more of that ‘information’ that Mr McIntyre accused me of spreading …
The first MBH study, MBH98, only went back to 1400 so claims the intent was to get rid of the MWP must be in connection to the sequel, MBH99.
MBH99 was all about the uncertainties in reconstructions going back so far (The clue is in the title). This detail has got lost in the noise, as has the fact that the graph picked up by the IPCC came with substantial error bars (The grey regions in the graphic above). I think Joel is right that all or most of the subsequent studies fall within those error bars, including the sequel to the sequel, Mann 2008 – with its complete code & data archive.
The curve has undoubted visual impact and it is arguable that the IPCC over-relied upon and overhyped it, and the original uncertainties, caveats and error bars got lost along the way, – but how this translates to the opproprium heaped on Mann passes all my understanding.
Icarus asks ‘Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98, and if so, what does that tell us about anthropogenic global warming?’
Smokey’s risible Heartland link notwithstanding, and extending MBH98 to both studies, the answer is that Mann 2008 showed greater variability (a less flat blade) but the central conclusion of anomalous recent warmth remains our best understanding.
The argument seems to go The Hockey Stick is broken => recent warmth is not unprecedented => it must be natural => AGW is a hoax. I leave the logical flaws in this line of reasoning as an exercise for the reader. As to the relevance of paleoclimate to the AGW controversy I can do no better than these words:
“In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues [climate sensitivity and feedbacks] to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues”
written by Steve McIntyre.
Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 11:15 am
“And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart. “
More fact-free stuff. MBH99 results are in Fig 6.10 of the AR4. The difference is that now they are one of twelve plots showing the same HS pattern.
sceptical: CO2science has links to several hundred studies showing that the MWP existed, was world wide, and warmer than today. Would that be enough for you?