UPDATES below – some confusion afoot by differing newspaper versions has been discovered. The print version appears to be online.
=================================
Letters to the editor are one of the oldest free speech venues for public opinion in the United States. They go back to the times of the revolutionary war. The Chicago Tribune aptly calls Letters to the Editor “Voice of the people“.
This morning my interest in a letter to the editor was piqued when I read at Tom Nelson’s website, this headline: Remember when it was really important to leave Michael Mann alone to concentrate on his climate hoax research? Now he’s got time to write a rant for the Vail Daily
Dr. Michael Mann’s letter to the editor, a response to a previous letter by Dr. Martin Hertzberg, at the Vail Daily is online here. Excerpts:
It’s hard to imagine anyone packing more lies and distortions into a single commentary. Mr. Hertzberg uses libelous language in characterizing the so-called “hockey stick” — work of my own published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1,000 years — as “fraudulent,” and claiming that it “it was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.”
…
Mr. Hertzberg then continues the smear by lying again about my work, claiming that “when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply ‘hid the decline’ by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.”
So I wanted to see what got Dr. Mann into such a tizzy, because sentences like the ones quoted in the paragraphs above are all over the Internet, especially after Climategate broke. I wanted to see the full context in Dr. Hertzberg’s letter.
So I Googled the offending phrase Dr. Mann cites, and got this result:
Imagine my shock when I discovered that the Google link goes nowhere. Dr. Hertzberg’s letter has been deleted from the newspaper.
Wow.
Dr. Hertzberg’s letter appeared on Friday, September 30th, and Dr. Mann’s letter appeared the next day, quite a turnaround:
One wonders if the address given for Dr. Mann is a typo, or a geographic misrepresentation to help get the letter published. Either way, the Vail Daily editor looks pretty darn sloppy since this appears in the last line of Dr. Mann’s letter:
Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Meterology at Penn State University and director of Penn State Earth System Science Center.
Dr. Hertzberg does in fact live near Vail, in Copper Mountain, CO. and he would presumably be served by the newspaper of record for that area, which is why the letter appeared in that newspaper. As far as we know, Dr. Mann does not live in Vail or nearby.
The policy and online form for submission and publication of Letters to the Editor at the Vail Daily is worth noting:
Letter to the Editor
Guidelines
Before you use the online form below to submit a letter or guest column to the editor, please read the guidelines below.
The decision to print any submission is completely at the discretion of the Vail Daily editor. Letters and columns must include the author’s name, hometown, affiliation (if any) and phone number (for verification of authorship only). Form letters and letters considered libelous, obscene or in bad taste will not be printed. Anonymous letters will not be printed. The Vail Daily reserves the right to edit all letters. Because of space constraints, please limit your letters to 500 words. Thank you/kudos letters are limited to 150 words and letters containing long lists of names will not be printed.
So, apparently, the letter from Dr. Hertzberg passed the newspaper’s tests for “letters considered libelous, obscene or in bad taste” and was in fact printed, but when Dr. Mann sends a rebuttal, all of the sudden Dr. Hertzberg’s letter no longer passes those tests? I suspect that maybe Dr. Mann may have offered some legalese in some form to go with that letter, and the editor caved to censorship demands rather than upholding free speech.
The Wikipedia definition for freedom of speech:
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.
It may be possible that libel was committed by Dr. Hertzberg (whose credential Dr. Mann doesn’t even acknowledge in his rebuttal letter), but without the original letter from Dr. Hertzberg, how would any independent observer be able to judge?
And, in choosing the headline for the rebuttal: Vail Valley Voices: Global warming denier’s claims are falsehoods did the Vail Daily in turn libel Dr. Hertzberg by labeling him a “global warming denier”?
Clearly then, this is a matter best settled by the courts.
I encourage Dr. Mann to file a lawsuit, so that we can finally get complete discovery (something not done by the “independent reviews” Dr. Mann cites frequently) and find out once and for all if Dr. Mann’s work holds up when all of the data, math, methods, and correspondence are laid bare for scrutiny.
Likewise, Dr. Hertzberg may have a court case for denial of free speech, along with libel by the use of “global warming denier”.
The questions of “who libeled who?”, and “was free speech denied?”, can only be answered in a court of law.
UPDATE: As we all know from vast experience, the Internet has a memory. I’ve discovered what appears to be Dr. Hertzberg’s letter to the editor on a website called “pastebin” which you can see and read here. Dr. Hertzberg’s letter was apparently a response to a previous letter, five days earlier:
Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser’s commentary in Monday’s Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.
Since Dr. Hertzberg describes himself as a “doubter” (in the original I saw) it seems the bias of the Vail Daily editor in choosing “denier” for the headline was in fact an editorial decision.
I wonder how long the letter will exist on “pastebin”.
UPDATE#2: It appears that at the same time as I was writing this essay, the Vail Daily decided to reinstate the letter from Dr. Hertzberg. Note the out of sequence date at time for the title:
From this page: http://www.vaildaily.com/SECTION/&profile=1065
Before I made this story I did quite a bit of checking, and the removal was also noted by other websites, for example:
Rabbet Run: Ethon flew in from Colorado with news from one of the bunnies. It appears that the Vail Valley Daily had published a now defunct letter from one Dr. Martin Hertzberg, who appears to live thereabouts. The article which, as the saying goes is no longer to be found, must have been a doozy,
And I looked for it myself by searching the Vail Daily website. I could not find it. For example, it does not show up in search:
UPDATE3: The plot thickens. It appears the restored version on Vail Daily here:
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/111009984/1021&parentprofile=1065
Is missing some key sentences found in the version on pastebin here:
The name of Dr. Mann has been scrubbed from the letter as are the sentences Dr. Mann objected to in his rebuttal letter.
There’s no mention of this edit in the restored version of the letter. It is still dated Sept 30th. Perhaps Dr. Hertzberg was told to revise it?
Now he claims he’s a “denier” where before he says doubter? Strange things going on.
UPDATE4: Larry (Hotrod) points out in comments that the original print version is still archived by the newspaper here.
UPDATE5: It appears we are witnessing the real time editing of this article in online archives. The original with the phrases Dr. Mannobjected to are disappearing from the main web page and archives and are being replaced with edited versions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1) I wonder why Comrade Mann has not yet gone after Berkeley physics professor Richard A. Muller:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/03/berkeley-physics-professor-destroys.html
2) One would think Comrade Mann would be happy to shut up and silently rake in the millions of dollars he got in Obama’s so-called “Stimulus” payola:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2010/01/541184-in-obama-stimulus-to-climategate.html
3) In my opinion, [snip and that opinion is over the top per site policy] – Anthony]
Clipe:
Yes, he is a co-author of that book.
Bill H:
The AGW scientists complain that they can’t get their message out to people and that evil, big oil funded non-scientists muddy the water. They have what we used to call a “credibility gap”. He might take a tip that to ignore Dr. Hertzberg’s credentials, IMO, make him appear to be arrogant, unprofessional, not very forthcoming and childish. That kind of unprofessional behavior is likely the start of further inquiry for many new skeptics. He can be a big boy and avoid that kind of backlash if he can put his own ego in the background. Dr. Mann would expect to have his credentials acknowledged and he should do the same.
Hertzberg’s letter included “That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
If he had only left that out…
I dont think it’s been said yet and i cant resist it.
“The Daily Veil”
An article reportedly by Dr Hertzberg
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
An interesting point the Dr makes. Human CO2 production fell dramatically during the Great Depression, yet this was not reflected in the atmospheric records. How is that possible if the theory that increase must be due to humans is true? Quite simply it is not physically possible. Therefore the CO2 assumptions underlying AGW cannot be true.
@Eric Anderson. I believe the reference to Mann’s temperature reconstruction as “fabricated” and “fraudulent” and his software as a “phony computer algorithm” are the offending pieces. He goes beyond the possibility that Mann is just wrong or incompetent and implies Mann misled on purpose.
I know what you’re thinking so don’t make me come over there and agree with you 😉
Too bad Anthony Watts didn’t specialize in investment fraud. Bernie Madoff would never have made it out of the mail room.
I wonder what Dr. Hertzberg would think of the recent artilce in National Geographic Magazine (October 2011) that claims Carbon Dioxide increases before temperature increases.
Dr. Hertzberg says in his letter : “The data for the glacial coolings and interglacial warmings for the past 500,000 years always show that temperature changes precede atmospheric carbon-dioxide changes by about 1,000 years. That indicates that temperature changes are driving carbon-dioxide changes and not the reverse as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC clique claims. As oceans warm for whatever reason, they emit carbon dioxide, and as they cool they absorb carbon dioxide.”
But, a recent article in National Geographic (Oct 2011), “World Without Ice” by Robert Kunzig, clearly claims the opposite, that CO2 rises, then the temperature rises. I am really disappointed that a magazine with such wide distribution would print that article without acknowledging the science that refutes such a claim.
The intro of Mann’s “letter” had a rather familiar whine to it. Consider the following example:
Source: http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/hockey-stick-creator-rebuts-critic_2010-07-12.html
If he keeps this up (as he seems to be doing) he may well earn himself a reputation as the David <I see you, I sue you> Irving of “climate science”.
Steve from Rockwood says:
October 2, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Hertzberg’s letter included “That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
If he had only left that out…
Steve, why should he leave that out? I’m glad he included it. AGW proponents have characterized the “deniers” as ultra conservative flat earthers who don’t believe tobacco is harmful to our health. While you (and I, for that matter) disagree with some of his other views, I’m glad he makes it clear that the AGWer’s characterization is inaccurate by pointing out his own political mindset.
I imagine what has happened is: Mann threatened defamation suit. Cash strapped newspaper has no appetite for a fight and pulls story. Reposts sans potentially libelous material. Problem goes away.
Whether the letter was defamatory or not, it would cost a fortune to defend and it is easy to see why the response is to pull it, regardless of the merits of Mann’s case.
From Dr Hertzberg’s letter
The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If AGW is correct, then we don’t need solar panels or wind farms. The very large down welling IR is all the power we need. Since glass reflects IR, then if AGW is correct, the IR from the atmosphere can be focused with glass mirrors and used to generate almost unlimited green energy, because according to climate science this IR exceeds the energy received from the sun.
So why is Mann, Gore and the IPCC not leading the charge to generate clean energy from all this IR energy?
Well, is there anyone out there who believes:
1. Michael Mann is not a fraud,
2. Mann’s actions in refusing to freely share his data and methodology are those of a completely innocent man,
3. Mann’s publications rely on peer review, not pal review.
4. Only the truly innocent threaten to sue those who disagree with them,
5. Mannian mathematics is a brilliant new form of statistical analysis.
It would be fun to see Mann sue and have his deception tested before a court.
Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser’s commentary in Monday’s Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.
———
This appears to be a quote in which Hertzberg describes himself as a “denier”. Where is the evidence that these are not his words?
@Jerome Hudson Haney,
IMO, the National Geographic of today is nothing but a Leftist propaganda rag — especially on the topic of AGW. They lost all credibility with me a very long time ago.
If you’re interested, the following post directly cites and directly links to the peer reviewed science which refutes the factually incorrect claim that temperatures historically lagged CO2:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-co2-primary-driver-of-climate-change.html
If there is ANY published science supporting the assertion that temperatures have historically lagged CO2, I have never seen it. Even the most prominent alarmists sites admit that CO2 has historically lagged temperature.
Hetzberg’s original rant was more damaging to Herzberg than to Mann.
@LazyTeen
Yes, you are lazy….if you read the actual post he actually called himself a “doubter” in the original letter that Anthony found…that was soon edited to be “denier”…
So the paper allowed Dr. Hertzberg’s letter that (supposedly) was libelous, allowed Dr. Mann to refute this supposedly libelous letter, deleted and reinstated Dr. Hertzberg’s (with changes to remove the supposedly libelous portions), yet allowed Dr. Mann’s full letter to remain unchanged.
Dr Mann states that Dr. Hertzberg lied in his letter, yet now that (reposted) letter doesn’t make any statement that called Dr. Mann a liar.
Seems to me that the Daily Vail should also “edit” Dr. Mann’s letter, too.
The AGW’ers have done their best to subvert the scientific process, the government’s freedom on information laws, and the peer review process. Why should they stop at freedom of speech?
Manics are manics. They will stoop to anything because to them, their fear out weighs everyone elses’ fear. They are fear filled individuals beyond reason. Logic always loses out with these types because their fear makes them irrational.
To them, everything is an “evil spirit”.
Ever notice how Mann always defends his “research” (it is usually data gathered by others) by assaults on those that think his conclusions are simply wrong? Personal attacks, threats of law suits, dissemination of personal information, academic retribution, publication embargoes, censorship.
Never science.
And, in choosing the headline for the rebuttal: Vail Valley Voices: Global warming denier’s claims are falsehoods did the Vail Daily in turn libel Dr. Hertzberg by labeling him a “global warming denier”?
Clearly then, this is a matter best settled by the courts.
———–
If Hertzberg made claims that were easily verified by the newspaper to be not factual then I don’t see why a court case is required.
I dont need a court case and a judges verdict to tell me that robbing my local bank is wrong or that the sky is blue or whatever.
And since the daily vail would be at the wrong end of a court case on the same side as hertzberg in determining matters of fact it is their choice.
The consequences of the logic that the daily vail is required by the US constitution to publish anything are also be interesting. Anthony would immediately become a law breaker for inserting snips into the comments. So obviously the logic is flawed.
Jerry Haney says:
October 2, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“But, a recent article in National Geographic (Oct 2011), “World Without Ice” by Robert Kunzig, clearly claims the opposite, that CO2 rises, then the temperature rises.”
What Dr. Herzberg says is supported by the real data from real world – any ice core shows a delay with CO2 lagging behind temperature. The Vostok ice core show a delay of 800-1000 years for CO2.
Steve from Rockwood says:
October 2, 2011 at 1:38 pm
He goes beyond the possibility that Mann is just wrong or incompetent and implies Mann misled on purpose.
All experiments are subject to experimenter bias, which is why controls and double blind techniques are required. What is missing in Climate Science is Peer Review of experimental design. If anything, Climate Science appears to ignore experimental controls and Peer Review ignores the problem.
Mann doesn’t need to mislead on purpose. Unless the experiments are themselves correctly designed, they will be corrupted by the unconscious bias of the experimenter, and the experimenter will be totally unaware of what has happened.
LazyTeenager says:
October 2, 2011 at 2:11 pm
If Hertzberg made claims that were easily verified by the newspaper to be not factual then I don’t see why a court case is required.
To verify the facts you first must have the facts. You may have not noticed but Mann is reportedly fighting to prevent his records from being released.
The Vail Daily, in this instance of revisionist activity on Dr. Martin Hertzberg’s editorial, apparently paid close attention to the special revisionist techniques shown by Skeptical Science’s recent revisionist activities (extensively discussed previously at WUWT). Can Revisionist ideas be learned by a newspaper from a censorious and manipulative blog? : )
Was the Vail Daily, with its revisionist actions on the editorial of Dr. Martin Hertzberg, actions equivalent to book burning a la ‘Fahrenheit 451’?
John