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.
Well, let’s not lose perspective.
Firstly, Dr Hertzberg appears to describe himself as a `denier’. Seems he wears that tag as a badge of honour. Matter for him.
Secondly, accusing Dr Mann of `fraud’ is a strong allegation. So far as the Bear knows there is no evidence of scientific fraud. Yes, there are strong arguments against the veracity of the `Hockey Stick Graph’, but it is a bit leap from `he got the science wrong’, to `he is a fraudulent operator’.
Thirdly, one interpretation of what is happening with the movable Hertzberg/Mann letter exchange is the editor is trying to seek a balance between publication and exposure to a libel suit, This may just be an example of a professional editor acting with prudence.
Let’s not be so blind as we are unable to see – as Hertzberg and many others accuse Mann, Big Al Gore, the IPCC, Mr Jones, Trenbert, Hansen and their various little bushland friends.
Peter Miller commentsthat’Mannian mathematics is a brilliant new form of statistical analysis.’
(As in following scenario.)
Man in street: ‘How do you know that?’
Mann in white coat: ‘I know it because I have a PHD in Climate Science.’
Man in street:’Oh yes, I think I’ve read some of your emails. Aren’t you a Doctor of Data Doctoring?’
Philip Clarke says:
“Smokey – it’s Hertzberg.”
My apologies to Dr Hertzberg, I was going by my faulty memory. But since that’s the lame response of Phil Clarke, it shows he has nothing substantive to argue.
Clarke adds:
“I am enjoying this uncritical and open-armed embracing of a scientific numpty immensely.”
Phil, wake up. The numpty is Michael Mann.
Lucy – Thanks for speaking up for Dr. Wakefield, the man’s reputation was trashed because he suggested the possibility that the MMR vaccine could be linked to inflammatory bowel conditions found in a dozen autistic individuals. He didn’t say MMR caused autism, he did not even recommend vaccinations stop. He simply suggested that parents consider using separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines spaced out in time instead of the combination MMR vaccine. When challenged by the BMJ (who has strong financial ties to MMR vaccine manufacturers GSK and Merck), he refused to retract the paper or back down. For that he had to be taken out.
The BMJ claimed they had no conflict of interest in the matter when they posted the article on Wakefield. Only after being challenged by John Stone, a UK vaccine safety advocate, they issued a correction noting the potential conflict of interest and their financial ties to GSK and Merck. The BMJ editor, Fiona Godlee, later claimed it never occurred to her that a conflict of interest might exist. This is the paragon of virtue who stood in judgment of Andy Wakefield.
SBVOR – you should know your facts before you trash someone. The MMR controversy has nothing to do with thimerisol as the MMR vaccine never contained mercury. MMR is a live virus vaccine, a mercury preservative would have killed the virus strains thus rendering the vaccine ineffective. The detrimental health effects of thimerisol in pediatric vaccines is a very valid concern, but it has nothing to do with Andy Wakefield.
1984.
A quote from Mr. Mann’s letter to the editor of Scuientific American:
“More then anything else this interview was simply a lost opportunity.Not only can Scientific American do better, it will need to.”
He seems nowadays to be more interested in directing editorial policies of newspapers then research.
Dr. Hertzberg is a longtime skeptic for good reason. He is an expert in thermodynamics which gives him the edge in the theory of GHG feedback. It does not happen which makes the GHG theory null and void.
Septic Matthew says: October 2, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Lucy Skywalker: Dr Herzberg has written one of the most succinct, accurate, clear summaries of the bad science of AGW that I’ve seen.
You can’t be serious.
I have to agree with you! I worded myself badly. I should have added that in that letter, he did not actually demonstrate / prove / explain / give evidence for the science about which he comments – which I have done, click my name – but his conclusions are much the same as mine.
Philip Clarke says: October 2, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Lucy and Smokey. See for example, this example of Hertzberg’s ‘science’… And this demolition…
Thanks for those references. I was looking for stuff on the other planets and I suspect you’ve given me what I needed. Now in accord with the principles of Scientific Method, I reserve judgement until I have studied both articles carefully, and looked for skeptics’ responses to the SoD article. I have to agree with Herzberg’s letter at least; and there’s plenty of evidence we have a true scientist here. I may well end up finding I can use Hertzberg to overturn your Scienceofdoom “debunks”. Or it may be a case where a good scientist makes mistakes… as happens to the best.
Hilariously, Prof. Mann is credited with being a perfesser of a non-existent field at Penn:
Words fail me. And the Daily Bumpf, too, apparently.
Mike Jonas says:
October 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm
pokerguy said “if this really violated the “2nd law of thermodynamics” the whole ridiculous AGW hypothesis would have been discredited long ago”
True. As I understand it:-
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there cannot be a net flow of heat from a cooler object to a hotter object, without work.
AGW says that a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greater proportion of outgoing IR to be sent back in.
And the warmer earth sends it straight back out again.
Well, they have spent many years riding themselves of troublesome climate journal editors. So I guess it is only natural that they move on to newspaper editors that dare to allow any factual evidence against global warming to be published.
I don’t know why the paper is worried, they must not know that Mann will not sue for libel. He can’t sue for libel because it opens him up to discovery and the person he sues will be able to subpeona his work and e-mails related to the hockey stick. And as Michael Man, has said in his legal filing in the UVA case, if a judge ever sees those emails it would destroy the reputation of a lot of climate scientists.
Mike Jonas says:
October 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm
pokerguy said “if this really violated the “2nd law of thermodynamics” the whole ridiculous AGW hypothesis would have been discredited long ago”
_________________________________________________________________________
Allan M says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:19 am
True. As I understand it:-
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there cannot be a net flow of heat from a cooler object to a hotter object, without work.
AGW says that a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greater proportion of outgoing IR to be sent back in.
And the warmer earth sends it straight back out again.
_________________________________________________________________________
We are talking a non-electric blanket. All a blanket does is retard the amount of heat moving from your body to the cooler surroundings. The blanket does not in and of itself produce heat. That is the same thing water vapor does on a cloudy night. It retards the escape of IR radiation at certain specific wavelengths to outer space but does not “produce heat”
Unless there is a warm front moving in the temperature will always drop at night when the sun is not adding energy to the environment. The amount of the drop in temperature is modified by the amount of water vapor – think desert night.
I am using water vapor because H2O modifies the environment in observable ways, the same can not be said for CO2 or we would have heard of it by now. Hence the IPCC’s need for positive feed backs involving water.
No publication can afford, or should persist in publishing libelous comments, especially when the target of the libel has notified the publisher.
That Hertzberg’s comments are libelous is obvious from the numerous vindications of Mann’s research from direct investigation of his results to the unanimous comfirmation of the results from other researchers investigating the same issue. All confim that the present rate and magnitude of the warming is exceptional in at least the last thousand years.
The only possible support for Hertzberg’s comments on Mann come from the Wegman report, but that has now been withdrawn because of extensive plagerism and errors in the statistical analysis.
Hertzberg is apparently quite content to self-describe as a ‘climate denier’ so Anthony Watt’s hypersensitivity to this term to describe him seems missplaced.
“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.”
Yes, Dr. Hertzberg does indeed reside at Copper Mountain. While living in his county, Summit County, I once met him at a public event (although he would not remember), and the other nearby ‘newspaper of record’ is the Summit Daily.
Both this and the Vail Daily are distributed freely from newsboxes as well as online, by the same parent company, I believe.
Is it time for another listen to The Hockey Stick Blues?
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_9363502
Allan M says: “And the warmer earth sends it straight back out again”
True, pretty much all of it (for earth as in land), but the ocean is another story.
One reason this CAGW story has lasted so long is that some of it is true, or near enough .
– CO2 is a greenhouse gas. ie. Atmospheric CO2 absorbs some outgoing IR and re-radiates some of it down again.
– This doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
– This does have a warming effect. The oceans can be warmed by it, even though IR doesn’t penetrate beyond the immediate surface.
– Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even though man-made emissions are tiny compared with the natural toing and froing of CO2, and even though atmospheric CO2 would have increased a bit anyway over the last 30+ years, and even though CO2 doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere as the IPCC says it does.
But falsehoods have been woven around those truths.
– Massive imaginary cloud “feedback” with no known mechanism, no scientific evidence, no justification.
– Absurd explanations of how temperatures can rise before CO2 increases yet CO2 is the major force, and of how an ice age can start in spite of that increased CO2.
– An imaginary surge in man-made aerosols to explain the lack of warming ~1940-1970 (and the last decade or so).
– Demonising CO2 to the point that every single aspect of it is supposedly harmful. Even its warming effect!!!
– Claiming that the 1930s, the MWP, the Roman warm period, etc, were not warmer than today (Michael Mann’s appalling hockey-stick).
– Claiming that the lack of a tropical troposphere ‘hot-spot’ does not disprove CAGW.
– Explicitly bypassing the possibility that there can be indirect solar effects, in spite of Svensmark’s tested theory that there are.
– Omission of the effect of ocean oscillations on observed global temperature.
– And so on, and so on. As each step forward is made by the skeptics of CAGW, so the deceptions and lies and distortions and ad hominems and intimidations grow to cover the cracks.
Added to that is the cruel coincidence of the satellite age with a natural 30-year warming phase, and the opportunistic adoption of 30 years as a suitable period for assessing a climate trend.
Having successfully created the biggest scientific lie in history, these guys are not going to walk away from it voluntarily.
The Ministry of Truth never sleeps.
I am not a fan of Prof. Mann’s work but I think adjectives like “fraudulent” have legal implications that the paper does need to consider. You can point out the weaknesses and idiosyncratic methods that went into construction of the Stick and the overt political agenda of the Hockey Team but I don’t think you get to use “fraudulent” without meeting a pretty high standard of proof of intent.
@-Gail Combs says:
“I am using water vapor because H2O modifies the environment in observable ways, the same can not be said for CO2 or we would have heard of it by now. ”
Actually there are 50 years of observations that confirms the modification of the environment by CO2 in the measurement of downwelling IR and outgoing LWR with the spectral ‘fingerprint’ of CO2.
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Uphysik/PhysicsClimate/2009JD012105.pdf
This is considered by the vast majority of scientists, scientific organizations and the scientifically literate to be the ‘smoking gun’ of the CO2 effect on climate which makes the attribution of much of the warming seen over the last few decades to CO2 uncontroversial to all but the ideologicaly dogmatic.
How many people believe radiant energy can be emitted toward space, be absorbed and re-emitted and come back to the Earth’s surface…and make the surface warmer than it was? It might make the surface temporarily warmer THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN by slowing down cooling a little…but it cannot increase the peak temperature or the average temperature. If you disagree, then I’d love to see the experiment that proves it. Good luck.
Life is like an intelligence test.
– Glen Wilson
Anthony,
Would it be possible to time-date stamp your updates? This could be useful for those of us who arrive late to the party; allowing us to determine how much further investigation could help the group’s understanding of the problem.
REPLY: Yes, I’ll make that a point to follow in the future – Anthony
Izen says:
“That Hertzberg’s comments are libelous is obvious from the numerous vindications of Mann’s research…”
Thanks for the laugh.
Jeff C (erroneously) says:
“SBVOR – you should know your facts before you trash someone. The MMR controversy has nothing to do with thimerisol [sic] as the MMR vaccine never contained mercury. MMR is a live virus vaccine, a mercury preservative would have killed the virus strains thus rendering the vaccine ineffective. The detrimental health effects of thimerisol [sic] in pediatric vaccines is a very valid concern, but it has nothing to do with Andy Wakefield.”
1) The ill-informed and the lawsuit driven may still love Dr. Wakefield. But, both The Lancet (who retracted his paper) and the British government (who stripped Wakefield of his medical license know that the BMJ correctly exposed Wakefield’s paper as “fraudulent”.
2) I never conflated the two issues (nor did anybody else — other than you). Lucy Skywalker raised thimerosal as a separate issue and I responded (separately).
3) There is no science to support your assertion that “detrimental health effects of thimerisol [sic] in pediatric vaccines is a very valid concern”. Those who believe otherwise lack even a rudimentary understanding of toxicology. See my previous comment for more facts on this matter (facts backed by science).
REPLY: OK that’s enough of this off-topic Wakefield stuff, further comments on this subject will be deleted – Anthony
Did Dr. Hertzberg say anything that hasn’t already been said 1000 times?
Someone needs to call Mann’s bluff. If he threatens a libel suit, go for it. The discovery phase would be very entertaining…