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.
If it’s libelous go to court.
The Vail Daily engaged in censorship of the letter to the editor as defined by the common usage and by the legal usage ot the term. It is lawful or legal for a private publication to censor contributions to the publication, and in certain cases such censorship by a private publication is mandated by law. The fact that the Constitutional right to free speech limits the ability of governments to censor free speech in no way changes the fact that private entities can and do engage in censorship which is not subject to the Constitution’s prohibition of censorship by governments. In common usage defined by the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition, to censor is “to examine in order to suppressor delete anything considered objectionable.” Likewise, a standard reference for U.S. courts of law, Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, defines a censor in part as “One who examines publications, films,and the like for objectionable content.”
The Vail Daily deleted some and/or all ot the letter to the editor at various points in time due to what Dr. Michael Mann complained was objectionable content. The Vail Daily was legally privileged to delete and thereby censor content it soley determined to be objectionable.
The subscribers and other readers are likewise legally privileged to criticize and/or discontinue their reading and subsciptions to any publications which they deem to have engaged in any legal censorship which they find to be objectionable.
Mann attempting to defend his Hockey Stick in court…
That would be some smack down.
Can we get it on Pay Per View?
Nope, never gonna happen — Mann will never take it to court.
@- Smokey says: Re:- Mann ‘hockey stick’ vindicated.
“Thanks for the laugh”
Your welcome, here are just some of the research results from independent groups using a variety of methods which have vindicated the original Mann and Bradley work –
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html
http://www.martinkodde.nl/glacier/data/bibliography/1810995712675.pdf
And not forgetting of course the National Academy of Science exhaustive work on the whole issue –
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
In fact there has not, AFAIK been ANY research on 1000yrs of past climate since the MB98 paper that has shown results outside the error bars on that paper – perhaps Moberg comes close. But by any measure Mann has been vindicated by subsequent work in this area of recent paleoclimate.
@- Ken Coffman says: October 3, 2011 at 8:50 am
“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? ”
Only those that either do not grasp the AGW theory or those that are intentionally misrepresenting it for ideological reasons.
“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.”
Correct, the ‘greenhouse’ effect is like a coat in cold weather, it just slows down cooling.
(one by reducing convection, the other by reducing radiative loss.)
Izen says:
“here are just some of the research results from independent groups using a variety of methods which have vindicated the original Mann and Bradley work”
1) The real issue is how Mann went about constructing his Hockey Stick. Can we say “hide the decline”? Nice diversion:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/03/berkeley-physics-professor-destroys.html
2) Here are some studies contradicting Mann’s Hockey Stick:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041281.shtml
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
GISP2 Data:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/recent-hysteria-arctic-now-warmest-in.html
Vostok Data:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time.html
3) But, by all means, please continue to defend Mann’s Hockey Stick — it only serves to further illuminate the true nature of the CAGW camp.
Lucy Skywalker: I worded myself badly.
that’s happened to us all. I am relieved. I share you discomfort.
I have noticed that some others write very reasonable papers in the peer-reviewed literature and then say or write outrageous stuff when blogging or speaking extempore.
‘If he had only left that out…’ ….. he said he was a progressive Democrat.
Progressive and Progressive Democrat are a ephemism for a Progressive Communist; for example the Progressive Communist Labor Party.It is also arguable that being a Progressive is an oxymoron, because the results of the policies end up being Regressive in science, economics, and social welfare. The willful subversion of the scientific method by self-declared Progressives is one such nexample of regressive behavior. The corruptiion of the peer review process in scientific publications is another example of regressive behavior.
I’m with you: a court trial and discovery are the only way to settle this issue once and for all. (Not the science issue — those are never settled — but exactly how Mr. Mann selected his data, and whether or not it was fraud.)
So let’s have a contest to see who can publish an article or song so insulting that it provokes Mann to follow through on his threat to sue for defamation. Mann will judge that contest himself. The real judge will judge the more important one.
As a Penn State alumni, I apologize for the heavy handed intimidation tactics of Prof. Mann. Penn State Alumni Association, take note: this impacts my decisions on gifting.
The University can’t protect him forever with half-assed “investigations” designed to whitewash. In the long run, as his sleazy behavior and questionable research methodology become common knowledge, it will impact the reputation of PSU. PSU owes us all a better effort.
Old Hoya: “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.”
True perhaps if trying to prove criminal fraud in a courtroom, but not as a matter of opinion. People are legally allowed to have unflattering opinions of other people. At least for now.
[snip. D-word violation. ~dbs, mod.]
We have to get rid of trying to get rid of the medieval warm period
we need to get rid of pretending that the medieval warm period has anything of significance to tell use regarding the consequences of society producing and injecting ±two and half tons of CO2 into our only planet’s atmosphere every freak’n month.
Wake up.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
oh, regarding Martin’s fantasy, it’s interesting how serious critiques are meet with a wall of silence. . . . dare I say denial.
FYI: “Martin Hertzberg… a denialist in action”
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2011/10/martin-hertzberg-denialist-in-action.html
sorry that’s “giga”tons,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=72
World GHG Emissions Flow Chart
http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=/World-FlowChart
The science behind global warming is very clear and in fact in its broad findings, very simple.
But the Deniers are out there for sure.
One day we will nail one of them in the form a direct link to Big Coal or Big Oil. But Dr. Mann is to be congratulated for speaking out in strong clear terms about Herzberg. Usually scientists do not speak this way. They are not public people very often. They mostly just want to get back to their labs and pursue the science. Thank you Dr. Mann.
Mostly the Denier bunch are political conservatives. Why to they get so incensed about this one area of science. They can literally foam at the mouth over this issue. There are MANY hot issues now, but this one really sets them off. Even the non-science conservatives. They treat this like a matter of religious principle. Very curious.
One Denier even came to a scientific talk in Australia with a hangman’s noose that he said he wanted to use on the meek scientist giving a paper on some aspect of climate change. Something mental going on with these guys.
So many errors, assumptions, and dogmatic, religious-fervor.
Mostly the Denier bunch are political conservatives. Why to they get so incensed about this one area of science. They can literally foam at the mouth over this issue. There are MANY hot issues now, but this one really sets them off. Even the non-science conservatives. They treat this like a matter of religious principle.
This is because the enviro spokesmen worldwide and their politicians (liberals, socialists, Luddites, gaia-theists all using the industry of CAGW to further their religiously-held views) have specifically called for the death of people. They have uniquely held the “rights” of animals (of their “view” of the earth) over the well-being of real innocents worldwide.
But the Deniers are out there for sure.
One day we will nail one of them in the form a direct link to Big Coal or Big Oil.
So, you – and your fellow CAGW theists – hold that “science” can be bought. For what price please? You must have evidence of “science” being bought and paid for. from your evidence (which skeptics can show worldwide for the CAGW industries) what evidence do you have a ANY skeptical scientist being corrupted by a sponsoring group? Does the source of money mean the “results” are corrupt? (That is, assuming you can actually find any source of money actually available to corrupt the science.)
What is the “price” that you believe is needed to purchase a “scientific” conclusion? If a one-time fee of $400,000.00 in the mid-90’s to one think tank buys a “scientific” judgement, then what does your CAGW industry earn for its 80 billion dollars? What “science” is bought for 1.3 trillion dollars a year in tax revenues from CAGW carbon fees and taxes?
Mann’s Penn State earned several millions in taxpayer fees for malaria research just days after “cleansing” him by Penn State’s whitewash committee. The UN’s IPCC was specifically formed to create a CAGW scenario to specifically get Western money transferred to the UN’s consumers (international bureaucrats, their third world sponsors and the corrupt CAGW industry of bankers, politicians and the universities and third world and first world industries feeding of the enviro’s guilts and prejudices.
Your CAGW dogma has no evidence, nothing but extrapolations and self-interest and corruption. Your CAGW is deliberately used to kill millions by poverty, disease, filth, bad food, and bad energy (or no energy at all). All so you can “feel better.” Your CAGW deliberately withholds food, clean water, clean sanitation, and lights, power, and health from billions in the name of … What?
Oh – Global warming is very real. It is 1/3 of one degree of warming in 25 years. Then no warming at all for 12 years.
Global warming is very real: The earth has been warming since 1650 all by itself.
Before that, it has been cooling for 400 years – all by itself.
Before that, it has been even warmer than today – all by itself.
Before that, it has been cooler than today – all by itself.
Before that, it has been even warmer than today – All by itself. (Do you see any pattern here?)
There is no link between CO2 and temperature: Temperatures have increased, been steady, and decreased while CO2 has been steady. Temperatures have decreased, been steady, increased, and been steady while CO2 has increased. So …
Yes, liberals are more likely to view CAGW with exuberance and enthusiasm: They live for its results of “solving” CAGW: harm and death to the innocent and powerless, greater power and money to the powerful (liberal) politicians and academics and bureaucrats and corrupt brokers of their schemes. Today’s liberals NEED CAGW to invoke control of the world’s economies.
[SNIP: That is perfectly correct. The word is not permitted. As far as confirmation goes, you can always find evidence to confirm whatever it is you want to believe. We also do not permit snark. Contribute in a meaningful way or continue to get snipped. -REP]
RACookPE1978 says:
October 9, 2011 at 12:22 am
So many errors, assumptions, and dogmatic, religious-fervor.
{…}
Yes, liberals are more likely to view CAGW with exuberance and enthusiasm:
They live for its results of “solving” CAGW: harm and death to the innocent and powerless, greater power and money to the powerful (liberal) politicians and academics and bureaucrats and corrupt brokers of their schemes. Today’s liberals NEED CAGW to invoke control of the world’s economies.
=======================================================
RACOO,
decorum does not allow me to tell you what I think of your above drivel,
>> Which tellingly did not include one item of Climatological interest.
Why do folks like you never address the science, or observations?
What’s with all the pathetic misdirection?
You dear sir
are the one wrapped up in emotional/economic/political fantasies – willfully oblivious to the unraveling real world around you.
But, if you were actually curious about the biosphere outside your window, the links I offered… offer you good learning opportunities.
[snip – you are welcome to resubmit without labeling people as deniers ~mod]