By Chris Horner, ATI
Michael Mann made his way back to the Commonwealth of Virginia yesterday to watch his U.S. lawyer reprise the dark conspiracy theories previously weaved throughout his Canadian lawsuit against Tim Ball for repeating the old joke about “belong[ing] in the State Pen, not Penn State”.
The forum was a hearing in the American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act (VA) case against the University of Virginia (UVa) for certain records sent to or from Mann accounts while he was at UVa. That period is when the chatter about deleting records to circumvent FOI laws and other wagon-circling took place among the self-appointed “Hockey Team”.
That sort of paranoia sounded even worse in the spoken word that it reads in a brief. The judge gave an almost imperceptible shake of his head when my colleague David Schnare wondered aloud, when his turn came, about responding to all of the ad hominem. Enough already, this gesture seemed to say.
The Court allowed Mann to enter as an intervenor in this dispute, from the bench and without explanation. So there’s little we can offer there except that, when all is considered, this does provide the Court with the path of fewest problems (though hardly none, if Mann’s record in pleadings and argument is any basis to judge by; possibly some allies will try and delay matters yet again when we next proceed).
Given Mann’s argument was almost entirely limited to a vast right-wing conspiracy if one involving some names I’d never even heard of and in an apparently studious avoidance of the applicable law, we can only surmise the rationale for this move was grounded in equities found elsewhere than that curious display.
ATI opposed Mann’s motion to intervene simply because he offered no principled basis to intervene. We will appeal therefore with an eye toward settling the question as to what rights, or other considerations, justify a faculty member’s intervention in a FOIA case. For now we welcome Mann to this case to defend the content of his emails in a public forum. Presumably, just more conspiracy theorizing won’t suffice anymore.
We then proceeded to UVa’s effort to reopen the Protective Order, seeking to substitute themselves for us as the party reviewing and selecting exemplar emails from the cache they now admit to possessing. That it would be reopened was pro forma after Mann was deemed to have interests at stake, if what these interests are was left unstated.
The Court noted the distrust between the parties, particularly ours of UVa after all of what they have done, and so did not allow UVA to assume that role. This was despite that in advance they and Mann had agreed to jointly stipulate to this (his lawyer’s rather odd, earlier argument notwithstanding, see below).
But, as we argued, UVa’s utterly terrible record on this matter does not inspire confidence that a fair review and representative sample is to be had from them. Their ill-fit for the newly adopted pose of independent arbiter is somewhat betrayed by their legal bills fighting the AG’s Civil Investigative Demand now heading toward a million dollars. Then there is the enormous pressure from their faculty and pressure groups — which they finally copped to, after arguing previously in pleadings that this was all in our heads. Speaking of its track record.
And, finally, UVa has essentially the same interest as Mann at stake and is no more a suitable arbiter than Mann himself (per Mann, that’s “embarrassment”). To say UVa is aggressively focused on limiting the damage of what occurred in its program, with still not a finger toward self-policing lifted to date, is also something of an understatement.
So we have until a scheduled December 20 hearing to agree to a third party reviewer, cost and methodology. If we cannot agree the court will impose a process.
Toward that end, Mann’s attorney informed the Court that, well, Mann is the only person on the planet capable of understanding the content and meaning of emails he sent and received, thereby not only raising questions about his correspondents but making his future objections as to reviewers something less than entirely relevant or credible.
Cost is to be split at worst three ways, one presumes. Mann is surely going to be raising money for this. So, we won’t be shy, either. We can’t match the cool million the University of Virginia is pouring into their effort to make the embarrassment the revelations in ClimateGate emails to and from Mann’s UVa accounts has caused them go away. But every little bit helps.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Q – Can I find significance from the perspective attached below?
A – Yes. Professional integrity in science does profoundly matter to individuals outside of the immediate climate science community. The matter of trust in science is involved.
John
* * * * *
In perspective wrt investigations & litigations associated with involvement of M. Mann:
– two reviews/investigations of UEA CRU by separate British groups initiated from concerns related to Climategate release info => M. Mann was broadly involved in the concerns stemming from Climated info release
– one internal PSU administration investigation of M. Mann initiated from concerns related to Climategate released info
– one internal NSF investigation of M. Mann’s activities while at UVA initiated from concerns related to Climategate released info
– [prior to Climategate released info] US Congressional Hearing related to M. Mann’s research methods. From which an academic sanction action started against the Mann/Hockey Stick critic Wegman.
– Ongoing VA Attorney General filing of requests for UVA info on M. Mann’s activities while at UVA which was initiated from concerns related to Climategate released info and fallout from the US Congressional Hearing
– Ongoing ATI court action against UVA for FOIA request for info on M. Mann’s activities while at the UVA which was initiated from concerns related to Climategate released info and fallout from the US Congressional Hearing
– Ongoing legal case initiated by M. Mann on T. Ball based on a statement by T. Ball about M. Mann’s activities related to Climategate released info and related to the results of the US Congression Hearing on M. Mann.
Ah Smokey, I see you’ve been using Girma’s techniques to hid the incline.
Smokie:
I’m thinking of changing my nom de plume to ” The Bandit”. We all know how well Smokie did in that one.
Yes I say the WFT graph. Back in th e60’s I bought a copy of “How to Lie Wiith Statistics for a course. I still have it. It didn’t take much effort to learn that the same information on different axix give different impressions. That is why Mann’s graph doesn’t falsify the WFT effort .
Lamb said 50 years ago that he thought the Mideavil Warming was not worldwide but confined to some of the land around the North Atlantic. He also took care to document cold periods in that area in the time in question. Hard to dissapear something that was never there. Or maybe easy?
I have read Mann’s data and I have read Mann’s methods. All there for all to see. Just because McIntyre is not competent to write an programme with this much material does not reflect on Mann.
NIH does not own the research results except for intramural programs. The institution, organization or company which receives the grant from NIH does. NIH does set limits and conditions on what can be done with the results of one of it’s grants, but it also allows the institution which receives the grant to patent the results (AFAER) with the condition that the US government has free use.
There are important differences btw resarch grants and contracts.
Gneiss;
Mann’s 1998 graph has not been “debunked” by scientists>>>
How is demonstrating before a congressional committee, that no matter what data set Mann’s computer program analyzed, that it came up with the same graph, not debunking it? How is demonstrating that the code combs through the data and assigns an increased weight to hockey stick data and a lower weight to “non” hockey stick data, not debunking it? How is showing that his subsequent 1000 year reconstruction was constructed from just 7 trees to represent the entire globe, and of these, ONE tree was weighted to be 50% of the data, not debunking it?
The better question is not if Mann’s hockey stick has been debunked. The better question is has Mann produced any work at all that had any credibility at all? Mann’s desperation to keep his data and methodologies secret, his desperation to keep emails regarding the work he did, how he did it, and why, from the public eye, speak loudly in that regard.
William M. Connolly said:
“What did Mann *actually say*… Dono… why don’t you or Mr Mann tell us? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out before discussing it?”
William, we understand which side of this debate you’re on, but playing these games is childish. Finding out what Mann said is the point of the lawsuit. This suit had to be brought because Mann refuses to tell us. If you are on the side of scientific truth and integrity, perhaps you could convince him to release the e-mails?
Would that be the bandit in Johnny Quest?
Henry Galt,
Ahhh, jokes . . . the sport of kings and their ragged jesters!
Let me try . . . .
A rat, a stoat and a rabbit walk into a bar …
(a) . . . and the bartender says, “Hot d@mn! An alarmingly high degree of infestation! I gotta either make a 911 call to the city varmint control officer or to Smokey”.
(b) . . . and the bartentder says, “Where is the moonbat today, vamping with the hairy underbelly of the IPCC Bureau?”
(c) . . . and weasel says, “We would like a pint of non-carbonated warm stout with three straws. One red straw, one green straw and yellow-striped straw for the pooka.”
I could go on forever . . . . : )
John
Mann is correct about one thing…there is a vast right wing conspiracy against him. We’re right and he’s b.s.
Oh. I get it . Stoats are so sneaky.
We don’t have Mann or his lawyer saying that Mann is the only yada , yada, yada . We have the AHI, already carrying their asses in both hands , having it handed to them by the judge for being untrustworthy, telling us what Mann ( or his lawyer said ).
Well that’s good enough for me.
John McManus
rumleyfips says:
“I have read Mann’s data and I have read Mann’s methods. All there for all to see. Just because McIntyre is not competent to write a program with this much material does not reflect on Mann.”
As a science oriented individual, I was convinced as soon as I read “no matter what data set Mann’s computer program analyzed, that it came up with the same graph.” Do you not understand that Mann’s statistical method generates a ‘Hockey Stick’ from random data? This is the definition of “garbage in – garbage out”. It is scientifically indefensible (yet you persist). What are you reading or seeing in MBH 98 that the rest of us are missing? Enlighten us.
“How is demonstrating before a congressional committee, that no matter what data set Mann’s computer program analyzed, that it came up with the same graph. not debunking it? ”
You’re referring to the Wegman report, and that really has been debunked. It was not original analysis, and did not demonstrate anything of the kind. The famous “hockey fest” graphic that purportedly showed you could get hockey shapes from random data turned out to show the most hockey-like simulations out of 10,000 random runs, to exaggerate the political point. But Wegman himself did not do the data analysis in his report, so he could even accurately the statistical method that produced the graph in his own report.
When people (including a National Academy of Sciences group) tried to replicate Wegman’s work, they found that it was impossible from the description he had given. Meanwhile, Mann’s basic finding of anomalous modern warming has been replicated by study after study, using different data and methods.
Eli:
More accurately, NIH has limited rights to the research results, but typically waves them in favor of the institute which receives the grant. (“Typically” means not always.)
This “first right of refusal” shows up in patent processes, where you have to get a waiver from NIH, before your institute can apply for a patent related to research partially funded by NIH. (Yes I said “partially”.)
This “priority of ownership” also shows up when you are PI and have equipment purchased under an NIH grant. Generally the equipment is “portable”… meaning the grant money and associated equipment goes with the PI, if he shifts institutes, rather than staying with the institute where the grant was originally received.
I happen to like NOAAs open data rules better, though I understand the issues for companies and proprietary information.
(I don’t understand why Michael Mann can’t be completely open with his emails, analysis and data, at least using an independent third party as an adjudicator of what is “privileged information” and what is not. The simplest way to prove you don’t have anything to hide is stop hiding things.)
Louis:
Please remember , the programme you are referring to was not written by Mann.
As a ” science oriented individual” your fuzzy little stoatlike ears should have perked up at the mention of thousands of runs and the illustration of only about a dozen. What happened with all the other runs. Well there was some admission from ol Stevie that some of them went down and we now know that some of them were flat. Just about what you would expect from random data
But add a little line to select for the hockey stick shape , take the top hundred, hand select a few and bingo: scientific fraud. Not Mann of course but the man who wrote the ” select for hockey stick” line and suppressed that information.
The upshot is this. Mann can be shown to be a fraud only by fraudulant means.
John McManus
[snip. Multiple labeling of others as “deniers”. Read the site Policy for guidance. ~dbs, mod.]
rumleyfips
You said;
“Lamb said 50 years ago that he thought the Mideavil Warming was not worldwide but confined to some of the land around the North Atlantic. He also took care to document cold periods in that area in the time in question. Hard to dissapear something that was never there. Or maybe easy?”
Dr Mann was under the impression that Hubert Lamb did not believe that the records he accumulated had any relevance beyond a narrow geographic area as regards the MWP. He wrote.
“Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America.
AND
“Although Lamb (1965) did not argue for a globally synchronous warm period, his characterization has often been taken out of context, and used to argue for global scale warmth during the early centuries of the millennium comparable to or greater than that of the latter 20th century”
(both comments from this 2002 document below)
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
This interpretation is not strictly correct as Lamb believed Cet (and other written records, observations etc from the CET area) had a much wider relevance beyond that of the central portion of England. He observed in Chapter 5 of ‘Climate history and the modern world;
’…that the last centuries (CET) records ‘have been highly significantly correlated with the best estimates of the averages for the whole northern hemisphere and for the whole earth ‘ and also;
‘over the 100 years since 1870 the successive five year values of average temperatures in England have been highly significantly correlated with the best estimates of the averages for the whole northern hemisphere and for the whole earth’ (In this last comment he is no doubt referring to his work at cru where global surface records back to 1860 or so were eventually gathered) he continued; ‘they probably mean that over the last three centuries the CET temperatures provide a reasonable indication of the tendency of the global climatic regime.’
‘Tendency’ is a very good word and is preferable to ‘preciseness’ which has become an integral part of the climate scientists lexicon.
Writing about tree rings in the same chapter (this was of course many years before Mann’s 1999 reconstruction made extensive use of this proxy) Lamb commented on the University of Arizona ‘laboratory of tree ring research’ (who Mann collaborated with for his study) concerning bristlecone pine trees in the White mountains. ‘…this long series at the upper tree line essentially registers summer temperatures. It is of interest that from AD800 to the present century (20th) its hundred year averages are correlated in a statistically significant degree, with the temperature derived for central England.’
tonyb
Gneiss:
I can’t speak for davidmhoffer, but I’m referring to McIntyre & McKittrick’s paper where red noise generated “hockey stick” graphs that were indistinguishable from the original. So I reitererate, if you can generate a ‘Hockey Stick’ from random data, that is the very definition of “garbage in – garbage out”. It is scientifically indefensible. Why do you persist?
Carrick,
That is the single simple idea that many people are persistently deflected from maintaining.
That ‘Occam’s Razor’ of an idea is overwhelmingly winning the debate outside of an insider Team of climate scientists who ply the IPCC’s influence routes.
John
Gneiss;
You’re referring to the Wegman report, and that really has been debunked>>>
That claim, and your entire post, are purely fiction. The code is now public, and does exactly was it has been accused of. The same is true of Mann’s “one tree” reconstruction. The BS is so deep that only a neophyte or someone with an agenda would attempt to defend it.
Robert E. Phelan @ur momisugly here
Firefox.
Louis Hooffstetter:
Congtatulations! You’ve correctly identified the original source of the fraudulent “analysis” that Wegman parroted to Congress — McIntyre and McKittrick.
McIntyre is a retired mining engineer, and may or may not have known their “analysis” was cooked; McKittrick, though, had to be aware that their “random sample” was a fraud. What they did wasn’t an “error” — but clearly a deliberate choice to misrepresent.
Wegman — consciously or not — took the bogus “analysis” he was spoon-fed by Joe Barton, and presented it as his own work.
Still…if it makes you comfortable to believe this stuff…don’t let reality get in the way.
John McManus/rumleyfips and Gneiss,
What color is the sky on your planet? On earth, it’s a nice cerulean blue. You should visit some time. When you get here, find a computer and click on this.☺
And Mann is still up to his shenanigans.
> Smokey says: Connolley can’t produce a current IPCC publication that uses Mann’s extremely effective chart
I already have. I’ve provided the links. Here is one again:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html
that is from the current IPCC report, the AR4. That link falsifies your claim that “Mann’s MBH98 hokey stick can no longer be published by the IPCC”.
> Louis Hooffstetter says: Finding out what Mann said is the point of the lawsuit…
Err, no. Read the blog posting again (its the text at the top, before any of the comments). Notice that paraphrase of what Mann is supposed to have said. Clearly that isn’t what Mann said, merely a paraphrase. What Mann *actually* said is the point at issue. I find it rather interested that none of the dedicated skeptical truth-seekers here have any real interest in what Man said, but are quite happy to accept what his opponents reported him as saying.
> demonstrating before a congressional committee, that no matter what data set Mann’s computer program analyzed, that it came up with the same graph, not debunking it?
> red noise generated “hockey stick” graphs that were indistinguishable from the original.
Because it doesn’t work. You have to fake it. See http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/
> kim;) says: In open court “his [ Mr Mann’s ] attorney stated in open court that the only person “in the universe” qualified to select example emails was Mann himself. The court rejected that notion by simply ignoring it.
Again, you’re confused: those aren’t Mann’s words, those are the opposing side. No-one has managed to quote Mann’s actual words on this subject. But many people have been very happy to condemn Mann, based only upon a paraphrase from his opponents.
Moderator,
My comment to ‘Henry Galt’ did clear moderation then vanished without a snip.
Can you advise please?
John
[Reply: Sorry John, my mistake. I thought I saw it double-posted, so I deleted what I assumed was the second post. I’ve put it back now. ~dbs]
Smokey @ur momisugly here
The graph you linked is MBH99 – not 98, which only covers the last 600 years. You’ve got the right picture but you attribute it to the wrong study. This is a copy of the original paper as submitted. The graph you want is on page 3.
It’s MBH99, and they include the mean profile in a couple of spaghetti graphs, showing that there is fairly good agreement between many reconstructions (of the time).
There’s no reason why IPCC should have reproduced MBH99 as a standalone graph when there were new reconstructions to include. IPCC followed the progress of science. Some people prefer to live in the past…