Climate skeptic scientists push back against 'witch hunt'

David Legates Makes Sense to Me (climate ‘contrarian’ on the firing line)

By Robert Bradley Jr. — March 26, 2015

U. of Delaware Refuses to Disclose Funding Sources of Its Climate Contrarian,” read the headline from Inside Climate News. “Citing academic freedom, the president and provost decline a congressional request for funding disclosures surrounding the work of Professor David Legates.”

That would seem to be good news … until the next paragraph ominously refers to Legates as “a known climate contrarian” (known, no less). The (hit) piece quotes Minner’s polite other continues:

Legates previously served as Delaware’s state climatologist, a role he said he was fired from in 2011 after refusing to resign. Three years earlier he was asked by then-Gov. Ruth Ann Minner to stop using his official title while espousing climate denial. “Your views on climate change, as I understand them, are not aligned with those of my administration,” Minner wrote to Legates at the time.

Politics … Governor Minner, a Democrat, was aligned with the ‘alarmist’ wing of the climate debate. But to the writer, Minner’s intervention was okay because … dissent from the political orthodoxy is not right.

In any case, the President of the University of Delaware, Patrick Harker, squashed the request thus:

Academic freedom is the freedom of the faculty to teach and speak out as the fruits of their research and scholarship dictate, even though their conclusions may be unpopular or contrary to public opinion.

More on this at Master Resource


Feisty Ala. climate change critic claims Washington is trying to intimidate him

An Alabama atmospheric scientist who has gained a global reputation as a repudiator of “mainstream climate science” strongly defended his research record at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), where he is a distinguished professor and director of the university’s Earth System Science Center.

John Christy, who has been at UAH since 1987, said this week that all of his research funds are derived from state and federal agencies and that he has never accepted research money from business or industry groups that have challenged the scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Research Council and other expert bodies.

Nor has he accepted research funding from groups actively engaged in lobbying against U.S. climate change policies, he said.

Moreover, Christy suggested a recently launched congressional investigation into sources of his and other climate scientists’ research funding is an attempt by Democrats in Washington to squelch dissenting opinions about the degree of climate warming and the role that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have in a shifting climate.

“I’ve been involved in this issue for 25 years, and I’m past the point of being intimidated,” Christy said in an email responding to the inquiry led by House Natural Resources ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) exploring outside funding to climate researchers at seven U.S. universities.

“This is simply a way for the Administration to publicly draw attention to us as scientists not aligned with their views, implying there must be a scurrilous reason for daring to think the way we do,” he added.

More at

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scottish Sceptic
March 27, 2015 1:45 am

Thanks for another great article. I am appalled by what the Obama administration has done to decent scientists who only seek the truth.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 27, 2015 4:24 am

Obama’s is not a truth-seeking administration. They have a political agenda that hijacks science and makes a mockery of honest debate and data. The religion of CAGW is alive and well in Washington, D.C.

Owen in GA
Reply to  RockyRoad
March 27, 2015 5:36 am

The religion is GLOBAL COMMUNISM, CAGW is just one vehicle for achieving it. CAGW is just modern Lysenkoism only useful to the state not to science.

Gary M
Reply to  RockyRoad
March 27, 2015 8:04 am

Another version of “Divide and conquer”?

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 27, 2015 10:23 am

President Obama’s political agenda is not a US agenda; it is a UN agenda.
His actual constituency, for the most part, are not Americans.

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 27, 2015 10:53 pm

[Snip. Labeling people here as deniers is not allowed. ~mod.]

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 27, 2015 5:47 am

Its larger than that. Be appalled about the attack on freedom of thought and speech. There is still some freedom left in America.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 27, 2015 6:28 am

Hey, “fundamentally transform” can mean many things…

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 27, 2015 8:53 am

Someone who is in love does not want to “fundamentally transform” his lover. Sure, they may want to make a tweak here and there, but they would nevr “fundamentally transform” him/her. That would make no sense.
Same with Obama. He hates America [as both he and his wife have said, in so many words]. So they want to ‘fundamentally transform’ our great country into… what? Some 3rd world dump?
As I see it, that is the central problem with Obama. He hates his country, so he wants to put it it on a completely different path. Thus, the Obama train wreck. This is just part of his plan.

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 27, 2015 8:55 am

The Congress is an entity separate from the Administration. Representative Grijalva’s request for information is within his authority as a member of Congress, no matter how misguided. Unless someone can show that the POTUS put the Representative up to issuing the request, it is inappropriate to blame Mr Obama.

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 27, 2015 10:26 am

When do congressional Democrats NOT walk in lock-step with Obama’s agenda?
Not very often.

Curious George
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 27, 2015 12:23 pm

Rob – lately, before elections. Popular B. Hussein Obama can be a liability.
I am not steeped in law; but when Rep. Grijalva orders a dinner in a restaurant – does it make it a congressional order?

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 27, 2015 12:24 pm

As a member of the minority he can’t demand things from anyone without going through the committee first. He overstepped his authority on many levels, including the constitution.
Obama is the band leader that shows the path all his lemmings, like Grijaulva, just follow.
But maybe he’s only afraid that he’ll miss the next time an island like Guam is about to flip over because of too much weight on one side. (sarc off)

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 27, 2015 2:23 pm

You forget there’s a somewhat abstract common dependency, the influence of political parties, mostly because of fundraising. The Administration and Congresspeople will align based on common causes from the party platform, I believe we see this in Grijalva and the Obama administration.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 27, 2015 7:37 pm

RobRoy, Brian, Scott:
However much you may disagree with Obama (and I intensely disagree…), Retired Engineer Jim’s comment is accurate.
I don’t doubt Obama wold agree with this action, but I doubt he was actively involved in the specific request.

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 28, 2015 7:03 am

You are incorrect. An individual in Congress does not have any subpoena power or similar “authority,,” nor more than any FOIA that the rest of the population holds. Committees do, often, have such power, but I am unaware of any official position he holds on one specific to his request.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 28, 2015 11:00 am

Your statement regarding subpoena power (existing at the committee level & controlled by majority party). However, this was not implied or stated as part of Retired Engineer Jim’s comment – you injected it.
REJ commented “Grijalva’s request for information is within his authority as a member of Congress”; he never said or implied Grijalva had subpoena power (Grijalva never claimed to have subpoena power).
Jim’s statement stands as written.

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 29, 2015 7:40 am

I agree with both Engineer Jim and Chip Javert about McCarthy. HUAC is a somewhat different story, and more legitimate.
But back to the subject of this forum — “CAGW”. Can you cite where this term is used by Scientists?

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 30, 2015 9:19 pm

I swear that you lock-steppers are really just too much. Why did Grijalva only go after seven people and their institutions, who just happen to run contrary to the administration’s stated position on the issue? And what a coinky-dink that his request came just days after Obama put up his website soliciting opinions on who the worst “denier” was? And you have no problem with that. Why wasn’t Grijalva interested in all scientists receiving funding from any non-governmental sources such as Greenpeace, WWF, and NRDC? Seems pretty selective concerns, if you ask me.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 27, 2015 2:20 pm

I am appalled by Obama (full stop).

Reply to  toorightmate
March 27, 2015 10:57 pm

Right. He’s black. Can’t accept him. He ended two phony Bush wars, sent the stock market soaring, is about to indict Wall St crooks, cut debt and the deficit, implemented successful health care giving 10 million insurance.
Impeach him!!

Reply to  gaia.sailboat
March 28, 2015 6:25 am

You need to put the Kool aid down and step back.

Reply to  toorightmate
March 27, 2015 11:16 pm

@ gaia.sailboat
The beaches of Normandy needed men that would conquer, not “lead from behind”.

Reply to  toorightmate
March 28, 2015 12:48 am

gaia you so funny, troops still fighting in Afghanistan, supremes said wars were authorized by congress, debt is not down since he came to office, oh and he’s not “black” on one colored him, he is the son of his parents a human like the rest of us, hasn’t indicted his wall street backers, went back on his pledge close gitmo and be most transparent, my health care is no longer tax exempt, it isn’t ten million out of a country of how many, at what cost, he didn’t give any body anything, the treasure he is spending to buy votes was not put there by him but by my children, congress has already spent the money I have put in. Now, I am a slave forced to provide food, shelter, healthcare, birth control and phones to the majority who get gov’t handouts if I stop, i.e. quit working, I will be imprisoned. So, instead of calling you gaia I should just call you by your chosen profession’s title,yes’em master.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 27, 2015 2:51 pm

Donna Laframboise has a piece today in a slightly different context. Interesting list of names which includes some of the ‘usual suspects’.

March 27, 2015 1:50 am
old construction worker
March 27, 2015 2:10 am

I seem to remember a Washington State University climatologist was fired for the same reason.

Reply to  old construction worker
March 27, 2015 3:53 am

And Oregon

March 27, 2015 2:57 am

Obama’s little helpers on full throttle go into Alinsky overdrive – the extremist left wing tactics in sports analogy – say, ‘play the man not the ball’.
In the dust at the side of the track, lies the truth and its bleeding away.

carbon bigfoot
Reply to  Athelstan.
March 27, 2015 5:06 pm

In times of turmoil the truth is revolutionary. I wish I said that.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
March 27, 2015 3:08 am

You need Senator McCarthy to come back and get rid of all the communists who have infiltrated your government.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
March 27, 2015 5:04 am

“The State Department is infested with climate deniers. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being card carrying climate deniers and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

Repression cuts both ways.
Joseph McCarthy was the enemy of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Are you saying you agree with him.

Owen in GA
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2015 5:44 am

He was nothing of the sort! Of course you may have bought a good deal of the revisionism. He wasn’t even asking for these communist infiltrators to be fired, only moved to positions where they would not be dealing with national security or any dealings with the Soviet bloc. The HOUSE UnAmerican Activities Committee on the other hand was the one where the stupid Hollywood and Cultural suppression occurred. As McCarthy was a SENATOR, he was not a party of those hearings. He was only concerned with communists in GOVERNMENT posts, and specifically in positions that were involved in shaping US foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet bloc. The press has maligned him badly. That’s not to say I would have enjoyed being around him, as he had a reputation for being unpleasantly driven to the point of making people uncomfortable.

Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2015 5:53 am

I don’t necessarily agree with McCarthy’s tactics, but were there communists holding high level positions within our government, and did these people have this nation’s best interests at heart?

Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2015 6:25 am

I said:

Joseph McCarthy was the enemy of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Owen in GA said:

March 27, 2015 at 5:44 am
He was nothing of the sort! … He wasn’t even asking for these communist infiltrators to be fired, only moved to positions where they would not be dealing with national security or any dealings with the Soviet bloc. …
The HOUSE UnAmerican Activities Committee on the other hand was the one where the stupid Hollywood and Cultural suppression occurred. As McCarthy was a SENATOR, he was not a party of those hearings. …

You are right, my memory at the time was mostly about the House Un-American Activities Committee. I just refreshed my memory by reading McCarthy’s wiki article. I had forgotten a whole bunch of stuff. Wow.
The big problem was than anyone who agreed with the communists about anything was accused of being an infiltrator. These days that’s like saying that any Muslim must be a member of ISIS.

“The largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States is composed of Protestant Clergymen.” – McCarthy’s buddy J.B. Matthews

I missed it at the time but reading the above quote made my parent’s and grandparent’s feelings make a lot more sense.

Chip Javert
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2015 8:24 pm

Joseph McCarthy was a fist term senator and a drunk (both statements of fact). His 15 minutes of fame was used to accuse 5-star general George Mashall of gross incompetence and to use congressional immunity to claim 205 communists known to Marshall were working in the State Dept. Even members of McCarthy’s own Republican party (especially Eisenhower) didn’t support his charges.
McCarthy’s cowardly bullying and drunk senate rants soon fell apart (and his political career was ruined) because he couldn’t prove his case. His primary point was not to simply have the 205 communists moved to non-sensitive positions, it was to ruin the reputation of George Marshall, Dean Rusk and Dean Acheson, and (especially ) Harry Truman.
If this is the kind of pig is your hero, so be it. The weight of history has been particularly unkind to Sen McCarthy (yea, I know he was not on the HUAAC) because he was dead nuts wrong on his specific accusations and the men he attempted to defame. This sorry episode of American history is definitely a pile of crap, under which there is no pony.

Reply to  Chip Javert
March 28, 2015 6:31 am

Regardless of McCarthy’s tactics and personal life, since the fall of the USSR and the release of the Verona papers, his accusation that the government was and still is lousy with communists is spot on.

Chip Javert
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2015 8:37 pm

And further, it is my opinion this forum (WUWT) is best most effective when the audience tends to science. I understand this somewhat overlaps with politics, but calling Obama every name in the book just make the entire conversation thread look like it’s been hijacked by ill informed, inarticulate, foaming-at-the-mouth idiots.
I strongly disagree with Obama’s policies and methods, but I feel strongly this is the wrong forum to vent & argue those feelings. CAGW will eventually be proven wrong by real actual data; in the mean time, politicians will probably have done significant and irreversible damage to our economic and governance system.
Frankly, I see little difference between Sen McCarthy’s methods and the more extreme proponents of CAGW.

Chip Javert
Reply to  commieBob
March 28, 2015 11:19 am

McCarthy’s point was to defame George Marshall (Secty of State at the time) and Truman. McCarthy claimed the administration explicitly knew of 205 communists in the State Dept. I’ll stipulate there were (and undoubtedly still are) communists in the Stare Dept. Hell, Obama hired one (Van Jones) as his Green Energy czar.
McCarty’s point was his list of 205 names proved gross negligence of administration officials yet he never had a list.
Like I said in another comment, If this kind of pig is your hero, so be it.

Reply to  commieBob
April 3, 2015 6:56 am

So why did McCarthy go after the army? Why did he have so many different lists. See Harvey Klehr (“Setting the record on Joe McCarthy straight” – on frontpagemag) (and Stewart Alsop – in “The Center”) for a more level-headed account of the good senator’s activities.
The Hollywood types were Stalinists; but they went to jail (for less than a year) because of contempt. It’s also worth reading Whittaker Chambers’ account of the Chamber-Hiss sessions which were overseen by HUAC – again to get a more balanced account than you seem to have gotten up till now.

William Astley
March 27, 2015 3:21 am

The problem is observations and analysis (‘science’) does not support CAWG. The need for a witch hunt to silence the truth is evidence that science does support CAGW. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to reduce growing times and increase yield. It is a fact, that CO2 is essential for life on this planet, not a poison. If there is lukewarm AGW rather than CAGW, the increase in atmospheric The increase in atmospheric CO2 was and will continue to cause the biosphere to expand. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. There is no need to spend trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work, no not significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 and have absolutely no effect on climate ‘change’.

“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.”

The cyclic warming phases in the paleoclimatic record (both poles cyclically warm and cool with the same periodicity 1500 years and 400 years) that correlate with high solar magnetic cycle activity were all followed by a cooling phase when the solar magnetic cycle went into a maunder minimum. The record sea ice in the Antarctic looks the start of high latitude cooling.

“Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature, 2012,doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

March 27, 2015 3:33 am

In Australia, they have just calculated that they are on track for their emissions target without the grossly expensive and useless gesture of a carbon tax.
SO this intellectual thuggery suggests they know they are finished.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Jack
March 27, 2015 6:28 am

Why do they have to reach an emissions target? CO2 does not causing global warming.
Forget about the ridiculous emission targets. The world need more CO2 not less.

Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 27, 2015 10:17 am

Lift up the rock that says, “Cui bono?”

Reply to  Jack
March 27, 2015 7:45 am

Thats because industry, and emissions, are being exported. When the reserve bank in Aus (The “Fed” to US readers) cuts the cash rate to almost ZERO, you know the economy is in trouble! Ford and GM will no longer MAKE stuff here after 2016. Oil refining has stopped in favour of refineries in Aisia.
But we now have a nice large solar farm, eventually fitted with batteries (For that 24×7 fallacy in renewables), in Queensland, that will “supply power 24×7” to 450 homes. Have you seen the size of this thing?

more soylent green!
Reply to  Jack
March 27, 2015 1:20 pm

I just returned from Australia and I was impressed by the widespread adoption of LPG as automotive fuel. Many cars had a duel-fuel adaptation that allowed them to run on either gasoline or LPG. One downside was the LPG gas tank really reduced storage/trunk space.

John in Oz
Reply to  more soylent green!
March 27, 2015 2:50 pm

I have a dual-fuel Toyota Hilux, admittedly a 1991 version so maybe not as fuel efficient as modern ones, that has 2:1 LPG:petrol use.
As LPG costs more than 1/2 the price of petrol, there is no financial advantage to using it, similar to using solar and wind power.

Geoff Peters
March 27, 2015 3:35 am

A modern day witch trial.

Reply to  Geoff Peters
March 27, 2015 10:10 am

And regarding one of the skeptic climate scientists on the ‘witch hunt list’, Dr Robert Baling, it is both a current witch hunt and one that is 18 years old. Check out this Jan 1996 hit piece editorial against Dr Balling: It mentions the same central accuser I told about in my 2/26 WUWT guest post.

Paul Westhaver
March 27, 2015 3:42 am

Intellectual fascism. Oh… we are so rational and advanced.

March 27, 2015 3:47 am

dirty people do play dirty tricks , even when their ‘saving the planet ‘

March 27, 2015 4:09 am

someone from Lloyds was on the wireless this morning saying something about more catastrophes can be expected as the climate changes. Oddly she said that the worst disasters do not get reported.
you would think, of any organizations, the insurers would want to know the truth about the risks.

John Brisbin
Reply to  zemlik
March 27, 2015 4:55 am

Consider that it is to the advantage of the insurer to make risks appear greater than they are. The difference between the real risk and the supposed risk is pure profit.
They might have actually drunk the kook-aid, but Lloyds is usually pretty hard headed.

March 27, 2015 4:16 am

The Triumvirate of Gore. Kerry and Obama are convinced, or claim to be convinced . that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the various aspects of climate science agree with the conclusions and predictions as summarised by IPCC. This gives them , they claim, the right to accede to whatever the UN demands in Paris in the form of financial reparations and carbon taxes and levies which will severely impact the US (and Europe’s) economy.
It appears to me that insufficient consideration has been given to the US (and UK) debt situation , amounting in sum to 10s of trillions of dollars . The rest of the world allows this debt to continue and increase because it is confident that the US and the UK are good risks , control their own currency and will not default . However that is only true of a viable economy . If the transfer of 100s of billions of dollars to India and China , as planned, and the outlawing of cheap energy takes place the US will have difficulty sustaining its repayments and money will have to be withdrawn from Federal grants to universities , NASA, EPA etc.
I get the impression that all those academics who are so vociferous in the claims for CAGW are like the cartoon character who is sawing off the branch that he is sitting on.
Those scientists who are even mildly sceptic are likely to see their funds dry up first , so they have a real incentive to bring some reality into the debate at the governmental level before it is too late.

Reply to  mikewaite
March 27, 2015 8:29 am

Good stuff, Mike. I believe, as you seem to, that we will not, ultimately, be “allowed” to “fail” in this area.
“The rest of the world allows this debt to continue and increase because it is confident that the US and the UK are good risks, control their own currency and will not default,”
We are are or will do all those things. Which is why no one will ever, ever, ever buy, oh say, Chinese debt. As well, the old lend money to the young. We are a good risk because our demographics have not – yet – crashed. Even if you believe the worst about America’s economy (I don’t), we are still the leper with the most fingers left. In fact, the rest of the world economy could not get on without out American debt, but that’s another tale.

M Courtney
March 27, 2015 4:19 am

It is good that academic freedom from politicisation is being defended.
But I hope it’s being defended on behalf of academic freedom and not on behalf of the other side of the political divide.
That would be self-defeating for Enlightenment values.

March 27, 2015 4:25 am
March 27, 2015 4:40 am

It will be interesting to see whether parallels are drawn to Mann’s experience at U-VA.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  opluso
March 27, 2015 5:37 am

That would be hilarious.

Joe G
March 27, 2015 4:45 am

If you can’t refute them get them silenced! The modern inquisition is borne…

March 27, 2015 4:49 am

Good, we’ve reached the “then they fight you” stage. As in, “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.” Ghandi I think.

Reply to  Notanist
March 27, 2015 9:22 pm

trade unionist 20 years before actually

March 27, 2015 4:53 am
Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2015 4:54 am

Sign the Petition

Taylor Pohlman
March 27, 2015 5:06 am

Zemlik –
Lloyd’s of London ‘you would think… Insurers would want to know about risks…’
Of course, but they want to identify low risks for which they can sell lots of expensive policies. If CAGW is perceived as high risk to their customers, but they know it’s low risk, it’s a perfect way to make money, and it’s certainly not in their interest to lower the alarm level. I’m not saying anything deceitful is going on, but I’m not surprised that they are not a hotbed of denial.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
March 27, 2015 6:45 am

March 27, 2015 at 4:09 am
I agree in part. Yes they would want to know the risks that’s what it’s all about. Insurance companies do surveys called coping surveys, among other practices. They are surveys about how people are coping in life. They worked out a long time ago that 95% of what we wrooy about NEVER happens to us. So these wonderfully moral bound financial institutions devise lots of policy products to sell to us to allay our fears about what will NEVER happen to us! Also, there could be a chance of increasing premiums because disaster events are going be more common, according to the AGW sages!

Tom in Florida
March 27, 2015 5:08 am

I think you will see more and more of this as the current administration’s time in power dwindles down. They only have 18 months left to push their agenda down out throats because they know a change is coming, big time.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 27, 2015 7:39 am

They still have over 21 months in office.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  mikerestin
March 27, 2015 11:39 am

After the election they will just be lame ducks and have no real power.

PA Mountain Man
Reply to  mikerestin
March 27, 2015 5:06 pm

Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife for President.

March 27, 2015 5:55 am

zemlik –
the insurance cos have had to declare their interest in CAGW of late:
25 March: RTCC: Ed King: Insurers told to pull cover from coal companies
Climate risks linked to burning coal should make insurers think again before
backing industry, says Jeremy Oppenheim
That is the view of Jeremy Oppenheim, a director at consultants McKinsey and
head of the New Climate Economy project, who said this would also protect
insurers against future risks posed by climate change…
***According to a new study by Swiss RE, in 2014 recorded natural disasters were the highest on record, with global economic losses rated at US $110 billion….
Trevor Maynard, head of the exposure management and reinsurance team at
Lloyd’s of London, said insurers could help translate climate risks into a
concept the general public would grasp.
“4C [of warming] sounds like a warm and pleasant planet – but we would not
want that. it would be hellish,” he said.
The industry, which in the UK alone manages investments of £1.8 trillion, should “consider” risks associated with stranded assets, he added.This concept, also known as a carbon bubble, holds that investing in oil, gas and coal reserves that cannot be burnt if the world agrees a climate deal at the UN is wasted money…
***the Swiss Re report referenced above doesn’t seem as alarmist as RTCC made it sound!!!
SwissRe: 02/2015 Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2014: convective and winter storms generate most losses
According to the latest sigma study, global insured losses from natural catastrophes and man-made disasters were USD 35 billion in 2014, down from USD 44 billion in 2013 and well below the USD 64 billion-average of the previous 10 years. There were 189 natural catastrophe events in 2014, the highest ever on sigma records, causing global economic losses of USD 110 billion. Around 12 700 people lost their lives in all disaster events, down from as many as 27 000 in 2013, making it one of the lowest numbers ever recorded in a single year. ..

March 27, 2015 5:59 am

do they sound desperate?
24 March: Business Green: Jennifer Shankleman: Insurance industry demands ‘ambitious, meaningful’ global climate deal
Open letter comes as Ed Davey says a Paris agreement must be priority for next government to avoid catastrophic climate change
The UK’s insurance industry will today join with green groups and academics to call on world leaders to sign an ambitious global deal on tackling climate change at a major summit in Paris later this year…
An open letter, signed by a number of insurance industry leaders including Paul Evans, AXA chief executive and chairman of the Association of British Insurers (ABI), as well as Maurice Tulloch, chief executive of Aviva UK, warns countries not to repeat the mistakes at Copenhagen in 2009, where leaders failed to conclude a deal to tackle climate change.
“The UN climate summit in December must deliver an ambitious, meaningful global deal on climate change,” the letter says. “There is a sense of building momentum and insurers, environmentalists and academics want this to turn into action.”
The letter argues that any deal will have to be “measurable, time-bound and supported by a robust legal framework” if the world is to stand any chance of dealing with the “vast and complex” risks presented by climate change…
Ed Davey: “The insurance industry in the UK knows the impact of climate change globally already and as it plans its assets long term and looks at its liabilities, it is probably, along with the ***pension industry, more aware of the financial threats that climate change poses than anyone else.”…

Reply to  pat
March 27, 2015 6:15 am

“The UK’s insurance industry will today join with green groups and academics to call on world leaders to sign an ambitious global deal on tackling climate change at a major summit in Paris later this year…”
I guess that’s the problem for politicians. When everyone is on the same side, why would they resist? Who is “calling on world leaders” to ignore GW because it’s not a problem? A few people whom the media portray as cranks, deniers, deluded, out of touch, in the pay of vested interests, etc, etc. What would you do if you wanted to be re-elected?

Robert Doyle
March 27, 2015 6:10 am

William Briggs posted on May 19, 2014:
The University of Delaware turned over all of Dr. Legates personal and research documents to Greenpeace in violation of Federal, State law. Also, UD violated its own bylaw.
The fact Dr. Legates has given testimony to his Christian faith has the academic community and media left increasing the demand for public censure.
President Harker’s response to Congress is contemptible!

March 27, 2015 6:12 am

Where is research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere? The first question must be: where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  theBuckWheat
March 27, 2015 8:06 am

There is no defined baseline for a “normal”, “optimum”, or “undisrupted” climate. None. There never has been. It’s part of the fraudulent meme
I don’t even see how it could be objectively defined.

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 27, 2015 11:14 am

Eustace Cranch
March 27, 2015 at 8:06 am

I don’t even see how it could be objectively defined.

You are right. The word “optimum” has been tossed around in historical and prehistoric studies, usually because some specific area flourished during a particular climate episode. The Medieval Warm Period has been referred to as a climatic optimum in parts of Europe and as the “Great Drought” in California. Same climate episode. Vastly different effects in different geographical locations.

March 27, 2015 6:21 am

As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds says, the only true answer to bullies, who are cowards for the most part, is to punch back twice as hard.

March 27, 2015 6:46 am

“It’s back to the past rather than the future, and that past is 1950’s America in the witch-hunting grip of trial by media McCarthyism. It is after all still the land of the free and the home of the brave, except nowadays that means the brave refusing to wilt under the pressure of elected thugs making free with any rights they might have under the constitution to freedom of expression. Tell me, does that star-spangled banner yet wave?”

March 27, 2015 6:46 am

Don’t forget: the way the USA government distorts information or invents factoids (the 97% consensus is a good example). This isn’t the only area in which they do it. Both democrats and republicans lay out the bs in huge doses.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
March 27, 2015 7:20 am

Indeed! The old joke doesn’t specify party (or country for that matter) “How do you know when a politician is lying? – His or her lips are moving.”

Tom J
March 27, 2015 7:07 am

A saying by George Washington seems to be appropriate here. He said that government was like fire: a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.

March 27, 2015 7:07 am

John Abraham had an article in yesterday’s Guardian gloating over a paper that claims to show that the UAH satellite data set is giving a misleading, low, indication of lower trosphere temperature. I don’t have the skills to provide a link but this was the Headline:
‘One satellite data set is underestimating global warming. A new study suggests that the University of Alabama at Huntsville is lowballing the warming of the atmosphere’
At least one comment called for the prosecution of Christy and although there was some disagreement with this, the general tenor of the comments was that of a witch hunt. Quite appalling.
No doubt the UAH team will be commenting on this paper in due course.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Old'un
March 27, 2015 7:22 am

That seems really odd. My memory is that RSS is running slightly cooler than UAH. I might be mis-remembering, so to go after UAH is likely a political witch hunt trying to pick off the big dog so the little dogs will scatter.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Old'un
March 27, 2015 7:25 am

Here’s the link:
Looks like a desperate attempt to get rid of “The Pause”, just like the scurilous attempt to get rid of the MWP.

William Astley
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2015 9:32 am

The Guardian newspaper is backing the wrong scientific theory. There is no CAGW. What is currently happening to the sun has happened before. The paleo climatic record provides a guide as to what will happen next to planetary temperature/climate.
Witch hunts, name calling, holding your breath, standing on your head, and so on will not change what is going to happen next. The planet has started to cool. The cooling will significantly increase. It is a fact that a significant solar change is underway.
Wind speed over the ocean is going to increase which increases evaporation which will cause cooling (there is a cyclic tenfold increase in deposited dust from China on the Greenland ice sheet when this particular solar change occurs, there is an interesting mechanism that causes/caused a temporary reduction in wind speed during the transition), there will be an increase in low level cloud cover which will cause cooling of high latitude regions (this change has started to occur which explains the highest Antarctic sea ice coverage in recorded history, all months of the year and record cold summer temperatures in the Arctic, and there will be a reduction in cirrus clouds (high latitude regions) which will cause cooling as the thin wispy high altitude cirrus clouds warm due to the greenhouse effect particularly at night and in the winter (this change will result in record cold winter temperatures), and there will be a reduction in El Niño events and an increase in La Niña events due to a change in cloud properties and lifetimes in the tropical region (this change has started).
Scientific problems are like puzzles. What happened in the past, happened for physical reasons. Solar cycle changes correlate with all of the past cyclic climate changes. There are at roughly 20 observations and analysis results (logical pillars that support one theory over another) that support the assertion that the majority of the warming (roughly 75%, could be more, we will find out) in the last 150 years was due to solar changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
This is one of the twenty observations and analysis results (logical pillar).
342 times in the last 240,000 years the Antarctic peninsula warmed. The Antarctic peninsula extends out of the Antarctic polar vortex. Ice sheet cores taken from the Antarctic peninsula hence provide a record of the Southern sea temperature which determines Antarctic ocean ice extent. The periodicity of the 342 warming events is the same as the periodicity of the Greenland Ice Sheet cyclic warming. All of the 342 warming phases were immediately by cooling phases, some of them abrupt cooling phases. Due to higher snowfall rates the Greenland Ice sheet data provides a higher resolution record. The Greenland ice sheet data shows evidence of massive abrupt cyclic cooling.

March 27, 2015 7:21 am

It is trivially simple, using only existing data and rudimentary math, to prove that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
See the proof and discover what actually does cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at

March 27, 2015 7:24 am

Requesting funding information is a bit different to writing to an employer and stating the an employee is committing libel! And all over a scientific disagreement:

March 27, 2015 7:29 am

You call this a witch hunt, Huh! – Now THIS is how to organise a witch-hunt:
15. The scope of this request is to reach any and all data, documents and things in your possession, including those stored or residing on any of the specified or referenced (see FN 1, supra) computers, hard drives, desktops, laptops, file servers, database servers, email servers or other systems where data was transmitted or stored on purpose or as a result of transient use of a system or application in the course of day to day research or product processing work that is owned or contracted for by you or any of your officers, managers, employees, agents, board members, academic departments, divisions, programs, IT department, contractors and other representatives.
2. As used herein, the words “record”, “records”, “document” or “documents” mean the original and any copies of any written, printed, typed, electronic, or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, any book, pamphlet, brochure, periodical, newspaper, letter, correspondence, memoranda, notice, facsimile, e-mail, manual, press release, telegram, report, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, data sheet, data processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter now in your possession, custody or control.
1. All documents that constitute or are in any way related to correspondence, messages or e-mails sent by Dr. Michael Mann to, or received from, any of the following persons:
(a) Dr. Caspar Ammann,
(b) Dr. Raymond Bradley,
(c) Dr. Keith Briffa,
(d) Dr. John Christy,
(e) Dr. Edward Cook,
(f) Dr. Thomas Crowley,
(g) Dr. Roseanne D’ Arrigo,
(h) Dr. Valerie Masson-Delmotte,
(i) Dr. David Douglass,
(j) Dr. Jan Esper,
(k) Dr. Melissa Free,
(l) Dr. Chris de Freitas,
(m) Dr. Vincent Grey,
(n) Dr. James Hack,
(o) Dr. Malcolm Hughes,
(p) Dr. Eystein Jansen,
(q) Dr. Phil Jones,
(r) Dr. Thomas Karl,
(s) Dr. Otto Kinne,
(t) Dr. A. T.J. de Laat,
(u) Dr. Murari Lal,
(v) Dr. Stephen Mackwell,
(w) Dr. Glenn McGregor,
(x) Stephen McIntyre,
(y) Dr. Ross McKitrick,
(z) Dr. Patrick Michaels,
(aa) Dr. Jonathan Overpeck,
(bb) Dr. Tim Osborn,
(cc) Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.,
(dd) Dr. Benjamin Santer,
(ee) Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt,
ff) Dr. Stephen Schneider,
(gg) Dr. Olga Solomina,
(hh) Dr. Susan Solomon,
(ii) Dr. Kevin Trenberth,
(jj) Dr. Eugene Wahl,
(kk) Dr. Edward Wegman,
(ll) Dr. Thomas Wigley,
(mm) Dr. Vincent Gray, and
(nn) All research assistants, secretaries or administrative staff with whom Dr. Mann worked while he was at the University of Virginia.

Reply to  sergeiMK
March 27, 2015 7:51 am

In your example, there is only one witch and that witch is being investigated.
A witch hunt is different in that it’s a large scale manoeuvre to flush out witches that have not yet been identified.
I don’t suppose that you’re advocating a finding against Michael Mann without looking at possible evidence.

Reply to  mebbe
March 27, 2015 8:35 am

I think sergei meant this kind of witch hunt (are climate den*ers next on DOJ’s list):
“Federal regulations in the Land of the Free REQUIRE banks to file ‘suspicious activity reports’ or SARs on their customers. And it’s not optional. Banks have minimum quotas of SARs they need to fill out and submit to the federal government. If they don’t file enough SARs, they can be fined. They can lose their banking charter. And yes, bank executives and directors can even be imprisoned for noncompliance. And chances are, your banker has filled one out on you—they submitted 1.6 MILLION SARs in 2013 alone. But now the Justice Department is saying that SARs aren’t enough. Now, whenever banks suspect something ‘suspicious’ is going on, they want them to pick up the phone and call the cops:
“[W]e encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps.”
So what exactly constitutes ‘suspicious activity’? Basically anything.
According to the handbook for the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council, banks are required to file a SAR with respect to:
“Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more…”
It’s utterly obscene. According to the Justice Department, going to the bank and withdrawing $5,000 should potentially prompt a banker to rat you out to the police. This may be a very early form of capital controls….”

David A
Reply to  sergeiMK
March 27, 2015 8:08 am

There was no witch hunt of Mann. All public servants seek to emulate Hillary, and turn over whatever they think is appropriate, even if it involves State secrets. Now if they ever actually go after Hillary like they went after Tallbloke; march in and size all computers servers records and files, then there may be a deserved element of hunting witchery, but that is different than a witch hunt.

Owen in GA
Reply to  David A
March 27, 2015 2:25 pm

I find this trait VERY annoying. I was actually in the intelligence community and we were way more forthcoming with answers to FOIA than these people seem to be. Literally if we could not name the intelligence source or method that would be compromised for each piece of information, it got released. We were very thorough in going through the records too. These politicians seem to think if it is politically embarrassing they can withhold the information and that is not what the law says at all. Unfortunately they all know they can spin their way out of it and do whatever the heck they want.

Eugene WR Gallun
March 27, 2015 7:38 am

Global warming (climate change) is a political strategy. .
Political strategies exist to help groups obtain power and wealth.
The political strategy of the Left has always been to make Science hand maiden to politics.
The Left believes that doing Science should be a political act.
Science must conform to the current political strategy.
Mao said — “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Of course, these people are going to attack scientists who dispute their political strategy.
Eugene WR Gallun

George Daddis
March 27, 2015 8:00 am

The problem is that the Alinsky tactic may be working. Dr Pielke Jr (UC) said in effect that it was too much of a hassle to publish in “climate” field and he had already switched his area of research! (And his decision apparently precedes the latest witch hunt.) If an eminent scientist like Roger Pielke can be dissuaded from publishing contrary information, what is the message to aspiring PhDs?

Reply to  George Daddis
March 28, 2015 7:23 am

Uh, Pielke Jr. is more of a policy guy than scientist guy. While I respect his opinions and value his work, I wouldn’t say he is eminent, either. His father, Pielke Jr., is the scientist and may be referred to as eminent.

March 27, 2015 8:09 am

I am not on the side of the CAGW crowd, and I don’t support their tactics generally.
However, I don’t quite see the problem for asking a scientist at a public university to reveal funding information.
Science includes a set of processes, but is built on a set of values. One value is openness: we need to have the complete story in order to digest data presented to us.
Researcher physicians are supposed to tell us whether Big Pharma us funding their “thought-leader” speechifying, or their pharmaceutical drug outcomes studies. Studies have been done showing that the effect size of a tested drug varies as a function of whether the study had Big Pharma funding or not. So, while the evaluation of bias, as a scientific principle, makes sense logically, there is empirical evidence that this is wise.
The data ought to be shared if requested- just as some of Mann’s data ought to be shared.
Maybe “with whom” can have some limits. Maybe “how quickly” can have some limits.
An intelligent person should be able to separate ad hominem attack from the data of the attacked.

James Strom
March 27, 2015 8:13 am

Technically this particular bit of harassment is not coming from the president, but from a congressman.
Secondly, if funding necessarily carries with it bias, the mainstream climate scientists are the ones who would be the most compromised, since by far their major source of funding is the government, which clearly has its own view in the warming debate, and which has more money than any corporation. But since Christy has obviously not been bought by the government, maybe it is time to drop this particular form of ad hominem.

G. Karst
March 27, 2015 8:36 am

Is it possible that this recent attack against AGW skeptical scientists is merely a tactic to prevent future demands for funding sources from AGW alarmist research? Once we have finished howling over the “witch hunt”, would it not be more difficult to demand data and funding disclosures from alarmist researchers. Is this merely another attempt to get AGW skeptics to shoot themselves in the foot and fall into a trap? We seem to be playing a game (with propaganda experts) that we are ill equipped to play.
Very disturbing. GK

March 27, 2015 8:51 am

I’d be more impressed with this defense of ‘academic freedom’ if you’d applied the same logic to the ‘witch hunt’ against Mann. It’s easy to defend the rights of someone you agree with, the real test is to apply the same rules to someone you disagree with.
“…I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” Voltaire
possibly the origin of:
“”I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
I find the investigations of Mann, Christy et al. equally reprehensible

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Phil.
March 27, 2015 11:53 am

With Mann it was never about his sources of funding but his refusal to provide his data and methods so his work could be replicated. That strikes at the very heart of the scientific method. Perhaps the first is grievous but the later is soul destroying.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
March 27, 2015 7:53 pm

So, in other words, we need to accuse these scientists of withholding data and methods and then we can go on a witch hunt to our heart’s content?
By the way, I challenge you to find where Roy Spencer and John Christy have publicly released in terms of their code anything close to the amount of code that Mann has released!
The claims of refusal to provide data and methods were a red herring.

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
March 30, 2015 7:15 am

Could you specify which data Mann has not released? Note that was not Cuccinelli was asking for. In contrast Ross McKitrick refuses to release his data, citing canadian privacy laws in justification.

Reply to  Phil.
March 30, 2015 9:40 pm

The Climategate emails revealed exchanges between Phil Jones and others, including Michael Mann, encouraging them to delete emails related to topics related to FOI requests. Mann’s own emails in this series indicated his willingness to prevent papers from being published, and intent to punish a journal editor who had published a paper harmful to “the cause.” The request by the Virginia AG was meant to see if there was evidence that Mann had complied in responding to Jones’ request.
Christy’s case is completely different and was nothing more than a fishing expedition trying to see if they could find something damaging. Two completely different issues.

March 27, 2015 9:02 am

Phil., the ‘witch hunt’ is not against Mann. Rather, Mann is the instigator of serial witch hunts.
The Guardian interviewed Michael Mann, and as usual, Mann comes across as a crank:
“I think, frankly, the Republican party is going to have to make a decision,” Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, who contributed to a Nobel Prize-winning landmark report on global warming, told the Guardian. “Are they going to move in the direction of logic and rationality, or are they going to continue to pursue this anti-scientific fringe movement within their party that is personified by people liked Ted Cruz? “As long as the Koch brothers are…&blah, blah, etc. [source]
They even tried to make it appear that Mann won the Nobel Prize again. Mann should be happy, he’s pretty much on top of the world with his adoring lemmings who are always carrying his water for him. But no. In every tweet, and in every interview, Mann spews bile. He is a hater, certainly not a professional scientist. I think it’s because he knows damn well he is a complete fraud, and he responds appropriately for someone with his lack of character.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 27, 2015 9:11 am

Cuccinelli’s probe of Mann was certainly a ‘witch hunt’ in the context of this thread.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Phil.
March 27, 2015 2:28 pm

Cuccinelli was attempting to get access to information that LEGALLY BELONGED TO THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. I know the contract I signed gives very broad rights to my research to the state of Georgia. I am sure UVA has a similar contract.

Reply to  Phil.
March 27, 2015 7:57 pm

Owen: I don’t think the Virginia Supreme Court agreed with you. ( ) And, before Cuccinelli’s witch hunt of Mann, there was Congressman Joe Barton’s witch hunt of Mann et al.
You guys are really good at defending witch hunts when they are witch hunts of people who you don’t like.

Reply to  Phil.
March 27, 2015 8:25 pm

joelshore says:
You guys are really good at defending witch hunts when they are witch hunts of people who you don’t like.
Projection, as usual.
The true ‘witch hunt’ has been conducted by Michael Mann from the get-go, as anyone knows who has read the Climategate email dump, and Mann’s incessant, vile and juvenile tweets, and who has read Mann’s constant editorial attacks on anyone who simply has a different scientific opinion than he does. Anyone who believes there was an iota of honest investigation of Mann is either completely unaware of the Potemkin Village background, or is a blind partisan.
Man is always on the attack. He sits in his ivory tower, poisoning the well by showering all scientific skeptics with his venomous slings and arrows. He lies about his make-believe awards and accomplishments. He does not have the cojones to debate, but rather, he encourages his army of lemmings do his dirty work.
Michael Mann is the ultimate witch hunter. No rational person could have any doubt about that nasty, partisan, and dishonest pseudo-scientist. If he could, he would march every scientific skeptic into the Siberian gulag. Is there any doubt about that? At all? Mann is filled with hatred for anyone who questions him, because Mann is simply a hater.
As Owen points out, Cucinelli was doing his legally constituted job. Michael Mann is not in the state penitentiary because the Democrat party moved heaven and earth to defeat Cuccinelli — and Mann is damned lucky the election isn’t being held today.
In any event, justice has only been delayed, IMHO. The Mann drama has a long way to go before the final curtain drops.

Reply to  Phil.
March 28, 2015 6:11 am

A shorter summary of what dbstealey says is that because he and his fellow right-wing ideologues don’t like Mann and think he is a bad man, the witch hunt is justified.
Well, guess what: Many people on the Left might think it is justified for similar reasons to conduct witch hunts of the scientists that Congressman Grijalva wrote the letters to (although, because some of us are capable of getting outside of our ideological boundaries to see broader issues more objectively, I for one don’t). And, in fact, any non-ideological sources like the scientific societies (some of which have given Mann real awards) are at least closer to agreeing with those on the Left than those on the Right. Also, objectively, Grijalva’s request was much more narrowly tailored than the broad and invasive requests of Cuccinelli and Barton.
What you don’t seem to understand is that you have to come up with objective standards…and not just standards that you and your fellow ideologues can apply to maintain your hypocrisy.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 30, 2015 7:07 am

Owen in GA March 27, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Cuccinelli was attempting to get access to information that LEGALLY BELONGED TO THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.

As ruled by the Va Supreme Court that is not true. Most of the grants that Cuccinelli was trying to get information about were from federal agencies not from, Va, also he asked for Mann’s correspondence with about 40 named scientists.
Cuccinelli later submitted a more specific demand for one grant awarded by UVa, the fact that the PI on that grant was not Mann indicates that it was a real witch hunt.
Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700

March 27, 2015 9:07 am

I don’t necessarily agree with McCarthy’s tactics, but were there communists holding high level positions within our government, and did these people have this nation’s best interests at heart?
Yes. You have one now called Obambam. And no, he does not have your sorry country interests at heart.

Joel O’Bryan
March 27, 2015 9:26 am

A very interesting article The Weekly Standard, published today.
Title: The Campus Left Begins to Implode.
Here’a part of it which is an excerpt of an anonymous essay by a university professor:

Personally, liberal students scare the [$h*t] out of me. I know how to get conservative students to question their beliefs and confront awful truths, and I know that, should one of these conservative students make a facebook page calling me a communist or else seek to formally protest my liberal lies, the university would have my back. I would not get fired for pissing off a Republican, so long as I did so respectfully, and so long as it happened in the course of legitimate classroom instruction.
The same cannot be said of liberal students. All it takes is one slip-not even an outright challenging of their beliefs, but even momentarily exposing them to any uncomfortable thought or imagery-and that’s it, your classroom is triggering, you are insensitive, kids are bringing mattresses to your office hours and there’s a twitter petition out demanding you chop off your hand in repentance. . . .
There are literally dozens of articles and books I thought nothing of teaching, 5-6 years ago, that I wouldn’t even reference in passing today. I just re-read a passage of Late Victorian Holocausts, an account of the British genocide against India, and, wow, today I’d be scared if someone saw a copy of it in my office. There’s graphic pictures right on the cover, harsh rhetoric (“genocide”), historical accounts filled with racially insensitive epithets, and a profound, disquieting indictment of capitalism. No way in hell would I assign that today. Not even to grad students.
Here’s how bad it’s gotten, for reals: last summer, I agonized over whether or not to include texts about climate change in my first-year comp course. They would have fit perfectly into the unit, which was about the selective production of ignorance and the manipulation of public discourse. But I decided against including them. They forced readers to come to uncomfortable conclusions. They indicted our consumption-based lifestyles. They called out liars for lying. Lots of uncomfortable stuff. All it would take was one bougie, liberal student to get offended by them, call them triggering, and then boom, that’s it, that’s the end of me.

The article also quotes a rather lengthy essay by a student at McGill Univ., in Montreal that is rather amusing, and shows how whacky things have gotten at many universities.
Highly worth the read.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 28, 2015 7:42 am

From the Urban Dictionary – Triggering
“A topic, phrase or word that emotionally sets someone off. Could refer to anger, or reliving a traumatic experience.”
I was unaware of the context in which that word was used so I had to look it up.
I didn’t realize that ‘triggering is approaching the level of a capital offense at universities. I suppose that today’s students must be protected at all costs from all harm, especially getting their ‘widdle feewings’ hurt.
Not only are we raising idiots, but wimps. Ugh!

Reply to  H.R.
March 30, 2015 9:54 pm

It really is pathetically ironic, isn’t it? I went to college in the late 60s and early 70s, and back then the leftist students were burning down buildings on campus to protest for academic freedom. Now, their progeny is set off by “triggers” meant to foster academic freedom of thought and they are protesting against it. We really need a scorecard and secret decoder ring to keep up with the parlance of their current thinking. Who knows what next week or year will bring. Many universities now have remote sections of campus cordoned off and designated as “free speech zones” assuring that no one’s triggers will be set off by accident. Yikes!

Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2015 10:18 am

Ah, what remarkable disingenuity coming from the Klimate Klan, pretending that there is anywhere close to a level playing field between the big Climate Goliath and the skeptic/climate realist David side.

nutso fasst
March 27, 2015 10:47 am

Kerry Emanuel, regarding John Christy’s belief that there isn’t cause for drastic action:
“It’s kind of like telling a little girl who’s trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there’s a substantial chance that she’ll be killed, She might make it. But it’s a big gamble to take.”
Actually, Dr. Emanuel, that’s not a good analogy. It’s really more like saying “Don’t put your life savings and then some into the construction of a nuclear bomb shelter in your backyard.”

Reply to  nutso fasst
March 30, 2015 9:58 pm

Wasn’t it Kerry Emanuel of warned us of the upcoming increase in intense hurricanes back in 2004 or 2005? And since then, we have had no Cat 3 landfalls on the US mainland. He obviously is very prescient and someone whose forecasts are to be taken seriously:)

March 27, 2015 11:10 am

Pushing back against the intimidation tactics of media, gov’t and special interest groups can gain momentum very quickly in the broader climate science community.comment image

March 28, 2015 6:22 am

You need to put the Kool aid down and step back.

Reply to  BrianBL
March 28, 2015 6:25 am

This was put in the wrong context

March 29, 2015 12:43 am

Better late than never @ Chip J, 8.37pm,
I strongly disagree with Obama’s policies and methods, but I feel strongly this is the wrong forum to vent & argue those feelings. CAGW will eventually be proven wrong by real actual data; in the mean time, politicians will probably have done significant and irreversible damage to our economic and governance system.
Thanks , over the past 4-5 weeks I am getting the same feelings and I have to add that it may be a indication at how correct the science presented on this site has undermined the warmists. The attacks have become vile.

jim hogg
March 29, 2015 10:39 am

I fail to see how wanting to know the source of funding interferes with academic freedom . . . He who pays the piper may not always call the tune, but more often than not he does . . Concealing the source of funding will more often than not influence our response to the science, and not without good reason . . Why should there be one standard for publicly funded science and another one for privately funded . . . and if it’s not privately funded then why are the attack dogs on this site not straining at the leash . . ?? Too much politics (of the one kind mainly) and not enough scepticism on here is how it seems to me these days . .Pity, because there are some truly brilliant contributors here who do the sceptical cause great credit . . But to find them you have frequently to plough through massive wads of right wing drivel/paranoia . .

%d bloggers like this: