#Climategate continues – Mann tries to get ahead of his legal problem, releases his own version of emails

Press Release
November 30, 2018

On January 6th, 2011, the University of Virginia was asked to disgorge the emails of Dr. Michael Mann that were associated with his work on global warming. The University refused some, but not all of that request. They did, however, give all the requested public records to Dr. Mann who also refused to make them public. On December 7, 2011, the University of Arizona was asked to disgorge the emails of Dr. Malcolm Hughes on which Dr. Mann was an addressee and the emails of Dr. Jonathan Overpeck for which six individuals were addressees, as well as emails associated with various global warming subjects and publications. On November 19th, 2018, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FME Law) and counsel for the University of Arizona’s Board of Regents appeared before Judge Marner in the Pima County Superior Court to give the court notice that the university would comply with the Court’s previous order and would deliver all Dr. Hughes withheld emails by today, November 30th, 2018 and all of Dr. Overpeck’s withheld emails by January 15th, 2019. The Court’s Minute Entry of that hearing is attached. (see PDF below)

Facing the fact that all the emails Dr. Mann did not want released would now be released, today Dr. Mann made his version of these emails available to the public, but in a form that does not allow them to be downloaded. Because they have now been made public, any Virginia citizen seeking those emails can obtain copies from the University of Virginia, if the University has not destroyed them in the meantime. Otherwise, they will be made available by FME Law.

FME Law will make all the Hughes and Overpeck emails available to the public once it completes its voluntary commitment to the court to assess them and document the professionalism and academic honest of Drs. Hughes and Overpeck which it fully expects will be demonstrated therein. FME Law made this voluntary commitment for two reasons.

First, during the litigation, accusations had been made that the purpose of the request was harassment and no value could come from their release other than to use them to tarnish the reputations of Drs. Hughes and Overpeck. FME Law does not harbor such a purpose and has no reason to believe either Hughes or Overpeck behaved beyond the bounds of proper academic ethics, and stated repeatedly to the court that the release of these emails would allow that to be demonstrated.

Secondly, FME Law is fully cognizant of the bitter and unwholesome nature of divisiveness with regard to global warming and the professionals within that small academic community. FME Law knew that Dr. Mann and his fellow travelers would accuse FME Law of engaging in cherry picking and attempts to use the emails to embarrass these two faculty members. FME Law has no such intent, nor does its client, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. FME Law cautions anyone who accesses these emails to do so with respect to the context within which they are written, and for reasons other than ad hominem attacks on Drs. Hughes and Overpeck.

Dr. Schnare, Member-Manager of FME Law and lead attorney on these cases, described the importance of this case. “We did not take this case only to obtain the history of a very controversial period of time in the climate wars. We also took this case to cast sunlight on how public universities work, how they contribute to the formation of public policy, and how professors behave within the policy arena. Core legal issues not addressed in this litigation remain – particularly about how to effectively protect the research process while still allowing the public to learn how this sector of the government works.”

FME Law is committed to engaging this question of academic behavior within the policy arena. The academy itself admits it is rife with research pathologies and only transparency within the ivy-covered walls will expose and allow for corrections of those problems. As Dr. Phillip W. Magness explained this week, with regard to “academic hoax papers that have revealed the crisis of rigor afflicting academic publishing[, t]he fabricated articles only advanced to publication because decades of lax standards have made academically fashionable nonsense—including other forms of fraudulent work—the norm for celebrated scholarship in several of the humanities and social sciences.“

Based on what is found in these emails, the results of a major investigation on public records requests to universities, and intensive review of the law of academic freedom and the notion of a scholar’s privilege, Dr. Schnare will discuss transparency and the academy in a forthcoming major law journal article.


FME Law is a 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated to be an honest, pro-environmental legal presence that represents clients seeking to hold state and federal governments to the ethical and legal requirements that protect and enhance free market environmentalism.


PDF of press release plus court document:

FME Law Press Release Nov 30, 2018

Dr. Mann’s version of the released emails:

https://climateincontext.cruelclimate.net/
Note that the user name and password are both “mail_guest”

0 0 vote
Article Rating
319 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Schnare
November 30, 2018 3:44 pm

Link to the press release is not working, and on my iPad, the blog entry test bleeds over the top of the material in the right margin.

David Schnare
Reply to  David Schnare
November 30, 2018 3:46 pm

It’s all working now.

ATheoK
Reply to  David Schnare
November 30, 2018 5:04 pm

Thank you, David!

Question:
Will the public release include all of the requested emails?

David Schnare
Reply to  ATheoK
November 30, 2018 5:32 pm

Yes.

ATheoK
Reply to  David Schnare
December 1, 2018 5:30 pm

Excellent!

Thank you.

climanrecon
Reply to  David Schnare
December 1, 2018 1:27 am

Many thanks for this undertaking, I’m sure that you are right about transparency, if we all knew that our non-confidential work Emails might be scrutinized the world would be a much better place. Academics on public money should have no confidential Emails.

Chris Wright
Reply to  climanrecon
December 1, 2018 3:39 am

Yes, many thanks to David Schnare. Your comment reminded me of a Climategate email that I found by chance – as far as I know everyone missed it.

In an email dated shortly before Climategate, a scientist warned the others that they should write emails with the assumption that they would become public. How right he was!
Chris

Tom,R,Worc,MA,USA
November 30, 2018 3:45 pm

I wonder how his legal wrangling with Mark Steyn is going?

Greg
Reply to  Tom,R,Worc,MA,USA
November 30, 2018 5:02 pm

These fkrz are not working so hard not to release this stuff because they have nothing to hide. They saw that way ClimateGate blew the lid off their disingenuous scam and derailed COP21.

They are just trying to push off the day of judgement until they hit retirement age.

brians356
Reply to  Greg
November 30, 2018 5:13 pm

I think it’s fair to assume Mann could retire now, what with the several private anonymous benefactors he likely avails himself of. (Think “T_m St__er”.) And if he finds he can’t keep up with the Joneses in retirement, he can always scare up gelder via a GoFundMe campaign, plenty of grateful erstwhile planet-savers with shekels to spare.

honest liberty
Reply to  brians356
November 30, 2018 6:19 pm

[scrubbed at the request of the commenter]

David Schnare
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 6:25 pm

I know there is a lot of anger out there, but let’s take the high road and stick to the content and context and leave off the ad hominem. We are better than they are and now is the time to show it.

Lokki
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:22 pm

I don’t care so much about Mann dying alone or penniless, but cold would be a nice ironic touch.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:29 pm

Just because you’re honest doesn’t mean you must be rude.

Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:45 pm

I hope that before he dies, he’s forced to accept the truth he has tried so hard to hide.

steven mosher
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:51 pm

david

he doesnt understand how his comments and how WUWT publishing them will undermine future efforts to inforce and expand transparency. Your commitment to professionalism will amount to nothing if the anonymous rabid commenters are allowed to act out.

honest liberty is probably some green acting dumb to make WUWT look bad

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:55 pm

I thought of a few clever responses but in the end, you folks are right. I have very much anger for bullies and liars, but that doesn’t contribute anything positive.

My apologies and I will lay off the vitriol.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:57 pm

[scrubbed at the request of the commenter]

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 8:13 pm

[scrubbed at the request of the commenter]

Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 8:55 pm

To the responders:

Well, I hope that he dies without any of his illegitimately earned assets, and with his richly earned reputation as a major fraudster. (I don’t care about the temperature – if he is a homeless bum in a warm climate, it doesn’t matter to me.)

Is that better? After all, that is the goal of most here, or at least I assume that nobody wants to see him retire to a luxurious villa with hot and cold running servants, all paid for by his bilking of the public these many years?

Hot under the collar
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 9:27 pm

honest liberty, you accepted below that your original comment “doesn’t contribute anything positive”, apologised and stated you would “lay off the vitriol”. Then continued with vitriolic comments repeating the original comment and trying to justify it. Please read your apology again and maybe agree or request that moderators may remove the comment, that I think most readers would agree “doesn’t contribute anything positive”, where as, removing it would (for the benefit of the rest of us).

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 10:09 pm

[scrubbed at the request of the commenter]

Otto Støver
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 12:26 am

I do not want MM or other of the priests in the climate church dead or anything like that. My only prayer is this: please let me live so long that I may see the top brass in the climate scare movement on open television admit that the climate sceptics had it right all the time, and that the climate actions they recommended was bad for most people and countries.

Aidan Condie
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 2:51 am

Cost trillions
Impoverished billions
Killed million

Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 3:10 am

Hi Anthony,

I hope you and all your people affected by the Paradise fire are on the road to recovery.

Regarding the references to death, etc on this thread, I suggest they all be deleted.

It is inappropriate and harmful to the our reputations.

We are the honest, decent parties in this bitter CAGW debate, and there is no virtue in being brought closer to the low standards of our adversaries.

Best personal regards, Allan

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 3:53 am

My only prayer is this: please let me live so long that I may see the top brass in the climate scare movement on open television admit that the climate sceptics had it right all the time,

Your prayer will be answered shortly after Bill and HRC do their public testifying.

John Endicott
Reply to  honest liberty
December 3, 2018 5:56 am

Otto, admit it, you just want to live forever, because they’ll never admit that. At best they’ll quietly change the subject (they way the backers of the coming ice age became backers of global warming) and pretend they were always for the new subject and that the old subject never happened.

honest liberty
Reply to  brians356
November 30, 2018 10:20 pm

Hot, if you see this: upon further inspection of my comments, I agree. They are childish and unproductive. It felt good spouting off and I’ve requested they be scrubbed. Thanks and I appreciate the criticism. it is deserved.

kent beuchert
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 6:26 am

Critic of honestliberty stated “leave off the ad hominem. ”
Learn what an ad hominem fallacy is before using the term incorrectly. Nothing honestliberty said referenced any argument.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
Reply to  brians356
December 1, 2018 1:05 pm

[Not posted in the first place at the better judgement of the commenter]

bonbon
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
December 2, 2018 5:16 am

Hilarious, or maybe not?
Perish the thought!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Greg
November 30, 2018 6:59 pm

I think 7 years of stonewalling ranks as working hard to hold back. Also such emails are particularly interesting because they often have several addressees and their replies and you get a good cross-sectional view of what went on. Also, when you get the same stuff from two or more persons, it is clear whether all were made available.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 30, 2018 8:05 pm

The investigation into the climategate fiasco revealed that Mann was at the centre of this scam. Hansen, Bolin and others in the formation of the IPCC may have planted the seed but Mann has been the general leading these scamsters worldwide. A network analysis of climategate emails all led back to Mann being at the centre.

Reply to  Greg
December 1, 2018 1:55 am

Good comment Greg. These guys have plenty of mischief that they want to hide – hence the delay tactics.

There is ample evidence of a warmist conspiracy to alter the historical record to eliminate both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in order to bolster global warming alarmist falsehoods. Here is a bit of the evidence – no surprise that everyone involved has tried to suppress the release of these emails.

Some history about Overpeck and getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/#comment-1149804

In my post of December 9, 2013 at 5:12am it is clear that there was a widespread effort in the warmist camp to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

There is no need to argue the fine points of the wording of Overpeck’s email. That entire argument is just specious nonsense – Overpeck’s objective was and is clear.

The effort to discredit the global reality of the MWP was concerted and widespread and was deliberately done to bolster the credibility of the false MBH98 (etc.) hockey stick papers, which we knew were total crap when they were written.

Some history about Overpeck and getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period in this wattsup article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

More information here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/#comment-1149771

milodonharlani says: October 31, 2013 at 11:50 am

The evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was global, & that it, the Roman & Minoan WPs & the Holocene Climatic Optimum, or whatever the latest fashion in its nomenclature might be, plus the deglaciation phase prior to it, were also warmer than now has been abundant & growing since Lamb, at least, ie 50 years. The LIA & previous cold periods were also global.

Which is why Mann needed fraudulent “tricks” & apparently intentionally inept statistical techniques or lack thereof to try to show recent warming to be special & scary.

**********

Agreed Milon.

We knew that Piltdown was wrong at the time his papers were published (MBH98, etc.).

I published the following article in E&E in early 2005, in defence of several legitimate climate scientists.

Natural climate variability trumps global warming extremism.

Regards, Allan

DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS IN KYOTOVILLE
The global warming debate heats up
Allan M.R. MacRae
[Excerpt]

But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.

Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature. Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”

Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.

Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.

In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.

In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.

In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.

*************

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Greg
December 1, 2018 2:30 am

Has anyone notice the explanation……” while still allowing the Public to see how this sector of government works”….what the f*uck???!!! Since when is this a function of our Constitutionally Based Representative Republic???

Honest liberty
November 30, 2018 3:46 pm

Maybe it’s my crap phone but I can’t download the PDF. The link won’t initiate a download

Am I correct in guessing this is the full, unredacted email chain in question?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Anthony Watts
November 30, 2018 11:23 pm

Yeah, it’s a misnomer to call it a ‘Portable’ Document Format IMO.

The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from! 🙂

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 1, 2018 10:49 pm

Odd, how standards have become so subjective in the progressive millennial era, IMHO.

Honest liberty
November 30, 2018 3:47 pm

Pardon, link downloading now

November 30, 2018 3:49 pm

Just read this . . . unbelievable:

But there are real questions to be asked of the paleo reconstruction. First, I should point out that we calibrated versus 1902-1980, then “verified” the approach using an independent data set for 1854-1901. The results were good, giving me confidence that if we had a comparable proxy data set for post-1980 (we don’t!) our proxy-based reconstruction would capture that period well. Unfortunately, the proxy network we used has not been updated, and furthermore there are many/some/ tree ring sites where there has been a “decoupling” between the long-term relationship between climate and tree growth, so that things fall apart in recent decades….this makes it very difficult to demonstrate what I just claimed. We can only call on evidence from many other proxies for “unprecedented” states in recent years (e.g. glaciers, isotopes in tropical ice etc..). But there are (at least) two other problems — Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him somewhat, but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”).

honest liberty
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 4:18 pm

[scrubbed at the request of the commenter]

steven mosher
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:37 pm

Let’s see. You assume, because it fits your stupid theory, that I will defend anything and everything done by Mann.
You must be aware of the person who coined the term Piltdown Mann.
When it comes to Manns science I would actually defer to Steve McIntrye or Brandon
What I saw was not good.

As for professional conduct he fowarded a request to delete mails to Eugene Whal. Mails that were the subject of David Hollands FOIA request.
Also not good.

Long ago I used to sign off many of my comments with the following, paraphrasing

“AGW is true and Mann was wrong”

most people lacked the logical tools to grasp the meaning.

give it a shot

Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 7:49 pm

AGW may be true, but the fake science supporting the absurdly high ECS claimed by the IPCC is so wrong it gives science a bad name.,

steven mosher
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 30, 2018 7:52 pm

nope try again.

first try is free.
after that i reserve the right to mock your intelligence

[and I reserve the right to snip you when you get too rude – Anthony]

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 30, 2018 8:14 pm

OK Stephen. Here’s a challenge for you. And when you fail to find answers that supports the absurdly high ECS claimed by the IPCC, and you will, I reserve the right to mock your intelligence.

How can the climate system distinguish the next Joule from all the others, so that the next one can contribute to increasing surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2 (288K -> 288.8K) while all the others contribute to only increasing surface emissions by 1.6 W/m^2.

Before you embarrass yourself, let me do away with your most likely answers.

Yes, the system is non linear between W/m^2 of forcing and degrees K, but is demonstrably linear between all W/m^2 of solar forcing and all W/m^2 of surface emissions across the entire range of temperatures found on the planet.

Yes, latent heat, thermals and energy transported by matter into the atmosphere adds complications at the surface/atmosphere boundary, but when you subtract out the return of these from the bogus back radiation term, all that’s left plus what remains of the solar forcing is offsetting the BB emissions of the surface. This leads to another question, which is what effect does the energy transported by matter between the surface and atmosphere have on the average temperature and its corresponding average emissions beyond the effect they’re already having on the temperature and the corresponding emissions?

Finally, you will try to invoke positive feedback, so I will ask again, what does this massive amount of positive feedback only affect the next W/m^2 and not all the others? If it did and every W/m^2 of forcing resulted in 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions, the surface temperature would be close to the boiling point of water.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 30, 2018 8:32 pm

Stephen,
To preemptively answer your request for proof of linearity in the power domain, look at the plots labeled Demonstrations of Linearity here:

http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens/

Anthony Violi
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:39 am

Can you hear that? Crickets…. no possible way to come back from that for Mosh. But then again, when did common sense ever become part of the agenda.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:53 am

“Can you hear that? Crickets…. no possible way to come back from that for Mosh. But then again, when did common sense ever become part of the agenda.”

I’m still waiting for c02 to answer my challenge.

Funny when he could not that he changed the topic.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:56 am

c02, you dont understand the GHE effect.
start over.
If you dont understand how the actual effect works, your strawman constructions
won’t establish anything

beng135
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 9:54 am

co2isnotevil, I could see immediately that your challenge would be a bit too much for Mosh. You’ll have to simplify it….

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:23 pm

Steven,

Clearly, I understand more about the GHG effect then you do. Now answer my question.

BTW, you don’t seem to understand what a straw man is. What I’ve described to you are tests of the high ECS claimed by the IPCC and its self serving consensus. Testing hypotheses is the most important part of the scientific method. How can you confuse testing a hypothesis with a straw man argument and think you understand science?

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:32 pm

LOL @ ” I understand more about the GHG effect then you do”

Hubris supreme.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:39 pm

beng1335,

How about this for a simplification.

1 + .6 = 1.6 and not 4.3

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:43 pm

The problem with your hypothesis Isnotevil, is that you use the word “high” in it. You are making an assumption there that renders your hypothesis invalid from the get go.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:45 pm

When you hypothesize ” the high ECS ” you are revealing your bias in effecting your desired result.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 3:46 pm

JPP,
Glad you’re lurking. Do you want to take a crack at answering my question? Or are you afraid of the truth as well?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:01 pm

jpp,
That the IPCC’s ECS is absurdly high should be obvious based on my question alone. I asked myself this question decades ago and the answer made me a skeptic of the IPCC and the ‘consensus’ surrounding the reports it generates.

My only bias is encourage correct science and climate science per the IPCC couldn’t be more wrong. The deeper I look, the more bias, errors and malfeasance I see. It’s gone so horribly wrong, that if I was a contributor to the IPCC’s fake science, I’d be too embarrassed to admit it.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:03 pm

Taking a “crack” at answering your question is a waste of time. The problem you have is your use of adjectives. You see, when you post “from the bogus back radiation term,” you’ve rendered any/all argument moot. If you think the back radiation is bogus you have a conceptual problem with radiative physics. See my post regarding your use of “high ECS.” You are far too biased to do value neutral science.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:34 pm

jpp,
You have no answer, because the climate system can’t tell the next W/m^2 from all the others. This means that each W/m^2 contributes 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions, including the next one. You may be able to fool yourself by objecting to the adjectives I use, but you can’t fool me.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:50 pm

Asking a question is not proof that something is high, let alone absurdly high. Do you know how science is done?

RickWill
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 4:57 pm

JPP Stated:

If you think the back radiation is bogus you have a conceptual problem with radiative physics. See my post regarding your use of “high ECS.” You are far too biased to do value neutral science.

Back radiation from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface does not exist. It certainly is a bogus concept. Believers in back radiation demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the electro-magnetic field we all exist in. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no understanding of the electro-magnetic field and needs to be educated in field theory. A NASA GISS scientist, Michael Mischenko, provides the proof here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c03b/2b493f57e13d3c3e2b58d17c9656d2dee978.pdf

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 5:09 pm

RickWill shows his ignorance of radiative physics: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Put simply, an atom or molecule that emits a photon doesn’t know what it’s temperature is, nor does the emitting atom or molecule know what the absorber’s temperature is.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 5:13 pm

RickWill, go out and obtain an IR thermometer, point it at a cloud in the sky at night, and tell me what the reading says.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 5:36 pm

Rick,

“Back radiation from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface does not exist'”

Not exactly. What’s bogus about Trenberth’s ‘back radiation’ term is that he conflates the return of energy by matter with the return of energy by photons. For example, latent heat is transported by water vapor and returned as weather, liquid and solid water and is not returned as photons, neither is what we tap to produce hydroelectric power. The reason this distinction is important is that only energy transported by photons participates in the radiant balance and the subsequent ECS.

That a cold atmosphere can’t heat a warm surface is correct, but only applies to the energy transported by matter and by contact. Radiation doesn’t require contact or matter and is the same form of energy we receive from the Sun, except that LWIR photons are lower frequencies and lower energy.

Just to be clear, the GHG effect is the consequence of LWIR photons and is fundamentally no different than the LWIR influence of clouds. The only difference being that the liquid and solid water in clouds are broad band absorbers and Planck spectrum emitters, while GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters.

RickWill
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 6:20 pm

JPP
There is but one electro-magnetic field and all matter in that field communicates at the speed of light in the medium that they exist in. Your IR meter at ground level is losing energy to the atmosphere. Its reading will be related to the rate of loss of energy to what ever it is communicating with in the electro-magnetic field that it and its target exist in.

Photons are a highly misunderstood concept. As 1955 Nobel winning physicist, Willis Lamb, stated:
“It is high time to give up the word “photon” and of a bad concept”

Before you dig a deep hole that demonstrates your lack of understanding of electro-magnetic fields take an hour to take in the linked lecture from Michael Mischenko:

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 7:10 pm

Rick,

What you’re saying would be true iff all of the energy captured by GHG’s and clouds was ‘thermalized’, that is, converted in to the linear kinetic energy of molecules in motion in which case the colder gases in the atmosphere could not heat the surface. In reality, there’s little to no net ‘thermalization’ since the only relevant ways to change state are by the absorption and emission of photons.

RickWill
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 8:25 pm

What I am stating very clearly is that electro-magnetic energy from a cold source to a warmer receptor cannot exist. There is only one electro-magnetic field and energy transfer via that electro-magnetic field is only in one direction at any point in space at any point in time; always from the higher radiance to the lower radiance. Never from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

The idea of “photons” darting about in all directions is just nonsense. The concept of photons is completely misunderstood and horribly misapplied. It is simply the ability of certain particles in certain matter to extract or impart energy quanta to the electric-magnetic field they exist in – the matter can tune to certain waves in the E-M field and thereby extract or impart energy. The E-M field that the matter exists in equilibrates at the speed of light in response to all matter and its energy state.

Most people do not have a problem grasping the concept of the gravity field and the way masses (of matter) “communicate” with each other at the speed of light in the gravity field but the notion of photons has misguided most on understanding the E-M field. Photons are a poor concept and not worthy of a sensible discussion on EMR.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 8:59 pm

Sorry Rick, but photons are very real and very electromagnetic. We can predict them, produce them, measure them and observe gravity bending their trajectories. How do you think energy gets here from the Sun?

RickWill
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2018 11:03 pm

co2isnotevil
I will leave you to your misunderstanding about photons. You need to gain an understanding of fields.

Try to get a grip on Maxwell’s equations and some basic understanding of fields and in particular the E-M field. Until you grasp fields you will not appreciate how primitive photons are in describing the behaviour of discrete energy quanta in the E-M field.

LdB
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2018 2:25 am

Rick you are dribbling in any field theory the photon exists as the mediator particle. If you don’t have the mediator particle you can’t exhibit a force on anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
The fact I can show you optical tweezers or laser cooling you argument is shot to pieces.

I suggest you just accept you are wrong or at the very least misguided.

Frank
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2018 3:08 am

RickWill wrote: “Back radiation from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface does not exist. It certainly is a bogus concept. Believers in back radiation demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the electro-magnetic field we all exist in. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no understanding of the electro-magnetic field and needs to be educated in field theory.”

An electromagnetic field simply tells us in which direction a net electromagnetic force will be exerted on a charged particle. The same thing is true for gravity. A space craft traveling to the Moon feels a gravitational force in two directions. The gravitational force from the Moon still exists even when the net field points towards the earth.

If we have two objects emitting blackbody radiation, the radiation emitted by the hotter one is not going to cancel the radiation emitted by the cooler one. (Interference requires coherent sources of radiation.)

The main problem is that few people realize that the 2 LoT doesn’t apply to individual molecules and photons. (As Feynman clearly pointed out, EM can be detected as discrete particles (photons) by our most sensitive detectors when EM is weak enough.) Molecules and photons obey the laws of quantum mechanics, not thermodynamics. Temperature has no meaning when we are discussing a photon, an emitting molecule and an absorbing molecule. We have faster- and slower-moving molecules, but not hotter and colder molecules. Molecules collide every nanosecond and some collisions transfer kinetic energy from slower-moving molecules to faster-moving ones. If this didn’t happen, all molecules would be moving at the same speed and a Boltzmann distribution of speeds would not exist. Photons do the same thing – only across radiant energy travels in both directions over longer distances than collisions transfer kinetic energy.

Temperature only has a meaning in thermodynamics when dealing with a large group of colliding molecules. Temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy of the group – which unlike the kinetic energy of a single molecule – doesn’t change every nanosecond. When large groups of colliding molecules (with a well-defined temperature) follow the laws of quantum mechanics, the NET FLUX of kinetic or radiative energy is always from hot to cold. This subject is covered in an area of physics and chemistry called statistical mechanics.

RickWill
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2018 5:51 am

Frank
Before you make more silly statements about net electro-magnetic radiation read Mischenko’s proof that there exists a single field and mono-directional energy flow; not some nonsensical net flow:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c03b/2b493f57e13d3c3e2b58d17c9656d2dee978.pdf
From section 7 in Mischenko’s words:
“This (RTT) notion of the specific intensity implies that at the observation point r, electromagnetic energy propagates simultaneously in all directions…. is profoundly incorrect.”
There is but ONE electro-magnetic field. At any point in space at any instant in time, energy flows only one direction. All matter in THE E-M field interact at the speed of light in the medium it exists in.

Similarly there is but ONE gravitational field. Objects having mass within that single field interact at the speed of light in the medium they exist in as Einstein predicted and as now measured.

Radiation transfer equations have limited application and are certainly not applicable to energy transfer processes that occur in Earth’s atmosphere. If you believe that then you are deluded. Take an hour and listen intently to Mischenko’s lecture I have linked to above and then spend a few weeks applying yourself to understanding the concept of fields and Maxwell’s equations.

LdB
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2018 6:23 am

Rick he is no remotely saying what you are, I suspect you are way way out of your depth.

beng135
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2018 8:30 am

JayPeePee sez:
LOL @ ” I understand more about the GHG effect then you do”

Hubris supreme.

Actually, the GHG effect is not at all hard to understand. It’s how it effects an extremely large, complex system like the eath’s climate is where the difficulty lies. Trying to “model” it from basic, simplistic physics into a computer program and thinking that (at our present stage) answers any real questions, now THAT is hubris.

Co2isnotevil’s siting of empirical, observed data to make his points is far more credible.

Frank
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2018 1:30 pm

RickWill wrote: “Frank, Before you make more silly statements about net electro-magnetic radiation read Mischenko’s proof that there exists a single field and mono-directional energy flow; not some nonsensical net flow:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c03b/2b493f57e13d3c3e2b58d17c9656d2dee978.pdf
From section 7 in Mischenko’s words:
“This (RTT) notion of the specific intensity implies that at the observation point r, electromagnetic energy propagates simultaneously in all directions…. is profoundly incorrect.”
There is but ONE electro-magnetic field. At any point in space at any instant in time, energy flows only one direction. All matter in THE E-M field interact at the speed of light in the medium it exists in.

Frank replies: “Rick, you a citing a highly technical paper about SCATTERING of visible light. Section 2 lists the assumptions. Assumption 3) says: “The phenomenon of THERMAL EMISSION IS EXCLUDED. This assumption is usually valid for objects at room or lower temperature and for short-wave infrared and shorter wavelengths.”

Radiative cooling to space is carried by thermal infrared. GHGs in the atmosphere emit thermal infrared. So does the surface. There is negligible scattering of thermal infrared in the atmosphere. In other words, nothing in this paper applies to the existence of DLR! If it did, the author would have explicitly made such a claim IN THE ABSTRACT.

Why are skeptics like you delving into obscure papers they don’t fully understand and mistakenly saying those papers overturn a century of quantum mechanics? This is motivated reasoning. If DLR exists, then AGW exists – and you refuse to except the existence of AGW. Given unforced variability, it is certainly difficult to prove that AGW exists only by observations. But that is no reason to deceive other readers about the true nature of EM radiation.

There are phenomena that are explained by quantum mechanics that can’t be explained by the purely wave view of EM radiation: 1) Electrons circling a nucleus experience centripetal acceleration and should emit electromagnetic radiation. Atoms can’t exist without quantum mechanics! 2) The photoelectricity effect can’t be explained without QM. 3) Photomultipliers detect weak light as a series of particles, not waves. Someday, a new theory may explain ALL of these phenomena and ALL OTHER ASPECTS of EM, and revolutionize physics. When that happens, there will be sensational news stories. Until then, it is irresponsible to incorrectly nit-pick at tiny details and say WITHOUT QUALIFICATION that they prove DLR doesn’t exist. So far, there is no viable alternative theory that can explain all aspects of EM without QM and photons.

Rick continued: “Similarly there is but ONE gravitational field. Objects having mass within that single field interact at the speed of light in the medium they exist in as Einstein predicted and as now measured.”

Agreed. The net force (gravitational field) on a space craft between predicts where the space craft will go, but we don’t say that the gravitational pull of the Moon is cancelled by gravity from the Earth. If a quantum theory of gravity is ever developed, gravitons from the Moon aren’t going to be “cancelled” by gravitons from the Earth. The Poynting Vector tells you what direction the NET flux of radiation points, but it doesn’t tell you what the individual fluxes in each direction are. Just like a gravitational field tells you the net force on a space craft, but not the individual forces from the Earth and the Moon. From a Newtonian perspective (I’m not qualified to discuss general relativity), those two forces exist, not just one net force. There are huge forces on a building (and everything else), but – since there is no acceleration – there is no NET force. The absence of a net force does not mean those huge forces don’t exist. Likewise, the existence of a Poynting vector showing a net flux doesn’t mean what you claim it means: “The idea of “photons” darting about in all directions is just nonsense.” Just like the existence of a NET gravitational field doesn’t mean that there aren’t real forces from all the masses that combine to create that field. IN QM, PHOTONS ARE THE PARTICLES THAT CARRY THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE. In the real world, forces point in all directs and photons move in all directions. The net force and the Poynting vector (both of which can be described by as a field) don’t mean that individual forces and photons don’t exist.

Even worse, the wave theory of radiation doesn’t predict that EM emitted by GHGs in the atmosphere will be cancelled by interference with radiation from surface. Interference only occurs with coherent light. Shining two flashlights at each other doesn’t produce an interference pattern and cancellation of the flux from the weaker light source.

To understand the way EM behaves, I recommend this lecture from Feynman for general audiences on the quantum nature of light (or the book that was written based on this lecture entitled QED). Since few have more than an hour to spend on a lecture (even one from a great teacher and physicist like Feynman), I recommend the passages beginning around 35:00 or 36:00 and then around 47:00-48:30 and finally 23:00 or 24:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQ2atfqk2c&t=3790s

As Feynman says about QM: “If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. To another universe, where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing…” Unfortunately, skeptics about the IPCC consensus can’t afford to “go to another universe” and abandon the battleground of accepted physics to the consensus. That brings us down to the level of religion (take it on faith) and attorneys and politicians (who deceive by telling only the part of the story that agrees with their position, when they don’t outright lie.)

Sincerely, Frank

honest liberty
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 8:03 pm

[scrubbed at the request of the commenter]

angech
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 8:55 pm

this is excessive/defamatory language .

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 9:06 pm

steven mosher November 30, 2018 at 7:52 pm
“nope try again.

first try is free.
after that i reserve the right to mock your intelligence”

Well, based on your horrid self-deception, I reserve the right to mock your intelligence. I’m doing it right now. I’ve done it regularly since I first witnessed these types of arrogant, dismissive, childish comments from you

I’m not a scientist or hard science guy so I can’t remark on the specifics like the multitude of commenters and contributors on this site, or even respectable adversaries like Nick Stokes (when he isn’t busy obfuscating). What I can do is call BS when I see it, and that is about all I see from you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

it’s been recently edited to be even more accurate, I think you’ll like it 🙂

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 9:10 pm

excessive? yea, pretty much. I’m terribly loquacious. Always have been.

what specifically is defamatory?

tweak
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 11:26 pm

It’s also lenthy and intended to generate a wall of text, obfuscating any real discussion.

Hugs
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 3:52 am

‘I’m sure Mr. Stokes or Mosh will fly in to relieve us from our skepticism based off some adjacent, unrelated and erroneous perspective.’

Well, can’t blame him so much about being snarky. Ppl put opinions in his mouth. He’s terse, yes. Not a litterratty person. But honest. I like it.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 5:30 am

” Honest

“dismissive
arrogant
consistent ad hominem
pejorative
rude
juvenile..”

Oh come on, you can do better than that! You were claiming to be clever an all and then you just give me a standard laundry list of insults.
Jeez, put some time into your insults

honest liberty
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 8:53 pm

“Let’s see. You assume, because it fits your stupid theory,”
what is my ‘stupid’ theory, Mr. professional?
Is is that man has a negligible impact, outside of the beneficial UHI (oh and longer lifespans, better access to health and wellness through sanitation, quality food, access to travel for enjoyment, better shelter, etc) on climate from burning oil and gas for energy? IF that is my “stupid theory” then you are correct. That is what I assert.

“that I will defend anything and everything done by Mann.”
Where did I say that? I was being snarky based on your habitual intransigence on this site.

“You must be aware of the person who coined the term Piltdown Mann.
When it comes to Manns science I would actually defer to Steve McIntrye or Brandon
What I saw was not good.”

-good. I’m glad you got something right. I have no issue with conceding when I’m wrong or when people I disagree with are correct.

“As for professional conduct he fowarded a request to delete mails to Eugene Whal. Mails that were the subject of David Hollands FOIA request.
Also not good.”
Great, we agree.

“Long ago I used to sign off many of my comments with the following, paraphrasing
“AGW is true and Mann was wrong”’
great, again, we agree.

“most people lacked the logical tools to grasp the meaning.
give it a shot”

Now you see, this is why I find you unpalatable and undeserving of respect. You are arrogant and think yourself smarter or more clever than you are. I’ve seen all sorts of folks in life “lack the logical tools” and as far as I can gather, that includes you and your steadfast belief in the religion of CAGW. And it is a religion.

You remind me of my Catholic mother who still trusts the Catholic Church and that globalist pope, after all the ridiculous dogma, scandals, history, (save for Crusades which were absolutely defensive and more than justified, they were absolutely necessary to ward off barbaric muslim aggression).

When all the genuine, observable evidence points to a certain conclusion, you cling to your faith against all reason and logic. So it is quite ironic that you should talk a mile of trash and be so obtuse you can’t even recognize your hypocrisy.

I look forward to these interactions because it reminds me that just because someone has book smarts or math smarts, doesn’t mean they can see the forest for the trees. It is the classical hubris of learned folk to dismiss others that don’t have their technical skill as less intelligent, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 5:15 am

“Now you see, this is why I find you unpalatable and undeserving of respect. You are arrogant and think yourself smarter or more clever than you are. I’ve seen all sorts of folks in life “lack the logical tools” and as far as I can gather, that includes you and your steadfast belief in the religion of CAGW. And it is a religion.”

You are still avoiding the challenge

Now, it’s a pretty simple challenge, but I bet you are not up to it.
That’s why you avoid it.

Go ahread try. One guy already failed.

Oh, second hint. I have no fears for CAGW. You struck out again. Not a proponent of CAGW. You seem to be mistaking me for some cartoon of what you think all other people on the “other” side of the debate are like. You might waant to be more skeptical of your theories about what other folks are like or what they are likely to believe.

Better yet, you could do some research.

Nah.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 9:01 am

New balls please!

HotScot
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 10:58 am

Margaret Smith

Best comeback ever.

Put’s both of them in their place. 🙂

bonbon
Reply to  honest liberty
December 2, 2018 10:25 am

Have a look at https://www.pop.org/ and the Carlist movement in the Catholic Church.

mike the morlock
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 10:49 pm

steven mosher November 30, 2018 at 7:37 pm

Hi Steven. “steven mosher November 30, 2018 at 7:51 pm”
Thank you for the tip on honest liberty .

He seems to be attacking people right and left here this evening.
You have said nothing on this thread to generate his responses.
Odd thing is, if he is a plant why go after you? I don’t mean to speak poorly of you, but you do have your moments. But as the saying goes “If you play Go with masters you get good”.

Until next time
michael

Steven Mosher
Reply to  mike the morlock
December 1, 2018 5:22 am

I’m kidding about him being a plant, but the point remains the same. At some point people will look at the worst behaving person in your tribe and judge all of you by that behavior. It makes good sense to police yourselves and each other.

Now david TRIED to explain to people not to go off, And since he and I share a common goal of transparency I commend this.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  mike the morlock
December 1, 2018 9:39 pm

How much else are you “just kidding about”, mish-Mosher?

John Endicott
Reply to  mike the morlock
December 3, 2018 6:03 am

If that’s the case Mosh, you are doing your tribe no favors and haven’t for a long, long time now

hunter
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 3:52 am

In what sense us it true, Steve?
Certainly not in the sense that matters:
An excuse to spend untold amounts of money on things that don’t work or are not very serious.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  hunter
December 1, 2018 8:33 pm

Steven doesn’t seem to recognise that climate change studies are the new academic “gold rush” and also the primary tool of the global socialism movement.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  hunter
December 1, 2018 11:05 pm

Let me rephrase: Climate change is the new global gold rush!
Everyone profit-savvy hopes to benefit from climate virtue-signalling at the very least.

bonbon
Reply to  hunter
December 2, 2018 12:07 pm

Pop Piasa: it’s much worse than mere “virtue signaling” – see link above on the Carlist movement.

Ragnaar
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 12:48 pm

Steven Mosher:
“AGW is true and Mann was wrong”
Not that a lot depended on him. The depth of it all says he is just one player. The narrative of blaming a lot on him is too simple. He happens to be quite well known and loud. Brash and unafraid. Any diminishment of him is or would be a shallow victory. Saying he was wrong probably refers to his conduct and his work that Steve McIntrye criticized. The field of climate science and specifically the GHG effect didn’t and doesn’t need Mann. Where it is now is in ways worse off than if he’d never existed. I recall at least one story of some resistance and/or awakening that has occurred that could be blamed on him. This is not to say that hasn’t done many good things. He has. I mean unappreciated things like being a college prof. But he ended up near the center of a creative destruction with the hockey stick. He’s still winning though in one aspect. Look at me, and I am not saying he’s doing that. But some don’t look at a lot of other cool stuff and just a look at him.
Because Mann was wrong
Therefore: Nothing

LdB
Reply to  Ragnaar
December 2, 2018 2:30 am

I would argue AGW is possible, Mann was wrong and Mosher/Berkley is just as wrong.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 1:22 pm

Enough with these hominy ads, or whatever it was someone said…

Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 4:29 pm

Lovely find!

It’s a safe bet this sentence is going to resonate stingingly in the annals of climimetics…

“This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”).”

…even among those without the attention span to grasp the general chicanery to which that passage is a confession:

that Mann, invested in his “claim” about unprecedentedness, set about “demonstrating” it by selectively “calling on” the evidence that helped him do so.

There is nothing—not one sentence—in the above passage of the kind you’d expect to read from a scientist who, oh, I don’t know, wanted to get to the ‘truth’ of what actually happened in paleoclimatic history. Not one sign of intellectual curiosity.

It’s that old adage:

A scientist wants to be right.
A pseudoscientist wants to have been right.

If this is the only embarrassing email released, it’s enough to establish scientific mens rea.

Kurt
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 30, 2018 4:51 pm

It was this sentence that struck me as most damaging:

“Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success.”

It’s a clear admission that warming trends similar to what was seen in the 90’s could well have occurred naturally in the past, but their proxy reconstruction wouldn’t have been able to catch it. It contradicts the public statements they have been making about unprecedented warming and the likelihood that recent warming was the most in the last x-thousand years, etc.

Phil R
Reply to  Kurt
November 30, 2018 5:46 pm

I fully admit that, not having the time to review all of the emails, I scrolled to the bottom and cherrypicked this one quote out of context from a 2000 email. However, there was a big discussion of “Mike’s Nature trick” (if I’m correct, it’s been a while), but I’ve never heard of, or at least don’t remember “Phil’s hatchet job.” Can anyone clarify??

One possibility perhaps worth considering is to provide Henry Pollack with the
option of signing on as a co-author (the same thing we did w/ Phil in the piece submitted to Science a couple years back after Phil’s hatchet job).

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Phil R
November 30, 2018 6:12 pm

Not sure about “Phil’s hatchet job.”

Pollack and others published borehole data round the time of the original “hockey stick” which suggested things had cooled-off over 2 deg F from the Medieval Warm Period (cooled 4 deg F to the Little Ice Age and rebounded 1.8 deg F since)…certainly in direct conflict with Mann’s papers.

It really sounds like a proposed bribe attempt.

Kurt
Reply to  Phil R
December 1, 2018 12:52 am

“It really sounds like a proposed bribe attempt.”

It’s possible this is true. Many of the e-mails discussed which of their cabal would be the best ones to publicly savage other scientist’s publications with which they disagreed. So with respect to “Phil” which I presume is Phil Jones, it sounds like he agreed to do a “hatchet job” against someone in return for being listed as a coauthor on a paper.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Phil R
December 1, 2018 11:45 am

Jones did help prevent some publications, so those could have been the hatchet jobs. I’m not sure where Pollack could have done the same, except possibly as one of many co-authors on the 2001 IPCC report.

Pollack appears a few times in climategate, such as:
February 3, 2005
“I never heard back from you about my comments sent on January 13 and copied below. However, I don’t want to let the discussion grow cold. I know that my own contribution needs shaping and refining, but before I do more I need to know your reaction to my critique.”

Another disturbingly said, “But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.” (I don’t have a date for that email).

In any case, Huang and Pollack published a paper in 1997 that directly conflicted with the subsequent MBH 1998 hockey stick. By the time of the 2001 IPCC report, Huang and Pollack’s subsequent work was being used to “independently support” the hockey stick.

Interesting discussion here that touches upon Huang and Pollack’s work and how the 1997 results have basically gone *poof* http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Kurt
November 30, 2018 6:49 pm

Kurt,

I don’t get that sense at all.

The 1990s were “extraordinary,” he says. That implies that they fall outside the range of the ordinary strong trend of the 20th century on which the calibration was based – the “successful” calibration.

Why would you think that it means there are other extraordinary periods in the past? There is a single year that was wrong. That doesn’t seem to be a bad track record.

Tree ring proxies for the most recent several decades were known to be unrepresentative before the first hockey stick came out.

The whole email seems to be discussing the problem with the end period of the reconstruction, a problem that was acknowledged in the publication.

This is the way I read it. If I am right, then they were right – the emails would be taken out of context an misinterpreted in order to defame the researchers. It happened in the first climategate, so it’s no surprise that it would happen again. What a nightmare to have to go through it all over again. A new round of death threats, perhaps? Who knows. I don’t particularly like Michael Mann, but I still sympathize with him and the others.

There’s a point at which transparency does more harm than good. It’s too easy to put whatever spin one wants to on emails that are taken out of context between parties that know each other and what they are talking about. They have reason to fear the “antis” when the antis will grab at anything to discredit people.

Why aren’t Willie Soon’s emails with fossil fuel companies discussed on WUWT, if people here are really searching for the truth?

Jonathan Ranes
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 6:55 pm

Because Willy Soon is a very brave man who speaks the real inconvenient truth and MM is [snip -mod]

Kurt
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 7:15 pm

I’m not citing this quote as evidence that there WERE other periods in the past with similar trends. What this quote says is that, because the calibration period had such a strong trend in it, the proxy data would not likely be able to pick up a trend similar to what was actually measured in the 90s IF such trends had occurred. In other words, the proxy data can’t be used as good evidence for the lack of decadal warming trends similar to the 90s in the past. But that’s exactly what they tried to do in their public comments.

Here’s the quote again:

“Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period . . . makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success.”

The next passage, that you are relying on, backs up my interpretation because he notes that there was a year during the verification period which historical data indicated was very warm, but the proxy reconstruction missed on that warm year.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 7:21 pm

“This is the way I read it. If I am right, then they were right – the emails would be taken out of context an misinterpreted in order to defame the researchers. It happened in the first climategate, so it’s no surprise that it would happen again.”

The ClimateGate emails were released in 2009. These emails are from 2001 when the Cimate Propagandists were still safely in their cocoon.

For someone who earns a living pushing this nonsense, you seem woefully misinformed as to the facts and the timeline.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 7:35 pm

It eas Willie’s employer, the Harvard Smithsonian who were funded by oil companies, not he directly. He was paid a salary and expenses by the institution. The institution behaved horribly about this, having not wanted to reveal they wete receiving such funds!

Kristi, am I correct that you are not a scientist? The worry expressed by Briffa was that a correlation over a long trend might not show “the extraordinary warming of the 1990s, WHICH WOULD RAISE THE QUESTION: If the 1990s dont show in the proxies, how can we defend that what we had in the pre1990s is legitimate correlation. Subsequently, we learned that Briffa already knew that there was no correlation from 1967 onwards! This was the so called “divergence problem” which should have invalidated the proxies as responsive .

Actually, having adjusted and disappeared much of the deep cooling period of the 3.5 decades after the 1930s-40s that had scientists worried about a new ice age, the divergence downwards of the proxies could have been correct! I always wondered how you could fiddle so carelessly with the temperature record and then happily yry to get prixies to work, even if they were valid! Finally, it has been agreed that strip bark pines are totally unusable for temperature and these were the backbone of the hockeystick work. Even if you are not a scientist, you are clearly a logical person. The worry alluded to is pretty much what Ive explained.

The other thing dissed above was the thought of abandoning of the diverging end of the tree rings and casting about for some other proxy that could be grafted on. Trust me, you dont do science lije this at all.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 7:37 pm

Kristi Silber November 30, 2018 at 6:49 pm

“Why aren’t Willie Soon’s emails with fossil fuel companies discussed on WUWT,”

Hello Kristi, Why you ask? Because they are not relevant if they exist, the subject is about the Coffee and Donuts boys and their efforts to mislead and deceive.

“antis”. I never heard the phrase before. As for “will grab at anything to discredit people” wash your mouth out with soap. Don’t try to smear the filth you and your cohorts wallow in, on others.
And no, these e-mails will not be misinterpreted. They instead will act as a magnifying glass thus allowing scrutiny of one of the greatest deceptions in history, as well as exposing the “players”.

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.”

michael

Robert B
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 7:46 pm

“Why aren’t Willie Soon’s emails with fossil fuel companies discussed on WUWT, if people here are really searching for the truth?”

That episode was discussed. It was interesting that copies of the contracts were made available for viewing which made the obvious stand out. All contracts with donors were made by the Smithsonian. Exactly what sort of research was to be done was vetted by the Smithsonian.

“One prescribed step requires each researcher to prepare a draft of any proposed scientific project to be pre-approved by the director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The scientists must give the director suggestions for potential funders, but all decisions remain in the hands of the director.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/09/facts-clear-astrophysicist-soon-of-wrongdoing-while-indicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 8:25 pm

I couldnt care less where anybody’s funding comes from. Each science paper stands or falls on the science. If the science can be replicated then it disserves to be respected and the scientist deserves to be respected. Anybody who has listened to Willie Soon for more than 5 minutes will instantly realize that he is a true scientist always seeking the truth. HOWEVER climate scientists like Dr. Mann have practiced the following:

A scientific community that developed computer climate models that pedalled a CAGW meme and that never had any accurate predictions.
A scientific community that took over all the atmospheric science faculties the world over and turned them into faculties of global warming.
A scientific community that predicted we would all be drowned by now or all burned from forest fires started by global warming.
A scientific community that was caught through their own emails of trying to hide the decline in temperatures.
A scientific community that was caught through their own emails of fudging data with tricks.
A scientific community that refused to release their data so that others could try to replicate it.
A scientific community that took over all the major journals in relation to any topic remotely associated with climate change and refused to publish contrary studies to global warming.
A scientific community that kept on spouting a fake 97% consensus.
A scientific community that turned peer review into pal review and thus is corrupting all of science.
A scientific community that refuses to debate the issue because they say the science is settled but on NASA’s own web site it says the IRIS effect has not been proven or disproven. That one effect if true could destroy any capability of CO2 affecting the climate at all.
A scientific community that rallies around any study that purports to debunk any contrarian study on global warming making sure that the skeptic scientists are drowned out.
A scientific community that has as yet to publish any definitive physics on how the greenhouse effect actually happens.
A scientific community that supports a scientist like Michael Mann who has tried to erase history vis a vis the mediaeval warming period and who even Dr Richard Muller of Berkeley a famed alarmist has said he will never read another paper by Michael Mann again nor read the journal that published Mann’s paper ever again.

A scientific community that took over all the government agencies that had anything to do with climate and that have produced fake graphs and altered temperature data.
A scientific community that punishes any scientist by demotion,firing, …etc who dares to object to any aspect of global warming.
A scientific community that frightens little kids around the world with predictions of disaster that are impossible.
A scientific community that sees almost every retired scientist come out against the global warming meme because at last they have nothing to lose.
A scientific community that threatens and hurls insults including words such as harlot at scientists who go over to the skeptic side.
A scientific community that publishes fake debunk studies.
A scientific community that defends the computer models which are actually junk science.

A scientific community that admires its own and despises anybody who disagrees.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 10:54 pm

Kurt,

I know what you are saying, but I still think he is talking specifically about reconstructing the 1990s. The fact that they had one miss, one year, doesn’t really mean much in the scheme of things. They know about the miss, anyway, which is encouraging (to me, anyway).

He says “an extraordinary period as the 1990s,” not “other extraordinary periods like the 1990s” or something similar.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 11:00 pm

Reg Nelson,

I was referring to, “FME Law cautions anyone who accesses these emails to do so with respect to the context within which they are written, ” and similar statements.

“For someone who earns a living pushing this nonsense”

Really?? You think so? That’s flattering. I’d be much better at it if I made money off of it.

Kurt
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 1, 2018 12:27 am

Kristi:

They don’t need to “reconstruct” the 1990s – they already had thermometers recording temperatures far more reliably than any proxy data could infer.

The way that proxy reconstructions work is that you take the period of time for which you have both proxy data and instrumental data, and divide it into two parts. The first part is the calibration period – in this case 1902-1980. For the calibration period you compare the instrumental data to the proxy data (say tree rings) and you basically make a table that associates a temperature to e.g. a ring width – you can make your scale linear, quadratic, whatever, but the idea is to use this first part of the instrumental data to hypothesize a mathematical relationship between the proxy variable and temperature.

Then for the remainder of the period where your instrumental data overlaps the proxy record (called the validation period – in thus case 1854 – 1901) you test your mathematical relationship against the instrumental temperatures to see whether your calibration works. Assuming that it does, then you proceed to “reconstruct” back through the ages prior to any time where you have actual measurements.

So when Mann asserts it “unlikely that we would be able be able to RECONSTRUCT SUCH an extraordinary period AS the 1990s with much success” he wasn’t discussing using the proxies to discover what the temperatures in the 1990s were. He was saying that the reconstruction wouldn’t be able pick up any trend in the non-instrumental record that was “an extraordinary period as” the 1990s.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 1, 2018 12:32 am

I’m so sick of hearing about the dam hockey stick, I refuse to argue about it. I shouldn’t even have mentioned it. I read the quote differently from others, that’s all.

Gary and Robert,

Willie Soon was in direct contact with Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries and Southern Company regarding grants. Along with API, he received $1.25 million. He met with them, emailed them, talked on the phone. He sent them essays about his work. They knew what to expect.

Soon would not have had a salary if not for his grants.

Just one telling email to Soon:

“Willie I have talked with our climate change team and our issues management team in the course of developing the
budgets for next year, and unfortunately the decision has been made to discontinue funding for 2010. The new public
policy budget is being trimmed this year, and there are a number of new priorities the public policy team wishes to fund.
“You have done some very interesting and thoughtful work. and we appreciate your efforts over the past several years.

“Mark D. Boudreaux

“Senior Director, Federal Relations
Exxon Mobil Corporation”

“Public policy budget.” “Federal Relations.” This sounds like someone in charge of funding science that would support Exxon lobbying efforts.

This is in response to an emails sent by Soon:
“hello Mark,

“(1) is it possible to chat briefly this week on the possibility of submitting a new proposed research work for 2010 please let me know a good time to ring you? my number here is (i have to be home after noon time today or cell)

“(2) a small good news to bring more focused science discussion into IPCC future report etc

“the session just got approved this morning please share with Brian if it is relevant

“1. Union session; 2009 Fall Meeting of the A60…”

Then he goes on with a synopsis of his talk.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667906-soon-emails.html#document/p32

These were grants made for Soon’s work. He wrote the proposals, he obviously suggested the “donors.” Sure, they were administered by Harvard-Smithsonian, but they were for his research.

If I recall correctly, one journal didn’t have a policy about admission of conflicts of interest, one did. At any rate, it was not ethical to omit, even if he didn’t break any policies.

(He wasn’t alone, of course, in receiving fossil fuel funding – other contrarians have, too, including for their help in spreading propaganda.)

dennisambler
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 1, 2018 3:08 am
observa
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 1, 2018 7:10 am

“Tree ring proxies for the most recent several decades were known to be unrepresentative before the first hockey stick came out.”

You call them unrepresentative? They were the proxy for temperature and if they didn’t agree with the actual temperature at any stage then that anomaly had to be explained or throw the lot in the bin and back to the drawing board. Why didn’t that happen? Ask the VW Dieselgate instigators I suppose.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 1, 2018 9:00 pm

Kristi, I must admit that your antiskeptic claims provide many here with exercises in critical thinking. Was that course offered at your alma mater?

LdB
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 2, 2018 5:14 am

Oh Kristi Silber is back, so Kristi have you read up on if we stopped burning fossil fuel today how long does it take to get back to 350ppm 🙂

I don’t think you can argue anything about Mann or anything as you fail to get the facts that even the Climate Scientist will tell you. So convince us you know a bit more than what you did in your last argument give us an answer.

Don
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 2, 2018 6:02 am

Alan Tomalty states the real issues regarding the supposed science of global warming.
Are climate models accurate? No. That should be the end of the story.
Climate science is simply a belief system that goes out cherry-picking evidence to support its suppositions and speculations, and then calls that cherry-picked evidence “science.” We see this over and over and some of us are getting so tired of it we could puke.

Honest scientists are brushed aside as “science deniers” or “paid off,” ad hominem arguments that are cheap-shot weapons in the arsenal of the new “science.”

It’s a very weird state of affairs. I see it first-hand: smart, highly educated people who swallow this hook, line, and sinker. It’s like being in a movie and they can’t even begin to think about going off-script.

This is Twilight Zone stuff. Walking pseudoscience zombies who act and talk normally but refuse to consider counter-arguments to the reigning narrative. Terrible things will happen if they go off-script.

Kristi: the alarmists will grab at anything to discredit skeptics, too. Alan lists the many ways.

Don132

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 3, 2018 6:45 pm

It should also be noted that the concept of tree-ring chronologies “matching” instrumental data over a certain calibration period is false. CERTAIN chronologies might have, but in no way do the vast majority. Cases in point are Mann and his Bristlecone pine obsession, and Briffa’s “One Tree to Rule Them All” YAD061. Tree-ring chronologies have to be grossly tortured to match instrumental data.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 3, 2018 6:54 pm

It should also be noted that the concept of tree-ring chronologies “matching” instrumental data over a certain calibration period is false. CERTAIN chronologies might have, but in no way do the vast majority. … Tree-ring chronologies have to be grossly tortured to match instrumental data.

What has never been corrected for in Mann’s obsession with tree ring width thermometers is the absolute validity of tree ring growth with CO2 increase between 1970 and 1990!. Greater CO2 = faster growth REGARDLESS of what the global average air temperature
is over that period nor the water availability each nor sunlight availability on each tree. EVERY tree will grow faster with greater CO2, REGARDLESS of air temperature.

but CO2 increase has never been factored into tree ring growth correction charts.

Barclay E MacDonald
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 30, 2018 5:29 pm

Agreed! Does he truly not understand what he is confessing to?

commieBob
Reply to  Barclay E MacDonald
November 30, 2018 7:08 pm

I have seen this so many times even among very sophisticated folks. They somehow think their electronic messages can’t be accessed and therefore believe they are talking privately. They might not say something on the telephone for fear of being wire tapped but they will turn around and incriminate themselves with email or SMS. A strong candidate for exhibit ‘A’ would be General Petraeus, former head of the CIA. What the heck was he doing running the CIA if he was that clueless?

So, it’s not that he lacked the sophistication to realize what he was confessing to. He lacked the sophistication to realize how hard it would be to cover up the confession.

R Shearer
Reply to  commieBob
December 1, 2018 10:40 am

One of John Podesta’s passwords was “password.”

Barbara
Reply to  commieBob
December 1, 2018 12:33 pm

Wire tap requires a court order in the U.S. Alleged “criminal” activity needed?

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
December 1, 2018 5:42 pm

Barbara December 1, 2018 at 12:33 pm

The average person has about 0% chance of being the subject of a wire tap. If you say something on the phone and it isn’t recorded, it’s gone forever. Mind you, the details of the numbers you called are recorded.

Things like email, tweets, facebook posts, sms, etc. are effectively around forever and someone with the correct resources can access them. Just because you delete something, it’s probably still around on a backup somewhere, even if it isn’t clearly visible for everyone to see on line.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
December 1, 2018 1:24 am

Tim The Toolman downthread points out that—contrary to my assumption—this email has already been public for years.

(And it’s by Mann’s collaborator Raymond Bradley, not the mann himself.)

I’m shocked—shocked, I tell you—that this kind of language didn’t do more damage to the Hockey Team’s pretense of scienciness when it was first divulged almost a decade ago.

Meh. I should have borne in mind how *stunning* such revelations of unscientific conduct and/or scientific misconduct are.

stunning
/ˈstʌnɪŋ/
adjective

causing or liable to cause torpor, inaction or inability to act.

MODS: My comment upthread (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/30/climategate-continues-mann-tries-to-get-ahead-of-his-legal-problem-releases-his-own-version-of-emails/#comment-2538934) has harsh words for Michael Mann, which are less justified (if not less true) if this email is in fact Bradley’s, not Mann’s. Could you do me a favor and insert my correction somewhere close to the mistake itself, so that readers don’t have to scroll several pages to get to the admission that I fluffed up?

The Cob
Reply to  Brad Keyes
December 1, 2018 4:34 am

Yep. Nailed it. This whole scam is predicated on finding evidence to PROVE the hypothesis of CAGW. This is antithetical to actual science which seeks to DISPROVE the hypothesis and only then will the truth be revealed.

AGW is more akin to religion and has been weaponised by leftists (to virtue signal), academics (trough feeders and sense of importance/meaning-saving the world), govts (reason to tax/virtue signal), and an unelected UN body that has openly declared they’d like to see capitalism broken down and western money distributed where they see fit.

kakatoa
Reply to  Brad Keyes
December 2, 2018 7:36 am

I looked the sexist “mens rea” term up-“the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.Compare with actus reus ”

Bernie Madoff’s actions came to mind after reading the definition.

A former head of a diagnostic company came to mind too, but it would be sexist to use a noun reserved for men to describe the despicable (“evil?”) actions of an individual missing a “Y”

Latitude
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 4:46 pm

So….it was never about discovering science truth
…and all about covering up his failure at all cost

RobR
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 4:53 pm

Is Mann the sender? Who are the recipients?

Translation: Our data is useless, and we won’t be able to hide the truth for long.

Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 5:38 pm

Was this Mann?

honest liberty
Reply to  Shelly Marshall
November 30, 2018 6:17 pm

notice the smear job?
located link at the bottom of his “released emails”
https://climateincontext.cruelclimate.net/notes/306322000101111184601590.html

which leads one to the following:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/27/david-schnare-forced-to-disgorge-dark-money-from-fmelc-piggy-bank

I thoroughly despise liars, and Mann is a punk. A lying punk wannabee bully second rate con artist. OH how I wish I could that to his face with all of my Philly region east coast intensity. He is not a scientist. In fact, this pathetic excuse for a human is a propagandist, doing his job as he’s been instructed, in the march towards depopulation. Period. Full Stop.

PS> if the moderators feel this is excessive/defamatory language I can understand, but I will be proven correct on this once the full emails are released.

steven mosher
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 7:44 pm

dude, you didnt even use your name.

surprised that WUWT facilitates the great unhinged.

honest liberty
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 8:32 pm

I’ll tell Michael Mann that to his face. I went to Penn State and I’m ashamed of that institution for so many reasons.

I’m just some guy posting on the internet. This supposed professional plays victim, uses terms like “denier” when addressing Judith Curry, and lies through his teeth pretending he doesn’t want the fame. Are you that delusional? Is the Kool-Aid that concentrated you just can’t shake it?

This is why I’m not polite when interacting with you, or talking about people like Mr. Mann. I’ve watched him interact with real professionals and it makes me look sophisticated. It is abhorrent behavior for a supposed scientist and academic. Surely even you can see that.

http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/michael-e-mann/

I don’t have to rise to a higher level of professionalism or being polite. I’m not a “scientist” or public figure. There is a huge difference in expectations bud.

I will say this though. I re-read my language and it was excessive, filled with anger, and honestly, a good bit of hatred. I have been warned and for good reason, so I will admit it and stop. How about you Mosh? Will you be polite moving forward?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 8:33 pm

Mosher You are a smart guy. I don’t understand what part of the climate scares you. By definition , AGW, if it exists cannot be scary. Only CAGW would be worthy of being worried about. On what evidence do you see there is even one iota possibility of CAGW? I have been looking for global warming for 30 years and have yet to find it.

KAT
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 2:45 am

“surprised that WUWT facilitates the great unhinged”
SM
I fully support WUWT’s facilitation of your comments even though your grammar is below par! I do not believe that you are unhinged; just a bit slow.
PS Enforce not inforce. The E is 5 keys to the right of the I. That is to the right and just above the Capslock key on a standard keyboard. Recommend that you take a course in Basic English.

The Cob
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 4:38 am

Why don’t you cut the passive aggressive shit out pal. Your sanctimony doesn’t wash here. If you don’t like what HL is writing, scroll past.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 5:46 am

“Mosher You are a smart guy. I don’t understand what part of the climate scares you. By definition , AGW, if it exists cannot be scary. Only CAGW would be worthy of being worried about. On what evidence do you see there is even one iota possibility of CAGW? I have been looking for global warming for 30 years and have yet to find it.”

No part of the climate scares me. No part of global warming scares me.
2C doesnt scare me, 3C, 5C, 8C none of it scares me. 1 meter of SLR, I dont care
10 meters, I still dont care.

“On what evidence do you see there is even one iota possibility of CAGW? I have been looking for global warming for 30 years and have yet to find it.”

You’ll have to define what you mean by CAGW. not in my vocabulary.

As for evidence of possibilities? Do you understand the meaning of the word evidence and possibility?

Is CAGW possible? sure it is logically possible. No laws of logic would be broken
if the planet got 20C warmer– or colder.
Is it physically possible? Sure, we have had hotter periods and cooler periods. What has happened in the past is obviously phsyically possible.

perhaps you meant to ask “is is PROBABLE”

That is harder to answer since it depends on our actions.

Your last statement

‘ I have been looking for global warming for 30 years and have yet to find it.”

look harder.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 6:00 am

“I fully support WUWT’s facilitation of your comments even though your grammar is below par! I do not believe that you are unhinged; just a bit slow.
PS Enforce not inforce. The E is 5 keys to the right of the I. That is to the right and just above the Capslock key on a standard keyboard. Recommend that you take a course in Basic English.”

KAT

Thank you for the copy editing. I think you have found your role in life. Psst
work on semi colons. I would dearly love a comment section that allowed editing.
I mostly post from my phone — damn chinese version with no auto correct– while I
am in a taxi, or airport lounge, or riding the high speed railTypically when I am burning lots of carbon.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 7:55 am

Kat, some distance upstream, also cited by SM:

The E is 5 keys to the right of the I.

Your other right, Kat. : > )

KAT
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 9:04 am

Juan Slayton

The E is 5 keys to the right of the I.

Ouch. I am glad that you spotted my deliberate mistake!

Six factors in my defence:
1) I live in the Southern Hemisphere therefore everything is upside down.
2) Mosher’s cognitive dissonance interferes with his spatial intelligence. All garbage is incomprehensible to him. Capital letters are beyond him.
3) Mosher is so far to the left of the political spectrum that relatively everything else is to the right of him, including keyboard keys.
4) I am a retired Engineer, therefore there are no consequences. I can mock anyone that I care to.
5) I was distracted because I was travelling on a extremely important mission. (Concorde, Rolls-Royce, Queen Mary, high speed rail, airport lounge, etc. )
6) My Chinese cell phone auto-incorrectly told me that my left wrist has two freckles.

🙂

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 11:55 am

Alan Tomalty – November 30, 2018 at 8:33 pm

Mosher You are a smart guy. I don’t understand what part of the climate scares you. …………. Only CAGW would be worthy of being worried about. On what evidence do you see there is even one iota possibility of CAGW?

My guess is, it’s his current/future “work climate” that he is in constant fear of being terminated from.

Iffen one is currently associated with an academic institution, it is surely in their best interest to claim being “extremely worried” about the real possibility of the dastardly destructive effects of CAGW.

When “truth” verses “money” is involved, ……. “money” usually always ”wins”.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 6:27 pm

My guess is, it’s his current/future “work climate” that he is in constant fear of being terminated from.

Iffen one is currently associated with an academic institution, it is surely in their best interest to claim being “extremely worried” about the real possibility of the dastardly destructive effects of CAGW.

When “truth” verses “money” is involved, ……. “money” usually always ”wins”.

Samuel. You appear to have a theory about everyone who thinks AGW is real and everyone who publishes science. You appear to think that we are in it for the money.
The first thing to note about your assumption is that it is the same charge made against Anthony and Steve mcIntyre, execpt the source of funds is different. The second thing to note is that readers here who know better failed to correct your assumption about my motivations. Some history for you. I started in the climate debate circa 2007 and have participated here since then. While I believed in AGW I was supportive of Anthony and his citizen science efforts because it was volunteer science and open science. As a volunteer myself, as a proponent of open science, I put those values ahead of our scientific disagreements. It is not that hard to follow. Anthony and I disagre about the science but we shared a love of citizen science and open science. From 2007 to 2013 or so I worked independently with no pay. I know Anthony never received funds and you will find me defending him against attacks that he was Oil funded. If you think I got paid by anyone during this time you can ask Anthony or ask CTM who was a first hand witness to all my finances. From 2013 or so to 2015 I collected a small stipend from Berkeleyearth, a non profit funded by high profile conservatives. The amount was about 1/4 th of the compensation I would get for the same work ( data science) in the private sector.
Since 2016 I get zero compensation for any climate related work I do.

Samuel. You have made an unfounded allegation. You did so without spending 1 second investigating the facts. You did so without even asking a question “who pays mosher?”
You did this without knowing that the very people who own this site and moderate it can tell you that you are flat wrong about me. My bet is that you will run away from your mistake.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2018 8:04 pm

I can vouch for what Mosh says above.

Harkin
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 8:41 pm

“I have been looking for global warming for 30 years and have yet to find it.”

Adjust your data.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 11:26 pm

I get it!

Steve, you’re just entertaining yourself at our expense.

Kudos on being such a brainiac, dude!

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 11:31 pm

Honest Liberty, just because you are not a professional doesn’t justify rudeness. Calling people names because you don’t like them reflects poorly on you and does not help persuade anyone on the merits. If you are actually trying to change their mind, being impolite to them isn’t going to help. Take a lesson from the 2016 US election. The left hated on the right, and I’ve seen the expression “this is how you got Trump” as the explanation. There was no chance the people were going to vote for candidates and parties that hate them.

If you can manage civility, you will at least not be disregarded by your own side, especially if you have a good insight to offer. The other side can point at your lack of civility and give that as a reason not to pay attention to you. While that is a fallacy on their part, there is no reason to provoke it. Being angry does nothing more than tell people you are overly emotional and that you may not mean what you say, and so disregard it.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  steven mosher
December 2, 2018 7:27 am

Steven Mosher – December 1, 2018 at 6:27 pm

Samuel. You appear to have a theory about everyone who thinks AGW is real and everyone who publishes science. You appear to think that we are in it for the money.

Mosher, …… getta clue, …… unless one is independently wealthy, mooching off of a benefactor or retired with an excellent income, …… then they “gotta be into something for enough money to live on”. And one’s publicly known “action n’ words” can have a direct effect on their “source of income”. So, your above emotionally driven “crying-in-your-beer” mini-resume did not impress me any.

And Mosher, I’ve been reading your postings for the past few years and have yet to read any of scientific value, sinoky because it appears to me that you only post “excuses” and/or “CYAs” for the claims and commentary of those who are adamant worshippers of the CAGW Religion.

I started in the climate debate circa 2007 and have participated here since then.

So what, I injected myself into the climate debate circa 1980’s via Forums on a newspaper web site.

Samuel. You have made an unfounded allegation. You did so without spending 1 second investigating the facts. You did so without even asking a question “who pays mosher?”

Mosher, I don’t, and never have, … made unfounded allegation against your person or any other person and thus it was disingenuous on your part to posit such an accusation. And I could care less “who pays mosher?”, …. but I am damn sure that you, Mosher, ….. “cares who pays Mosher” …. and I am also damn sure you don’t want those “payers” getting PO’ed at you, which was the gist of my above comment which you failed to comprehend.

And Mosher, ….. “sorry about that”, ….. but I did in fact spend nigh onto 45 minutes via a Google search to investigate the question of “who the ell is Steven Mosher”?

And one of the many things I found was this interesting critique of your person, which appears to me to be quite factual, and thus deserving of an explanation from you, to wit:

Monday, June 16, 2014
Who is Steven Mosher?

Steven Mosher is an English major with a long career in marketing and technology who is known for wasting everyone’s time by making indecipherable drive-by comments on skeptic websites😊. He is not an “aerospace engineer”, he is not an “open-source software developer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).

“Mosh[er] is indeed a scientist…” – Willis Eschenbach

Unlike apparently most of those who entertain his comments I took the time to research Mr. Mosher’s credentials and found them long but completely devoid of any scientific education or experience.

Since he has been a frequent commentator on various climate related websites [Climate Audit, Climate Etc., The Blackboard and Watts Up With That?] his status has grown into somewhat of an urban legend. Yet, he is only notable in the global warming debate for two main things:

1. Writing a book on the Climategate scandal in 2010 – “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” and,
2. Outing Peter Gleick over the fake Heartland Institute Memo in 2012.

While both are legitimate, neither has anything to do with scientific research and both lend to his English language skills. The problem with trying to determine his education and experience is his background changes depending on the source and various positions and titles appear to have evolved over time.

[snip]

Mr. Mosher is frequently given far too much importance relating to Climategate breaking in November of 2009 when actually he was akin to a courier, being one of the first people who was given the hacked emails by the WUWT moderator who found them, Charles Rotter, and only because they happened to be roommates at the time. …………………. In the end it was Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter who “broke” the story at WUWT where the anonymous hacker had originally intended. This did not stop Mr. Mosher from making ridiculous claims to have “alerted the internet” to the Climategate emails.

Read more @ http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html

Cheers, …… Samuel C Cogar, a longtime student of the natural world, with an AB Degree in Biological and Physical Science, GSC circa 1963, …. and an old computer designer/programming “dinosaur” of the mid-1960’s to the late 1980’s.

angech
Reply to  honest liberty
November 30, 2018 8:55 pm

this is excessive/defamatory language

honest liberty
Reply to  angech
November 30, 2018 9:15 pm

angech- I agree and admitted in that case, yes it was. I shouldn’t have gone to that extreme. See other posts where I admit I was WRONG and emotinally immature.
what else do you want?

Does pointing out the obvious make you feel better? Everyone else can see that, captain obvious. The mods are moderating and will likely snip it for just that.

You’ve been watching too much CNN. Your sensibilities are so fragile now you feel compelled to police the comment section? Mabye you should request to be a moderator.

Lance of BC
Reply to  honest liberty
December 1, 2018 6:27 am

A yes, Desmogblog, brought to you by our coalition government green member Andrew Weaver here in BC. Who has us all by the short and curlys with the NDP. Mandating Cars and trucks sold in B.C. be zero-emission by 2040, needing 9 site-c dams( a dam that is hated by the rabid greens like professor Weaver) to power all the EVs. We are almost 100% hydro paid by three generations and we were the first in north America to pay a carbon(CO2..not carbon) tax…By our ex- premier when attending of the Bilderberg Meeting and he got a sweet spot as Canadian High Commissioner in London from the world banks

We live in a forest and next to the ocean a BIG CO2 sink and another Federal carbon tax coming in the new year .

honest liberty , I’m with you all the way, this scam from the UN has infiltrated local municipal government and our own mayor was a chief speaker at ICLEI last year, she won a award for climate action, no idea what that means.
We are/ have been at war for years and who freakin cares whos feelings get hurt, start to fight back and be more vocal, or just close this blog, what’s the point of it?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Lance of BC
December 1, 2018 12:40 pm

Lance of BC – December 1, 2018 at 6:27 am

We are/ have been at war for years and who freakin cares whos feelings get hurt, start to fight back and be more vocal, or just close this blog, what’s the point of it?

Lance of BC, you are exactly 100% correct.

The ones “pushing” the CAGW climate change garbage, including their loyal supporters and the “snowflake” liberal lefties are the only ones that are claiming to “care about hurt feelings”. But everyone knows it impossible to “hurt their feelings”, ……. but their ”claim” that it does prevents most people from saying anything about their dastardly, devious, disingenuous, dishonest claims and commentary.

Pro-Trump’ers don’t care about the “hurt feelings” of the DC Swamp Critters, the liberal press or their loving supporters.

And “YES”, its way, way past time, including being more vocal, …… and to start fighting back against the Public School System’s Administrators and Teaching personnel whose teaching curriculum is PRIMARILY Political Correctness and PC “junk science”.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 6:35 pm

Mark Steyn just won his case.

I am still extremely disturbed by the phrase “his version” and of course the length of time it took to get here.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
December 1, 2018 7:57 am

Steyn has won his case against Mann?! That’s HUGE news!

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 6:39 pm

> This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”).

Decorum and blog filters prevent me from commenting on this Mann snippet. It shows with no uncertainty the view the climate priests held and still hold real scientists who haven’t been let into the circle.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Rob_Dawg,

Oh, quit whining. This is nothing compared to the way Mann et al. are disparaged PUBLICLY. Do you expect these guys to say privately to each other what excellent, upstanding scientists the contrarians are?

RobR
Reply to  Anthony Watts
November 30, 2018 7:58 pm

Yes sir, and previous Climategate emails demonstrate a deference, or at least a fear of Mann. He is head and shoulders above his peers in placing ambition above objectivity.

honest liberty
Reply to  Anthony Watts
November 30, 2018 9:27 pm

in response to RobR-

I don’t understand the fear or deference. Speaking in terms of physical stature, he sure as shinola is not intimidating. There is nothing about his physical nature that suggests to me he is worth fearing.

I think it is clear that his methods demonstrate a propensity for retaliation and bullying, but I dunno, if that dude ever talked to me the way I am assuming he’s talked to his peers, he wouldn’t dare attempt it again.

It must be worlds apart in academia from where I grew up. I don’t get the deference/fear. I see a very insecure person that was likely an outsider in highschool, and whatever complex that creates, he hasn’t shaken it. For evidence, watch him interact on televised events or read his tweets, or anything he puts out publicly. I’d sure like to see JP break him down, I think he’d agree.

Honest liberty
Reply to  Anthony Watts
November 30, 2018 9:40 pm

Anthony- are you certain he is only those two things. I have strong inclinations it is more sinister than that, which is why I’m so harsh. Look at what his “work” has helped fuel around the world. Carbon taxes, green energy/austerity, wealth redistribution. This man has been instrumental in providing international globalists the platform necessary to trick the world populations into the religion of self-loathing, misanthropy. I don’t think we should be so kind to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated he has no respect for those who disagree and seemingly knew full well what he was doing.

So the question is: why? Ego? I am confident it is much more than that. Ego in these types is just the surface layer of over-compensation. P.S. I’ll ease off and be more polite because I should and I appreciate your hard work.

Pumpsump
Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 1, 2018 1:39 am

Is Michael Mann to climate science what Lance Armstrong is to road cycling? Certainly seems to be peddling some weapons grade bull$€!t

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Kristi Silber
November 30, 2018 7:51 pm

Kristi, do you really not see this? It is not okay to cook up and repair a graph with bits and pieces that give you what you want and throw out the rest. Listen simply to the unwholesome thoughts he presents and the worry that he and his colleagues have. Gee a big one is that sceptics arent sophisticated but they are on the scent!!! Kristi if you decide to not get this clear message, what are you conveying here?

Joseph Peck
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 1, 2018 5:26 am

I will second Gary’s comment. Science is based on observing nature developing a theory and testing the hypothesis. These emails (not just the one quoted) show a clear trend of picking data and changing the discussion to meet the goal of proving a point. Never not once does anyone in the emails suggest that perhaps the fact that some data does NOT fit the hypothesis of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change is cause to question the hypothesis. That is fundamentally BAD science and it was not only Mann in these emails but it appears to be everyone involved. That is a tragedy equal to the Lysenko Affair in Russia. Happily this time the bad science did not cause the starvation of thousands.

Also talk of looking at the opposing sides emails is irrelevant. What matters is the science. There is no right or wrong side on issues of science there are only the facts. Find a paper that does not support the role of CO2 as the primary driver of climate change for which the data is not readily available, and I will support your FOIA request to get the data, but you will not find such because the handful of well known skeptic papers all have readily available access to the underlying data.

fred250
Reply to  Kristi Silber
December 1, 2018 11:09 am

Mann is a collaborator, in this socialist totalitarian scam

Kristi is just a low-level apologist.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  fred250
December 1, 2018 12:59 pm

And that is one of the MOST IMPORTANT reasons for the existence of the “glass ceiling”. 😊 😊

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 7:34 pm

‘…they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”’

And what a scent it is!

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Joseph A Peck
November 30, 2018 11:13 pm
November 30, 2018 3:58 pm

“global warming and the professionals within that small academic community”

Since the ranks of climate-hyphenated academia are hardly under-bloated, would it be reasonable to parse this as

“global warming and the small number, within that academic community, of professionals”

?

Latitude
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 30, 2018 4:47 pm

…peer review

Nick Werner
November 30, 2018 5:00 pm

What was that term Lewandowski likes to use to smear sceptics… oh now I remember… “motivated reasoning”:

At 04:13 PM 7/21/00 -0400, Raymond S. Bradley wrote:

I fear that the revised analysis does not serve the original purpose in
showing a close [enough] coherence with the instrumental data…..it will
only provide ammunition to sceptics. You are right in pointing out that
even this limited data set shows an enhanced rate of warming, but it does
not do this “well enough” to make a note to Nature worthwhile, in my
opinion. Sorry to say that, as I know you worked hard on this & are
excited about the result. But I would say it is better to wait until we
have a better, updated data set than to publish something that we may later
have to live down….

No motivated reasoning to see here, move along, move along. I must be taking something out of context.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Nick Werner
November 30, 2018 8:40 pm

I noticed that one too!
I want to call out one section of it:

I fear that the revised analysis does not serve the original purpose

So, they set out with a purpose in mind, and when the analysis didn’t support their desired conclusions, they decided to bury it?

On the OTHER hand, I have to wonder if we are being set up. We know that Mann must have cherry picked these emails, they must have a purpose? Perhaps in the complete release these seemingly incriminating remarks will turn out to be innocent and he can claim he was vindicated by the full release while drawing attention away from the really bad ones in the full release? Thinking out loud, but his releasing this obvious sub set of the emails was not done with no plan in mind. We just don’t know what game he is actually playing right now.

honest liberty
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 30, 2018 9:19 pm

hmm, that is an interesting take. Is he that clever? From his actions and words he seems that calculating

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 1, 2018 2:15 am

Herr Hoffer,

“On the OTHER hand, I have to wonder if we are being set up. ”

That’s logically possible, I suppose, but I think such explanations are complicated praeter necessitatem.

It’s natural and understandable—but it’s mistaken, I think—to assume the authors of such guileless admissions of unscientific misconduct know what they’re admitting.

You say, “I noticed that one too!”

In other words you noticed a tell, a dead giveaway, a shibboleth FAIL, whereby the email author exposes himself as an un-scientist.

But remember, the nature of most shibboleths is that the violator has no idea he’s failed a test, or even that there was a test to fail.

The most archetypal and best-known example of a shibboleth [OT Hebrew] is, at least in my country, the film Inglourious Basterds.

Our heroes are trying to pass for locals in an SS-occupied tavern. Lt Hickox—Michael Fassbender—signals for three beers using a non-Continental gesture, precipitating one of Tarantino’s classic massacres. By raising his first three fingers, something no German would ever have done, the British pseudo-German had violated what ethnomathematicians refer to as a dactylonomic shibboleth. And he’d done it without even noticing his own tragic blunder.

Fast-forwarding 75 years, you know Phil Jones is a pseudoscientist. I know Phil Jones is a pseudoscientist. But I genuinely don’t think Phil Jones knows we know he’s a pseudoscientist.

Immersion in the culture of science instils certain automatic, second-nature ways of thinking, and therefore speaking. Thus, for example, NOBODY in the science profession could write “Why should I give you the data when your aim is to find something wrong with it?,” because he or she would automatically anticipate the obvious comeback:

“Er, BECAUSE my aim is to find something wrong with it, doofus! Was that meant to be a joke??”

Phil Jones’ infamous World’s Stupidest Question was a giveaway, beyond any reasonable or even unreasonable doubt, that it must have been many, many years since he’d spent any time around scientists. What exactly they were doing in his office is probably a question for criminologists, but we can say to a moral and legal certainty what it wasn’t: it wasn’t science as defined by (and identified with) the Modern Scientific Method of structured, skeptical investigation of the workings of the material world.

But Jones wrote that email to an opponent. He had no expectation of privacy. This was not behind closed doors.

The fact that he was willing to blurt out a sentiment so jaw-droppingly incompatible with the profession of science tells me this:

Not only had Jones forgotten how scientists work, he’d forgotten how to pretend he knew how scientists work.

Mann doesn’t strike me as any higher on the self-awareness scale than Jones.

RobR
Reply to  Brad Keyes
December 1, 2018 4:52 am

They were all fully aware they were committing scientific fraud as evidenced in the email discussing doing “Mike’s Nature Trick” to mask diverging proxy and instrument records.

Reply to  RobR
December 1, 2018 9:30 am

RobR

“They were all fully aware they were committing scientific fraud”

I didn’t dispute that, and I wasn’t discussing the more egregious episode of HTD in any case.

What I AM questioning is the premise that they “are fully aware” of how transparent they are.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Brad Keyes
December 1, 2018 5:08 am

Thank you for a very astute comment.

With that remark Phil Jones inadvertently revealed a profound psychological truth about himself.

brians356
November 30, 2018 5:04 pm

Huh. I always thought there was only one email, i.e. the email. Now Mann suggests there are different versions. Perhaps a) the one actually transmitted via the Internet (and therefore recoverable), and b) the version he wished he had sent, or c) a version he thinks he sent, but it somehow never made it out of his computer?

michael hart
November 30, 2018 5:05 pm

Facing the fact that all the emails Dr. Mann did not want released would now be released, today Dr. Mann made his version of these emails available to the public,…

So presumably the emails, if any, that might potentially be the most interesting will be in the official release, not something he volunteers to release.
Personally, I still need convincing that the official releases will not have been seriously doctored or suffered from unexpected hard-disk crashes etc. It’s not like there is any reason to trust these people or think they wouldn’t break the law to hide things they want to conceal from the public. This was one of the main things we learned from ClimateGate.

climanrecon
Reply to  michael hart
December 1, 2018 1:10 am

“his version” may just mean his format version, i.e. they may be complete, because to do otherwise would be crazy.

icisil
November 30, 2018 5:11 pm

cruelclimate.net? WTH is that?

HotScot
November 30, 2018 5:17 pm

And even if Mann were outed as a fraud by this case, what would be the result?

The IPCC would say they had removed his hockey stick claims from their reports some years ago. They are absolved.

Mann himself might, at best, be sacked but able to trot off onto his beachside front property.

The ‘establishment’ might hang Mann out to dry and carry on regardless stating they acted on the information they had at the time.

The ‘establishment’ will doubtless claim that new evidence has come to light that supersedes, but largely supports Mann’s claims.

And whilst it’s admirable that the pursuit of science, wrapped up in politics is worthwhile, Mann is largely yesterdays news and, is he really worth the trouble any longer?

And who, precisely, are the establishment?

Who do the disenfranchised sceptics round on if Mann is exposed?

Whatever happened to Climategate anyway?

I haven’t the answer to any of these questions. Are they even worth asking?

steven mosher
Reply to  HotScot
November 30, 2018 7:26 pm

the hockey stick isnt even important

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Well, sure, now that’s been shown to be felgercarb, it’s not important. What’s important was that the lysenkoists tried to use the hockey stick as a bludgeon to force us into a UN Socialist Hell.

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 7:41 pm

So the featured chart in one of the first IPCC reports “isn’t even important”.

Man, the back pedaling is in full gear.

steven mosher
Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2018 7:54 pm

huh.

my position for over 10 years.
gavins too.

Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 2:42 am

Mine too.

It’s as if these hoccobacillophiliacs haven’t even kept up with the literature, of which I have consistently written that,

“If you still haven’t bought a copy of Distinguished Professor Michael Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Why A Hockey-Stick-Obsessed World Needs To Stop Talking About the Hockey Stick and Move on to Non-Hockey-Stick Topics Already, then you’re simply not a serious participant in the climate conversation, so don’t bother.

“Mann devotes several detailed and densely-referenced chapters to the unimportance of the Hockey Stick. If you could make your denihilist father-in-law read one bit of science, you could choose far worse than this mythbusting antidote to skeptic propaganda.

“While THSATCW:WAHSOWNTSTATHSAMOTNHSTA is far from the only major release to hit bookshelves this year on the topic of the Hockey Stick and why it doesn’t matter, it has a killer edge over its rivals for this space: the name Michael Mann, which has been synonymous with authority and seriousness ever since 1998, the year he discovered the eponymous ground-breaking footnote.

“Look for Mann’s memoir in the autohagiography section of you nearest legitimate bookseller’s.”

Duncan Smith
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 7:46 am

Mann’s ‘Serengeti Strategy’, interesting insight, one I had not seen (so thanks).
At least Mann can see himself as the weakest ‘zebra’ on the edge of the herd, easy pickings for the lions (skeptics). Only when a ‘wall’ of other stronger zebra’s (scientists) is made, “to confuse the lion’s” (skeptics), can they protect the weakest within the herd.

“Lions, Leopards, and Cheetahs”…Oh my!

http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/21/the-serengeti-strategy/

Duncan Smith
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 7:59 am

And this too, very insightful. By inference, herd protected science.

But they have difficulty picking out an individual zebra to attack when it is seamlessly incorporated into the larger group, lost in this case in a continuous wall of stripes. Only later would I understand the profound lesson this scene from nature had to offer me and my fellow climate scientists in the years to come.

http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/21/the-serengeti-strategy/

Latitude
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 8:52 am

my position for over 10 years.
gavins too.

=====

Hockey stick is ~20 years old

Duncan Smith
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 9:23 am

I may have crashed Greg’ Laden’s blog site with me linking it above….sorry Greg ; )

Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 9:44 am

“By inference, herd protected science.”

As a Climate Carnivore, I can’t even begin to relate to the absence of self-respect they’d have to suffer from at night, when they’re all alone with the awareness of their utter mediocrity.

Then again, can I really blame such interchangeable ungulates for taking shelter in the anonymity of the herd? When you’ve got no pride…

Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 10:32 am

Latitude, good catch:

“my position for over 10 years.”
“Hockey stick is ~20 years old”

In Mosher’s defense, the 10-year discrepancy is easy to understand when you consider the Stick’s evolution.

Mann so loved The Science that he lay down his integrity to keep it safe from harm.

He spent years protecting his artifact from the disinfecting effects of sunlight by withholding enabling details from any and all non-trusted parties attempting to replicate it. Only thanks to the tireless, pro bono digging of anti-science science-haters like McIntyre was science able to progress, in dribs and drabs as the missing hints leaked out, belatedly living up to its “self-correcting” reputation.

So Mosh may well mean that the HS mattered until c. 2004.

It mattered until it shattered.

“When the Hockey Stick changes, I change my mind. What do you do, huh? What do you do?”

But hey, I’m sure Mosher can give us an even more piquant explanation along the lines of:

Lat you are too funny.
quick—Is 20 “over 10” or not. Yes? or No.
kindergarten math son?
20 > 10 and if you disagree I have a fields medal with your name on it—just have to prove all of Discrete Math and large chunks of radiative Physics wrong in a single genius mathematics paper
good luck you’ll need it? don’t expect peer reviewers to pull their punches when unpublished blog heros think they know better than them

skeptics: can’t do math, can’t overturn the climate, can’t throw, catch, bat

quintuple threats you guys are. no really the scientists must be quaking in their boot when they here the rustle of simian wings

Latitude + attitude – aptitude = ineptitude
discuss

Duncan Smith
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 12:09 pm

Brad, sometime I have to look this stuff up “autohagiography”. While seemingly a typo, well done.

autohagiography:

1) An autobiography of a saint.
2) (derogatory) An autobiography that flatters the subject.

Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 4:34 pm

Duncan,

Thanks for nothing. Grumble grumble. I’m much less pleased with myself now that I know “autohagiography” is in the dictionary, not to mention in the title of an Aleister Crowley book.

There’s no way I can prove this, but I swear I invented it ‘independently’ a couple of years back (in so far as when I first typed it online I was, to my knowledge, uploading a hapax legomenon).

Duncan Smith
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 5:09 pm

Brad, self deprecating but still right when you are wrong or was that right? No one knows. Take it as a badge of honor as some Blacksmith would…..keep pounding those words into some sorta shape that resembles some sort of art form. Well beyond my abilities. Good night.

mike the morlock
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 8:13 pm

steven mosher November 30, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Hello Steven. I hope you are well,( the effects of the fires and storms.) now as to your statement “the hockey stick isnt even important”

Well let us examine that, first it is in present tense, while the discussion is in past tense. In the past, it was very important, as it was used to influence public policy and frighten young children to advance personal agendas.
In the here and now, it is very useful in conjunction with e-mail release to expose the scale of the deception of a small alignment, to advance their own personal views and careers at the expense of the public, in the manner of health, economic security, and personal freedoms.

michael

Steven Mosher
Reply to  mike the morlock
December 1, 2018 5:08 am

“Well let us examine that, first it is in present tense, while the discussion is in past tense. ”

lets check that the COMMENT I am responding to is this

‘And even if Mann were outed as a fraud by this case, what would be the result?

The IPCC would say they had removed his hockey stick claims from their reports some years ago. They are absolved.

Mann himself might, at best, be sacked but able to trot off onto his beachside front property.

The ‘establishment’ might hang Mann out to dry and carry on regardless stating they acted on the information they had at the time.

The ‘establishment’ will doubtless claim that new evidence has come to light that supersedes, but largely supports Mann’s claims.

And whilst it’s admirable that the pursuit of science, wrapped up in politics is worthwhile, Mann is largely yesterdays news and, is he really worth the trouble any longer?”

Looks more like future tense than past.

To be clear, for years on climate audit I argued that the HS functioned as an icon and that battles over it were a sort of proxy war over land that wasnt very important.
And Further that it distracted skeptics from some important questions where they should be focusing, namely on ECS. Luckily some folks–Nic lewis– were not distracted by these battles over nothing.

I realize that this is a minority view, some folks still think that the HS is important, but I have never been very impressed with the “uprecedented” argument that the HS makes.
Frankly we know the warming is largely caused by humans without spending 1 minute on the HS. It is terterairy evidence. Like OJs glove.

What IS interesting is the number of people here who blindly assume that I will adopt every position of AGW folks. This shows a lack of skepticism on “honest libertys” part
and you would THINK that a den full of skeptics dedicated to the truth and nothing but the truth would have pointed that out to him before I did.

The biggest problem I have with skeptics is they are not skeptical enough.

Duncan Smith
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2018 6:22 am

Next we might here the “97% of scientist agree” rebuttal wasn’t very important either, just one drop of blood in a massacre…meaningless.

Marcus
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2018 7:44 am

“the hockey stick isnt (sic) even important” (anymore, since it has served it’s purpose?)

“Why should I give you the data when your aim is to find something wrong with it?” (and ruin my credibility by pointing out the obvious lies I made ?)

The comments above show that most liberal “scientists” have no credibility ! IMHO……

Latitude
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2018 9:39 am

Mosh…the HS is still very important
It’s stuck in the minds of the vast majority as the world’s biggest visual aid

…there’s a ton of people that still believe it

Patrick healy
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2018 12:53 pm

Mr Mosher, I admire the efforts you make on the political and religious fronts (like today’s article in Breitbart about China), but when you state ” frankly we know the warming(sic) is largely caused by humans” could you please show this long retired amateur meteorologist the evidence for that ridiculous statement.
What warming and what evidence please and thank you.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2018 1:20 pm

Steven Mosher December 1, 2018 at 5:08 am
Hi Steven. Thank you for responding. After reading your reply I fear we are talking past one another.
I see that your response to Hotscot was only to his statements. Myself I do not think in that fashion. all the statements, positions and history in regards to a subject are part of the discussion.
Earlier you used the phrase “Your tribe”. So be it, though I never would have imagined that was your view, that there was your tribe and than our tribe. Seems like devolution to me.
Now, you state “Frankly we know the warming is largely caused by humans ” Do you mean solely your “tribe” or are you referring to a larger population?
Myself for the record I agree GHG theory is valid and further that Climate is susceptible to changes due to GHGs.
But there are requirements. Theses include total change in ppm and yes the ratio of the various gas to each other. I have not read of any claim of sustained increase of atmospheric pressure, nor total ppm of all GHGs as a percentage of the atmosphere.
Exchanging the weaker of three of GHGs for a percentage of other atmospheric molecules and thus causing AGW is a very nebulous footing footing to stand on.

michael

Frank
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 2, 2018 2:28 am

Mosher wrote: “To be clear, for years on climate audit I argued that the HS functioned as an icon and that battles over it were a sort of proxy war over land that wasnt very important.
And Further that it distracted skeptics from some important questions where they should be focusing, namely on ECS. Luckily some folks–Nic lewis– were not distracted by these battles over nothing.”

There is some truth here. Assuming the enhanced GHE exists (I do) and GHGs continue to rise, GMST was rising and will continue to rise until it is warmer than it was in the MWP. It really didn’t make any difference if it became warmer in the 1940’s or the 1980’s or the 2010’s, or whether proxy reconstructions actually provide any useful information on this subject. ECS is all that is important in the long run.

However, the Hockey Stick was important in another way. It showed us how unwilling the climate science community was to recognized and deal with problems and weaknesses discovered by skeptics. This is why Steve wrote a book on the Climategate emails staring the Hockey Stick. Nothing has change. The army that took on Steve McIntyre (and lost, though the public never knew) has turned all of its attention on Nic Lewis and the low ECS found with EBMs. They written dozens of sloppy papers with mistakes and dubious choices that always point to a higher ECS.

In the meantime, political polarization has caused much of the skeptical community to believe in scientific nonsense, damaging the credibility of people like Nic and others who understand that the real issue is “How much?” (ECS). It appears to be as impossible for us to successfully confront skeptical nonsense as it was for the consensus to confront Mann.

Skeptikal
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 2, 2018 3:51 am

“Frankly we know the warming is largely caused by humans without spending 1 minute on the HS.”

No we don’t. All we know is that here has been some warming… we certainly don’t know the cause.

“The biggest problem I have with skeptics is they are not skeptical enough.”

Now that’s funny, coming from someone who isn’t the slightest bit skeptical about blaming CO2 emissions as the cause of the recent warming.

You can point your finger at “the science”… but that same science says that the CO2 emission band is already saturated, which means any extra CO2 does little (if anything) to increase surface temperatures.

The science is far from settled… don’t let your arrogance cloud your science.

Reply to  mike the morlock
December 2, 2018 9:42 am

“Frankly we know the warming is largely caused by humans without spending 1 minute on the HS. It is terterairy evidence. Like OJs glove.”

Mosh,

I thought you understood that the CO2 effect low in the atmosphere is saturated long since, and that raising the altitude at which the atmosphere freely radiates to space DOES increase the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere, but the magnitude of this effect CANNOT be calculated. Hence, your pronouncement “Frankly…” is simply not SCIENTIFIC.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 8:13 pm

Gee, Mosher, are you the first fixer sent in to cushion and “nothing-to-see-here” this historic moment. If the temperature is not rising like a hockey stick, then what is it doing alternatively and why do we have only 12 years until mass extinction, waves of tropical diseases, super hurricanes martian droughts, and waterworld to engulf us.

You gotta be kidding! The hockeystick has been bludgeoning the science for two decades. It’s been egregiously ‘replicated’ by a number of others using the same invalid proxies including one upside down as an armature and speckling it with others like the coloured sprinkles for donuts to make them look independent right up to a couple if years ago. McIntyre had a tough time keeping up with t
having them withdrawn.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 30, 2018 8:53 pm

Anybody that seriously thinks that humanity has only 12 years left before climate Armageddon, needs professional help. I have stated before, my bottom line. IF ALL OF THE ARCTIC ICE MELTS IN THE ARCTIC SUMMER , I will go over to the alarmist camp. Hansen and others have been predicting that; many times without success. Mosher, what is your bottom line? What has to happen before you admit that CAGW isnt possible?

Kurt
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 1, 2018 2:30 am

Technically, they don’t quite say that. They claim that unless we do something fast, in 12 years we’ll pass this “tipping point” beyond which climate Armageddon is inevitable. Exactly when that happens can always be pushed off down the road.

Of course this is the third or fourth iteration of the looming deadline routine, so I can’t understand why they think that people who weren’t already sufficiently alarmed when they said more than a decade ago that we only had 10 years left to repent our sins before our doom was sealed are going to be persuaded now. In fact, there was another post a day or so ago about an alarmist graphic trying to summarize the evolution of the skeptics argument, and that ended in the word “oops.” The irony was completely lost on the people who propagated that nonsense.

Barclay E MacDonald
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 9:03 pm

The “Hockey Stick” is extremely important regarding the issue of trust. As to the current science, not so much. But do we really want to disregard how we got here?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Barclay E MacDonald
December 1, 2018 11:46 pm

As Sherman T. Potter might have said: “Horse Hockey!”.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 9:17 pm

Is this the same Steven Mosher who stated (apropos Marcott 2011 and subsequent iterations):
“… its Wrong, but without it perhaps there is no headline because the paper confirms what we already knew. we are close to be as warm or warmer than it has been in the past 12K years …” (steven mosher March 19, 2013 at 11:06 pm)?
https://judithcurry.com/2013/03/19/playing-hockey-blowing-the-whistle/
If that were so the claim could have been the past 120K years.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 9:31 pm

Mosher,
While you may personally discount The Hockey Stick, there are still a lot of people who believe it to be true and use it to justify their belief in AGW. Its not unlike the cagey lawyer that makes a statement that the defense objects to, and then withdraws what he said — but the jury doesn’t forget it!

LdB
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 2, 2018 5:18 am

I would argue the Hockey Stick belongs to CAGW while AGW is an entirely different thing … it is the whole catastrophic part you need this massively ramping up effect.

lee
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 10:06 pm

Even though the IPCC currently misuses the Marcott et al 2013 “hockeystick” like uptick in SR5?

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  steven mosher
November 30, 2018 11:15 pm

Mosher writes

the hockey stick isnt even important

But the motivation behind it is.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
November 30, 2018 11:50 pm

But you know that apparently. What happened Steve?

https://climateaudit.org/2011/02/21/on-the-scent/#comment-256336

bonbon
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 1, 2018 8:34 am

Have a look at Heine on Shelling the great pantheist of Nature – he apostatises his apostasy, and to the shame of deserting his cause he adds the cowardice of lying !
Even Kant is unfaithful to the ” Critique of Pure Reason,” whilst writing the ” Critique of Practical Reason.”
Why such apostasy happens is a Kan’t-ian study in itself.

bonbon
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 2, 2018 4:48 am

I was right about apostasy – the Breitbart China-bashing piece is the give away :
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.

Wow – straight from Britain’s Mackinder (of Edward VII) Geopolitics from the late 1800’s.

Of course it’s not about Co2, or even AGW – it is about the end of the World Order of the “British” Empire- just look at them getting caught at regime change right in the USA!
Trump must declassify!

The New Paradigm, the Belt and Road Initiative, that VP Pence fumes over, is the only way out of the economic morass of the USA, EU, and now France and Italy. It is the largest development program ever seen, and S.Mosher deploys in the service of the Crown.

This is why tariffs and trade wars alone will fix nothing – Trump promised massive infrastructure at home, along China’s hugely successful program, which ironically is borrowed from FDR’s New Deal. There is great potential to work with the Dems on that. That is a threat to no-one other than the dying, flailing, wallowing, British Empire – sorry, Victoria, it does exist. With a Lehman II just right ahead, these idiotic China-bashers are going to be blindsided for the fools they are.

The late GHW Bush’s New World Order was not new, dsordered, a rehash of the tottering British Empire, and look at the trail of destruction it wrought.

For these NWO operatives throwing a few AGW catch-word bones and watching the “dogs” snapping is an imperial game.

Why should anyone play quadruped for these self-declared Titans, Macron being a junior Jupiter example?

Craig
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 7:41 am

The hockey stick itself may not important, however if it’s conclusively demonstrated that there was willful fraud and a subsequent cover-up, that is hugely important. If the soon-to-be-released emails demonstrate fraud, conspiracy, etc., mainstream climate science cannot claim legitimacy unless and until the bad actors are dealt with in a manner similar to how the medical science community handled Dr. Scott Reuben.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 6:35 pm

> “the hockey stick isnt even important” ~ steven mosher
November 30, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Excellent, then you won’t mind remitting me the California fuel tax increase I’ve been paying for the past 2 years. After all it is unimportant. The Hockey Stick set in motion decades of misallocation
of public and private spending. That’s important because onlt rich countries can/will address real environmental issues like pollution.

bonbon
Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2018 2:24 am

THE MAN THAT WAS USED UP A Tale of the Late Bugaboo and Kickapoo Campaign by Edgar Allan Poe

Theme : Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau!
La moitie de ma vie a mis l’autre au tombeau.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2018 3:26 am

HotScot,

I think you’d be surprised. Remember, as bitterly as we Disenfranchiseds flog the dead horse of Mann’s scientific credibility, our opponents are twice as bitter in their insistence that it’s actually alive and well and rearing to smash Phar Lap’s records.

And why not? There’s no statute of limitations on bad science, nor should they be.

You can’t “move on” from bad science, unless that means “pretend its a perfectly sound foundation and proceed, with culpable recklessness and indifference to human life, to erect a residential high-rise on top of it.”

It needs to be excised from the canon—not necessarily retracted, but honestly acknowledged as having zero veridicality—or it infects everything.

The thing is, though, as bad as Mann gets, they’ll never be able to throw him under the bus. (One would almost be forgiven for inferring, from the intrasigence with which they defend their bad apples, that they don’t have any good apples.)

Why not? Because in an absolutist belief system, admitting your enemies were right all along even once is tantamount to total surrender.

So it’s both inevitable, and desirable, that we keep tormenting them with the classics. Mann is a gifr to us—why should we relinquish it when it keeps on giving?

The only known victim of bus-throwing in climatic history is one R Pachauri, male, 78.

And it had nothing to do with his compulsive lying—Pachauri could have stayed on as IPCC President For Life no matter how egregiously he disinformed the world. Unfortunately he seems to have, shall we say, been a bit too much of a hands-on boss. Proven crimes against science can be absolved with a slap on the wrist. (Boys being boys, don’t you know, whatwhat.) Suspected crimes against women cannot.

“Who do the disenfranchised sceptics round on if Mann is exposed?”

Character limits prevent me from pasting the names of all the currently active climate pseudoscientists I can think of off the top of my head. I doubt we’d have any difficulty finding a new focus of indictment.

(There, there, there’s plenty more zebra on the Serengeti, as they say in Africa when a friend has been dumped by a romantic partner.)

Latitude
November 30, 2018 5:31 pm

but in a form that does not allow them to be downloaded

why not just copy and paste?

Mark M
November 30, 2018 5:40 pm

“The IPCC (and CSIRO) relied heavily on the Mann paper in coming to their global warming conclusions.”

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878029212.html

Nick Werner
November 30, 2018 6:25 pm

“In earlier work we have argued for an open-minded approach to the
study of the climate of the last 1000 years. Jones and Bradley (1992)
conclude that ‘the last 500 years was a period of complex climatic
anomalies, the understanding of which is not well-served by the continued
use of the term ‘Little Ice Age’… ”

Ah, an open-minded approach… kind of like showing that Beethoven’s ninth symphony was approximately 70 minutes of complex frequency and amplitude anomalies. Its understanding is not well-served by the continued characterization of four distinct movements comprising one of the greatest musical compositions of all time.
Even the choral ending is bleached out by concentrating on anomalies.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Werner
November 30, 2018 6:43 pm

When you average Beethoven, Chopin, Bach, Mozart, etc, you just get noise. You have to add Hank Williams Sr and overweight him 391 times to get that “fingernails on the chalkboard” hysterical screeching that gets the attention of the unwashed.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 30, 2018 8:18 pm

JA Beautiful!

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 30, 2018 8:39 pm

“When you average Beethoven, Chopin, Bach, Mozart, etc, you just get noise.”

No, you get Shostakovich.

Kurt
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 30, 2018 9:46 pm

Excellent.

bonbon
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 1, 2018 2:06 am

Not all noise is the same – I think you refer to pink noise.
The emails are full of lies, damned lies and statistical noise of various hues.

By the way who upped the ante from Mann’s mere “antis” to deniers?

Kurt
Reply to  bonbon
December 1, 2018 2:37 am

“Not all noise is the same – I think you refer to pink noise.”

Now, be nice here. His music was certainly bland, but joining the Communist Party was probably forced on him.

bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
December 1, 2018 3:44 am

I was. Not sure even if Red noise exists…

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 1, 2018 6:43 am

Worse, you get Hindemith. As NOAA… said, you get noise.

Nick Werner
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 30, 2018 10:54 pm

That kind of averaging would completely wipe out the choral riffs.

bonbon
Reply to  Nick Werner
December 1, 2018 8:59 am

Such noise causes bleaching.
Hilarious!

Lance of BC
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 1, 2018 7:38 am

All are good noise to me including Hank! 😉

<< unwashed musician

Sara
November 30, 2018 6:42 pm

Mann knowingly committed fraud to get grant money. UVA went along with it. UPenn has gone along with it, also,, because UPenn gets half of the money from the grant.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. This was done intentionally, for the sole purpose of getting the cash. If that isn’t fraud, then what is it?

I was under the impression that all the Climategate e-mails had been published already by whoever it was that hacked them and obtained the copies. UVA’s attempt to cover its own tracks by NOT releasing requested documents to the public, but rather giving them to Mann to “edit”, makes UVA complicit in this.

Arrogance and greed show up everywhere in this.

Don
Reply to  Sara
November 30, 2018 7:04 pm

I do believe it is Penn State and not UPenn.

honest liberty
Reply to  Don
November 30, 2018 10:00 pm

Pennsylvania State University. Like most universities, they have fallen far from their original charter and no longer can be considered institutions of higher education. I went there and it was already a disgrace at that time. The football fans in that part of Pennsylvania are truly rabid and just as blinded as most castraphobists. I know, I grew up in the heart of PSU territory.

Sara
Reply to  Don
December 1, 2018 8:53 pm

Yes, it is Penn State. I have no idea why I get UPenn and PSU switched around, but I do, and frequently.

My bad. Sorry.

Robert Wille
November 30, 2018 6:48 pm

“in a form that does not allow them to be downloaded”? If a document can be viewed, it can be downloaded. If you are seeing something in your browser, then it has, in fact, been downloaded already.

Tom
November 30, 2018 6:55 pm

I was a student at UVa 1980-1984. The serial lies about the history of the climate change debate and the facts of the current debate would make Thomas Jefferson sick.

Sara
November 30, 2018 7:13 pm

Fortunately, I have long memory retention, and all I had to do was go to Ice Age Now, putting climategate e-mails first, and stuff came up. Here’s some archived material that may interest some of you.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived.html

It’s not that the e-mails are not available. The problem is that Mann and UVA don’t want to be proven to being part of a longterm fraud, ditto UPenn.

I was right, there were hackers working on getting those e-mails and archiving them to show/prove the fraud. UVA may try to hide its nonsense, and Mann may try the same thing, but they forget how easy it is for “others” to out them.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Sara
December 1, 2018 12:03 am

I like this one the best. I don’t know who said it but this one has to be an alltime classic.

” What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably”

Sara
Reply to  Sara
December 1, 2018 6:09 pm

Ice Age Now still has the pdf compiled from the e-mails of Climategate, if anyone is interested. It is almost 120 pages long and can be downloaded. It was put together by the Lavoisier Group.

Here’s the link:

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

Whatever Mann tries to do, he forgets that he is not the only clever person in the world. He just thinks he is.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
December 1, 2018 6:17 pm

Sorry, I meant Penn State. My bad.

steven mosher
November 30, 2018 7:24 pm

“FME Law cautions anyone who accesses these emails to do so with respect to the context within which they are written, and for reasons other than ad hominem attacks on Drs. Hughes and Overpeck.”

I have been critical of you David, but I think you nailed it here. Looking forward to your article.

I do not expect folks to resist the urge to sling mud. It will make future efforts like yours harder and not easier.

Lance of BC
Reply to  steven mosher
December 1, 2018 9:09 am

Mosher
“I have been critical of you David, but I think you nailed it here. Looking forward to your article.
I do not expect folks to resist the urge to sling mud. It will make future efforts like yours harder and not easier.”
Cryptic as usual, if you have such distain for FOLKS(us plebs) why the heck post here? Us unwashed uneducated(in your mind) and to be ignored FOLKS are looking for the truth. I have no problem with a wrong hypotheses…but a hypotheses that is unquestioning and based on such a limited knowledge of climate, then agenda computed, blended, altered and taken as fact to impoverish and destroy energy production, economies and civilisations????

You’re off your rocker if you don’t think there will not be repercussions.

Stop with the condescending lecturing. It is what it is , and thanks for the information David.

Then us .

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Lance of BC
December 1, 2018 4:59 pm

Lance, you used a double negative (don’t think there will not be).

BTW, Mosh claims to accept AGW, but not CAGW. I would like to know what he thinks of positive feedback, and supporting actual data. It appears that in all real physical systems positive feedback would result in runaway results until the source of positive feedback were exhausted (e.g., melting ice over water), but the arctic ocean ice has stopped decreasing now for several years. What is the source of positive feedback. It is not increased water vapor, as that has not increased at higher altitudes. It also does not amplify the long term much larger temperature variations that naturally occur, such as enso, or seasonal variation. how does the small direct increase due to CO2 absorption (tenths of a degree) do different from other increases that were much larger?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
December 1, 2018 7:09 pm

” but the arctic ocean ice has stopped decreasing now for several years. ”

If you want to consider ice, you had best start with all ice rather than the highly variable sea ice, where up to 50% of the losses can be attributed to natural variation. Further you would want to consider ice volume and not just extents or areas. In addition to ice you would want to look at permafrost was well. But even in the arctic it is premature to claim with any statistical skill that the ice has “stopped” decreasing. When it returns to 1979 levels, you can call me.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Lance of BC
December 1, 2018 6:41 pm

Mosher
“I have been critical of you David, but I think you nailed it here. Looking forward to your article.
I do not expect folks to resist the urge to sling mud. It will make future efforts like yours harder and not easier.”
Cryptic as usual, if you have such distain for FOLKS(us plebs) why the heck post here? Us unwashed uneducated(in your mind) and to be ignored FOLKS are looking for the truth. I have no problem with a wrong hypotheses…but a hypotheses that is unquestioning and based on such a limited knowledge of climate, then agenda computed, blended, altered and taken as fact to impoverish and destroy energy production, economies and civilisations????

You’re off your rocker if you don’t think there will not be repercussions.

Stop with the condescending lecturing. It is what it is , and thanks for the information David.

Then us .

“Cryptic as usual, if you have such distain for FOLKS(us plebs) why the heck post here?”

My message was to David. The last time he posted an article I was critical of his decision to take so much time releasing the mails. Given the argument he presented at court, given the commitment he made to the judge, I now understand his approach. Both he and I are proponents of transparency. Apparently one of the arguments made was that david wanted the mails only for the purpose of facilitating personal attacks on the scientists. His response to this a good one and now I understand the purpose of the delay. I don’t know why you think a message to David should be immediately understandable to you. Perhaps there is a lesson about reading mails in this. Perhaps not. As for your question of why I post here. I think you need to sync up with other skeptics. Do you want an echo chamber or debate? Do you want folks who believe in AGW to come and anwser questions, or do you just want punching bags that don’t hit back. Do want insult wars? make up your minds.
Ya’ll huddle together and decide what kinda discussion you want to have and who you want to invite, and ya’ll come up with some speech codes to protect your snowflake sensibilities and make a proper invitation.

Greg Locock
November 30, 2018 8:20 pm

I’m a bit surprised that someone merely slightly more cluey than myself has not run a cut and paste bot on the emails in the browser and downloaded the lot. (Yeah, that’s a hint).

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 30, 2018 8:36 pm

Somebody must have presented few important scientific points to ponder on instead of so many comments with little on subject matter.

In fact we fought with IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri on the conclusion “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035”. Though initially said “voo-do science” but after receiving Nobel Prize on UN Secretary General’s observation withdrew this from the report. After Paris meet in 2015, the minister informed to Indian parliament that 86.6% of Himalayan Glaciers are intact.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Lance of BC
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
December 1, 2018 7:57 am

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy.

“Somebody must have presented few important scientific points to ponder on instead of so many comments with little on subject matter.”

Huh? Please explain your comment, your translation to English is not clear, before I will comment.

rah
November 30, 2018 9:22 pm

In reference to Mann and judgments of his character, one should never forget that he and his legal team falsely declared that Mann was a Nobel Laureate. The did so even in a court of law!

David Chappell
Reply to  rah
December 1, 2018 3:03 am

And Trenberth (and his institution) still calls himself a Nobel Laureate.

Phil
November 30, 2018 10:50 pm

This would appear to be in violation of the court order. Producing the emails means producing the attachments as well. The attachments seem to be missing. Maybe I couldn’t see them, but the attachments are very important and should be produced as well.

bonbon
Reply to  Phil
December 1, 2018 4:09 am

From what I remember the CRU email attachments had source code with comments on how to skew the results, very revealing. Not sure if Mann’s emails have source code though.

jim heath
November 30, 2018 11:00 pm

Being rude to Mann does not compare with the suffering he has cause to millions of poor people. His nonsense theory to deprive the Planet of cheap fuel is as cruel a hoax as I can imagine. He is not cold, he is not hungry, he is not poor. A pox on him.

Smart Rock
November 30, 2018 11:53 pm

Just done a little random browsing of the emails. Interesting stuff.

Here is an interesting insight into how the heavy hitters influence journals to control who and what gets published. The arrogance and sense of entitlement are shockingly obvious.

It’s the first two emails, both from Phil Jones, that start the chain ending in Mann’s email of 2003-03-12 16:29 (bolding added by me after cleaning up the formatting). It’s about the now famous Soon & Balliunas paper.

Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers
Phil

Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom’s old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read more at the weekend as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn’t the warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged.
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Cheers
Phil

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 1, 2018 2:54 am

‘record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.’

Which means they are not locally significant at between 80-90% of grid boxes.
With this order of error it is hard to see that an aggregate warming is significant itself by this data.

RobR