Climategate Consequences: The Mann Report
When the Climategate story first broke, a lot of adherents of the skeptical view of anthropogenic climate change were mightily excited — proclaiming it the “end of the global warming hoax.” They have been disappointed because the breaking story wasn’t immediately followed by the resignation of everyone involved, the termination of all U.S. action on cap and trade, and tar and feathers for Al Gore.
This was a little unrealistic. There are a lot of vested interests involved, a lot of money that depends on the CO2-driven AGW narrative, a lot of people with wealth and reputations on the line. That’s a lot of inertia, and the narrative won’t change course quickly.
That doesn’t mean nothing is happening, however.
One of the people mentioned often in the Climategate emails is Dr. Michael Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University and the original first author of the famous “hockey stick” papers. When Climategate broke, there were a number of emails that seemed to show Mann was connected to the climate clique and some misconduct. This prompted what must have been a flood of emails. Penn State announced an inquiry into Mann’s conduct just a few days later.
Today’s breaking news is that the initial report on Mann’s conduct has been released. The report itself isn’t very exciting. If not a whitewash, it’s at least a bit of a graywash, as they very carefully restricted the topics and questions they considered. But it’s not a complete vindication for Mann, either (no matter what the Huffington Post says). The report concluded that Mann should be subject to further investigation, saying there was a real question whether Mann’s conduct “may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist,” or “may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.” In effect, the committee says there is evidence that Mann violated the social contract of science.
The report announces the formation of a university committee to investigate this further, and frankly, Mann could be in some trouble on this.
Consider some of the things we’ve seen as a result of the Climategate story: Mann apparently didn’t actually delete emails when requested, but he also didn’t say anything against it until after the request was exposed. He may not have directly manipulated data, but he didn’t struggle when other people talked about it. He certainly participated in discussions of how to prevent skeptics like Steve McIntyre from getting access to data, and wasn’t very forthcoming with his own data, which on the face would seem to violate Penn State policy. And while being wrong isn’t scientific misconduct — and it’s a good damn thing — the fact is that Mann’s work has been seriously questioned on a number of occasions, as was documented in the Wegman report.
The Wegman report was, by the way, excluded from consideration by the initial committee at Penn State, which also didn’t even communicate with Steve McIntyre. What this report really tells us is that even though they clearly tried to limit exposure as much as possible, the Penn State committee recognized there was enough controversy, and enough public attention, that they couldn’t issue a simple whitewash.
The basic facts are these: A hypothesis has been offered up, which purports as follows:
The Earth’s surface temperatures are getting warmer, due primarily to CO2 introduced to the atmosphere by man. Further, the consequences of the hypothesis being true are catastrophic for man and other species.
To borrow an overused phrase from our President, LET ME BE CLEAR: the data do not support the hypothesis, as measured by sea water temps, land temps, and upper atmosphere temps. Further, any observed warming now (which appears to be no greater than at other past periods) is not explainable exclusively by CO2 levels nor by those CO2 levels attributable to mankind.
And finally, it is unclear whether warming is bad, or, in contrast to cooling, worse than other outcomes which may befall the planet.
No models used by the well-endowed and public-funded warmists can predict current surface temperatures by using past inputs for CO2 concentrations or past temperatures. No data exists to conclusively say that ocean temperatures are meaningfully higher than those attributable to random or cyclical solar activity (remember that our planet’s surface is largely water, the compound occurring in nature with the highest “specific heat”–that is, the ability to absorb the most energy with the least change in temperature–than any other compound.
Further, it may just be possible that any observed surface temperature changes we can actually measure with some confidence are due to the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY WE GET ON THIS PLANET EVERY DAY!!—THE SUN!!!
Is misstatement now the new word for a LIE or UNTRUTH! Get rid of them all if they received grants from any government anywhere!
I’d phrase that a little differently. The alleged allegations aren’t what he was accused of. The whole report is at Watts’, and the committee basically made op their own allegations. They didn’t consult any critics to determine what the real allegations were. It was a set of straw man allegations. And even with that, he didn’t come up totally clean.
Meanwhile in jolly old England, Moonbat’s calling for Jones’ head.
While I don’t anticipate the Obama Department of Justice to do anything about federal funds obtained under false pretenses, certainly the attorneys general of states that gave money to promote a fraud should indict and prosecute Mann and company. As you write this will be a slow process, but this time people need to do some hard prison time.
Charles: Hard to understand why you don’t see the recent Penn State report as an almost total WHITEWASH. The rest to come later. The sleek words of Foley et al could be beguiling — but I would not have thought to someone of your knowledge and sophistication.
Actually, it’s more than a whitewash — it’s very strong support for Mann. With a lot of speechifying.
Joe, if it had been a whitewash, they would have exonerated him on all four issues, said “nothing to see here”, and moved on. Instead, they left the broadest of issues open, with another 120 days of investigation by a separate committee; that issue, of basically appearing to have violated the norms of science, is a lot riskier than the others for Mann.
Now, let’s be clear on a couple of things. First off, Foley is someone I’ve known by reputation for 35 years, and I don’t recall anyone ever saying he was dishonorable. On the other hand, like all University administrators, he primarily wants controversy to go away; he has grants to big for and donors to schmooze. So I don’t doubt that they would have just loved to be able to say it was all nothing if they could. Clearly, they couldn’t do it with straight faces.
Second, I don’t think Mann is a primary player in this: he had a paper that was flawed, but no one in the climate science community realized it was flawed; he needed a real statistician. This is unfortunately endemic in a lot of this kind of science — if these folks were really strong in maths they would have become physicists or something, and statistical studies are just too easily skewed by fairly tiny choices. Mann made some decisions about specific statistical manipulations that no one caught, and wound up with a hockey-stick generator. The code fit data in such a way that he got the famous “hockey stick”. Then, his hockey stick became popular — it “verified” something Hansen had been saying for years, it made a nice slide in “Inconvenient Truth.”
All of a sudden he was adopted by the cool kidz, got invited to their parties, got to meet powerful people, started getting grants, was set for tenure. It’s no wonder he started going to lengths to defend the hockey stick, even though I don’t think what he did in “hiding the decline” was good science. You can see that in the emails too — he expressed some hesitation a couple of times, but quickly backed down, rather than risk being drummed out of the clique.
Now, going back to that fourth charge, there’s something about it that you may not be seeing: at least while the investigation continues, Mann is more vulnerable than he has ever been. His reputation has been hurt. People won’t want to co-author papers with im, granting agencies will be more cautious about grants on which he’s the principal investigator.
And everything that people find in FOIAs to come, in emails not yet examined, will factor into his eventual fate. And there are a lot of shoes yet to drop.
I am not a scientist, but I am a securities lawyer. I believe that the hockey stick, with hidden decline, had it appeared in a prospectus, would have been the SEC’s key exhibit in a criminal trial for fraud.
“All of a sudden he was adopted by the cool kidz, got invited to their parties, got to meet powerful people, started getting grants, was set for tenure.”
The above sentence is bit too subtle for my taste. I would rephrase it to read:
All of a sudden he was adopted by the cool kidz, got invited to their parties, got to meet powerful people, started getting grants, was set for tenure—and made oodles of money!
This guy is set for life. The global warming stuff has probably turned Michael Mann into a very wealthy man. Academics can be just as greedy as Gordon Gekko. They just lie to themselves about it.
For a thorough discussion of the Penn State ‘investigation’, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/penn-state-report-on-mann-new-investigation-to-convene/#more-16007
You’ll learn plenty that you won’t see elsewhere.
Considering the money wasted and the lives ruined by these frauds, I think jail time is in order. What do you think, Mr. Gore? Maybe then you will have time to get your grades up enough to get that Divinity degree.
Charlie,
Good report. One suggestion. Don’t refer to Steve McIntyre as a “skeptic”. I’m not sure he would describe himself that way, actually. Also skeptic is more of a political term in this context. How about simply a “statistician”.
Charles is right about one thing. The nickel has not yet worked its way through the machine.
Speaking of calls for Pachauri to resign: Now the head of Greenpeace in the UK says ‘Go’!
As see the post linked above for Anthony Watt’s site, and this at Climate Audit.
#8 David: If you’ve got any evidence that Mann has become wealthy via this, I’d love to see it. Seriously. We’re very interested in the financial aspect of the whole carbon/climate thing. If not, well, I’m trying to keep this on the level of facts; there’s enough innuendo being thrown around by the climate cabal.
#11 Barry: I think it’s fair to say Steve is skeptical of CO2-forced AGW and of these results. I dunno, I’ll ask him how he feels about it.
#12 westerncanadian: Charles is right about one thing.
Thanks, I aspire to be occasionally right about something.
Hey, ease up! This is the UN, after all, so you had better relax your standards. Whatever you say about Mr. Pachauri, he hasn’t pushed his auntie down an elevator shaft: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008172. At least, no one has seen him do it.
Don’t hope for criminal prosecution, the government hacks will never go after their own. The only way to get justice (meaning punishment by financial ruin of the wrongdoers) be will be in civil court by persons with standing (all of us, it seems).
No. 7 – Fat Man: If you are a securities lawyer, you know how to bring a civil RICO case. Why not do it?
This does sound RICO worthy to me.
Hear that Al Gore?
Did you really get a D in your environment class, Al?
That might explain some things.
Follow the money.
Many groups, media, politicians, scammers and the UN will remain officially unconvinced that AGW and their gravy train is dead.
They need to be pursued.
“They” need to be pursued?? By who? The Democratically controlled US Gov’t? The UN? The Chinese? You’re talking about a topic that is now being taught in schools as “THIS IS THE WAY IT IS”!!! That won’t be changed over night, if at all. You’re talking about politicians who’ve sold their souls to carry the mantle on thing AGW and that will not soon change. We’re talking about a topic that the Main Stream Media and bought hook, line, and sinker and will NEVER change their position on it, regardless of the number of people being “graywashed” as to possible “misgivings” regarding AGW. You could bring all these people involved up on charges, convict them, send them to jail, and the rantings would STILL go on. After all, Al Gore proclaimed, the DISCUSSION is OVER! And, to many, that’s exactly what’s going on. The discussion concerning AGW is over, settled, and they’re pressing on with making us pay for a LIE! Doesn’t matter tho’, the “science/discussion” is over, settled, done deal.
Hopefully, I’m wrong here but, I seriously doubt it.
“#8 David: If you’ve got any evidence that Mann has become wealthy via this, I’d love to see it. Seriously. We’re very interested in the financial aspect of the whole carbon/climate thing. If not, well, I’m trying to keep this on the level of facts; there’s enough innuendo being thrown around by the climate cabal.”
We obviously cannot peak into Michael Mann’s IRS returns since his involvement in the global warming crusade. Nonetheless, it is well established that literally billions of dollars have been spent funding this stuff. It is therefore very reasonable to suspect that Mann financially made out like a bandit. The University of Pennsylvania likely pays him top dollar—and his speaking fees and other compensation are sure to be impressive. What are the odds that I am right? Ninety percent seems in the ballpark.
Charlie:
A lot of the “data” Mann collected was done at the University of Virginia from ’99-05. Penn State might be looking under a rock, but part of the answer might be under the UVA rock.
He and Phil Jones published papers together when he was on faculty there. Mann’s grant funding, data collection, and publication should be investigated at UVA as well. There is an honor code there established by Thomas Jefferson. That should count for something.
good post.
Charles is right but what must not be overlooked is that each “Committee Member” has to have cover as well. This is normally done by limiting the “terms of reference” so they can say it was beyond our task, by interviewing individuals known to have limited first hand exposure to the topic (fluff factor) or by colluding on the wording of the report from the individual investigated by directing the questions and allowing the individual to essentially direct the investigation.
Looks like these folks did all of this to provide themselves with deniability whenever the rest of the wheels come off.
While all the shoes have not yet dropped for Dr.Mann, he might want to send his resume over to Central Connecticut State University where Michael Bellesiles ended up in order to avoid last minute scrambling.
Re: David Thomson
Agree completely. In fact I think a lot of liberal lunacy can be traced back to jealousy about the fact that the really smart people (i.e., intellectuals and the professoriate) don’t make as much money as the philistines (i.e., business people). Much of what we see going on is about wresting control of the economy and influence in society from a money-grubbing commercial class and turning it over to pure-of-heart philospher kings.
Re: MMD
Getting control of at least one house of Congress would open up the possibility of Congressional investigation and hearings. This November is critical!
Since I’m not an attorney the “Civil RICO” concept tripped my curious switch. So I did a search;
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm
After reading that article, I got the impression that a civil RICO suit is long, expensive and has a snowballs chance in ‘ell of working.
If it did, then it would be a long time after the sun goes into it’s red giant phase and there wouldn’t be anyone left that cares.
I would guess that is why there aren’t more civil RICO cases.
If you stop and think about it, a civil RICO case could be laid against either political party. Both are conspiracies to defraud the American taxpayers. Down that road lies anarchy, which judges tend to frown upon.
a civil RICO case strikes me as the legal version of a thermonuclear weapon. You might win, but there won’t be anything left to win.
This relates to the reason why the Usurper being constitutionally non-qualified to be POTUS is a non issue. If he does a good job, it isn’t important. If he doesn’t do a good job, the voters will turn him out before the legal system can. The only real question is will the damage he does while holding office be greater then the damage caused by removing him thru impeachment and conviction?
Charles – Good reporting. I haven’t read the PSU report yet, but it’s on my to-do list. I think tommytruffle @ #1 is spot-on, and I especially like your responses Charles @ #6. As for me, I really don’t care what happens to the players. I think it is more important for the public to be informed so that the Obami (the EPA) and the Congress cannot pass any dumb laws or implement regulations that restrict the use of energy and manufacturing process that produce CO2 or promote wasteful “green energy” (e.g., windmills) or that do anything else to harm the United Staes’ economy as well as prevent further energy extraction from the US itself.
For me, on a personal basis, there is a deep sadness and compassion, to a certain degree, for Dr. Mann in that he may be in the circuit of rath of misunderstanding and lack of comprehension of the GENERAL PUBLIC. General science is NOT EXACT . . . the only exact science is mathematics. Thus, all scientists are meer mortals of their endeavors. Politics now prevades the science of climate and heads will roll . . . Dr. Mann faces a dire future filled with supposition and conjecture. I advise caution, law does NOT mix with theory and hypthosis . . . the explosive results of such application of control challenges the very foundation of scientific experimentation.
I read the report and it is my humble opinion that Dr. Mann will be crucified by the monster of politicized scientology.
I see George Soros’s fingerprints all over this yet his name is never mentioned. Why? Also what about GE?
Also how many on our (?) side like Grahamnesty, McLame, Snoweball and (Tom)Collins have their fingers in this?
With the MSM not reporting on any of the shoes dropping, how will the American public get the correct story? O’Really was and is a believer so forget him. Hannity is an idiot; and Beck has other axes to grind.
#8,18: David: As I say, if you have any evidence, I’d be pleased to see it, in all seriousness. Now, if you’re saying that Mann probably gets a good academic salary —say 10 percent of the athletic director’s salary or more — and some nice conferences (I would have enjoyed hitting that Tahiti one a few years ago) then I’d agree it’s pretty likely, but that’s not “set for life”.
#25 Tallgrass: I agree with you. In the absence of the political/financial axis, the Gore/Hansen/Waxman/Pachauri crowd, Mann’s paper would have been interesting but not a national issue, and if someone looked closely enough to spot the statistical flaws, then they would have published a competing paper. Once Mann was being feted by the Powers, there was too much invested to just correct the paper and go on with life.
#26 blotto: the financial side of this will be very interesting; we’re digging into that.
The funny/sad/horrifying thing is that if you read Mann’s work closely, actually not even that closely, he’s telling you just how weak his “science” is:
FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE, TARTS FROM THE POISON FRUIT
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fruit-of-the-poison-tree-tarts-from-the-poison-fruit/
Funny that Penn State, after an investigation that would embarrass Encyclopedia Brown, has the gall to act as if they are the keepers of the public contract with science.
So even though their laughable excuse for an investigation (read: asking Mann a few questions) did not lead to a conclusion of misconduct, they are going to move on with an investigation on how Mann’s actions reflect on science as a whole.
What a sack of crap. I was appalled to hear that Penn State spent over $600 million dollars on research last year. Meanwhile I work for a company that over half a decade has just grown to a value of about $200 million. In this time our company has obtained numerous patents, and led over 200,000 patients to successful treatment and prevention of multiple types of cancer. So basically with $200 million spread over 5 years we have used science to save and or extend the lives of some 200,000 people. Meanwhile despite $676 million in grants LAST YEAR ALONE, one single Penn State Professor has managed to corrupt an entire arm of science with FABRICATED STATISTICS that aren’t even science at all. He is complicit in decades of temperature datasets being lost for all time, and his advocacy has led to legislation, based on his junkscience, that will impose great financial hardship and obstrutions to progress on a billion global citizens. And Penn State has the nerve to act as if they are the watchmen for all that is pure and good about science. This is the rough equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer claiming responsibility for improving the quality of life of single wayward gay men.
The CRU e-mails are handwritten by the perpetrators themselves. What was done and the intent behind it is clearly on display in these e-mails. They are basically signed confessions. Literally millions of people, even hardcore global warming alarmists have concluded that the misconduct is unmistakable. Yet the “keepers of truth and trust” have opted to play semantics to protect their own and allow his corruption of science to continue without the slightest inconvenience. What a complete and utter joke.
Can’t wait to watch the fallout for Penn State. It will happen, it will be serious, and I will laugh and laugh and laugh. Don’t they have history professors over there to tell them how bad this same course of action has turned out so many times before? Apres le whitewash, le deluge!
One more thing, the elephant in the room, how strong the evidence is for man-made global warming? With all Mann has done, is his conclusion still stands and should the debate begin to start?
Mr. Martin,
Good article. Thank you.
With regards to Mann making money off of this, what about he and Penn State recently receiving $541,184 of stimuless money?
I was under the impression the stimulus money is towards ‘creating or saving’ jobs (saving.. I’ve still yet to get a lucid response from that one).
What is the Penn State climo department doing with this money to ‘save or create’ in their faculty?
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/dcexam/db_36702/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=2E7F9908896852359F271F8FFAD3CB8C?contentguid=3AOxsT9n&storycount=99&detailindex=4&pn=&ps=
“—say 10 percent of the athletic director’s salary or more”
Your point is well taken. I seriously doubt that Michael Mann has earned as much money as the school’s athletic director or football coach. Still, I think he probably has minimally added another million dollars to his bank account over the years because of his involvement in the global warming crusade. Alas, I think that is real money–and able to set one up financially for life. Of course, alas, that is petty cash for folks like Bill Gates and yourself. Is your Rolls-Royce gold plated, or merely silver plated?
Mr. Martin,
I don’t think you’re correct to say “the committee says there is evidence that Mann violated the social contract of science”. That’s an explosive statement, but it’s not justified by the report. What I see in the report is this:
“In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”
In other words, they’re saying “This potato is too hot for us, let’s give it to someone else”. Or “Whaddaya expect us to know, we’re only administrators!” Or “Maybe if we stall long enough it will go away”. But nothing in there says “We think we found evidence that Mann broke the rules”.
May I humbly suggest that you remove that explosive sentence from your article. We’ve seen several recent instances of the IPCC making explosive claims based on nothing. It would be best for “our side” if we don’t do the same.
Sorry, Charlie…I like your demeanor and your attempt to sort out fact from emotion.
However, Mann was involved in a coverup, involving a massive fraud of global economic proportions. And Penn State glossed over that coverup and its implications. They watered down the deceit, they obscured the involvement of one of the key players…who is in their employ.
I KNOW that might hurt the reputation of the school, but the answer to that problem is NOT to build a wall of silence around a conspiracy. They only aids and abets the evildoers.
Mann is not “Little Sally Jumprope” here…he knew that the science was being questioned, he knew that there was a conspiracy to hide key evidence, he knew that there was a conspiracy to shut down peer review and scientific inquiry in the foundational elements of the entirety of the subject, INCLUDING his piece.
To say anything less…and worse…to imply that there is substantially less to his involvement, is abhorrent behavior.
It is NOT ok, to make this inquiry more difficult, to throw more hurdles and obstacles in the way of the search for the truth. Penn State should be ashamed. And Michael Mann should suffer the natural consequences of his role in a worldwide scam.
All of a sudden he was adopted by the cool kidz, got invited to their parties, got to meet powerful people, started getting grants, was set for tenure—and made oodles of money!
This guy is set for life. The global warming stuff has probably turned Michael Mann into a very wealthy man. Academics can be just as greedy as Gordon Gekko. They just lie to themselves about it.
No scientist is making oodles of money from grants. Grants buy equipment and pay for graduate students and postdocs to do research.
Because of grant money, the next generation of scientists gets to go to school. My own university takes 50% off the top of research grants. I don’t know if this is standard.
I can’t believe that very many of the commenters here have ever worked in science, if they think scientists get rich from grants. They don’t. A plumber or an electrician makes more substantially more than a Ph.D. physicist newly out of grad school. Senior scientists with long and distinguished careers get six-figure salaries; lawyers and MDs at the top of their careers make more.
And usual, Charlie Martin does not bother to correct his commenters who accuse people of fraud and fabrication without any evidence whatever.
#29 Dick: I get your point, but every university does that every day.
#30 good skeptic: That is a good question. I think the answer, at this point, is that we simply don’t know. There was a recent paper that looked pretty convincing on cursory reading; it suggested that there had been a good bit of anthropogenic global warming, but that the major forcing GHG had been chloroflourocarbons which we eliminated some years ago, and their degradation over time accounted for the cooling trend since about 1998. Basically, as we’ve seen exposed the rather opaque corrections applied to global temperature data, and we’ve seen that this kind of temperature models haven’t been properly vetted, I think the answer is “we just don’t know.”
#33 ajb: If you follow the link under “violating the social contract” you’ll see that I made a rather longer extended argument for it. I’ll stand on my phrasing.
#34 cfbleachers: I understand how you feel, but this is the way its done. notice, however, that Penn State’s position is based at least partly on how much public disdain there is about Mann’s science. Everyone who continues to suggest Mann’s behavior suggests scientific misconduct, and does so in a measured fashion without arguing for him to be frog-marched to a scientific excommunication, complete with bell book and candle and the ripping of his white I Am a Scientist lab coat, works toward that.
#35 Gabriel: Thanks for mentioning that about the grants, as I’d meant to make the same point. As to the rest, I suggest you read my comments #13,27, after which I shall expect the apology to which I’m entitled.
I understand how you feel, but this is the way its done. notice, however, that Penn State’s position is based at least partly on how much public disdain there is about Mann’s science.
It’s the “this is the way it is done” part, that I don’t like, Charlie. It is also “the way it is done”, to have our entrenched media bury this story and hide it from our countrymen. I don’t like that much either.
A conspiracy of silence by those who are charged with “policing” the corruption, is worse in some ways than the actual corruption itself, at times.
When Penn State engages in a coverup after the fact, most especially when they know that wrongdoing has taken place, it is no different than having internal affairs within a police department conspire to hide crooked activities within a department. I take little solace in hearing “that’s the way we do things” from such a department. Layering a coverup over a crooked act and saying “well, that’s just the way it’s done”…smacks of acquiescence …and I believe you don’t intend that.
Everyone who continues to suggest Mann’s behavior suggests scientific misconduct, and does so in a measured fashion without arguing for him to be frog-marched to a scientific excommunication, complete with bell book and candle and the ripping of his white I Am a Scientist lab coat, works toward that.
I think that a true, honest and proper investigation into any and all participants in the worldwide scam, that stood to cost trillions of dollars our our countrymen’s hard earned income…should come with whatever consequences the truth fleshes out.
I don’t see a single dust mite’s worth of remorse coming from Mann…please correct me, if I’m wrong. He isn’t standing up to be counted, he isn’t issuing any mea culpa, as far as I know.
And, while I understand your distinction between greywashing and whitewashing…if there is no honest and proper followup investigation…there exists no grey at all in this matter, Penn State will be complicit in a coverup.
As to the rest, I suggest you read my comments #13,27, after which I shall expect the apology to which I’m entitled.
While it’s big of you to point out that scientists don’t get rich, you are not entitled to an apology from me. Neither #13 or #27 “correct[s] [your] commenters who accuse people of fraud and fabrication without any evidence whatever.”
Correct your commenters whose comments repeat distortions and fabrications.
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about:
one single Penn State Professor has managed to corrupt an entire arm of science with FABRICATED STATISTICS that aren’t even science at all. He is complicit in decades of temperature datasets being lost for all time
This is false, and you know it to be false, and you say nothing.
Why aren’t the pay and compensation provided by the government to scientists like Michael Mann a matter of public record? Why are we forced to guess? An elected official’s salary and compensation is not a mystery. Why does the money received by Mann and his buddies remain hidden? I strongly suspect that a lot of nonsense might never occur if the citizenry had this information at its fingertips.
@David Thomson:Why aren’t the pay and compensation provided by the government to scientists like Michael Mann a matter of public record? Why are we forced to guess? An elected official’s salary and compensation is not a mystery. Why does the money received by Mann and his buddies remain hidden? I strongly suspect that a lot of nonsense might never occur if the citizenry had this information at its fingertips.
Did you ever bother to look? In my state EVERY state employee, including scientists at universities, has their salary published:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/365.pdf
Highest paid physicist in my department makes $240,000. A lot more than I make, but he brings in grants 10 times that amount every year. Of course our football coaches are paid more.
Penn State’s is here. Doesn’t say how much Mann makes but he’s not in the top 25, so he’s under $380,000. Joe Paterno gets a million dollars.
But don’t let your ignorance stop you from accusing people of “hiding” this information in the public record, just like these sekrit climate conspiracies and methods that are PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS.
Hanna@35, 40: So Climategate is a fabrication? That datasets were not falsified, or not included because of their inconvenient readings; and there was no coercion of scientists critical of what was going on; that peer review was falsified, that data were not jiggered to come to the “correct” conslusion?? All this is false??
And where does the sun rise on your planet?
link for Penn State salaries:
http://www.scribd.com/full/16134763?access_key=key-1mkep44zfcrcimzsk0rs
I clicked on the link, and it doesn’t make your case at all. It explains what you mean by “violating the social contract of science”, and it argues that Mann and others did just that—and that’s a conclusion I tend to agree with—but it doesn’t make the case that THE COMMITTEE SAYS THERE IS EVIDENCE that Mann violated that social contract. (It can’t, since the link is an article you wrote a few months ago before there was any committee report.) My take on the report is that the committee didn’t say anything at all. They said that, because of the information in the e-mails, that “this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and … it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically”, but they didn’t look at any evidence one way or another; rather, they just passed the buck, either because they believed themselves unqualified to examine the evidence, or because they just didn’t want the responsibility. Anyway, I still think that sentence of yours is misleading. It makes a reader think that an investigative committee found something definite against Mann that warranted further investigation, when in reality all they did was pass the buck.
If I say “Gabriel Hanna is a context-dropping dufus,” is this a comment that needs correcting or not? Seriously, what planet do you live on where you think it’s a blogger’s responsibility to correct every erroneous claim by a commenter?
Gabriel, if I corrected every point on which every commenter said something I thought was unwarranted, I’d be writing a load of comments. But we’ve got a pretty open comment policy; if you think those things are radical misstatements, you’re welcome to correct them yourself.
David, why isn’t your pay etc a matter of public record? Because we, as a society, figure some things should be kept private. I don’t make the rules, but that one in general seems like a good one.
@blotto: That datasets were not falsified, or not included because of their inconvenient readings; and there was no coercion of scientists critical of what was going on; that peer review was falsified, that data were not jiggered to come to the “correct” conslusion?? All this is false??
Yes. Charlie Martin knows it as well, but doesn’t like to say so explicitly, because his readers believe these things. He knows perfectly well that neither Mann nor Phil Jones or any of these other guys in Climategate deliberately “falsified” or “scammed” or “fabricated” or “coerced”. Ask him point blank. He says so in this very post.
@Charlie Martin:But we’ve got a pretty open comment policy; if you think those things are radical misstatements, you’re welcome to correct them yourself.
It’s not my blog. If you don’t chase away the climate equivalent of creationists and 9/11 truthers, it doesn’t reflect on ME. If you provide an echo chamber, and don’t make your disagreements with conspiracy theories explicit, it doesn’t reflect on ME.
You know perfectly well that all the records from all the weather stations still exist–they were not destroyed by Phil Jones or Mann or anyone else. You know perfectly well that no climate “skeptic” chooses to use them to construct what THEY think the climate record ought to be, and why they don’t. You know perfectly well that no climate “skeptic” has computer models that support their version of what is driving climate, and why they don’t.
You know perfectly well that there are thirty or forty years’ worth of work, published in journals, which climate scientists have done and climate “skeptics” have not.
“Because we, as a society, figure some things should be kept private.”
That is not even slightly true regarding government employees and elected officials. We usually know exactly what they earn! Your assertion is only valid in the private sector.
“Penn State’s is here. Doesn’t say how much Mann makes but he’s not in the top 25, so he’s under $380,000.”
How much of Michael Mann’s salary depends on his global warming activities? How much is he compensated for his speeches and other outside activities? Once again, this should be public information. And I’m sure it will be when this recent stuff is all sorted out!
@David Thomson:
How much of Michael Mann’s salary depends on his global warming activities? How much is he compensated for his speeches and other outside activities?
Well, according to the link I gave you, his pay from Penn State is under $380,000, but we don’t know what. As to the source of any other income he might have, it’s not your business. His grants from NSF and wherever are public record, but you don’t bother to look anything up.
Exemplifying the “skeptic” approach to AGW–never look anything up and blame scientists for “hiding” it, when it’s actually publicly available information and always has been.
“He knows perfectly well that neither Mann nor Phil Jones or any of these other guys in Climategate deliberately “falsified” or “scammed” or “fabricated” or “coerced”.”
“…and don’t make your disagreements with conspiracy theories explicit, it doesn’t reflect on ME.”
You fail to understand that I believe all human beings are sinners. The at least metaphorical reality of Original Sin is alive and well on planet Earth. I actually don’t think that Michael Mann is consciously deceiving the general public. No, he first lies to himself—and then he cons the outside world. I am something of a theological Calvinist. We are too often able to rationalize away our corrupt behavior.
Look, all I know is what I am able to find…read…and try to sort out for myself.
And frankly…this apologia for Mann’s misconduct in this affair disgusts me. The emails say what they say. And the parsing of his words and the deconstructing of his actions is the work of people who have lost their moral compass, in my opinion.
If someone has an explanation as to why there was a concerted and orchestrated effort to deny full peer review, deny access, destruction of key evidence, and a trampling of the process to get to the truth…they can show us…we citizens…whose pockets they had their hands in, while trying to take more money and more money and more money.
It’s disgraceful. You can bleat out all the sophistry you want, but it won’t make the stench go away. This doesn’t pass the smell test.
People asked legitimate questions and got stonewalled. People made legitimate inquiries and got slandered, smeared and bullied.
I can tell who the bad guys are here…so if you are a troll here…stop trying to peddle a craptastic notion that THEY are the victims. They aren’t….they are still the bad guys.
http://yelnick.typepad.com/politick/2009/09/global-warming-deception-unveiled.html
@cfbleachers:
People asked legitimate questions and got stonewalled. People made legitimate inquiries and got slandered, smeared and bullied.
This did happen, and it was wrong, but this
If someone has an explanation as to why there was a concerted and orchestrated effort to deny full peer review, deny access, destruction of key evidence, and a trampling of the process to get to the truth…they can show us…we citizens…whose pockets they had their hands in, while trying to take more money and more money and more money.
is a lie, and Charlie Martin knows it.
“Well, according to the link I gave you, his pay from Penn State is under $380,000, but we don’t know what. As to the source of any other income he might have, it’s not your business. His grants from NSF and wherever are public record, but you don’t bother to look anything up.”
That “under $380,000” covers a lot of territory. In other words, it could even $379,000 per year. As I said earlier, it is safe to assume that Michael Mann has been amply rewarded by his involvement in the global warming crusade. The money may not be as good as that received by the college football coach—but it still probably paid for some nice cars and lavish vacations.
Human beings rarely are involved in conscious conspiracies. They usually gravitate to those views and agendas that are most rewarding to them. Scientists are first, last, and foremost, sinners. Their advanced education does not prevent these individuals from less indulging in less than admirable motives. You really need to catch up on your reading of John Calvin’s works. It would do you a lot of good.
Scientists are first, last, and foremost, sinners. Their advanced education does not prevent these individuals from less indulging in less than admirable motives.
No one disputes this. What I dispute is that these Climategate guys scammed, coerced, fabricated or falsified. Nice to see that you agree.
Being wrong is one thing. Being dishonest, saying things you know not to be true, is something else. You are on record as saying that Michael Mann was not dishonest. I expect you to stick to that.
You really need to catch up on your reading of John Calvin’s works. It would do you a lot of good.
Does he say it’s okay to accuse people of being dishonest with no proof?
“One more thing, the elephant in the room, how strong the evidence is for man-made global warming?”
Non-existent if you use normal standards of evidence. Very slim if you allow things like statistics to be considered as evidence.
Climate Change is a given. A fact established by many different physical observations.
The AGW nutters often intentionally use ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’ and ‘AGW (anthropogenic Global Warming)’ as synonyms, although they are not. They do that to confuse the innocent. That is because it’s easier to confuse then debate when you have no facts. The debate itself is over what causes climate cycles.
Climate cycles is a term the AGW nutters don’t use because it brings to mind the nature of global climate, IE: that it’s cyclic. That in itself offers a clue to the AGW nutters motivation. Cycles go around and eventually get back to where they where. A circle is infinite from one POV, arbitrary from another. It’s hard to get people to give their money to you to save them when they realize they can just wait and what you are ‘saving’ them from will go away.
Since the poles of the debate are the far left and the far right, a middle position requires going thru the arguments from both sides with your BS detector set on high.
“‘If someone has an explanation as to why there was a concerted and orchestrated effort to deny full peer review, deny access, destruction of key evidence, and a trampling of the process to get to the truth…they can show us…we citizens…whose pockets they had their hands in, while trying to take more money and more money and more money.’
is a lie, and Charlie Martin knows it.”
You fail to distinguish between objective reality—and subconscious motivation. The evidence is abundantly clear that the above outrages did indeed occur. Thus, the real question remains: was this a conscious conspiracy, or did they lie to each other and then continued with their disgraceful behavior? I favor the latter theory.
If someone has an explanation as to why there was a concerted and orchestrated effort to deny full peer review, deny access, destruction of key evidence, and a trampling of the process to get to the truth…they can show us…we citizens…whose pockets they had their hands in, while trying to take more money and more money and more money.
is a lie, and Charlie Martin knows it.
If someone has an explanation…and can show us…can’t be a “lie”, Gabriel.
Which part is not true? Phil Jones, Seth Borenstein, Michael Mann and others didn’t discuss hiding evidence? They didn’t destroy evidence? They didn’t threaten scientists who disagreed? They didn’t act on those threats?
They didn’t stonewall repeated requests for underlying data? Source codes?
They didn’t discuss the impact that the truth about their data might have…and decide to block it from being released?
Did you read the link I provided above…I mean, fully?
Which part of those things stated in there are true…then we can get to the “lies”.
I can only go by what I am given, by way of facts. One side was bullying, smearing, stonewalling. What do you make of that…in the pursuit of scientific integrity?
Which part is not true? Phil Jones, Seth Borenstein, Michael Mann and others didn’t discuss hiding evidence? They didn’t destroy evidence? They didn’t threaten scientists who disagreed? They didn’t act on those threats?
Nobody hid evidence or threatened anyone. ASK CHARLIE MARTIN.
They didn’t stonewall repeated requests for underlying data? Source codes?
Phil Jones did, apparently, but NASA and NOAA post source code and data online and always have. I’ve posted them here before, but no one bothers to look. Use Google. Type in “NASA GISS source code”. What, you never thought of that?
They didn’t discuss the impact that the truth about their data might have…and decide to block it from being released?
No. ASK CHARLIE MARTIN.
Did you read the link I provided above…I mean, fully?
Yes, it repeats the same lies you did. A lie does not become true because it gets repeated.
I can only go by what I am given, by way of facts. One side was bullying, smearing, stonewalling.
Yes, some of those guys did this. But the other side lies about what those guys did and didn’t do, and does NO SCIENCE OF ITS OWN.
Where’s the “skeptic” temperature record? Where’s the “skeptic” climate model? ASK CHARLIE MANN. There isn’t one. They’d have to redo work that took thirty years to do the first time, and they are unwilling or unable to do it.
“Nobody hid evidence or threatened anyone. ASK CHARLIE MARTIN.”
That is pure nonsense and totally contradicted by the available evidence. Numerous people had their careers severely damaged and evidence has been definitely hidden.
“Where’s the “skeptic” climate model?”
The proof is on the other foot. It is the advocate of a so-called global warming climate model that must provide the evidence. One is not obligated to disproving a negative.
Is Gabriel Hanna willing to publicly debate Christopher Horner, Jack Hollander, and other credentialed skeptics?
I am also reminded of the Piltdown Man scam job. It appears that none of the credentialed scientists directly lied about their research. No, they simply lied to themselves! They had too much invested in the Piltdown Man. People delude themselves all the time. Human beings are inherently flawed.
I would love to read John Calvin, but evidently I am predestined, not to…at least not any more than I read forty years ago.
The CRU-East Anglia guys did not behave well, or at least email well, for sure, but some of the posters here seem predestined to bluster outrageously about them, or just bluster and wander as in David Thomson’s increasing strange assertions. Was Mann doing this for money or for world government; what has John Calvin and/or the Holy Scriptures revealed to you on this topic or on global warming?
David, it’s very simple. On one side, you have 90% of the people with the relevant credentials, saying global warming is largely due to manmade carbon emissions, with forty years of published evidence from temperature measurements and climate models.
On the other side, 10%, with ten or twenty pet theories, none of which they can support with anything like the same amount of evidence.
It’s not even close. It’s like evolution by natural selection vs young earht creationism, old earth creationism and intelligent design. On one side, active research with the vast majority of experts in agreement about the majority of a large body of literature. On the other, a tribe of cranks united only by their opposition.
Is Gabriel Hanna willing to publicly debate Christopher Horner, Jack Hollander, and other credentialed skeptics?
I am not a climate scientist and I am not paid to defend it. I have my own research to attend to. Other climate scientists have refuted these gentlemen admirably in their own research.
Maybe start on Real Climate.
David, you’ve never spent any time reading any of the literature, studying any of the textbooks, taking any classes, downloading and running any of the free, online GISS climate models and source code. You are not arguing honestly. You have never even tried to engage the other side of this question. So you don’t argue in good faith.
Creationists and their ilk are the only people who think a public debate would settle anything, anyway.
So, this is a “lie”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/
…and THIS…is a “lie”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/
…and THIS…is a “lie”.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
It stinks to high hell, Phil Jones has stepped down, they threatened people who dared to question the science, they stonewalled requests, they “lost” or “destroyed” data.
Or…it’s all a “lie”.
I don’t know…but it stinks to high hell.
@cfbleachers: Are you even reading the links you post?
Take the first one. The raw data, the actual temperature records, have not disappeared. The article does not say that. What has disappeared are the original 8″ hard disks or whatever which East Anglia used to adjust the raw readings to reflect trees or urbanization. (I love how you skeptics complain “Global warming is due to urbanization” and then when the climate scientists correct for it you accuse them of “manipulation”.) They copied the files over and over and made new adjustments as they learned more about measuring temperature accurately, and didn’t keep track of the original. But they didn’t “destroy” or “falsify” anything. Charlie Martin agrees.
You can go to the weather stations and get the original data. Then calculate the global temperature record in what you claim is the right way. But you won’t, because you wouldn’t even know how to begin.
Take your second link. Watts is arguing that they analyzed the data wrong, not that they made stuff up that they knew wasn’t true. Real Climate’s rebuttal is here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/
You haven’t posted anything that shows that anyone was trying to deceive people. The most you can have possibly have proved is that some people may have been wrong.
Ms. Hanna,
You had lucid points in your first few posts until you referred to NOAA, NASA, NSF and Real Climate for ‘validity’.
NOAA, NASA are Department of Commerce shills. A majority Real Climate ‘contributors’ hail from NCAR and other ‘institutes of higher learning’ that have a HUGE stake in AGW paranoia that turning back now would be committing harry carrey. Why look at their emperor with no clothes, Mr. Pachauri for starters.
To believe Michael Mann is an innocent in this is frighteningly short sighted..
cfbleachers brought up good supporting sites. I’ll go one further with an article from wuwt regarding Real Climate’s funding.. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/a-telling-omission-by-real-climate/
As well as..
wwww.thechillingeffect.org
http://www.climatedepot.com
@paul unalaska
Ms. Hanna–
Ha!
You had lucid points in your first few posts until you referred to NOAA, NASA, NSF and Real Climate for ‘validity’.
NOAA, NASA are Department of Commerce shills. A majority Real Climate ‘contributors’ hail from NCAR and other ‘institutes of higher learning’ that have a HUGE stake in AGW paranoia
Another way to put it is that for the last 40 years these guys have been doing all the climate research. Unlike, say, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has done nothing.
Normally I’m sympathetic to CEI’s aims–I’ve never voted for a Democrat–but paying lawyers to try to discredit scientists is not something of which I can approve.
that turning back now would be committing harry carrey.
Are you trying to say hara kiri? That aside, why wasn’t Einstein stopped from overthrowing Newtonian mechanics? Didn’t those physicists have their careers on the line?
Since you can’t argue the science, you have to resort to ad hominem.
“I am not a climate scientist and I am not paid to defend it. I have my own research to attend to. Other climate scientists have refuted these gentlemen admirably in their own research.”
You claim not to be a climate scientist—but this does not prevent you from being confident that other “climate scientists have refuted these gentlemen admirably in their own research.” Good golly, this sounds like an assertion of faith. You apparently have no logical right to assume that this is indeed the case. Most peculiar. One gets the impression that you are philosophically incapable of distinguishing between empirical evidence and outright acts of blind faith.
“On one side, you have 90% of the people with the relevant credentials, saying global warming is largely due to manmade carbon emissions, with forty years of published evidence from temperature measurements and climate models.”
Gabriel, I suspect you pulled the 90% figure out of your butt. Substantiate it or shut up and go away. Such idiot pronouncements undermine even your weak argument. Revelations from the last few months point to malfeasance and outright deception in the climate science arena and show that the last 40 years of the published “evidence” you so prize is seriously compromised and that many of the authors of same are at best dishonest. The evidence is there but you refuse to acknowledge it. And then, in your #48 comment you liken opponents to your beliefs as creationists and 9/11 truthers, thus destroying any credibility you might otherwise claim. Why would any intelligent and prescient being embrace your argument? The answer is fewer and fewer every day. You are not to be taken seriously.
@David Thomson:
You claim not to be a climate scientist—but this does not prevent you from being confident that other “climate scientists have refuted these gentlemen admirably in their own research.” Good golly, this sounds like an assertion of faith.
No, it’s an assertion that I read the “skeptics”, I read the climate scientists and their literature, and I judge for myself who knows what they are talking about. Every point that’s been brought up here and by other skeptics is addressed at great length, with citations, at Real Climate, by the people who are ACTUALLY DOING THE RESEARCH. Not professional “skeptics” like Chris Horner, a lawyer working for CEI.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
I already know, David, that you won’t read any of the stuff they present there. I know, because I used to do the same.
One gets the impression that you are philosophically incapable of distinguishing between empirical evidence and outright acts of blind faith.
What pushed me away from the “skeptics” was that, like you, I used to only read their side of the story. I argued against AGW with a colleague of mine who was familiar with the science, and he handed me my butt. I was shown up as a chump who didn’t know what he was talking about. When I investigated some of the “skeptical” claims for myself I found invariably that the “skeptical” claim was based on a distortion, and that my colleague had been right.
I work in physics, so I read the American Institute of Physics primer on it–which you won’t read either–and learned more. Then I started arguing against the people whose side I had once been on.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Yes, BLIND FAITH must be the only explanation.
Gabriel: Yes. Charlie Martin knows it as well, but doesn’t like to say so explicitly, because his readers believe these things. He knows perfectly well that neither Mann nor Phil Jones or any of these other guys in Climategate deliberately “falsified” or “scammed” or “fabricated” or “coerced”. Ask him point blank. He says so in this very post.
I’m a little confused here, Gabriel. How exactly did I both not say it, and say it?
In any case, as far as the rest of your argument, let me just hit the bullet points.
- this distinction seems to escape people, but in fact this is not my blog. I’m not even an editor. The proprietors of the blog make this statement:
Please don’t assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment.
This is a policy with which I concur and which I adopt.
- As far as David’s comments, I’ve known David as a commenter for quite a long time — six or seven years, I think, certainly from long before PJM existed as an entity. He has said things I agree with, things I disagree with, and things that strike me as out and out loopy.
My experience suggests other readers are quite competent to figure out which statements they agree with, disagree with, and find out and out loopy, whether it’s David, me, or you saying them. Thus I don’t feel called upon to critique every comment.
- As far as what I think, I think both you and David are right in part, wrong in part, and out and out loopy in part.
I think the Climategate files — not just the emails — suggest there were some clear attempts to subvert the peer review process and suborn the journal editorial boards in order to artificially dominate climate science with one model, of anthropogenic, CO2-forced, significant climate impact. Mann had some connection to that but he seems to have been more or less fringe, compared to Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, and Tom Wigman. Mann also at least refused to delete the AR4-related emails when asked, although I would think better of him had he blown the whistle at the same time. I do think refusing to share his data for validation is scientific misconduct, which I hope Penn State includes in its examinations. Calling Mann a fraud or a hoaxer is wrong.
It increasingly appears that crimes were committed in resisting the FOIA requests of McIntyre and others; the primary actors in that don’t seem to have included Mann.
There are some patterns we’re seeing in the data as more raw data becomes available, both in selection of data sources and statistical adjustments of the data, that look increasingly suspect. These patterns seem to select or correct to add warming signal where there isn’t one. Whether this is unconscious selection bias or overt data mining isn’t yet clear, and in any case I suspect there has been a bit of both, along with some bandwagoning. There’s also a good bit of overt pressure to conform one’s data to the AGW model, as is also evidenced in the emails.
Overall, it seems to me that there is a pretty substantial pattern of bad actors forcing a particular model against the actual science, for political or financial reasons, or out of a desire to develop what Plato called a “noble lie”, one intended to lead the uninformed to act the way the elite believed desirable. This doesn’t invalidate the science in climate science, but does force us to re-evaluate what is true and what has been concealed.
I think — and at this point, I think it’s unquestionable, since participants in the process have said as much — that the IPCC AR4 report was purposefully made far more inflammatory than the science would support, and that the authors and editors as a group violated the IPCC’s own standards. I don’t recall how much Mann had to do with the writing and editing of that report, but to the extent he did, if he did, I think he shares in the responsibility.
I think there is increasing evidence for financial motives among some of the primary figures in the climate cartel, and we’ll be following up on those at PJM in the near future. I don’t see Mann as a primary figure, and I don’t think a half-million dollar grant to Mann is much evidence for a financial motive — that’s something like summer support for a full Professor and a post-doc, and a couple of academic year assistantships for grad students. I expect that Mann makes about the same base salary as a professor as I did as an engineer, which makes sense as we have similar educations and are roughly the same age. It’s pretty good, but it’s not by any means what I’d call rich.
As I said to David, if he has evidence that Mann is getting real wealth out of this, I’d love to see it; so far I haven’t.
AJB: As I understand it, you disagree with my characterization that the Penn State committee “In effect… says there is evidence Mann violated the social contract of science.” As I see it, that’s what that fourth assertion implies, and the committee found that the fourth assertion required further examination, as opposed to the other three, which they dismissed as groundless. It therefore follows that the committee in effect found there was evidence that Mann violated the social contract of science. QED.
If you feel the committee didn’t assert it strongly enough, I’d suggest you write them a letter.
Gabriel, one other point: the problem with Real Climate as a source is that while they assert their intention to simply provide a balanced exposition of the science, we know from, eg, the Climategate emails that they see it instead as a soapbox on which to present their views alone. One measure of this is that at RC, David’s comments would have been deleted; if PJM ran like RC, yours probably would have been.
That doesn’t mean RC isn’t a useful source, but it can hardly be considered authoritative.
Considering that the PSU “inquiry” committee decided to focus on only 47 of the emails (that they “deemed relevant”) their conclusions are not in the least surprising.
What would have been more surprising (considering the alleged absence of any “formal allegations to a university official”) is if they had given any indication that they had responded to the numerous “complaints” by indicating to the correspondents that in order to initiate the inquiry a “formal allegation” was required (as well as an indication of how such correspondents could proceed).
But then, they would have had to conduct a proper inquiry in which they might have heard some real evidence beyond 47 emails which they “deemed relevant”, Mann’s “forthright” responses, interviews with 2 alarmists and various (unnamed) blogs which they visited … which would no doubt have upset their cosy little applecart.
From where I”m sitting, PSU’s actions on this are no better than Phil Jones’s excuses for avoiding compliance with FOI requests.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
This is an important question one must ask concerning someone like Gabriel Hanna: what does he get in return if he becomes more skeptical about the global warming crusade? Will this secure his place in academia? Does this improve his career prospects? The answer, of course, is hell no! He would likely be severely harmed for such iconoclasm. His chances for obtaining a tenured position could disappear virtually overnight. Hanna seems to represent the earlier defenders of the Piltdown Man hoax. They were usually not consciously lying. No, they simply stuck their wet finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing. Human beings are weak and sinful—and tend to gravitate toward those views subconsciously deemed most rewarding to them. A commitment towards the truth per se often demands a high price. I do not get the impression that Hanna is willing pay it.
Studying the Piltdown Man scandal is well worth one’s time. A large number of credentialed scientists teaching at prestigious universities made total fools of themselves. And yet, it took years to uncover the fraud. The defenders had too much invested in the supposedly prehistoric bones. The odds are that the same holds true today concerning the global warming crusade.
‘Since you can’t argue the science, you have to resort to ad hominem.’
I believe calling your cause ‘short sighted’ is less ad hominem than calling Charlie Martin a liar.
As for NOAA, NASA, NSF and the like, ‘doing all the climate research for the last 40 years’ is precisely why private, public institutions HAD to come to fruition.
BTW, thank you for assisting me with my spelling. My dad, a HUGE Cubs fan had a game-caller with the same name and he apparently was in my subconscious.
Though you proved my point exactly.. Einstein had every right to question the authenticity of his predecessor’s work. The same can be said of refuting the aforementioned Government organizations, as well as Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ promulgated data of the medieval period, little ice age as well as the nonsensical tree ring data.
The need for outside agencies have come about in force due to the nonsensical nature of misinformation being espoused.
I find this statement telling.
“What pushed me away from the “skeptics” was that, like you, I used to only read their side of the story. I argued against AGW with a colleague of mine who was familiar with the science, and he handed me my butt. I was shown up as a chump who didn’t know what he was talking about. When I investigated some of the “skeptical” claims for myself I found invariably that the “skeptical” claim was based on a distortion, and that my colleague had been right.”
I don’t think you realize how much you give away about your flawed approach to dispassionate scientific inquiry in that paragraph.
This paragraph is also telling:
“I work in physics, so I read the American Institute of Physics primer on it–which you won’t read either–and learned more. Then I started arguing against the people whose side I had once been on.”
You make an immediate and explicit assumption that the reader will not consult your source. The further implication is that your source being unassailable, the reader’s independent conclusions based on empirical evidence (or lack thereof) are dismissible out of hand. This ties into your evident disdain for the provenance and authentication of data.
I’m an engineering consultant. My resume and reputation allows me to exclusively work contracts that suit me. These are the transitions between the investigative science and the engineering application. I work very often with physicists. Some are strictly private sector, but most still have one foot in academia. I would be immediately skeptical of any approach or statement authored by someone who believes that statements like ‘you have 90% of the people with the relevant credentials, saying global warming is largely due to manmade carbon emissions’ are meaningful. I don’t often or actually ever have to be though because I don’t run into them. I suspect they are the two feet in academia types.
@Charlie Martin: Thank you for your response. As I pointed out earlier, you and I agree on most of the facts of what has happened, but not the interpretation. Reasonable people can disagree on interpretations there.
I’m aware that you don’t endorse your commenters who say crazy things, even though you don’t ban them. I don’t think you should ban them. But you don’t argue with them either. Yes I know you disagreed with David about whether Mann gets rich from grants, but that’s a small point. When commenters accuse scientists of fabrication and fraud, you don’t make them feel unwelcome. When commenters post nonsensical ideas about science, you don’t make them feel unwelcome.
he Climategate emails that they see it instead as a soapbox on which to present their views alone. One measure of this is that at RC, David’s comments would have been deleted; if PJM ran like RC, yours probably would have been.
I’ve argued with them, and been called the same sorts of things I’ve been called here, but not deleted. The people who get deleted there are the people who say the same false things over and over, something like “climate models don’t include water vapor” or some such. At any rate, Real Climate posts real papers and real science, along with their commentary. Of course they’re presenting their side, why shouldn’t they? It’s a free internet. If they post a commentary to a paper they coauthored, why would their comment policy invalidate it? That doesn’t make any sense.
@David Thomson:
Gabriel Hanna: what does he get in return if he becomes more skeptical about the global warming crusade? Will this secure his place in academia? Does this improve his career prospects? The answer, of course, is hell no! He would likely be severely harmed for such iconoclasm.
You’ve already established that you know nothing about how the scientific world works, when you claimed that Michael Mann is getting rich from grant money.
Nobody in my department cares about my views on global warming. Only those who are friends of mine know whether or not I believe in it and to what degree. It may be common knowledge that I vote Republican, or maybe not, but those kinds of conversations only come up outside of work. At no point in my career is anyone going to care what I think of global warming or what to do about it. I work in an unrelated discipline.
Of course if I abused my Ph. D. in an unrelated discipline and started going on talk shows and what not, claiming that I can debunk climate science, then my colleagues would lose respect for me. But I could make more money writing books and giving lectures than I ever could in academia or government research. Ask anyone at the Discovery Institute.
You’re just arguing ad hominem, and ignorantly.
@paul unalaska:
I’m glad that you see that scientists don’t have to enforce orthodoxy or lose their jobs. The problem with the criticisms you are making of climate science is that they have no scientific support.
The people opposing climate science have no competing theory which can explain the facts as well. They have a dozen explanations, none of which they have comparable evidence to support. They have no background of research comparable to the people doing the work.
If you want to do better science than the people who are currently working in it, you first have to do it as well.
Where is the “skeptic” temperature record? Where are the “skeptic” climate models? They are unwilling or unable to put in the kind of effort that climate scientists have.
@JustPassingThrough:
You make an immediate and explicit assumption that the reader will not consult your source.
David Thomson didn’t consult any source I suggested, as far as I can tell. Why would he start now?
The further implication is that your source being unassailable,
No, you’re making that up and attributing it to me. I said no such thing. The AIP primer is written by people who speak my language, that’s all.
the reader’s independent conclusions based on empirical evidence (or lack thereof) are dismissible out of hand.
When the reader never bothers to look at any evidence, and repeats distortions and lie disseminated by others, then yes his claims are dismissible out of hand. Just like creationists and autism-is-caused-by-vaccines activists, they don’t know what they are talking about and just repeat the same things over and over.
Creationists are into their second century of claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. I’ve seen “skeptics” argue that global warming does too. Claims made by people who have proved they don’t know what they are talking about are indeed dismissible out of hand.
Let them do the science as well as the scientists, then I am willing to consider that they may do better science. But first they have to know what they are talking about.
“@JustPassingThrough:
The further implication is that your source being unassailable,
No, you’re making that up and attributing it to me. I said no such thing”
You implied it when you presented the following as an argument, ‘I read the American Institute of Physics primer on it–which you won’t read either–and learned more.’
If I had to succinctly state what I think your position is, it is that you buy into the fallacy that the science is settled on AGW.
That science is at this point disputable and edging into being debunked. The 30 years of science that you seem so enamored with has presented results to support their theory of carbon based AGW. Those results are based on models that produce results that do not agree with practical observations over the last 10 years or so. That is readily admitted to by AGW proponents.
This implies that the models are suspect. There can be many reasons for that. Three possibilities should be immediately investigated. The algorithms used may be incorrect. There may be vital parameters that are not included model. The data sets used are flawed in some way.
There is a pattern of ethical lapses detailed in the East Anglia emails that suggest the distinct possibility that data integrity is the issue.
The jury is still out on whether data manipulation, data mining, or data suppression has been practiced. This should never be an issue. Good scientific practice should ensure that this is never an issue. The reason for this being an issue is that the proponents of the models have refused to publish and defend their methodology and the original data sets. There has been no peer review process as a result. At this point, there can be no peer review because the original data sets are missing. There is only the data used for the modeling. This means that there is no data integrity.
Given that:
1: practical observations disagree with the predictions of the models. 2:There is no possibility of authenticating the data used to drive the models.
3:There is no way that dispassionate peer review can be performed at this point.
We are left with the following:
There are no verifiable observations of physical phenomenon – data with provenance – and therefore no means of independent verification – working models and peer review – that support the position that carbon based AGW is a credible scientific hypothesis.
Also this:
‘Let them do the science as well as the scientists, then I am willing to consider that they may do better science. But first they have to know what they are talking about.’
No. This is nonsense. It is not incumbent on the skeptic to prove that his skepticism is unwarranted. It is incumbent on the AGW proponents to do science compatible with usual and accepted practices so that the results are defensible. It is their theory.
@JustPassingThrough, not one of these three things
1: practical observations disagree with the predictions of the models.
2:There is no possibility of authenticating the data used to drive the models.
3:There is no way that dispassionate peer review can be performed at this point.
is true. You’re just repeating lies you read from somewhere else.
Take point 1. Whose observations? The “skeptics” have produced no observations of their own. They complain that the climate scientists must be doing it wrong, but the “skeptics” don’t produce the right one.
You don’t know anything about this subject so you can’t provide details of what exactly is being done wrong and why it’s wrong and what the right way should be and why it’s better.
A comparison of real observations and models can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
Of course you’ll say it’s faked, but you won’t be able to say why or how.
Take your second point. What is “authenticating the data used to drive the models” supposed to mean? Are you complaining that no one knows what the global temperature is, or what the model parameters are supposed to be? At best this is a confession of your ignorance, at worst you’re saying “if we don’t know everything we might as well know nothing”, which is absurd. Hansen’s 1988 predictions don’t agree to the last decimal place with the actual temperature record, but they’re within the uncertainty.
Where’s the “skeptic” model that gets the same results with no carbon emissions? The “skeptics” don’t make climate models, that’s why there isn’t one. That would require doing some work.
You’re third point is totally meaningless. What is “dispassionate peer review” supposed to mean? Is it unfair that creationist papers don’t get published in the biology journals and that astrologists don’t get published in the astronomy journals? When “skeptics” get around to producing real science, that science will be published.
Name one paper on climate you read, from any mainstream climate scientist. If you can’t think of any, then why do you think you have an informed opinion? Why don’t you read for yourself, instead of relying on other people to tell you what it means?
Gabriel: But you don’t argue with them either. Yes I know you disagreed with David about whether Mann gets rich from grants, but that’s a small point.
It’s the point about which we were arguing, isn’t it?
When commenters accuse scientists of fabrication and fraud, you don’t make them feel unwelcome. When commenters post nonsensical ideas about science, you don’t make them feel unwelcome.
And when people accuse me of purposefully lying (he said with a meaningful look) I don’t make them feel unwelcome either.
I see that as a good thing.
Of course you’ll say it’s faked, but you won’t be able to say why or how.
Can you say how you’re confident the data wasn’t faked, Gabriel? I can’t decide one way or the other; there’s no sourcing on the image.
I’d imagine, given that the image name mentions Hansen, that it’s GISS data. GISS data has two issues I want to see better explored: first, I’d like to see the whole correction and homogenization process documented and repeatable, because as I’ve mentioned there seem to be corrections that are hard to understand. Second, I’d like to see their temperature results replicated with a more random selection of measurement stations, as several critics have now shown the selection they have “leans warm.”
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong — but after what we’ve been seeing for the last three months, my confidence in the GISS data is considerably weakened.
You are being obtuse. Purposefully, or simply through ignorance.
‘Take point 1. Whose observations? The “skeptics” have produced no observations of their own. They complain that the climate scientists must be doing it wrong, but the “skeptics” don’t produce the right one.’
One thing is readily apparent here. You are not a scientist. I repeat, it is not the skeptics that have to produce evidence. It is not their theory. It is the climate scientists who must answer skepticism by validating their results. That is the way it works. Skepticism goes hand and hand with good science.
‘You don’t know anything about this subject so you can’t provide details of what exactly is being done wrong and why it’s wrong and what the right way should be and why it’s better.’
I have. I have pointed out that unless the original data can be produced, the data used to drive the models is open to suspicion of manipulation, mining, or fabrication.
‘A comparison of real observations and models can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg‘
Stop it. This is not an impartial source of information. You might as well tell me that Mann’s hockey stick is beyond dispute because Mann says so.
‘Of course you’ll say it’s faked, but you won’t be able to say why or how.’
Again, repeated ad nauseum. It is incumbent on the climate scientists authors to defend their position. If it is not feasible to independently reproduce their studies, and it is not feasible, then that is done through rigorous peer review. If they can not or will not disclose their methodology, and the original data they based their modeling on is not made available, then they have not met the definition of a credible scientific hypothesis.
‘What is “authenticating the data used to drive the models” supposed to mean?’
I explained this. The data they fed into the models is a subset of the original data at best. Then again, no one knows do they? Or those that do know aren’t saying.
‘Are you complaining that no one knows what the global temperature is, or what the model parameters are supposed to be?’
Don’t be a jacka$$.
‘Where’s the “skeptic” model that gets the same results with no carbon emissions? The “skeptics” don’t make climate models, that’s why there isn’t one. That would require doing some work.
You really do not understand that skepticism is not the enemy of good science, but drives it.
‘What is “dispassionate peer review” supposed to mean?’
No preconceived opinions on what the outcome should be and no prior investment in the outcome going one way or the other.
‘Is it unfair that creationist papers don’t get published in the biology journals and that astrologists don’t get published in the astronomy journals?’
I don’t think you can help being a jacka$$. At any rate, the straw man crap is getting old.
I am not a climate scientist but I do have more than sufficient background to know weak science when I see it. I don’t condemn it, yet anyway. I’ll wait for the jury to come it as I said earlier. Until then, count me with the skeptics.
I think we’re done.
Yes, we are done. I don’t listen to liars. I wouldn’t care if Mann were ouside telling me my house is on fire.
Life’s too short to waste time verifying everything they say to find out if any of it might be true. Credibility is a tough thing to lose.
Interesting shift of delicate sensibilities, it seems to me.
Charlie writes an essay, commenters respond…and Charlie is taken to task for not taking on the comments, making them feel unwelcome.
Michael Mann is engaged in several years worth of emails, in which anyone who dares to disagree is threatened with expulsion or worse, there is a direct request to hide evidence from the public, …and he never ONCE makes those advances feel unwelcome. He never ONCE takes umbrage, he never ONCE takes the side of the people who are being denied the right to examine the evidence.
Hypocrisy, thy name is junk science.
From Ed Driscoll’s column
It was not Private Eye, or the BBC or the News of the World, but a retired electrical engineer in Northampton, David Holland, whose freedom-of-information requests caused the Climategate scientists to break the law, according to the Information Commissioner. By contrast, it has so far attracted little attention that the leaked emails of Climategate include messages from reporters obsequiously seeking ammunition against the sceptics. Other emails have shown reporters meekly changing headlines to suit green activists, or being threatened with ostracism for even reporting the existence of a sceptical angle: ‘Your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists,’ one normally alarmist reporter was told last year when he slipped briefly off message. ‘I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.’
You might want to read that as well…including the hyperlink to the “Big Cutoff”
Sorry, the link to Ed’s essay is below:
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/02/06/the-global-warming-guerrillas/
Gabriel Hanna (Not a climate scientist, I just impersonate one on blogs)
How would anyone reproduce all the studies and collect all the climate data without being subsidized by the government? Isn’t this why scientists have peer review and produce their data sets?
Since this was such a large undertaking, and the cure that the scientists promoted was actually going to drastically change all life on earth, didn’t they have a special duty to consider all disagreement and rebuttal?
I am guessing from your syntax that english is not your native language, but how can you be so blind to the politics of the situation? America has a long history of individuals who don’t like to be told what to do. Why would they buy enormous life changes on the word of a few odd scientists?
I assume your comments here are your attempt to convince the wayward of your superior knowledge and caring, but they come off shrill and I doubt anyone is impressed with your erudition. The doubters are a lot more persuasive than you.
@Charlie Martin:
And when people accuse me of purposefully lying (he said with a meaningful look) I don’t make them feel unwelcome either.
I certainly never accused you of lying. I accused you of doing little or nothing to combat lies propagated by the people who comment here.
Can you say how you’re confident the data wasn’t faked, Gabriel? I can’t decide one way or the other; there’s no sourcing on the image.
“Faked” is a serious accusation and it requires evidence to back it up. The source of the figure I linked to is explained here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
It would have taken you very little effort to check it for yourself.
GISS data has two issues I want to see better explored: first, I’d like to see the whole correction and homogenization process documented and repeatable, because as I’ve mentioned there seem to be corrections that are hard to understand.
If you don’t bother to look at what they publish, it’s not GISS’s fault that you don’t know what they’re doing with their data.
I typed “GISS correction homogenization temperature” into Google. What was the third link?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Did you bother to look? Then why is it GISS’s fault you don’t know what they are doing, when they’ve not only published it in the journals but posted it on their website?
And when you’ve read and understood their references, how will you tell them to do it better? I would be very interested to read that article.
@JustPassingThrough
One thing is readily apparent here. You are not a scientist.
Won’t the rest of my research group be surprised…
I repeat, it is not the skeptics that have to produce evidence. It is not their theory. It is the climate scientists who must answer skepticism by validating their results. That is the way it works. Skepticism goes hand and hand with good science.
The climate scientist have produced decades of evidence which you sir, have not bothered to go through. In the Classic Comix view of science, you can only test a positive statement. In the real world of science, you cannot replace something with nothing. Climate science has an explanation for how climate works, and climate “skepticism” has produce nothing comparable.
“Skepticism” that examines alternatives and tries to choose the best one is a valuable addition to science. “Skepticism” that refuses to examine evidence and stick its fingers in its ears because it’s not being told what it wants to hear is not.
If they can not or will not disclose their methodology, and the original data they based their modeling on is not made available….
They do and have for forty years. You refuse to look. I posted links where you can find them. You won’t bother.
I have pointed out that unless the original data can be produced, the data used to drive the models is open to suspicion of manipulation, mining, or fabrication.
It can be and has, but you don’t bother to look at it. Name one paper you’ve read.
Stop it. This is not an impartial source of information.
Right. The people who actually measure the temperatures and write the computer models cannot be relied on to produce a figure comparing the two. Whatever.
I explained this. The data they fed into the models is a subset of the original data at best. Then again, no one knows do they? Or those that do know aren’t saying.
All you did was ASSERT it. But you don’t know what they do, because you haven’t read their papers.
No preconceived opinions on what the outcome should be and no prior investment in the outcome going one way or the other.
So what, people who don’t do similar research? Maybe climate science should be peer-reviewed by economists or something? That doesn’t make any sense.
If I write a paper on the orbit of Mercury, and the journal assigns it to a “peer-reviewer” who has no “preconceived” ideas about how gravity works or what the orbit of Mercury should be, how is he qualified to judge the work I’ve written? That is the stupidest I’ve ever heard.
I note you couldn’t name a paper you’d read, and you couldn’t point to anything specifically wrong with how temperatures are measured or how models work. Because you don’t know anything about them.
@robin4est:
Gabriel Hanna (Not a climate scientist, I just impersonate one on blogs)
I explicitly said I wasn’t one, more than once. I’m a physicist working in condensed matter. But don’t let that stop you from falsely accusing me of misrepresenting myself.
How would anyone reproduce all the studies and collect all the climate data without being subsidized by the government?
Where does CEI get its money? If all goes well in 2010 Republicans will be the government. Maybe they’ll fund it then. Or maybe people like you could volunteer their time, instead of complaining that you don’t like what the mainstream scientists tell you?
didn’t they have a special duty to consider all disagreement and rebuttal?
Yes. All INFORMED disagreement and all SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED rebuttal. Not disagreement from people who don’t do the research and don’t read the journals.
I am guessing from your syntax that english is not your native language
You guessed wrong. Like the guy who thinks I’m female.
Why would they buy enormous life changes on the word of a few odd scientists?
I don’t think they should actually. I don’t think windmills or global poverty are the best answer. What policy I choose is up to me, but the nature of reality is not.
Imagine that water gave people cancer. Could you stop drinking water? No, you’d die. The human body cannot function without water. Human society cannot function without emitting lots of carbon dioxide either, and it will decades to change this without killing a lot of poor people. When I say this at Real Climate they say the same things about me that you lot have.
I assume your comments here are your attempt to convince the wayward of your superior knowledge and caring, but they come off shrill and I doubt anyone is impressed with your erudition.
Not trying to impress anyone. I’m trying to combat lies about science and scientists. I also argue against creationists and people who think they can be healed by crystals and such.
Can’t persuade people who won’t listen.
I know I said I was done with this, but given your insistence on your credentials, this is just ripe.
I said this:
“No preconceived opinions on what the outcome should be and no prior investment in the outcome going one way or the other.”
Your responses:
“So what, people who don’t do similar research? Maybe climate science should be peer-reviewed by economists or something? That doesn’t make any sense.”
“If I write a paper on the orbit of Mercury, and the journal assigns it to a “peer-reviewer” who has no “preconceived” ideas about how gravity works or what the orbit of Mercury should be, how is he qualified to judge the work I’ve written? That is the stupidest I’ve ever heard.”
In my first comment in this thread I pointed out several telling slips that call into question your bonafides as a scientist. I’m not even going to ask why you could possibly think these two statements asuffice as a response to what I wrote. Perhaps it’s the strawman asininity that has characterized your approach throughout this thread. But I think that it’s more that you simply lack the background to understand how the peer review process is supposed to work. Doesn’t really matter why. You can’t grasp why carbon based AGW skepticism is swelling to the point were it will take years for a whole branch of science to recover. That much is obvious.
“Not trying to impress anyone.”
Good, because you don’t. The house you bought is tumbling down around your ears. You’re standing in the middle of the living room insisting that no one but the original builders are qualified to answer the question of whether it was built to code.
“I also argue against creationists and people who think they can be healed by crystals and such.”
I suggest you concentrate on low hanging fruit like that.
Can’t persuade people who won’t listen.
Gabriel: I certainly never accused you of lying. I accused you of doing little or nothing to combat lies propagated by the people who comment here.
No? That isn’t what I would have inferred.
On the GISS code, there are two issues. The first one is that the code isn’t runnable in its published form, and is known to have significant bugs. The folks at Clear Climate Code have put a lot of work into making the code run and replicating the results. They are getting closer, and in fact GISS is now asking for their code as a potential replacement.
If GISS were to publish working understandable code, my concern about this replication would be much lessened.
On the second, I think you missed one of my complaints about the GISS data: that the data is only available in a homogenized, post-processed form, and the homogenization process isn’t replicable either. (In fact, we see from some of the material that’s been published that the CRU at least had one hell of a time replicating their own homogenization.) Unless you can follow the whole process from the raw data, the process is suspect. Not necessarily wrong, but suspect. In something that is driving potentially literally trillions of dollars of social costs, I think we deserve better.
@Charlie Martin:
Following your links it seems GISS is being quite helpful to outsiders seeking to replicate their code, aren’t they?
Thank you very much for all the effort you and your people put into checking and rewriting our programs. I hope to switch to your version of that program, if it produces data files that are compatible with our web utilities. If we do so, we will let you know about any additional modifications or documentation that we include in your code.
It’s not that GISS’s own code doesn’t work–it does, they use it. But it’s a mess because so many people contributed to it over time and scientists don’t always write the most understandable code. In my Monte Carlo simulation days I always wrote my own code for this very reason, I hated using code written by anyone else.
Since the Clear Code folks and GISS seem to be so much in agreement that GISS wants to use the Clear Code version, what is now the ground for your concern?
I think you missed one of my complaints about the GISS data: that the data is only available in a homogenized, post-processed form…
This is not true.
The data is publicaly available. It’s not necessarily on GISS’s webpage, but if you look here
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
they give a lot of references and details which I have a hard time believing you’ve really checked out. For example, one source used in the 1987 paper I linked to is World Weather Records which is published by the Smithsonian and goes back to 1921 I think. My university has them from 1961 to 1980. Surely you could run over to Boulder and see what they have in their library?
and the homogenization process isn’t replicable either. Unless you can follow the whole process from the raw data, the process is suspect.
You CLAIM it’s not replicable, but I see no evidence that anyone in the “skeptic” community has made a good-faith effort to do so. Just because you haven’t bothered to do something, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Not necessarily wrong, but suspect.
Didn’t you ask me how I knew the data wasn’t faked? The fact is that they have been publicly documenting things for forty years but you don’t go look. Then you use words like faked. Is that appropriate?
Phil Jones was not justified in breaking his coutntry’s laws. But, according to him, this is why he didn’t want to comply with the requests.
“We have no data to delete. It comes to us from institutions around the world. We interpret data. We don’t create or collect it. It’s all available from other sources.”
Yet the “skeptics” pretend the climate scientists are hiding it. And so they file FOIA requests for things they can get at a university library.
He also suspected that the CRU was the target of a co-ordinated attempt to interfere with its work — a suspicion that hardened into certainty when, over a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests. Each applicant asked for data from five different countries, 200 in all, which would have been a daunting task even for someone with nothing else to do.
Lawyers call this “burying in discovery”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
The use of discovery has been criticized as favoring the wealthier side, in that it enables parties to drain each other’s financial resources in a war of attrition. For example, one can make information requests, which are expensive and time-consuming for the other side to fulfill; produce hundreds of thousands of documents of questionable relevance to the case; file requests for protective orders to prevent the deposition of key witnesses; and so on.
I don’t have a problem with skepticism. I have a problem with “skepticism” that masquerades as such, but is not a good faith effort to engage the other side.
@JustPassingThrough:
If you were a scientist you would know all about Web of Knowledge, and you could check on my publications there; though there are a lot of G Hannas and of course I can’t prove that I’m actually any of them.
You may not think I deserve to be a scientist, but I am one nonetheless.
This is unlikely to go anywhere because unlike Watergate, most of the (lying) proponents of anthropomorphic global warming are liberal Democrats. The dominantliberal media attempted to ignore the falsification of data from East Anglia U. and will do all in their power to bury as much as possible of the info that doesn’t conform to their pre-ordained conclusions.