the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Say Anything

Posted by Jeff Id on March 29, 2010

An article from the morning call which requires a bit of translation. I don’t know how they do it with a straight face, but in my opinion the mann has a personality disorder.  My comments below are in Red the article is in black.

————

ALLENTOWN, Pa.–

Penn State global warming scientist Michael E. Mann regrets he did not instantly object when a fellow climatologist asked him in 2008 to delete e-mails subject to Freedom of Information requests.
“I wish in retrospect I had told him, ‘Hey, you shouldn’t even be thinking about this,'” Mann told The Morning Call in his first interview since the university last month launched an investigation into his conduct. “I didn’t think it was an appropriate request.”

Below we learn that Keith Briffa of climategate agreed to delete emails “Keith will do likewise”!! I find it difficult to reconcile “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP” with  — “I didn’t think it was appropriate”.

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil

Despite the request by his British colleague Phil Jones, Mann did not delete e-mails, a Penn State University panel of inquiry found on Feb. 3. But the panel ordered further investigation, still in progress, over a general allegation of scientific misconduct by Mann.

Of course Penn State is the primary beneficiary of Mann’s grants.  So when Penn State, investigated Penn State and finds no deleted emails that’s proof right? Just how did they determine that email wasn’t deleted?

Guh, Mike thanks for the piles of grant money, um, did ya do it?

Naw

Good enough for us – Case closed.


Penn State officials said Friday they could not yet provide further information on the probe.

One wonders just how they proved that emails weren’t destroyed…..hmm.

——————

“There are a lot of things we could look back at and say, ‘Gee, I wish I had done this or that,'” Mann said. “The important thing is, I didn’t delete any e-mails. And I don’t think [Jones] did either.”

This email was sent by Jones  several months after the above to Mann as well as others confirming the deletion of ‘loads’ of Jones emails.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

CC’d to Mann
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails
and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of
emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the
FOI -

There is all kinds of doubletalk through the rest of the article as well, first concluding we’re certain that this was the warmest period in the millenia followed by maybe not.  Of course it’s my opinion that nobody knows.  What’s surprising is that there is so much reasonably presented doubletalk, and apparently the unwitting reporters can’t detect it.  Either that or they’re willing to let certain people say anything.


———-

H/T to the anonymous reader who sent the link.

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>

29 Responses to “Say Anything”

  1. timetochooseagain said

    “mann has a personality disorder” Just one? ;)

    Seriously though, if I were going to diagnose him, I’d start with paranoia-we know full well he is a conspiracy theorist and at RC he is the main proponent of the “industry” talk among the “scientists”.

  2. Jeff Id said

    They really are willing to say anything, the only problem with that is that the emails exist which tend to go against the endless storytelling. I mean, I know what the NAS report said, and I can see how it was a conflict between truth and giving credibility to a bad study. If people don’t take the time to put the emails with the words though, nobody can figure it out.

  3. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Any reasonable person would conclude form Mann’s reply to Jones’ (WRT the request to delete emails) that Mann did not object to the request, and would relay the request to ‘Gene’ ASAP; he even helpfully sends Gene’s new email address to Jones. Had Mann a shred of doubt about Jones’ request, this would have been the perfect time to disclose that doubt.

    In addition to being a bully and routinely obnoxious in his interactions with people (just peek at his many RealClimate comments, where he goes out of his way to denigrate and insult people), this email shows clearly that Mann holds himself and his associates above the rules. His recent public comments show he is a liar to boot. I do not believe Michael Mann has any place working in science that is directly or indirectly funded by the public. Penn State should simply ask him to find other career opportunities.

    WRT a personality disorder: I really do not care what personality disorders he does or does not have, but I do care about the integrity of science, so I want Dr. Mann to sufferer appropriate consequences for his inappropriate actions.

  4. Jeff,
    You may not have seen this one yet. It is from the NASA/GISS email releases, 417760main_part4.pdf, Page 54:
    WARNING: Please check the text against the original if you intend using it elsewhere. It was obtained through OCR and is not perfect.

    Quote:

    “Re: Recent events

    National Climate Centre in Melbourne.

    3. We’ve got all the long NZ series they have homogenized.
    Problems with both Australia and NZ associating these with WMO IDs we had.
    Why it’s always the English speaking countries is odd? Maybe this is because
    we can find out/understand more easily what they’re doing!

    4. My biggest worry is China. CMA don’t measure at airports, and they keep
    moving suburban locations a few more miles out as the cities expand. I was
    there a month ago to give some talks. I’ve sent them all the CRU data for
    China, in the hope that they will reciprocate at some point and send me
    their adjusted data (for site moves, but not urban influences).
    They are doing some reasonable work, but not seeing the big picture…

    Other issues:

    1. I reviewed a paper by NCDC (Smith/Reynolds! Peterson) recently. It was OK,
    but when it comes out it will raise the whole debate again. SSTs are being
    increasingly measured by buoys (drifting and fixed) and they now
    dominate over the ships. It seems they are about 0.1 -0.2C cooler
    over the ships. So NCDC will be increasing global temps from about 2000
    onwards.

    2. SSTs are now coming in for the areas losing Arctic sea ice. The normals
    we have for these are -l.8C which is completely wrong. Shortish time series
    are composed of entirely positive anomalies. Maybe this is true, but it
    probably shouldn’t be as much as it is. This problem will get worse as
    the sea ice continues to go. Your use of land only data shouldn’t have
    the problem.

    The SST issues highlight that it is the biases (bucket/intakes and
    urbanization)
    that are important as they are potentially pervasive. Individual station
    homogeneity issues cancel as sites are all affected differently. Getting
    this right has hardly any effect (none in fact) on the large-scale averages.
    Might affect smaller regions, and it’s good to get as many right as possible,
    as the deniers will claim if one is wrong the whole lot is wrong. The law of
    large numbers seems to be totally forgotten by those collecting pictures
    of siting across the US. Still it gives them something to do…

    Cheers
    Phil ”

    Quote:
    “4. My biggest worry is China. CMA don’t measure at airports, and they keep moving suburban locations a few more miles out as the cities expand.”

    It seems that the Chinese just will not ‘conform’. Keeping their temperature measurements free from UHI and the influence of increasing air traffic just won’t produce the ‘correct’ temperature trend.

    Which is better; ensuring your measurements are as free as possible from perturbation or making arbitrary corrections for what could have been avoided?

    Maybe Phil answers that for us:

    Quote:
    “The SST issues highlight that it is the biases (bucket/intakes and urbanization) that are important as they are potentially pervasive.”

    Then there is this:

    Quote:
    “The law of large numbers seems to be totally forgotten by those collecting pictures of sitings across the US. Still it gives them something to do…”

    Could this be a dig at Anthony Watts et al?

    Then there is the startling assumption that large numbers will provide cancellation of most measurement problems.

    And this is just, well …

    Quote:
    “1. I reviewed a paper by NCDC (Smith/Reynolds! Peterson) recently. It was OK,
    but when it comes out it will raise the whole debate again. SSTs are being
    increasingly measured by buoys (drifting and fixed) and they now
    dominate over the ships. It seems they are about 0.1 -0.2C cooler
    over the ships. So NCDC will be increasing global temps from about 2000
    onwards.”

  5. AMac said

    The “Morning Call” article notes,

    Mann said his studies combine several types of data, including data from tree rings, corals, ice cores and sediment.

    “Sediment.” That must refer to Lake Korttajarvi varved lakebed sediment records, among others.

    As Jeff and regular readers know, the Mann group’s high-profile 2008 paleoclimate reconstruction in the high-impact journal PNAS employed these Lake Korttajarvi “proxy” records. In this paper, Prof. Mann mistakenly calibrated all four of these records — mistakenly, because they were uncalibratable. As a result, two of these climate records were used in an upside-down orientation. This error has been repeatedly described, but Prof. Mann refuses to acknowledge it (much less, correct it). That’s okay with the broader climatology community.

    While newcomers to these AGW controversies should be surprised by this account, the evidence is straightforward. Try Googling some of the key terms and see for yourself.

    This is the caliber of “settled science” in paleoclimatology reconstructions.

  6. Peter B said

    Whether or not he has a true personality disorder, his character as seen in such interviews, and in all e-mails, is very consistent. In a nutshell, he has no time – maybe not even understanding – of objective truth. He will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to talk his way out of any situation. I see him as a less self-aware – and so less self-critical, and more vicious – version of George Constanza.

  7. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I doubt that Mann has any mental or personality disorders, unless we can claim that most politicians, who would handle accusations in a similar manner, have these maladies also. When Mann talks to the public he acts very much the part of a politician. More problematic to me than Mann’s actions are the MSM reactions to him and some of his fellow scientists, who must see through his failed spinning of the facts. It is an example of how the world of opinion can be biased yet claim to act level handed.

    If a favorite speaks this way he/she provides the spin and it is accepted without question. If a memeber of the opposition (unfavorites if you will) were to take this stance/approach they would be subjected to some much harder, detailed and penetrating questioning – and in the proceswe would see some proper journalism.

    I truly think if you were to contemplate for the moment the frustration of some of us with Mann and his ilk of climate scientists, it stems mainly from our thinking we realize what they have done (incorrectly) and we are frustrated that others do not (admit) to seeing it. They could merely not have a the capability to comprehend or they might have an agenda. Each of us can judge for ourselves.

  8. Chuckles said

    Good to see the Morning Call again, not wild about the content though.

  9. Andrew said

    4-“Individual station homogeneity issues cancel as sites are all affected differently. Getting this right has hardly any effect (none in fact) on the large-scale averages. Might affect smaller regions, and it’s good to get as many right as possible, as the deniers will claim if one is wrong the whole lot is wrong. The law of large numbers seems to be totally forgotten by those collecting pictures of siting across the US.”

    This is just incredibly odd. Why does Jones think that the total impact of the biases in the temps is zero? Because his adjusted data yields results that are, on average, identical to the original data? There is no reason to think this is so-biases can go in either direction but they are not a priori equally likely-UHI is much more likely a positive than a negative bias since population of cities has been rising pretty much everywhere. Jones seems to think that because his adjusted data is not impacted compared to the unadjusted data, that, since he knows his adjustment procedure to be unbiased and good, the biases must cancel out. Of course the reason he knows that his method is good and unbiased is because the adjustments cancel out. That’s circular reasoning.

    But I was not aware of his odd interpretation of the law of large numbers. Essentially he seems to be saying that a small portion of the stations are poorly sited, but because there are so many stations you are bound to find some which are bad. Except that it isn’t at all that there are a lot of stations are bad, it’s a majority that have poor siting. Without saying that the data biased by this, and I think that it is safe to say that the reality is that the law of large numbers implies that you’ll find some good stations somewhere, even though there are few of them.

  10. Stephen Prower said

    A confusing typo: ‘rectify’ should read ‘reconcile’!

    Also quote marks round:
    ‘I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP’
    and:
    ‘I didn’t think it was appropriate’ might help the slower-witted reader!

  11. Peter of Sydney said

    I hope I live long enough to see the likes of Mann, Al Gore, etc. behind bars.

  12. Jeff Id said

    #10 Thanks Stephen.

  13. Motorhead said

    It’s not mine. I was holding it for a friend.

  14. Pat Moffitt said

    Mann’s statement about mosquitoes is just wrong. The Anopheles mosquito which carries malaria is found well into Canada and throughout northern Europe and Asia- it is the disease these mosquitos carried that is gone- and the disease it not limited by temperature within the mosquito’s range. Anopholes is not killed by any winter temperature found in PA. Malaria and Yellow Fever are not tropical diseases. Six US presidents have contracted malaria, it was endemic to most US state (including MT, MI,MN) only being controlled in the 1940s by DDT and other public health measures. Washington was seen as a “malarial swamp’ two hunred years ago- now its just a swamp. A quote from the CDC showing just how widespread malaria was: “Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947,the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications.” Ironically, the public is being sold scare stories about malaria when in fact its control was associated with increasing energy supply and its associated wealth production.

    Malaria and Yellow fever are not tropical diseases but are currently confined to these locations as a result of the area’s poverty. Mann’s reference to West Nile is disingenuous – it is a disease that is very recent and invasive -its arrival having nothing to do with temperature. It is also important to note the apocalyptic warnings that surrounded the arrival of West Nile.

  15. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  16. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  17. bluetooth? said

    […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  18. barry said

    Jeff,

    I’ve been perusing the posts from last year on Steig et al.

    These seem to be the last two posts.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/lucky-number-0-07/

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/

    Have you continued the analysis, and are you still planning to publish? (I may have missed an update in my search).

    Also…

    Congratulations! All the very best to you and yours and especially the new bundle of joy.

  19. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  20. Stephen Prower said

    Jeff

    Wording

    No trouble!

    Stephen

  21. Jeff Id said

    #18, We’ve published the rest and are awaiting a favorable review. We stopped putting the new stuff here because a condition of publication is that it’s published nowhere else. The guys did an amazing job of it. It was mostly Ryan’s work with a lot of help from Nic.

  22. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  23. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  24. frost said

    Re #14:
    Almost right. As you point out, it is not the mosquitoes that cause endemic malaria but if so then DDT can not be the reason for its eradication.

    To have endemic malaria you need a reservoir of people who are infected with malaria; there is no wild reservoir of malaria, at least in North America. Once the parasites enter a human body some of them will lodge in the liver and re-emerge in large numbers when the person’s immune system is weakened and at that point the disease can be spread by the right kind of mosquito. So, the technological advance which lead to the eradication of malaria in the developed world was the window screen.

    Malaria was also endemic in Europe as far north as Denmark, btw.

  25. PhilJourdan said

    I doubt Mann is suffering (that is a subjective word) from any biological malady. He is suffering from embarrassment. I guess PSU will buy his lies, but then no one ever said you could not fool all professors all the time.

  26. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  27. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  28. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

  29. […] Say Anything « the Air Vent […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: