the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Free Speech

Posted by Jeff Id on November 26, 2009

Ok, after this I’m done blogging today. I’ve got two papers to review and a pile of other work. In the meantime Reuters finally reported the story. Of course it was within the context of a paper released by realclimate scientists which exaggerates the climate issues to policy makers as we expected from the emails.

Hacked climate emails called a “smear campaign”

“We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public,” said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

There is one thing I know for absolute certainty, NO special interests are involved. Would you risk your 501C company on hackers for this? I would call it ignorant if I didn’t think it were simply a lie.

The next quote is:

Dissenters see action to slow global warming as “a threat,” he said.

I have to say, I’m not a dissenter but I see the proposed action to stop global warming as a threat greater than Russia ever was. What these leftists are proposing is nothing less than the total destruction of free society couched in nice words. We therefore must agree.

The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC’s 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as “Climate Gate.”

This is a fun paragraph for me. I’m glad they spent some time discussing their advocacy rather than their agenda. I’ve had a few emails with Doc. Steig and am not sure he’s of the advocate group but it’s hard to imagine how he could be in the same room with Mann if he weren’t. Mann wouldn’t stand for it.

Here’s a beauty:

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

“There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”

People wouldn’t read the Air Vent if it weren’t about honesty. So I’ll be honest to Vice Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies — LIAR!!

Michael Mann the continual creator of absolutely horrifically bad science had this to say.

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

“What they’ve done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking,” he said.

First, it more likely was a whistleblower action. Perhaps a group of students pissed off with the lies, collusion and manipulation. Perhaps it was a professor who got sick of listening to his colleagues lie about the issues. Maybe a file was left out where it was easily accessible. There is no proof that this was illegal, not that it matters. It’s just not reasonable for the scientists to make that claim.

They’ve turned “something innocent into something nefarious,” Mann added.

The vital point being left out, he said, is that “regardless of how cherry-picked,” there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”

This is a “smear campaign to distract the public,” said Mann. “Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side,” he added.

The great thing about this is that I know Mikie reads this blog on occasion whether he wants to or not. He knows I’m on to his bullcrap, and he ought to know I ain’t letting up soon. His lies about the emails will do nothing, but it’s amazing that the press is so willing to report them without question. We’ve all shown dozens of problems in the emails– and just a hint, it is not anywhere near over. By the way, despite what Mannie says, science is on our side, because we are on the side of science. If massive IPCC levels of warming is the reality, I don’t know of any serious blogger who wouldn’t accept it at the drop of a pin. It’s a done deal, the science is the science. Show us the code and data and we agree.

What is not science, is hiding of data, manipulation of peer review, elimination of papers from the IPCC by any means necessary and the elimination of data which doesn’t support your conclusion.

This post is getting to be too much, so I’ll leave it here. Read the article linked and let Mikie know what you think. While he won’t admit it, he does read here on occasion. Mike never reads here as he stated below, and he never will.

32 Responses to “Free Speech”

  1. Jeff C. said

    Let the swift-boating begin! Nah, just kidding. Notice that the definition of a “smear campaign” now means publicizing the embarassing statements and writings of an individual.

    These guys can thrash around, but when Monbiot is saying he’s shocked and appalled, they got trouble.

  2. They have to keep lying. It’s the nature of the beast. Lies to cover other lies. The heavy hitters will never admit they’re wrong. Never. And they certainly won’t admit they’re cheating. If they’re scientists, walruses are running in the Kentucky Derby.

  3. Tony Hansen said

    Could it be said that they have a somewhat tenuous relationship with truth and honesty?

  4. Konrad said

    If CRU is claiming the leaked code is the “highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.” then I guess it is time to get the pig mesh up on the windows…

  5. Simo said

    I cant believe the universities and institutions associated with these people havent suspended or fired them yet. Academic integrity?

  6. Raven said


    Anything is justified is the war to save the planet from the denialists. Nothing will happen to them – they will continue to be lauded as star scientists. The only hope we have is the revelations will firm up the backbone of few more US senators and ensure cap&trade never sees the light of day.

  7. David Swift said

    Very good point Raven. Any universities, sponsors or institutes associated with CRU / Hadley etc had better distance themselves PDQ or get tarred with the same brush as P.Jones and his colleagues.
    Mud sticks (I had to say mud as my mother told me not to swear).

  8. David Swift said

    Sorry Raven, I meant in response to Simo

  9. B.A.Twysted said

    Academia and integrity? What a novel idea, such a pairing hadn’t crossed my mind for so long that it caused me to reminisce about my idealistic teen days when I actually did think that academic environments were insulated, ivory-tower-metaphorically-speaking, from the realities of the world…. and therefore immune to corrupting influence! Ha-ha!

    14-head-bangingly-frustrating, suicidal-ideation-inducing years of having worked in the (UK) ‘sector’ has ‘taught’ me something… for the majority of academics who ‘make some kind of name’ for themselves it is only about petty-politicking, empire-building, nest-feathering and retirement-pot building… and academic integrity and rigour be-damned!

    ‘Academia’ like all walks of life is just as completely pervaded and perverted by the forces of ego and desires for self-enrichment.

    They used to say:
    “Those who ‘can’ — do. Those who ‘can’t’ – teach. And those who ‘can’t teach’ – lecture”
    … beyond this I realize that: “Those who can’t-be-asked-to-lecture’ become expert-research-grant-and-funding-application-writers”…

    It is certain that ever more information will continue to emerge, and to confirm, that the foundations, content and direction of our ‘so-called’ leading edge of knowledge and research is rotten to the core; controlled and manipulated, as it so patently is, by global commercial and political vested interests.

    It should not be forgotten, also, that for most run-of-the-mill academics their job (i.e survival) is all about recruitment (of bodies to ‘sit’ in lecture rooms for 3 or 4 years)… which leads to a whole ‘nother raft of informational and data manipulation to continue to achieve supposedly-ever-improving results profiles, departure trajectories and newspaper ‘University League’ placings… To whit another modified epithet: “lies, damn lies, statistics…and UK University degree results”!! (Not that I suspect UK Universities are unique in the world for such ‘creative academic accounting’… just that this is my own area of experience).

    Indeed it is this ‘Fawlty (ivory) Tower’ of cards (mostly student credit cards it seems these days) upon which our highest certificated awards for ‘academic learning and achievement’ are based… therefore rendering the quality and value of most institutionally gained ‘certificated forms’ of academic achievement virtually worthless (IMHO). Only the naïve can have expected any different, and only the ignorant would rely on information that emerges from such sources.

  10. Hans K Johnsen said

    Just to indicate that there are other sources that may add on to the evidence revealed by the CRU-mails here is an excerpt from – a report from the “10th session of working group 1 of the intergovermental panel on climate change: 29 january – 1 february 2007.
    On page 5, left column, mid page it states:
    “On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic temperatures, Canada and Norway, suggested removing a specific reference to a warm period from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating Lead Athors explained that “climate sceptics” often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells. Participants agreed to keep the reference.”

    Spelled out, the proposal was:
    “Real climate data must yield if it does not support the overwhelming evidence of our climate models.”
    I suspect one of the Cordinating Lead Authors, or at least the Norwegian representative may have been Eystein Jansen.
    I cannot say this information makes me more proud of my Norwegian heritage.

  11. Simo said


    Im sorry Mr B.A.Twysted if i am/was an idealistic teenager who is quickly discovering that shit is not how it seems. Living in copehagen doesnt help matters either.

  12. B.A.Twysted said

    That’s OK Simo.

    My teen years were some 3-4 decades ago. Life was so much simpler then — at least the total-manipulation of the public-consciousness and political-king-making of the corporately-controlled media was not quite so blatantly obvious…

    The media’s ‘weapons of mass distraction’ were perhaps less potent and ubiquitous… certainly less obvious.

    There were no such thing as ’emails’… or the Internet…

    And there was nary a chirrup or a tweet from a so-called whistle-blower… now things are all a-Twitter!

    Halcyon days back then, though… There were ‘real summers’ when the sun shone, and ‘real winters’ when snow fell… (wonder if that has anything to do with Global Warming? 😉 )

  13. Harold Vance said

    Jeff, this is just a heads up. A BBC correspondent (Paul Hudson) claims to have received the CRU emails on October 12th. Here is a link to the story:

  14. Harold Vance said

    What I find interesting about Hudson’s claim is that the batch of emails that was posted on the Internet this month contained messages dated this month (in November of 2009). Obviously, Hudson could not have received these messages as they had not yet been written. He received the messages on October 12.

    If Hudson’s claim is true and he did receive some of the messages, then it means that the hacker or insider has been collecting these messages over time. The party had access to CRU in October as well as November. It wasn’t an isolated event, a one-time breach of security.

    The Daily Mail seems to have missed this one tidbit.

  15. Harold Vance said

    The last message in the series, 1258053464.txt, is dated November 12. This one was written 31 days after Paul Hudson received his set of CRU emails.

    You have to wonder if Hudson reported the breach to UEA. That would have given UEA about a month to identify the culprits.

    Again, if Hudson’s claim is true, the culprits have had access to CRU’s system for quite a while and as such were probably not that worried about getting caught. What a hoot.

    Hope you and everyone else have a great Thanksgiving. 😉

  16. Raven said

    I think he only claimed to receive the emails that involved him and related to an article he wrote.

  17. Harold Vance said

    Roger that, Raven. Here is a link to Paul’s blog:

    This part of the Daily Mail article is a bit hazy:

    “The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.”

    It doesn’t say which leaked messages, and I assumed the broadest definition, meaning all. The reporter should have clarified that he only received one chain (or thread) from the set of leaked messages.

    In his blog, Paul says that he received the following chain on October 12 even though the last message in the chain is dated October 14:

    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:36 -0600

    At any rate, it still looks as if the culprits had ongoing access to CRU’s systems.

  18. Harold Vance said

    Raven, I think that the Daily Mail article was a bit too fuzzy and could lead to readers forming the wrong conclusions. Paul says that “he was copied into them [the complaints about his article] at the time.” This means that he received the messages from someone who had received the chain. I didn’t find his name in the recipients in those chains, but someone on the chain probably forwarded it to him. This doesn’t really qualify the message as a leaked message per the Daily Mail article.

  19. Charlie said

    Calling the publication of the CRU e-mails a “smear campaign” reminds me of how a couple of months ago various politician were complaining about Glenn Beck’s smear campaign against Van Jones.

    What was the smear campaign? He ran videos of Van Jones speeches.

    How dare we besmirch the reputation of the world’s finest scientists by publicizing their e-mails and reviewing their journal papers.

  20. Kenneth Fritsch said

    What I notice in many of the comments of those who would defend the emailers and emails are the generalizations about the email contents and those who would use them to critique the emails and emailers. There are no specifics or details that one could get one’s mind around or that one could reply to or disagree with. That development and the fact that we have well known climate scientists referring, in almost paranoid terms, to a concerted effort to by some nefarious group(s) attempting to stop the move toward mitigation of the supposed bad effects of AGW, speaks volumes of how theses scientists science instincts have been overwhelmed by there advocacy and how political their approaches have become. Certainly a reasonable person has every right to suspect that that thinking can affect the scientific works of these people and that their works should closely scrutinized and analyzed.

    Mann, Jones and others more directly involved in the emails make these generalizations but so do other defenders like Judith Curry who claims to be a big defender of all that is right for climate science. She has personally accused me of upsetting her young colleague with a very nonspecific statement by Curry. After linking her to the CA thread, where I was supposed to have done this upsetting with my comments, she has to date ignored my requests for her to show specifics instances of where I erred in my analysis of the Kim et al, (2009) paper that was coauthored by Webster and Curry.

    I think Steve M was correct in giving Curry the forum at CA and we can all see how general and non-specific her tone is. Jeff ID, you do not appear to get much of this type of traffic here, but at CA those scientists who appear with a countervailing POV often come not to impart any specific new knowledge or insights to the discussion but to make very general comments about the attitude and behavior of the posters. Almost never do they give specific examples of what they find objectionable and I found that puzzling for a scientist to do. The fact that nearly all blogs have some partisan type postings, and even those blogs with a less open posting policy, like RC, makes these complaints from those visiting scientist disingenuous in my view. I believe that Lucia has made that point at CA a few times and I respect her for doing it..

  21. chris y said

    re B.A.Twysted, #9- While I was an associate professor in EE, the following phrase was overheard at yet another waste of a faculty meeting-

    Those who can, do.
    Those who can’t, teach.
    Those who can’t teach, teach others to teach.
    Those who can’t teach others to teach, lecture on the appreciation of teaching.
    Those who can’t teach others appreciation of teaching, write books about teaching.
    Those who can’t teach or write, become administrators in the Dept. of Education.

    There was another one like this on research, but I can’t remember the details.

    Happy turkey day to all!

  22. Bob Hawkins said

    Michael Mann whining about cherry-picking. That is good. That is so rich. The man’s an artist.

  23. PaulM said

    Simo and Twysted,
    University pro-vice-chancellors like Trevor Davies are masters of spin and distortion. Whether he really means what he says, we will probably never know. Also remember they have only heard one side of the argument – he will have been told by CRU that Jeff and Steve are evil, horned, fire-breathing, blood-sucking axe-murderers.

    BTW when I was a teenager, we were all worried that the Earth was about to plunge into an ice-age.

  24. Joe NS said

    Down here in the Caribbean, the West Indians have a saying: “Wrong and strong!” Mann exemplifies the wrong-and-strong type to a fare-thee-well.

    What’s particularly galling is the attitude of victim he and the rest of the Team are adopting, as if these “stolen emails” contain their medical records or excerpts from love letters to their mistresses, wives, boyfriends etc., when in fact they are, every one of them, legitimate objects of legitimate FOIA requests.

  25. Adrienne said

    Is this satire?

  26. You said: “Read the article linked and let Mikie know what you think. While he won’t admit it, he does read here on occasion.”

    That is a specious and false claim. I’ve never read anything posted at the Air Vent, not one single thing, and I can promise you that I never will.

    -Mike Mann

  27. Jeff Id said

    #26 Fair enough, claim retracted.

  28. Jeff Id said

    #27 I’m joking by the way, I doubt the real original manufacturer of the hockey stick would come by and write that he never reads here. Who knows though.

  29. AMac said

    The vital point being left out, [Mann] said, is that “regardless of how cherry-picked,” there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”

    This assertion by Dr Mann is certainly correct. But as Inigo Montoya famously quipped in another circumstance, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Here are two instances when deep consensus’ close relative groupthink has led to unhappy outcomes. The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame. The explosion of the Challenger.

  30. stan said

    Mike Mann could play Humpty Dumpty —

    `When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    `The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    `The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

  31. mcauleysworld said

    Read an open letter from Dr. Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
    Georgia Institute of Technology, where she says, “What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them”.

    Dr Curry is not a Global Warming Skeptic (see entry #20 above). Read the full post here:

  32. andrew said

    About time the truth came out

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: