the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

When the TRUTH hurts

Posted by Jeff Id on October 11, 2010

This is a little reply to Michael Mann’s recent op-ed.  Since our government friendly papers wouldn’t consider carrying honest writing on the topic, I’ll post it here, on my free blog in the middle of nowhere.

Get the anti-science bent out of politics By Michael E. Mann

Friday, October 8, 2010

As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do.

Mann is essentially a government employee as are all climate scientists.  Since that is the case, can you imagine yourself in his shoes writing that you ‘shouldn’t have a stake’ in elections.  Of course he does, he and his fellow scientists need government expansionist politicians to continue funding climate science to the highest possible levels.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

 

A ‘hostile investigation’ Mann says?!!  From the Global Warming Policy Foundation, I found this quote (my bold):

House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is promising to give a “careful relook” at climate change science in the wake of last year’s “Climategate” scandal if Republicans take over the House.

“That doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t happening,” Issa told The Hill on Wednesday. “It means that we have to make sure that when we recalibrate what’s happening, why it’s happening, how much it’s happening, we need to ensure that we get a careful relook at the figures so that we’re accurate.

“It could be happening faster or slower,” he added, “but it’s very clear that those people played fast and loose with both the truth and our money.

Issa is referring to e-mails from climate scientists at Britain’s University of East Anglia that appeared to include discussing ways to massage data and squelch views of researchers to strengthen the case for global warming.

Which seems perfectly true to me.  Perhaps they will even investigate by asking INFORMED critics like “me” some questions, what a shame that would be.  There is nothing that says hostile in the congressman’s comment, but Michael Mann knows darned well that if the investigation is not pre-concluded in his favor that it will not go well for him or his cohorts.   The previous reviews have been so asinine that I’ve barely covered them here.  Other bloggers are doing a fine job of it but the real reason is that it is impossible and a waste of my valuable time  for me to intentionally address that many lies.     Everyone in the world who has bothered to read any of it knows with certainty that they were blatantly corrupt reports designed to trick you into not knowing about  the decline in climate science.

This article has changed my opinion of the Cuccinelli investigation.   I’m tired of the lies and dishonesty from Michael Mann.  In the past, I wrote that the legal exposure of the emails was wrong and it was abuse of power, but Michael Mann is guilty of the same offense as demonstrated by this editorial and it’s time for the rest of the world to see just how mentally sick from global warming, he is or is not.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

They didn’t even look at his emails!  They did nothing, and as the primary beneficiary (PSU) of the government funds Mann has collected, we got exactly the cover up style exoneration you would expect!  There are few surprises in business and that’s exactly what this investigation was.  Did anyone really expect PSU to inform the United States government that Mike Mann was guilty of exaggerating the science and they should send the already spent grant money back?

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

I still find this form of investigation distasteful and wouldn’t have done it in his shoes, but with the kind of money and power tied up in climate science and the endless lies published in scientific papers (not saying Mann) it may be the only recourse left to us in order to bring the blatant abuse of public money under control.  Mann can publish in any newspaper making any claims he wants and the anti-business, climate agenda friendly press just lets it all go without question.  Journalism is dead as evidenced by their profitability.

Mann asks:

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

To which I answer for him, they will discover that three independent investigations were total whitewashes, as  we already know.  They will also point out that your hand was demonstrably elbow deep in the money cookie jar.

Mann then answers himself

The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

We the  non-funded people, are very much doubtful of the nature of climate science.  We are doubtful that any of this money is beneficial to mankind in the current political environment.  We are also completely un-doubtful of climate science™ preferred political party or its bias against industry, personal comfort, personal decisions and wealth.

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton’s attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.

I suspect that the reason Cuccinelli has chosen to go forward was that he was particularly impressed with the trickery Mike’s team members were caught performing in climategate emails far more than something in 2005.  After all, why would he wait until 2010 to start investigating? hmm…

Mike then makes the obligatory prayer to Gaia, of course like religions, several items are disputable on simple logical and scientifically accurate basis (i.e. hurricanes getting stronger, more drought and heat waves, sea level attributable to warming).

The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.

I do love the extremist side of the Mikes, that’s what makes thim so fun to pick on.

But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.

The attacks are not against the science, they are against the ‘bad’ science, the science of sophistry, exaggeration and lies which very clearly are being used by climatologists to take more government money.   Mikes papers are not the worst of them, the damage papers are, but far too many of them share exaggeration of danger as a common thread.  All of them today contain prayers to the global warming gods, for instance, nobody even tries to publish any critique of global trends without explicitly supporting the claims of global warming.   It’s a club membership password to get in the door.

That is what is being attacked by any reasonable skeptics, the groupthink, the gatekeepers, the constant extreme conclusions in the face of zero evidence.  We attack those like Michael Mann who in my studied opinion have demonstrably worked behind the scenes to block critiques from publication, who’s own work don’t make logical sense yet come to extreme conclusions.  Michael Mann’s behavior is anti-science and that is what is being attacked.

How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?

Mike’s hockeysticks are beautiful exaggerations of paleoclimate, calling them breakthroughs is insane narcissism.  Although they did lead to my own breakthroughs in understanding of the decay of an important field.   As we know the hockeysticks he’s so proud of, are based on bad mathematics and very questionable proxies.  They are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT non-scientific in their origin and their conclusion, but the message is the preferred one so Mike is at the top of the paleo profession.   If he wants to assure young researchers of anything, he should assure them that honest science is open science and has nothing at all to do with policy, government or anything but the study of reality.

Can you imagine the sorting process and pressures ‘young researchers’ are experiencing in his classes?   Can you imagine what would happen to you in climate science if you held correct conservative viewpoints.

My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.

While he took the time to direct this to his fellow climate scientists, they are already voting one way.  They and he already know they will vote for the corrupt and evil politicians who are currently in charge.   This has nothing to do with asking them to vote one way or another, it’s an attempt to paint conservatives as anti-science and an exposure of the fact that he is for the first time concerned of  potential exposure of whatever shennanigans not already uncovered.

The good news is that Mike is probably smart enough not to delete his emails any more and the bad news is  – he’s scared!  Scared means there is something to be afraid of and I’m now afraid it may be worse than we thought.


24 Responses to “When the TRUTH hurts”

  1. kuhnkat said

    “The good news is that Mike is probably smart enough not to delete his emails any more and the bad news is – he’s scared! Scared means there is something to be afraid of and I’m now afraid it may be worse than we thought.”

    Yup, he is scared of losing his pampered position in the world and having to compete for employment and benefits like most of the rest of the world.

  2. Andrew said

    So basically, Mann’s message to people is “please vote Democrat in November”. Sure, he doesn’t outright say it. But that is the conclusion he wants you to draw. He is telling you he wants to see Issa and Sensenbrenner not get chairman ships of Congressional committees, and I don’t think he is stupid enough to believe that they will lose their own congressional races. What really terrifies him, what he really wants to alert all people on his side to, is that the Republicans MUST not be allowed to get majorities in either house of Congress. Other wise, well, just listen to the fire and brimstone he portends for such a situation.

    Someone who says he shouldn’t have a stake in the election. Who claims to be non partisan. And he is actively implying that the GOP MUST not be allowed to take back control. Nothing, in his mind, could be more frightening.

    Excuse me while I vomit.

  3. Steven Mosher said

    more powerful hurricanes?

  4. Jeff C. said

    “As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do.”

    There’s not a political bone in his body, just a poor scientist trying to do his job.

    From 9/30/2009, Dr. Mann writing to Phil Jones:

    “Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama’s health plan, we’ll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E
    paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in ’05.”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1027&filename=1254323180.txt

  5. Derek said

    This quote Jeff used jumped out at me.

    ” But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science. ”

    So, we should take, according to Mann’s dictum climate science in “good faith” should we. ?
    Look where that’s got us so far – having to “accept” his bent hockey stick, and that’s the least of what we’ll have to pay.

  6. Brian H said

    Mann’s foot is now in his mouth up to mid-shin. I expect he’ll be gnawing on his kneecap, soon!
    Perhaps his funniest funny: “After a thorough investigation …”.
    We now know his standards for “scientific” data-collection and analysis. They could hardly be lower.

  7. […] here: When the TRUTH hurts « the Air Vent This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged careful-relook, darrell-issa, first-time, […]

  8. stan said

    Mikey doesn’t like people asking why he doesn’t follow the scientific method. So he labels anyone desiring science as “anti-science”. Orwellian doublespeak.

    Beyond the extremes of doublespeak, however, one has to wonder at the state of the man’s mental health. Either he believes what he wrote or he doesn’t. Which is worse?

  9. Bad Andrew said

    “questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none”

    As long as Climate Science fails to produce conclusive evidence of Global Warming, the questioning and doubting will continue indefinitely.

    Andrew

  10. Douglas Hoyt said

    “doubt where there is none.”, quoting Mann.

    That in a nutshell is what is wrong with climate science – the lack of doubt about their hypothesis.

    In contrast, consider the Standard Theory (quarks and all that) founded in 1972. So far it has been highly successful in explaining all the observations. But do physicists still have doubts? You betcha. A few years back one of the collider experiments seemed to indicate that the Standard Theory was incomplete as it appeared that the proton had a ultrasmall nucleus not predicted by the Standard Theory. I haven’t heard any more about it, but the point is that physicists are probing even highly successful theories in attempts to find something wrong or something new.

    The proper question for a true scientist in examining a theory is to always ask himself “what’s wrong with this theory” or “what’s wrong with this observation”. If you are not asking yourself those questions, you are not a scientist. Unfortunately, climate “scientists”, who have no doubts, fail this test.

  11. TGSG said

    #10
    The proper question for a true scientist in examining a theory is to always ask himself “what’s wrong with this theory” or “what’s wrong with this observation”. If you are not asking yourself those questions, you are not a scientist. Unfortunately, climate “scientists”, who have no doubts, fail this test.

    This.. in a nutshell

  12. drewski said

    Ignorant bloggers continue to believe that the ‘hockey stick’ was somehow incorrect. The McIntyre study focused on computer code and others say Mann didn’t include the Medieval Warm Period. The facts are that when the original hockey stick was shown, there wasn’t much solid info on the MWP so it wasn’t included as it wasn’t reliable (damn scientists trying to reliable). Since then over 10 — repeat MORE THAN 10 — independent studies compiled by unrelated teams of scientists using different methodologies and different computer code with the latest MWP information have attempted to recreate the last 1 to 2 thousand years of temperature and guess what? THE HOCKEY STICK LIVES — and sometimes the graphs are even MORE DRAMATIC.

    Kind of blows all your arguments out of the water doesn’t it? Do us all a favor and get educated or, at least, show us some PROPER study somewhere by some qualified person that CO2 is not a Green House Gas or that or that the planet’s climate systems are immune to its heating properties. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE “My Kingdom for a Sceptic’s study.”

    SCEPTICS = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles

  13. Thank you, Dr. Mann, for your comment.

    “Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that . . . he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science.”

    You are obviously much more politically astute than me!

    On a positive note: Climatologists are not completely to blame!

    In the campaign to sell the illusion of CO2-induced global warming, climatologists simply copied the template used by astronomers, astrophysicists, solar and space scientists to promote the illusion that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen after that model was directly falsified by experimental data.

    With kind regards,
    OLiver K. Manuel

  14. John Norris said

    He thinks he is speaking for his fellow scientists. I am betting few are willing to line up behind him as their spokesman. I don’t doubt he could have scared up a fair list of sympathizers pre-climategate. The gig is pretty much up. The 10-10 people resorted to jumping the shark. Cue the fat lady.

  15. Tom Fuller said

    I was going to say I’m still voting Democrat, but now I’m voting for Drewski! Vote for Drewski! A brewski in every pot and a Jetski in every garage! Drewwwwwwskiiiiii. Sing it! Drewwwwwwskiiii! Feel the love!

  16. Alex Heyworth said

    @ John Norris “He thinks he is speaking for his fellow scientists.” Yes, he seems to be suffering from the unfortunate delusion that he is a scientist, not a snake oil salesman.

  17. gallopingcamel said

    My first thought was that the Washington Post piece attributed to Michael Mann was a spoof.

    If the following was really written by Michael Mann he certainly does not deserve the title “Scientist”:

    QUOTE
    Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes.
    UNQUOTE

  18. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, maybe these threads with “personalities” draw attention from the blogosphere, but in my estimation they are a major waste of time and can be counter productive. Why draw attention to the likes of Mann who appears to have a problem with victom-hood and is simply jomping at the bit to take advantage of some misdirected efforts by politicians. He is a true believer that will use what ever his “enemies” provide and better that it can be directed away from the science.

    Then you get innane comments like the one from Drewski and give it a thread of its own. That topic will draw nothing but personal comments and hardly touch the science, because Drewski’s remarks missed all the essential critiques of the HS and its progeny.

    I have been attempting to keep a discussion going on another thread dealing with measuring the uncertainity of climate models and I feel like the guy telling a joke and having his guests all leave before he gets to the punchline.

  19. Jeff Id said

    Kenneth,

    Is that better?

  20. A shame that a rebuttal could not be given the same venue as the original partisan hack job, but at least we have options today that did not exist 20 years ago. I think the only truth of Mann’s diatribe was his name. You did a pretty good job of showing the inanity of his editorial (I would have been a bit more acerbic).

  21. I suspect that the reason Cuccinelli has chosen to go forward was that he was particularly impressed with the trickery Mike’s team members were caught performing in climategate emails far more than something in 2005. After all, why would he wait until 2010 to start investigating? hmm…

    One other comment. Most of the left use Cuccinelli as a whipping boy, and indeed, even the governor (of the same party) does. However, a close examination of Cuccinelli reveals that his sole motivation is simply his job responsibilities – i.e. enforcing the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He may not personally agree with some of his actions, but his oath of office requires him to perform them.

  22. Brian H said

    The emails were working papers in a publicly funded enterprise, not private property. They were released as a last resort by a whistle-blower. Thank God!

  23. stan said

    Jeff,

    Just wanted to point out something that I haven’t seen noted elsewhere. One alarmist talking point we keep hearing a lot lately is the argument that Republicans don’t really have any scientifically valid reason for “denying” global warming. Instead, the issue is so politicized that their views of the science are nothing more than political cheerleading for their team.

    Of course, the same argument could apply with equal force to the Democrats, but my point is to focus particularly on the scientists. Surveys show that university faculties are overwhelmingly left-wing. Even a vast majority of scientists vote for Democrats. We know that most of these scientists do no work in climate science and are simply relying on the assurances of alarmist scientists for their views. Given their general instinct to support Democrats and the intense politicization of the issue, shouldn’t we be examining the reported attitudes of scientists on this issue with a healthy dose of skepticism?

    Roger Pielke, jr had a post not so long ago telling a chilling tale of how a number of scientists asked his bosses at CSU to lean hard on him not to testify at a Congressional hearing because the request came from the GOP. They were concerned that the GOP, the enemy, might get a benefit from his testimony.

    And Stephen Budiansky (big time liberal) recently wrote:

    “My three years at Nature left me painfully aware that scientists are about the worst people on earth when it comes to confusing their political inclinations with objective fact — and absolutely the worst in the concomitant certainty that one’s opponents must be liars, frauds, or corruptly motivated, since (obviously) no honest person could possibly have reached a contrary conclusion through objective reasoning. As absurd and unwieldy as democracy is in handling scientific matters, I found myself constantly thankful that scientists weren’t running things, mainly because of this supreme intolerance for differing political conclusions.”

    http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/09/you-may-be-right.html

    Just saying.

  24. Brian H said

    Stan;
    Hence, perhaps, much of the bad blood between scientists and engineers …
    😉

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

 
%d bloggers like this: