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.
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.
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.