The Australian seems to have an endless supply of journalists who, with no background in science, write stories about how the scientists have it all wrong on global warming. The latest effort, by one Jamie Walker, is dealt with by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.
- Log in to post comments
Talking of the war on science. So The Penn State internal investigation has cleared Mann on three of the four allegations made against him by the denial machine. The forth is a little odd, and seems to be more about semantics and interpretation of the uni policy than anything. Anyhow, NAS looked into the same question and he passed, so I would be surprised if that has changed. The full report is here;
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
How Mann has avoided having a heart attack or nervous break down is beyond me. And no, I do not feel that is an exaggeration, he has been subjected to an immense amount of stress for several years now.
So, when are we going to demand that they investigate Plimer, Lindzen. This is not tit for tat, but rather there are very good grounds to question the professional conduct of these two scientists (there are more of course, Pielke Jnr and Snr, for example). It is a legitimate question to ask:
1) Has Lindzen, Plimer et al. (choose your name) had any correspondence with the FF industry, Heartland Institute or other radical lobby groups?
2) If so, what was the nature substance of those discussions?
3) Have they conspired to defame and spread untruths about the IPCC and certain climate scientists?
4) Have they intentionally fabricated data, misrepresented other scientists findings, or conducted science in a manner which is not consistent with uni policy?
The list goes on and on of what one could ask. I for one am sick and tired of this continued harassment of scientists, and each and every time they come up clean.
They are now at Jones again, and he has showed them the results from follow up studies which corroborated the findings of his 1990 paper. The differences are minute.
Oh, but hey, it is not about the pursuit of truth is it, it is about fabricating conflict, doubt and misinformation.
I think that this "fight" has been conducted on a very slanted playing field...they attack, attack attack and we politely (mostly) oblige and explain and defend. And we wonder why the public is questioning the integrity of the IPPC and climate scientists. Well, what is good for the goose is good for the Gander.
Dr. Tim Lambert, I am challenging you and your colleagues to take action against Plimer, he is on your turf, so with the utmost respect, for God sakes please do something!
Well, the fourth seems to be saying, we're just university administrators, and this question should be answered by science faculty, otherwise a determination won't be taken seriously by ... well ... the denialist community won't accept anything other than crucifixion so it can't be them ...
I think they want to make the case for exoneration as strong as possible for Mann's reputation within the scientific community.
So much for that.
Dhogaza @ 2
'I think they want to make the case for exoneration as strong as possible for Mann's reputation within the scientific community.'
I agree, they don't won't want to give the denial machine a reason to dispute the findings. Anyhow, I could have explained that better. Thanks for clarifying.
Good observation dhogaza.
Yes, this is the difficulty. You have scientists that are upheld to a code of conduct whereas they have to deal with a guerilla group of disinformers (conscious act) and misinformers (unconscious act) that have no code of conduct or honour or whatsoever.
God, I wish I was a skeptic. Their tactical position is so much easier! :-D
Mapleleaf,
Ahem, don't you ever get a worrying feeling about "internal investigations" that find no wrongdoing?
martin #3 - I fully expect these e-mails will be quote mined for appropriate misstatements which can be used the same way the stolen e-mails were.
I'm still waiting for someone to FOI NASA and others for all e-mail correspondence with Macintyre. They would be a useful record of how not to do things.
Yeah, if a denialist claim misconduct, then the university must 1) agree or 2) be accused of whitewashing.
I wouldn't offer scum like Dave Andrews a drink of water in the middle of the Sahara on a mid-July day even if both his legs and both arms were broken and he was buried up to his neck in sand.
Oh, and despite the fact that the report explicitly exonerates Mann of research misconduct, Fox news reports that the university is investigating further into the possibility - yes, you guessed it - research misconduct. The report couldn't be more clear on the point, This is outright dishonesty and I should think close to libel on the part of Fox News.
"Ahem, don't you ever get a worrying feeling about "internal investigations" that find no wrongdoing?"
Jeez, I never saw that observation coming from a denialist (sarc). As dhogaza pointed out the only thing that counts for denialists is blood.
Err, this was a baseless investigation from the outset. The ludicrous allegations had no legitimacy or substance from the outset, so no wonder he has been cleared, again.
Now please go and crawl under that rock with Dumb Duff. I doubt that you @7 even bothered to read the PDF.
Come to think of it, I would kick sand in his face, though.
i cant read the pdf, the link is broken
Dhogaza @12. You are still being too kind ;)
Blob @ 13. It was working. Intriguing. Maybe their site was overwhelmed with drooling denialists?
"Come to think of it, I would kick sand in his face, though."
No, you wouldn't. You're just pissed off because of the impossible position we the warmers are in.
But boy, do people like Dave Andrews have it good. Ignorance and a total lack of scruples truly is bliss. But however much they manage to change perceived reality, people will still get the climate they deserve.
The underscores in the URL were mangled by markdown into becoming italics.
[Mann Inquiry Findings](http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf)
"Ahem, don't you ever get a worrying feeling about "internal investigations" that find no wrongdoing?"
So, an internal investigation must find evidence of wrongdoing to be trustworthy? Interesting perspective on things.
Naturally the denyosphere are going to be in a tizz about this too, and demand......well who exactly knows what they'll demand next?
dhogaza @ 9, in Australia we would say that if Dave Andrews were on fire, we wouldn't piss on him to put him out. A shorter form is that he's not worth pissing on.
"... don't you ever get a worrying feeling about "internal investigations" that find no wrong ...?"
The results of your colonoscopy are in.
They found nothing wrong.
18 David,
"I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire". That's the version I know, but I don't know where it originated.
7 Dave Andrews,
Ahem, don't you ever get a worrying feeling about your "contributions" here that no one thinks you're anything other than a lying moron?
Dave Andrews said:
Only when the people being investigated choose the members of the investigating committee and set the rules e.g. Hutton, Butler, Chilcot.
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick et al. must be in need of a strong drink tonight. The exoneration of Mann is going to drive them crazy! :)
The denialists' response to this is predictable. They believe that their best form of defence is attack.
Oh , we can add McKitrick of denialist academics who need to be investigated for misconduct and possibly being on the take.
I wonder if SteveM, McKitrick and their acolytes were amongst those demanding for an unjustified investigation of Mann? Anyone want to trot over to CA to ask? I would, but I seem to be banned from CA.
Yes, Dave, I do. Just like I get a worrying feeling because repeated claims to have disproved AGW or its severity get a lot of press, but they always seem to fail under scrutiny - which doesn't get much coverage. It's almost like some organised and fairly effective misinformation and character assassination campaigns are being waged because the science itself can't be discredited. And that certainly is a worry.
Eli believes the line was from Molly Ivins about Jim Hightower, a Texas politician, who was so mean he wouldn't spit in your ear if your brains were on fire
Ahem, don't you ever get a worrying feeling about "internal investigations" that find no wrongdoing?
Is that your way of telling the reader that you are guilty of something an "internal investigation" would turn up?
Fixed that for ya ...
As an equal opportunity nitwhacker, it's my pleasure to correct Eli for, I think, the first time ever, and he's less than half wrong in that anecdote -- the guy Molly Ivins referred to was:
"Jim Mattox, a former Texas Attorney General... Molly, who once called Mattox 'so mean he wouldn't spit in your ear if your brains were on fire.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/22/style/chronicle-466893.html?partner=r…
Jim Hightower, now, that's a Jim of a whole different kind. Eli recalls his name in connection with Molly Ivins, but for good reasons. Quite a few reasons; worth reading, they were two of a kind, for a long while, often speaking together:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q="Molly+Ivins"+"Jim+Hightower"
http://www.google.com/search?q="Molly+Ivins"+"Jim+Hightower"
Actually yes. I'm worried because and internal investigation, which found no wrongdoing, was established on the basis of lies, exaggeration and slander, and despite the outcome, will tarnish the name of a good scientist for many years to come. That UPenn would capitulate to the cries and shrieks of a group of morons armed with no evidence to substantiate their claims (other than misinterpreted personal correspondence obtained by theft) and commit precious resources, better utilised on research or teaching IS worrying.
It shows the clout of said morons, who through their actions stymie research and drag reputations through the mud. As others have pointed out (and Dave Andrew's so nicely demonstrates) the negative result will stop the slander, so what little good arose from this inquiry (the exoneration of Mike Mann) will be unlikely counteract the lies circulating the general populace.
If a supposedly learned institution like UPenn will lower themselves into the gutter in a (failed) attempt placate these idiots, what hope is their for your average politician and getting meaningful action on climate change?
apologies for the rant... feeling a bit tied of all the malarky lately and need to vent.
Re #23
I thought I'd mosey on over to Climate Fraudit and see what the reaction was. Pretty much as I expected - Penn State protecting its own (more conspiracy), Point 4 means that he hasn't been exonerated, they didn't talk to anyone apart from the clique of Mann supporters (Wegman was mentioned several times).
Thought I'd throw in a comment (http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/#comment-219520) suggesting that McIntyre give it up and do some real science - had to throw in a couple of furphies to try and not get the comment deleted, and it we'll see what reaction that gets.
Now I'll have to go and wash my hands, I feel dirty.
Chris C @ 29, good venting. I enjoyed reading your post. I can't speak for everyone here, of course, but your thoughts on this fabricated fiasco certainly echo my feelings.
Jimmy @30: Did you ask McIntyre if he was one of those calling for Mann's head in the Penn State debacle? That is, is he (McI) one of the people who wrote to them asking them to investigate?
The list goes on and on of what one could ask. I for one am sick and tired of this continued harassment of scientists, and each and every time they come up clean.
True, but it's the price you pay when you are doing important work. None of this harassment is even close to what you get as an expert scientific witness in a cross-examination in a Clean Water Act or ESA case.
Re #31.
MapleLeaf,
No I didn't. The level of paranoia over there is frightening and I didn't want any of it to rub off on me. I think you can take that one as a given. With the spurious FOI requests to Mann, Jones and others, writing to people isn't something that he is shy about.
And on that note, Steve McI commented a bit further on from mine http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/#comment-219536. I expect that the next stunt on his part will be an FOI request to get the transcript of any interviews with Mann.
Douglas, you are way off the mark, sorry. Being an expert witness is VERY different than being falsely accused of scientific misconduct, or fraud or illegal actions. It is called libel and harassment.
I doubt an expert witness is routinely publically accused of fraud, misconduct and more and has his/her name on every blog (some of which get millions of hits) spouting misinformation and libel when they are cross-examined for a Clean Water Act.
Yes, Mann does important work, as do many other scientists, the peer-review process and, more importantly their academic institutions, keep them in line and accountable. We do not need endless witch hunts by ideologues.
If you think that this kind of harassment and badgering should be part of science, then you are sadly mistaken. I think you would feel very different if you were the victim of libel, defamatory comments, harassment, death threats, and had your face and name plastered all over the media as being guilty of something when you are not.
So Lindzen does important work too. So I'm sure you won't mind my acolytes and I fire off complaints to his institution, make unsubstantiated accusations, flood him with FOI requests just so that I can tinker with the data-- even if I do not know what the hell I'm doing with said data. Or would you consider that unjustified? Lindzen does, after all, have a very shady past and with connections with the FF industry and neocon lobby groups.
Have you for one second thought of how these baseless attacks affect Mann's family? His graduate students? His colleagues? No, b/c Mann, to you is probably not a person, but an object.
Do you work in a field that is deemed as "important"? If so, please do provide us with your details and we can arrange to have you investigated, just to make sure that you are doing everything absolutely perfectly. But in the meantime, we will fabricate a story and controversy, just to make sure everyone is aware that you are being investigated.
Have a nice evening.
Re 33. Thanks Jimmy. Oh, I'm sure SteveM his plotting his next move, maybe asking Morano what to do now. How funny then that SteveM is on record saying:
"that I've done in this, I've done in good faith"
Uh, huh....
That's bull. Agency scientists and administrators have been subjected to similar harassment in the past, this is different. They're going after the university infrastructure, now.
In the PNW old-growth wars, agency scientists and some district/forest managers were under attack, but there was nothing like what we're seeing against Mann vs. Jerry Franklin.
The difference between a regional timber industry vs. global fossil fuel interests, I presume.
INspired by posts made here, this was posted at CA @ 12:29 am on 2 Feb 2009:
"Mr. McIntyre,
Were you one of the complainants against Mann? If so, could we please see the correspondence that you sent to Penn State? Thanks.
So one can conclude that you would have no reservations with someone using FIPPA to see all your UofT emails (sent and received and ccâd and deleted) that may make reference to CA, Mann, CRU, CanWest, David Rose, Friends of Science, Tom Harris, IPCC etc.? Just to make sure that you are on the up and up; of course you are probably clean, just as Mann is, but people are asking questions. Same goes for your colleague McKitrick. The results of all such investigations should be made publically available, including transcripts of all interviews with you and Ross, should it come to that.
Given the important nature of your work here at CA, people have the right to see unequivocal proof that you were telling the truth when you stated that âEveryhting that Iâve [SteveM] done in this, Iâve done in good faithâ.
With those important details out of the way, you and Mann could then return to advancing the science."
Correction to #37, message was posted at 12:29 am on 4 Feb 2010.
That's okay, Dave, these investigations are aimed at reasonable people. But I see your implied criticism that the committee should have, while they were at it, also whitewashed the fourth accusation point, instead of wasting more government money. Now six expensive scientists are going to waste up to 120 working days to produce this whitewash -- and I bet they haven't even been 'talked to' yet...
BTW the report is really worth a read. I understand very well that Mann agreed to have it public. Especially hilarious I found the extensive account of how the committee found itself formulating, with some difficulty, a coherent set of 'accusations' summarizing the denialospheric madness prompting the whole thing.
My favourite part, I think (emphasis added):
> In media reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, *it is inferred that the emails prove the case*. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject them for publication. *Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content*. In some cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this.
People just keep pointing at the emails and saying "Look! Fraud! Misconduct!". It's repeated unquestioningly in the MSM all the time now, and it's reached the level of received wisdom, despite being utterly without foundation.
MapleLeaf @ 34
...and, more importantly their academic institutions, keep them in line and accountable.
Unless you are Ian Plimer.
Guthrie, no, I don't think so. These emails are and remain confidential and were only provided to the committee, not published.
BTW one thing I find a bit disappointing is that the committee report does not enter into the content of these emails, like they do for the purloined emails. Especially, if they could find any objectively incriminating emails in that set, emails that Mann would be motivated to keep secret for nefarious reasons, rather than the principle of confidentiality of scientific correspondence (a recognised FOI law exemption). I know the answer to that; I want the world to know it too.
Inhofe's response is to call for an independent investigation ...
28 Hank,
I agree that it can't have been Hightower. The quote about Mattox seems to date from Feb 94.
I think I've found a better source. It dates from 1981 and it's [Ian Stewart on Andrew Oldham](http://www.beggarsbanquetonline.com/decades.htm) (Stones fans will know these names).
So, can anyone find an earlier source?
BTW thanks to Eli and Hank: Molly Ivins is new to me. She seems to have been one of those special people, now much missed I'm sure.
30 Jimmy,
I've just skimmed through that Fraudit thread. The Fraudit denizens just get worse, don't they? What a nasty heap of steaming stupid they are.
What does it take to get Loehle investigated, for instance?
This is what happens when one asks blunt and awkward questions as CA:
"Jean S: I've checked your math skills, and they don't impress me much. After checking your IP, I think you have no business of being rude and hostile on this site. Your comments are OT, and from now on I will simply delete all of your comments unless they are strictly on the topic. You've been warned."
Can you say "threat". Be warned everyone.
Yes TrueSceptic, they are very nasty.
Do we actually have a list of death threats, harassment and suchlike carried out by denialists and such? I know various IPCC people and Mann etc have had such threats, but they tend to be mentioned in passing and we don't take them seriously enough. Good PR involves putting out the truth, which is that there are seriously crazy folk out there who hate the scientists and apparently want them dead.
Not to mention the possibility that, as per Inhofe et al, they will generate sufficient noise to subvert the normal workings of science for delaying tactics.
That in my view is now the biggest danger - that the nutters manage to damage and destroy the normal workings of science.
46 RockyMtn,
I did post at Fraudit a few years ago, to show that McIntyre was using a straw man argument against a criticism of TGGWS. It was bad enough then. Anyone questioning McIntyre was a "True Believer" out to trap Saint Stephen. It's now sunk to the level of WattsaFxxxWit, despite McIntyre's pretence of moderating off-topic or ad hom attacks.
So, much as I'd like to call some of those truly nasty cretins out, I'm realistic about it. Nothing will get through to those "people" but legal action. Watts is even worse. I doubt that McIntyre would make public the email address of someone wishing to remain anonymous, but Watts has done exactly that to people who disagree with him (BTW isn't that an offence on a public blog? Anyone know?).
47 Guthrie,
I've occasionally thought about setting up a blog. Not to say much, just to collect all the most nasty, stupid, and downright dishonest ASS comments for future reference. IT would include blogs, the press, "papers" in E&E, etc.
Perhaps a wiki might be the answer? Or is there one already?
46 RockyMtn
What a scumbag Jean S is! (Is that a female Jean or a French male Jean?)
So it's made public that they have "investigated" you via your IP? Yes, I'd call that a threat.
dhogaza,
I love you too, but no matter your indiscretions I would never sink to your level and kick sand in your face.
Here's something that shows up Tim Lambert's War on Science (ad infinitum):
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
Solomon was the matron of AR4, but here admits that it grossly overestimated the role of GHG in AGW in the 90s and since.
Nope. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is given as a range of 2-4.5C, with the most likely figure being 3C. The research described in her paper, if it is indeed a feedback and not just some poorly-understood natural variation, would tend to rule out the higher end of that range, but she in no way is suggesting that sensitivity lies *outside* that range.
If you don't believe me, you can e-mail and ask her directly, I'm sure ...
> wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.
Oh, sure, that more general wording (rather than the specific Molly Ivins quote) has to go way, way back.
I recall hearing it in my childhood. It could well go back to Twain, Shakespeare, the Old Testament, or the first hominid to say anything about fire.
No Bruce. You don't understand, likely because you've been diddling away your time reading garbage with an ideological prejudice against reality. Get a clue, for instance
I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.
Common used expression I remember hearing since my childhood in Australia. I am middle aged now, so it is at least 50 years old or so.