Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Gets the Same Treatment As Bill Clinton's Penis

Impeach Cuccinelli. Impeach him now (to steal Brad DeLong's phrase). Earlier this week, I discussed Virginia Attorney General Cucinelli's subpoena envy harassment of climatologist Michael Mann. ScienceBlogling Tim Lambert describes what this fishing expedition entails:

Cuccinelli isn't just asking for documents relating to his research grants but all correspondence Mann had with Caspar Ammann, Raymond Bradley, Keith Briffa, John Christy, Edward Cook, Thomas Crowley, Roseanne D'Arrigo, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, David Douglass, Jan Esper, Melissa Free, Chris de Freitas, Vincent Grey [sic], James Hack, Malcolm Hughes, Eystein Jansen, Phil Jones, Thomas Karl, Otto Kinne, A.T.J de Laat, Murari Lal, Stephen Mackwell, Glenn McGregor, Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Michaels, Jonathan Overpeck, Tim Osborn, Roger Pielke Jr, Benjamin Santer, Gavin Schmidt, Stephen Schneider, Olga Solomina, Susan Solomon, Kevin Trenberth, Eugene Wahl, Edward Wegman, Thomas Wigley, Vincent Gray [again!] and all RAs, secretaries, and administrative staff at the University of Virginia. As well as all correspondence that references anyone in the list above.

This is the same old shit. Conservatives engaged in the same kind of assassination-by-discovery phase crap when they went after Clinton. It's what they do. And it's why, as much as it fills me with disgust at times, I hold my nose and vote Democratic.

More like this

Agreed. Thanks to the Rethuglican mentality we're stuck always voting for the lesser evil, the Democratic Party.

By DGKnipfer (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

"And it's why, as much as it fills me with disgust at times, I hold my nose and vote Democratic."

Oh, for a good third party!

If Cuccinelli is perhaps overzealous - that's for the courts to decide, isnt it?

Meanwhile, its time for us ALL to decide if Michael Mann often 'cooks his books' as has been previously demonstrated by McIntyre/McKitrick.

I would say it's past time that AGWist paid the price for their scientific dishonesty, in those cases where malfeasance is demonstrable. After reading some good part of the climategate e-mails and coding comments, the stench of corruption is overwhelming.

Or do you posit cheating in science is acceptable behavior?

I for one posit that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. All McIntyre and McKitrick managed to demonstrate was that they didn't understand Mann's methods, there's been no scientific dishonesty from anyone but the denialists, and 'climategate' was entirely without substance.

I think you need to do more research on denialist proof before you throw your stamp on how they are wrong. IPCC said glaciers are melting in India, it has been proven inaccurate, sea ice ratios have been found to be different than reported. "Science" in some cases had to do this anecdotal reports from ice climbers. Anecdotal evidence is not science. Michael Mann and company have been cooking the books for years. AGW is total dung and we all know it.

Michael Mann and company have been cooking the books for years.

That's a specific accusation of fraud. Support it or retract it.

so ?

You delete my specific citations responses ?

What difference between you and CRU/Mann who think they can control the peer review process to their benefit?

a simple google of "hockey stick fraud" and "hide the decline" will yield multimillion support citations for FRAUD.

Which 'specific citations?'

I'm not going on a wild google hunt. I want to know what you think is wrong with Mann's work, not what somebody else has written. You're the one who came here and made the allegation that he 'cooks the books,' you should be willing to defend it. Can you do so or not?

Let's start with the hockey stick. What specifically is wrong with it?

biobob, you might be interested in what scientists do in such a sitution (seeing this is hosted on Scienceblogs). They go to the scholarly literature, and see what the evidence says, and what's been useful (not exactly true, but pragmatically useful, because we don't know what the exact truth is). If you use Google Scholar, you find MBH'98 has been cited 1004 times t date by other papers. Pretty damn impressive. Their most recent paper, addressing all the bogus issues that have been thrown at them, and also truly improving the methodology they used, came out last year in Science (one of the top 2 or 3 journals in the world) and has already been cited 10 times. M&M, on the other hand, have only been cited 105 times, and many of them are refutations. Sorry, science wins this one.
Before you claim this is an argument from popularity, it's not - it's an indication of utility, which approach is more useful. Sticking your fingers in your ears and accusing everyone you disagree with of fraud isn't useful.