Tweet
Michael Mann, by AAUP. Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University) gave the keynote address at the AAUP's Friday luncheon. Mann spoke of his experiences in being targeted by climate-change deniers
One of the world’s leading climate scientists, Michael Mann of Penn State, has been vindicated by the National Science Foundation. Almost no one noticed.
Mann is the author of the famous “hockey stick” graph showing rising global temperatures. The graph, based on research conducted in 1999, was included in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (here). It is significant because it resulted from the first “multi-proxy” effort to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past thousand years. The “proxies” used included ice cores, tree rings, lake sediment cores, etc.
His results provoked interest and followup by scientists, some of which was fairly exacting. Some claimed that the data was incomplete or the statistical methods were wrong. That’s to be expected; scientists examine one another’s work as a matter of routine.
More significantly, the graph put Mann on a collision course with the emerging climate change denial industry (see also here, here, here and so on). A series of charges and accusations ensued.
Starting in 2006 and continuing to the present, all the investigations have turned up the same results. The climate scientists, including Mann, have been vindicated each time.
The accusations at issue in the current investigation arose from the “Climategate” scandal of late 2009; a trove of emails from climate scientists was put onto the web and attacked as proof that climate science is a fraud. As a result, Mann and numerous other scientists were investigated for scientific misconduct.
The NSF’s recent report followed up an investigation of Mann by Penn State. The university investigated charges against Mann for:
1. Falsifying research data
2. Concealing, deleting or otherwise destroying emails, information or data
3. Misusing privileged information
4. Seriously deviating from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research and other scholarly activities.
The university concluded there was no basis for the first three allegations. The NSF challenged the university to back up this conclusion by documenting its inquiry process, including how inquiry committee members were selected, what evidence they used, how they verified statements, etc. After investigating all the allegations de novo, the NSF decided the university had not adequately addressed the issue of falsification. In particular, it had not interviewed experts who were critical of Mann’s work. The NSF’s own investigation was not limited to the subject of falsification, but looked at the entire record for signs of research misconduct. It found that Mann had not concealed or falsified data, destroyed emails, misused privileged information or deviated from accepted practices. The NSF report is here.
In other words, Mann got the fine-tooth-comb treatment. And he was cleared, not just partly, but completely. After a series of investigations this exhaustive, on a subject this important, one would expect some news about it.
In fact, there has been only a trickle of interest. The climate-change blogosphere has noted it (DeSmogBlog, ClimateProgress, BadAstronomy). James Fallows noted it at the Atlantic, and Fox News managed a couple of dozen words. The other major media have relegated the issue to blog posts here and there.
More remarkably, there has been a deafening, thunderous silence from the climate-denialist crowd (Globalwarming, which has bragged of reducing the “hockey stick” to “splinters” and “sawdust”, has ignored the report. Likewise Wattsup, Heartland, Air Vent, Climate Audit). I could only find a snarky little post at Climate Depot, which tries to minimize the NSF conclusion. It cites a post by antigreen describing a “whitewash”. The author grumbles that the investigations by Penn State and by the NSF were “limited”.
It doesn’t conclude there is “nothing wrong” with Mann’s conclusions, all it concludes is there is no basis to conclude he did anything improper (WITH NSF FUNDING).
Would it be too much to ask of these people to say “gee, maybe we were wrong”. They claim to be interested in facts, in science, and some of them even have scientific degrees. They presumably understand what intellectual honesty is. As John Belushi used to say, “but NOOOOOO…” All we get is sour grapes, griping that Mann was only cleared of doing something improper with NSF funding. Well, perhaps that’s because that’s what Mann was charged with. I suppose they should have investigated whether Mann was bank robber or space alien. THEN they would have come up with something…
More seriously, if Mann had been condemned, I imagine there would have been a lot more attention. According to the “heads I win, tails you lose” standards applied to climate science, it is simply not news when an accused scientists is upheld. Accusations: that’s news. Vindications: *yawn*. This skews the record and gives the deniers most of the headspace. So, in spite of all the facts, we can hear from presidential candidates that scientists have “manipulated” climate change data, and everyone just nods.
48 Comments
“After investigating all the allegations de novo, the NSF decided the university had not adequately addressed the issue of falsification.”
What would be REALLY nice, would be an investigation into Penn State itself by an outside inspector. What kind of research-grant beholden, cesspool of administrative malfeasance would it expose? NSF’s investigation might be the key to justifying one. Talk about back-firing, that would just be too sweet.
Thanks for this excellent report. Great info to know. Definitely a concerted attack on climate scientists, including on the polar bear biologist guy by the great Hope and Change President.
Great coverage, sandyt. Recommended.
The complainers about “scientific malfeasance” do not hope or expect to be proven right, they just want to muddy the waters and scare others away from anything they don’t want investigated.
Excellent post. Highly recommended.
recommended and tweeted
I Call BOVINE EXCREMENT on this FIVE PAGE NSF ‘Report’. That’s right – 5 pages!
Mann’s “hockey stick” work was savaged by Dr. Muller so badly, he says that it doesn’t make any sense to even read a paper by Mann. (Furthermore, there’s recent indications that Mann, et. al., did more than “hide the decline” in the recent past, eliminate the Mideval Warming Period, etc. They may have also “hid an incline” during 1400-1550, which implies hiding a decline, earlier.)
Climate science is basically a government monopoly in the US. What kind of science does the US government want from it’s “service intellectuals”? Why, the sort of science that will support it’s political agenda, where it has one (which it certainly does, in this case), as well as deliver lots of $$ to Obama’s friends in Goldman Sachs. Because the financial sector funds both the Democratic and Republican parties, and because they can easily cut in the oil and gas interests, I expect that the Republican controlled House of Representatives will not thoroughly investigate climate fraud by the catastrophists. It’s been over half a year since the 2010 elections, and I haven’t noticed where Michael Mann has been called to testify, under oath, in front of Congress. This, in spite of the fact that Senator Inhofe called for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Mann, in Feb. 2010! Of course, Obama’s Justice Department will do no such thing, but what about Republican chairs in the House – don’t they have subpoena power?
Think about that, boys and girls, and remember Congressman Conyers threatening to impeach Bush, until he actually had the power to kick off that process. Then, he lost interest!
If you are a “follow the money” mentality, here’s a quick overview:
Listen and weep.
Lefty physicist and climate catastrophe skeptic Denis Rancourt recently interviewed Richard Lindzen, who deconstructed climate models, as well as one of his critics who made false claims about Lindzen’s own work.
What Lindzen describes, and what I read about scientific community dysfunction in the area of string theory, in The Trouble with Physics and Not Even Wrong, are eerily reminiscent of one another. Gee whiz, boys and girls, why would that be? Read those two books to find out, if you’re actually interested in an answer. You can also google metamars and those book titles for discussions that I participated in.
Finally, I’ll point out that I’m not familiar with most of the skeptic sites mentioned by sandyt. I would instead recommend Watts Up With That and Climate Realists. They’re not perfect, but I find them a very useful counterpoint to the climate catastrophist religionists.
Sorry, this video failed to show up after “If you are a “follow the money” mentality, here’s a quick overview:”
Can someone instruct me on how to embed a youtube video in FDL?
Too bad Anthony Watts is a dishonest twit with no more scientific credentials than you or me:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
Watts was one of the people who helped smear Michael Mann and other researchers with the e-mails that were stolen and then edited to mislead:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/31/207795/scopes-climate-hearing-richard-muller-and-john-christy/
To see every single major climate-denialist myth debunked, go here for the excellent Sinclair videos: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
Why, in my book, a Climate Scientist is no better than a dang ol’ Whistle-Blower!
Thanks. Recommended.
I viewed “Watts up with watts?” The only substantive criticism of Watts was that his (apparent?) claim of aggregate temperature corruption was disproved by NOAA. Noticed that they showed a graph of aggregate data from the more carefully situated recording stations, to prove their claim. That is what scientists do. Hence, I have no problem with that, and I’ll guess that Watts has no problem with that, either.
OTOH, the rest of the video was fluff. For the unitiated, please note that the term “climate denier” is insulting and misleading. Sure, some skeptics of catastrophic AGW made statements like “humans have no proven effect on climate”. (I assume they don’t mean the urban island heat effect, which affects local ‘climate’. ) According to Bob Carter, this is a small minority. Instead, proper scientific skeptics doubt an effect of AGW so significant that it will lead to a catatstrophe. Most believe that CO2 creates a very small heat effect.
So, immediately the video is suspect as propaganda on 2 fronts – 1) there’s very little science in it, and only 1 result that relevant to Watts 2) the narrator is using smearing, misleading language.
The video ends by mentioning another scientific result, which is irrelevant, in terms of criticism of Watts! :
Let’s look more closely at this PR BOVINE EXCREMENT:
First, note that the narrator says nothing about Watts disputing the results of the 29,000 data sets, in spite of the title “Watts Up With Watts?” It would be rather silly if Watts did, as we know that the earth warmed for most of the last century, though the warming peaked in 1998. So, why would Watts, or anybody else knowledgeable about climate matters, NOT expect biological markers like flower blooming schedules, to reflect this???
Of course, Watts is very familiar with temperature and CO2 data for the 20th century. The narrator, apparently, wants you to think Watts is in denial of these records ( and do not that “climate denier” rhymes with “Holocaust denier”). So, why doesn’t the narrator actually support this notion, explicitly. Oh, I’m thinking something along the lines of quotes from his website. Thanks to Mr. Google, this should be easily done, right?
But no, no, they narrator is happy to mislead you. Many of the climate catastrophists are happy to have the public think that the so-called climate denialist don’t even believe that the climate changes! Which even a cursory introducation to the the subject (including via “denialist” web sites) shows that that’s NEVER true!
Apparently, the narrator, and his ilk, are relying on the listeners not being astute enough to realize they’re essentially being lied to. Or, perhaps they are counting on them being lazy, hoping they will swallow this tripe, then go back to watching TV.
So, Watts knows very well that climate changes, and further that it warmed most of the 20th century. In light of this, the sentence
“The lesson here is that birds, lakes, rivers, fish, and glaciers have no political agenda, climate deniers, and their wealthy sponsors, do.”
is readily seen to be the pap that it is, though the last clause “and their wealthy sponsors, do” deserves special attention. This refers back to an earlier part of the video, where it was shown that Watts had been published by an institute called “The Heartland Institute”. We’re told that Heartland Institute has a long history of advocacy by the tobacco industry. This is true (as per wikipedia), but what exactly is the importance of this fact? That Heartland, itself, doesn’t care about the ethics of what industries it supports, is clear enough. However, their function seems to be mainly as a conduit (I note that I’ve just glanced at their wikipedia page, and may be off, here).
So, e.g., I see no reason what Heartland Institute would take money from the tobacco industry and use it to pay for the publication of a report on a global warming issue. It’s not that they’d have any ethical problems with this, it’s just that there’s no reason for such a funding pathway.
What is far more likely is that Heartland had oil/gas/coal sponsorship, and funneled money from those industries into publishing Watts.
I can easily believe that the oil/gas/coal industries would willingly do so, even if the science wasn’t sound. As noted above, I can’t see Heartland objecting on reasons of ethics.
Unfortunately for the producers of “Climate Denial Crock of the Week”, there’s no ethical reason for either Heartland, the oil/gas/coal industries not to publish Watts or anybody else if their science is sound.
Looking at the wikipedia page, I see that Lindzen has spoken at gatherings held under the auspices of Heartland. Lindzen is published in peer reviewed scientific publications, and against the dominant paradigm of catastrophic AGW. There is nothing wrong with this, even if both Heartland and the oil/coal/gas industries are tainted.
If somebody said that oil/coal/gas emissions were causing leprosy, and a scientist refuted this, then there is nothing wrong with the oil/coal/gas industry supporting the publication of such a report. Truth is a good defense, even for the Mafia and serial killers. This program is trying to discredit Watts via “guilt by association”, but this just underscores how the LARGE quantity of scientific results discussed on WattsUpWithThat.com is of no interest to the narrator. The narrator’s purpose is to obfuscate, discredit, mislead.
I readily grant that Watts, Lindzen, et. al., would be better off avoiding Heartland. However, support for a position that flies in the face of the mainstream paradigm is hard to come by. If you listen to Linzen’s talk that I linked to, you will learn of the shenanigans that the climate catastrophists descend to. E.g., an editor that approved a paper of Lindzen’s for publication was fired soon thereafter, though there was nothing irregular about the peer review process.
Dissenting viewpoints are suppressed in many ways – firing an editor is one of the most obvious ways. A more recent example of suppressing dissenting views is described here. (Unfortunately for the CO2 fetishists, Svensmark’s theory continues to accumulate positive evidence.) Smolin talked about a “string theory mafia”, but this repulsive mistreatment of honest scientists goes well beyond the confines of the string theory community.
Given the limitations associated from pursuing scientific activities, it’s hard for me to blame Watts, Lindzen, et.al., for not completely avoiding organizations like the Heartland Institute. IMO, the suppression of Svensmark’s theory is a COMPLETE FRACKING DISGRACE. Gee whiz, but why am I confident that none of the climate croc PR shows will give the story of this suppression? Noting Heartland’s dubious past is justified – doing so absent the context of active suppression of scientific skeptics’ works, is not.
And don’t even get me started about the $$$ angle. There is FAR, FAR, FAR more cash chasing the Catastrophic AGW hypothesis, crappy models and all, than there is serious work of alternatives. Funny, but the narrator doesn’t mention this fact.
Finally, consider this misleading “zinger”:
See how he’s trying to brainwash you? He’s implying that “real” scientists aren’t skeptics (which he can’t even properly name, being eager for you to internalize the frame of “climate denier” vs. “real climate scientist”.)
But this is sheer and utter nonsense. See the below quote of myself, for some “real” scientists who don’t think to much of the CO2 catastrophist fetish:
Finally, some more quotes from the Final word on Global Warming -650 Top Scientists Dissent On AWG , which I’ve selected because the sources are (or seem to be) geologists, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, etc. (except for the first paragraph) I.e., not “mere” Ph.D. chemists, e.g. If you want even more quotes than are in this article, you can refer to Senate Minority Report (the link they list is bad, you’ll have to search).
The best part of this is this is a loss for the kochsuckers. And deniers, whether paid or not, when will you admit there’s a problem? When we’ve reached a tipping point and there’s no going back? How about when science reveals we’re approaching a tipping point? Still too difficult for you to understand? What will finally concede maybe you’re beeing paid by the industry (we’re being paid, nevah admit it), or you were misled by your masters.
I happen to live in SoCal on the coast, the cool breezy coast. It was 74 here today, while just 5 miles inland it was over 10 degrees hotter. We’ve been this way all summer, while reading of the temperature problems almost everywhere else. The breeze feeds the hot air rising just inland. Makes great sailing too. So my cool breeze gets better and better the hotter it gets. What won’t get better is the masses of humanity to our soouth and east. If there isn’t enough water, and it is too hot, people will have to move to survive. I doubt you’ll wait, you’ll start before the problem gets too big. As a matter of necessity I’d head for the only habitable spot around, which will be the California coast or north. That’s why I’m beginning to reccomend to local governments that we begin building walls. Deep water just offshore will accomodate icebergs, so water should’t be a problem. There’s lots of desert land around so that vertical farms should provide all the foods we need. Better start making your plans now, climate change deniers. Make your judgements on what climate scientists are saying, stick your finger into the wind to test the temperature, and remember I’m here inside the walls, and we don’t want you. No matter the climate disaster you created, or maybe espcially because of it, we don’t want you. Dumbasses.
@jimbo August 31st, 2011 at 1:40 am
Tribalistic bunkum. The “kocksuckers” are on the other side, you hate them, therefore it’s OK to excuse all sorts of nonsense in you’re ‘competition’ with them. Did I get this right? Whether or not you are being a sucker for Goldman Sacks doesn’t seem to bother you, because on this issue, you are surely in their (Goldman Sachs’) tribe. Strange tribe, indeed!
You assume, apparently, that we’re on a path towards a “tipping point”. I’m afraid we may well be, in terms of pollution. But Global Warming? And based on crappy models and mafia-like ‘science’?
Good luck finding any of your so-called “real climate scientists” to debate the likes of Lindzen, Bob Carter, or the folks that I quote, above. (OK, I know of 2 instances where this actually happened, though in one of these cases the debater was Lord Monckton, who is not a trained scientist. Kind of skimpy, considering the issue is supposed to threaten all of mankind, don’t you think? How could this possibly be?) Al Gore also ducks debates, saying “the science is settled”, which is a lie. Wow! What an excuse to use, when we’re supposedly turning our planet into a hothouse, huh? If Gore doesn’t feel competent to debate, why doesn’t he appoint a blue-ribbon panel of volunteer scientists to debate any and all serious scientific challenges, out in public?
CO2, by itself, cannot cause runaway global warming. Absent positive feedbacks, the climate response to increasing CO2 is logarithmic, and guess what? We’re already in the slowly increasing part of that curve. The climate models used to justify predictions of Catastrophic AGW all rely on positive feedbacks. The climate debate is basically one of sensitivity, due to positive feedbacks relating to increasing CO2.
Listen to the Lindzen interview by Rancourt, if you want to begin to grok what science has to tell us about these hypothetical positive feedbacks.
The tendencies to avoid serious debate by qualified critics, suppress competing theories, both by suppressing publication of serious dissenting work, and also by suppressing the career viability of competing scientists, is nothing new to the readers of Woit and Smolin. Too bad this ugly scientific tribalism is not confined to the world of string theory.
And don’t expect scientists to objectively critique their own tribalistic shortcomings. When Smolin wrote a paper, which he submitted to the Chronicle of Higher Education, detailing the problems of “me too” science (which is a function of the tribalism he describes in his book), his paper was rejected.
From “The Trouble with Physics”, p. 345
You can watch youtube video’s of Svensmark’s beautiful work to learn more about what a run-around he got just to get published.
In terms of reality based environmental activism, catastrophic global warming religion is not benign. From Denis Rancourt’s Global Warming: Truth or Dare?
Some more intro videos on the controversy here and here. The latter shows CO2 vs. temp for large timescales. There’s obviously no simple relationship on large timescales, and probably none that are significant.
On shorter timescales, as per ice core measurements, Gore’s movie notwithstanding, it’s well known that CO2 rise lags temperature increase. The global warming believers believe that their models, with adjustable constants just ready to be tweaked, can “explain” this, and that it really is CO2 rise causing temperature rise, not the other way around!
I thought that everyone would understand that my comment was a joke. (I’m a climate researcher too.)
“Convicted? Never.”
Does Mann have any legal recourse for this harassment?
Who’s paying you to type all this?
@Synoia August 31st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Not Goldman Sachs, that’s for sure. Who do you think is paying lefty bloggers to repeat Catastrophic AGW talking points? I don’t know, but my guess is that most are chumps, and do it for free.
metamars -
you are a poorly informed, intellectually dishonest commenter.
you clearly get off from being perverse without warrant and from being daringly dishonest.
true-believing rightwing soldiers like yourself are a dime a dozen, an easy buy, and an easy lay.
the picture your sentences conjure up is of a smirking, ignorant kid having fun pulling tails.
sandyt -
thanks for reporting on this. like the dept of interior harrassment of a biologist whose work with polar bears could have impinged on big oil,
mann was a victim of both a false charge and a cowardly scientific community which should have denoted the charge against mann as deliberate harrassment rather than worthy of an investigation.
if every money-motivated allegation against a scientist is to be investigated, then scientists will be intimidated and scientific organizations will allow their resources to be misdirected over and over.
for the record,
the ethical/legal harassment of (health) scientists was begun by the tobbacco companies years ago.
the rule needs to be that if you have money in the game, neither you, nor a surrogate for acting for you can bring an ethics charge against a scientist whose work could cause you loss of income.
metamars again demonstrates with his avalanche of denier BS that there is truly no arguing with stupid. Give us the unsupported opinions of some more weather men? Really? If you are going to make an argument from authority please try some people who are doing the science. “Boys and girls”? The tip off of a Rush Dittohead.
“poorly informed”, “intellectually dishonest”, “perverse without warrant”, “daringly dishonest”, “rightwing soldier”, “dime a dozen”, “easy buy”, “easy lay”, “smirking”.
Nice: You’ve provided the MyFDL community with a content free, ad hominem filled, garbage post. As I have the longest posts, here, it should be easy for you to pick one or two “dishonest” points, correct?
Is this the best way available to defend Michael Mann?
Actually, that wouldn’t surprise me. You’ll notice that when Dr. Muller savaged Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick ‘work’, he didn’t need ad hominems. Yes, he actually dealt with the subject, at hand! Fancy that! And for a scientist, no less!
From Dr. Muller’s interview with Scientific American:
To get some idea of the technical issues involved, you can look at this post by Steve McIntire. Yet, the 5 page NSF “report” (the 5th page has only 1 sentence, BTW) is supposed to settle the matter.
Oh, yeah. At the end of p.4 of this “report”, we read,
So, while sandyt tells us that Mann has been investigated, the 5 page document describing the “investigation” tells us that there was not enough evidence to warrant an investigation.
Funny that sandyt didn’t point that out, either, eh?
Here’s a sandyt quote, suitable for framing:
Would orionATL be so kind as to tell us whether or not sandyt is being dishonest, and mischaracterizing NSF’s 5 page report on their “investigation”?
climate change “debate”
translation: Oil and coal industry front group lies dressed up with some nice words to resemble something that will result in doubt, delay, profit.
it’s hard to believe there are still people who believe the nonsense being delivered above by “metatars”.
@Wahrheit September 1st, 2011 at 6:30 am
Won’t you at least weigh in with your expert opinion as to whether sandyt is mischaracterizing the 5 page (4 full pages plus 1 sentence) NSF “report”? Here’s sandyt:
I found this to be, well, precious:
You don’t read, very well, do you?
Do you, perchance, have anything substantive to say? Here’s yet another link, to a new paper, that you and your minimalist, ad-hominem saturated fellow travelers can ignore: Climate v. Climate Alarm by Richard S. Lindzen. Thanks to climaterealists.org for the link.
OTOH, musn’t forget all the mega-$$$ involved, because although we’d people would like to think that only oil and gas interests would want to unfairly influence the debate (not that the Catastrophic AGW religionists care for debate, much), the real money is in using global warming concerns to make yourself a ton of money. As in Goldman Sachs. From Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone:
metamars-
let me reiterate.
you or your comments here can best be described thusly:
“poorly informed”, “intellectually dishonest”, “perverse without warrant”, “daringly dishonest”, “rightwing soldier”, “dime a dozen”, “easy buy”, “easy lay”, “smirking”.
had you intellect beyond the usual rightwing nut case, you would know that ad hominem is perfectly appropriate response to the mindless bunk waqrrior-boys like you slavishly interate and then insist demands the respectful;l treatment of others.
you’re
a manure
spreader.
nothing more,
holy-warrior boy.
It must be hard to be humble when you have both such a deep grasp of the subject matter, as well as such a scintillating intellect.
Perhaps somebody less gifted than yourself can make a substantive case against me.
This is good news but redundant.
The focus needs to be on getting results in the public forum, but the effort seems spent at this time. I think we’ve been going about this the wrong way. Maybe reworking the strategy and messaging is what’s needed.
The first priority would be rebuilding a cadre of spokespersons to reinvigorate the dialogue. Numbers wise there are limited resources among the climate scientists, themselves. There are just a few experts who have spent entire careers singularly in this field. Going forward they should be more directly and personally involved in the media and be seen and heard by the public.
Instead, I think the problem to date has been too many proxy messengers who aren’t climate scientists, themselves (or are peripheral). That would even include some supporters within NSF. They could be publicly perceived as lending moral support and little more notwithstanding an NSF imprimatur. Too many names and faces, and who aren’t the principals, become counterproductive and fatigue sets in.
The worst proxy messengers of all would be celebrities who heard or read something. Or they may be perceived as promoting an unrelated agenda, or may be mere functionaries in a political, social or professional network. As such they would be as credible as talking mannequins.
We have to remember public skepticism is natural in any issue which is costly to fix, threatens our safety, and whose outcomes aren’t entirely clear. Focusing on lambasting the recalcitrant ones is a surefire way to fail yet again — it hasn’t worked so far.
Despite worthy efforts including “last chance Copenhagen” we’re not near any tipping point where the public will force Congress to do anything. We should rethink how we are going about this.
Well, one easy route to doing this would be to get Michael Mann, himself, interviewed by Keith Olbermann. Olbermann’s boss is Al Gore, so if Al Gore really believes Michael Mann is credible, and not a fraudster, then he should offer no objections.
CORRECT?
Al Gore, you’ll recall, is the former vice President, whose “An Inconvenient Truth” was judged to have 9 significant errors in it. by a British Court.
So, I would agree that somebody like Al Gore is not the best person to be a spokesperson.
In giving free publicity to the likes of Michael Mann, however, Al Gore and Keith Olbermann would have to deal with the question of whether or not Mann is a fraudster (5 page NSF “reports” notwithstanding), and thus would damage the case for Catastrophic AGW. I mean, what if Keith Olbermann’s journalistic conscience demands that he get a guy like Dr. Muller on, also, and Muller spills the beans?
Or what if Olbermann’s journalistic conscience doesn’t demand that, or what if he mostly wants to avoid getting scowled at by Al Gore, or what if any other scenario, you please, that would allow Mann to crow about how his hockeystick is hunky dory, but guys like Muller are not allowed to respond?
Well, word might well get out, anyway, and then viewers who trusted Olbermann might decide to turn him off, for good. Some will go further, and turn off Current TV, for good.
So, I’d recommend that the Catastrophic AGW’ers choose their champions, carefully.
metamars @11:20am
you flatter yourself to imagine that the dung you’ve dropped here deserves a substative response. it does not.
one has to EARN respect, holy-warrior boy;
it is not something you can award to yourself.
you’ve earned from me precisely the respect a rightwing manure spreader like yourself deserves.
metamars
manure spreader.
Is Dr. Richard A. Muller a manure spreader, also? You may want to look over his resume, before answering.
metamars
anure spreader.
trying to borrow someone else’s credentials?
you were asked above who was paying ypu for commenting here. you deflected the question with a comment about goldman sachs.
i repeat that question to you now:
who is paying you to comment on these matters?
more specifically, do you have any connection whatever with the Science and Public Policy Institute in virginia?
@orionATL September 1st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Earning respect from somebody like you is a fool’s errand. In cases such as yourself, the point of engaging you is to show your intellectual and moral qualities. To other readers, not you and your ilk. You and your ilk are rather predictable, and I would no sooner be concerned about respect or even a decent conversation, from you and yours, than I would be from a mule.
So, of more interest to me are lurkers and people who are at least semi-rational, even if they don’t comment. It doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to realize who is ducking, and who is not. That realization may germinate in their minds, and cause them to do some critical investigation.
I’m thinking of writing a diary on what may be a societal, catastrophic downside towards wasting political capital on dubious science. Although I’m not sure of its science (I need to do more reading, frankly), the recent claims of scientists that we will definitely encounter solar storms big enough to knock out our power grid, which will lead to complete chaos, have me concerned. IIRC, the next big solar storms are due in 2012-2013; but, like predicting the “Big One” California earthquake, I don’t think it’s an exact science, so I’m dubious about predictions about the storms’ intensity. (Again, I haven’t studied the matter much, yet.)
However, there are serious concerns that solar storms of the magnitude that occurred sometime in the 1800′s could fry the transformers of our power grid system. I’m not sure I got this right, but on the Gary Null interview that I heard on the subject, the statement was made that some sort of surge protection could spare the transformers.
Whether I got that right, or not, one part of the show that I remember clearly is that those transformers aren’t made in the US, anymore, and have about a 3 year waiting period for manufacture. Also, the House of Representatives passed a bill looking to shore up the power grid system, with a near unanimous vote, but the Senate inexplicably failed to follow suit.
Somehow, risking being without power for 3 years, possibly as soon as next year, strikes me as far more dangerous than a 1 degree or so celsius rise in temperature over a century.
But that’s me.
Also, getting even more money extracted from the economy due to the selfishness of Goldman Sach will also kill many of us. If you can’t afford good, healthy food and life-extending supplements, such as resveratrol, you will likely succumb to diseases like cancer and diabetes sooner than otherwise. Goldman Sach is happy to make serfs out of 99% of us, as long as they make ever more cash.
metamars @1:08pm
metamars
manure spreader.
you are, quite simply, a nut case.
i ask you now to identify the climate organization with which you are associated.
i also ask if you have any connection whatever with the science and public policy institute in virginia.
@orionATL September 1st, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Your question is a loaded one. A more appropriate question is, “Is anybody paying you to post here?”. If I give an affirmative answer, then the question of “Who would that be?” would make sense.
I will put the same question to you: Is anybody paying you to post, here?
@orionATL September 1st, 2011 at 1:29 pm
See metamars September 1st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
A more appropriate question than “i ask you now to identify the climate organization with which you are associated.”
is “I ask you now if you are associated with any climate organization”
Likewise, I will put the question to you. “I ask you, orionATL, now if you are associated with any climate organization.”
metamars
manure spreader.
you’re not real good yet at ducking and dodging.
your answers make it quite clear that
- you are in fact being paid to comment
- you are hiding the payor’s name
- you are in fact a member of a climate organisation, probably SPPI in va., but are unwilling to acknowledge that.
so now we know; metamars is a paid provacateur for sppi.
and you demand our intellectual respect?
“So, I’d recommend that the Catastrophic AGW’ers choose their champions, carefully”
—————————–
Well, yes! That’s why I want to hear from the principals, themselves. I’m all ears.
I recall reading a couple of years ago that there were only around two dozen full time climate scientists worldwide who did primary climate research, and who had been doing that and nothing else since the last ice age. Sorry for the overstatement.
I’m not sure of that number of scientists, it was in the surprisingly low two digits but certainly larger than Mann plus the Brits. Wondering about their scarcity. . . maybe that field doesn’t pay enough, which in a perverse way would be good since it might limit the force to those who loved the work, by itself, and who might lack a greedy motive. Or a hostile take might suggest climate scientists couldn’t cut the mustard anywhere else, so here they are in underpaid work. No cheekiness intended.
Nowadays that career field wouldn’t appeal to any young aspiring scientist who doesn’t want to get beaten up. How long will it will take to recover? Surely they’ll be needed.
My earlier post was in hopes there would be perhaps a dozen of those scientists, those who do the primary research and analysis themselves, and who would willingly become more prominent figures among the public. All of them have seemed like monks, no?
Olbermann isn’t a good idea even in jest. There isn’t enough coverage and everything he does is needy, agenda wise. I agree, no Gore, and would also say no Friedmann. No Edwards, either, assuming he’s still out of jail.
Instead, how about some public forums with those few aging climate scientists as speakers? The hosts would be universities and foundations rather than the media; however, forums would be broadcast and open to the public. In addition to their thoughts and fears about the climate now, the scientists would be asked about their careers and what got them interested, what are the most difficult aspects of the research, and where they might agree among themselves or take exception.
Also, would any of them have chosen this career had they known. . .
OOPS! Above is Re: metamars September 1st, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Boy, did I see that coming, or what? I have to admit that while I expected you not to ask the more general questions (which would answer your more specific questions), I thought you would dance around your more specific questions, more, and try and make hay out of that.
Nobody is looking for your intellectual respect, any more than I would look for the intellectual respect of a mule. Your questions have all the moral authenticity of asking somebody when they’re going to stop beating their wife.
As you have not answered my questions, which echo your more specific questions, then by your spurious logic, you are also working as a paid provocateur. This begs the question, though, of, “Do you really believe that I am also a paid provocateur, or are you merely issuing such false accusations as a means of intimidation?”
As your moral and intellectual qualities are rather obvious, it’s just as obvious that your motivation for writing the pap you do is of little or no significance.
Shaviv Nir, the Israeli astrophysicist who appeared in the beautiful film about Svensmark’s theory, has weighed in on Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockeystick, on his blog. See Climategate and the “hockey stitch” – Not news to me, more for insights into how oppressive and tribalistic the scientific community can be, than for specifics on Mann’s errr – creative – graph making.
metamars
manure spreader.
i ask: why are you being so evasive about your organizational membership?
and
again i ask:
you clearly are being paid to comment here, so
who is paying you do this?
why can you not tell us directly who is paying you?
and again i ask:
are you aligned in any way with a climate organization?
in particular, are you aligned in any way with the climate organization sppi in virginia?
curious about the crackpot rightwing org that is likely paying metamars mabure spreader?
check here
and note it is funded by an british lord:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
@orionATL September 2nd, 2011 at 12:04 am
You’re moving in the right direction, with
“are you aligned in any way with a climate organization?”
but you still haven’t got it with
“you clearly are being paid to comment here, so
who is paying you do this?”
Either split out your appropriate question, from your “When are you going to stop beating your wife?” question, or else ask only appropriate questions.
Orion, just how old are you, 12?