John O'Sullivan has a great post on the striking similarities between Penn State University's "investigation" of Climategate scientist Michael Mann and its investigation of now-convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute observes, “The Penn State ethics review [of Mann] was “designed as a whitewash. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong.” Ebell and other critics argue that, as with football coach Sandusky, Michael E. Mann brought huge financial rewards to the university. The smell of money swayed the senses of Spanier because in his world money and success equated to integrity and prestige. This was tellingly revealed in the reasons he gave why Mann should be exonerated.
Such critics point to [Penn State President Graham] Spanier’s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann’s:
“level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”
Then Spanier issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:
“This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program… Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”
The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. Both brought massive funding to PSU. Both enjoyed the adoration of the press. Both worked outside the system of checks and balances. Both were “investigated” by PSU staff. Both were cleared by PSU of wrongdoing. From plain reading of Freeh’s report we see there is NO reason to believe that the same corrupt administration that empowered Paterno and Sandusky’s crimes would act any differently in Mann’s case.The near-verbatim similarity between the Penn State statements exonerating Sandusky and exonerating Mann would be hilarious, if it were not so sick.
Institutions like Penn State and larger interest groups of scientists and academics cannot be trusted to investigate themselves, especially when huge sums of money and prestige and butt-covering are involved.
The investigations of the Climategate scandal by Penn State and by panels of academics in England and at the National Academy of Sciences were obvious whitewashes. They are as worthless as Penn State's original exoneration of Jerry Sandusky. Climategate revealed massive systematic scientific fraud and illegal conduct on the part of climate scientists. Penn State and the several panels of scientists had a clear conflict of interest, and their investigations clearing the Climategate scientists are worthless.
There needs to be a formal investigation of Mann and his colleagues by independent professional investigators with subpoena power, and academic institutions such as the University of Virginia need to stop covering their own butts and stop covering up for their institutional cash-cows.
UVA's refusal to release Mann's emails at the Attorney General's request is prima facie a cover-up of a crime.
The only credible investigation of Climategate will be one carried out by a criminal prosecutor and a grand jury with subpoena power and access to all of the emails and all the evidence, and with nothing to hide.
Sandusky is in prison and the kids are safe. But we're all still in the shower with climate science.
Just when you thought Egnor couldn't go any lower, he reaches into the sub-basement to attack a good scientist who has been grotesquely smeared by the loony right.ReplyDelete
Good job, Michael! You are truly a fine exemplar of Christianity!
Michael is just deluded and too lazy to think for himself. So he just links to a lot of right wing websites, and agrees with everything he reads, desperately trying to boost himself by praising the so-called brilliance of the linked articles.Delete
Occasionally, he embarrasses himself when he misreads the linked article (as when he praised Phillip Kitcher's essay on 'Scientism', not realizing that Kitcher disagrees with virtually everything that Michael believes).
It's official. Egnor is a dishonest hack who can't stoop too low.Delete
Someone needed to say that.
"Good job, Michael! You are truly a fine exemplar of Christianity!"Delete
Mann is not a good scientist. He's a liar. The old "you're a bad Christian now shut up and be a good Christian" argument isn't going to work any longer.
"Michael is just deluded and too lazy to think for himself. So he just links to a lot of right wing websites, and agrees with everything he reads, desperately trying to boost himself by praising the so-called brilliance of the linked articles."
Just substitute "left-wing" for "right-wing" and you've described yourself and most of the opposition camp on this blog.
Oh, and Oleg: Thanks for backing up you accusation with insightful analysis and supporting evidence. That was a joke, in case you couldn't tell.
I frequently talk to global warming true believers who dismiss Climategate off the cuff. They tell me that there have been investigations and they found no basis for concern. There's only one problem--I can read. Anyone with eyes knows that there is a basis of concern. If Penn State says otherwise, then Penn State is obviously part of a coverup.
Let me know--if the Catholic Church conducted its own internal investigation of some pedophile bishop and found no cause for concern, would you accept that as definitive "proof" of anything? If the answer is no, you have to tell me why Climategate is different. Penn State is also, by the way, known to cover for its resident pedophile.
You're in academia, aren't you? Are you trying to tell me that Mann's academic honesty is up to your standards? That tells me more about you than it does about Mann.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The sick joke is hardly original. O'Sullivan got this novel idea from his National Review colleague Mark Steyn who tried to smear Mann with the parallel to Sandusky. And before him it was Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.Delete
Well, guess what? Mann is not taking flak. According to Columbia Journalism Review, Mann has demanded a retraction and an apology. CEI has already deleted the offending paragraph and acknowledged that it was inappropriate. No reaction from National Review yet.
I never link to any left wing blogs on this or any other Internet blog. I think for myself, check my facts and only write what I think is justified. What makes you think otherwise?
Wow. Climategate's the nontroversy that refuses to die.ReplyDelete
Can you draw parallels between Mann and Hitler next time? ("Both Mann and Hitler used hockeysticks!")
And, buttressed by the fact that there've been a couple hands-worth of separate investigations that you don't accept, "the only credible investigation of Climategate" is not "a criminal prosecutor and a grand jury with subpoena power and access to all of the emails and all the evidence, and with nothing to hide". It's the one that comes up with the conclusion you want. You're not looking for the truth. You're looking out for your Tribe. And you're almost one of them. Keep it up:
You've already got "no gay rights", "no evolution" and "no freed ladyparts"...it's only a matter of time until you adopt Young Earth Creationism and the Southern Strategy, too. Then you can bring a hot, covered dish or Jell-O with fruit in it to the Southern Baptist Convention convention.
"the only credible investigation of Climategate" is not "a criminal prosecutor and a grand jury with subpoena power and access to all of the emails and all the evidence, and with nothing to hide". It's the one that comes up with the conclusion you want."Delete
How would you know? The defenders of this crook have never given us the former so why do you think we would only be satisfied with the latter?
What are you afraid of? Why would too much tranparency be a bad thing? Is Mann hiding something?
Anyone who wants the truth would be demanding what Egnor has demanded. Anyone who doesn't want the truth will be satisfied with a half-assed internal investigation that doesn't have full access and doesn't really want it either.
The "trick" (integrating two data sets) to "hide the decline". Not "I've cheated to hide a decline in temperatures". The "decline" is tree ring divergence from measured temperatures.Delete
And the emails were scientists complaining about partisan groups taking their published data and distorting or willfuly misinterpreting it. Which, it should be noted, is exactly what happened after the email leak.
It's a conspiracy theory. No email, no data, no facts no matter how strong will refute it. It's Birtherism or Trutherism with a different target.
Of course, I'm just saying this because I'm a part of the conspiracy. It's more than just so-called "environmental" so-called "scientists" pushing the myth in exchange for persistent underfunding, moderate personal compensation and no fame. Honestly, you have no idea how deep the conspiracy goes.
[And, buttressed by the fact that there've been a couple hands-worth of separate investigations that you don't accept, "the only credible investigation of Climategate" is not "a criminal prosecutor and a grand jury with subpoena power and access to all of the emails and all the evidence, and with nothing to hide". It's the one that comes up with the conclusion you want. You're not looking for the truth. You're looking out for your Tribe.]
This is my "Tribe":
Honest people who pay for this shit science and demand simple integrity.
There is ample reason for prosecutors to formally investigate the upper echelons of climate science. That is the only investigation that will be free of special interest influence (c.f Penn State and Sandusky).
That is the only investigation that will be free of special interest influence (c.f Penn State and Sandusky).Delete
You get more out of touch with reality with every sentence you write.
Yes, only an ambitious GOP AG trying to advance his career by feeding red meat to the wacko right can do a fair investigation.Delete
A joke, Torch? Comparing someone to a convicted pedophile would be a sick joke in my book.ReplyDelete
And if Jesus were here, he would certainly follow your lead and impugn the integrity of scientists on the basis of no evidence, compare them to child molesters, and sneer about it. I feel absolutely certain he would.Delete
That is what makes Egnor such a good Christian. He follows the example of Jesus in every respect.
When it comes to the criminality of “climategate” the real question is who hacked the CRU and where did they get their financing. The Hacking was a sophisticated operation carried out over a number of weeks, the e-mails where quickly sifted through with the vast majority of them never released by the hackers. The selected e-mails where then quickly distributed to conservative media outlets with the most “damning” exchanges already highlighted. This was an organized sophisticated operation pulled off by highly skilled professionals, not some 14 year old do-gooder. The evidence points to a sophisticated criminal operation or a government operation.ReplyDelete
Numerous climate scientists and organizations have been under sustained cyber attack for years, what is really revealing is what has not been found; no marching orders from Soros, no evidence for a grand conspiracy, and no evidence for falsifying data. The only thing this well funded criminal enterprise has been able to come up with is a couple of “gotcha” phrases when taken out of context.
It’s sad to watch conservatives be so willfully manipulated by criminals.
Seeing this attempt to smear a scientist by associating him with a child-molester is beyond low, and is just one more piece of evidence that Egnor is a truly despicable person, rotten to the core.
[The only thing this well funded criminal enterprise has been able to come up with is a couple of “gotcha” phrases when taken out of context.]
The emails revealed several crimes, including suborning scientists to destroy data rather than submit it to peer review, refusing legal FIOA requests, rigging peer review, and admitting misrepresentation of data in a publication.
None are "taken out of context". Criminality is the context, clearly expressed.
"Mike's Nature trick.. to hide the decline" refers to the substitution of different-source data (instrumental data rather than tree ring data) at exactly the inflection point of the hockey-stick graph, and then hiding the explanation for the data where neither the press nor the public nor most other scientists would find it.
This is horrendous science, and such misuse of data would be execrable for an undergraduate.
For a professional scientist at the top of his field in a critical field, this is unequivocal research misconduct and simple fraud.
If it's "unequivocal research misconduct and simple fraud," what's stopping the university from firing him? A massive cover-up? Thousands of people in on a conspiracy? LOLDelete
>>If it's "unequivocal research misconduct and simple fraud," what's stopping the university from firing him? A massive cover-up? Thousands of people in on a conspiracy? LOL<<Delete
The same thing that kept Sandusky on staff for years while he reaped little boys. Penn State wants to cover its own ass.
Read the damned emails and tell me that everything is out in the open. Go ahead, I dare you.
It's almost as if you think that Penn State not firing Mann is proof that he must not have done anything wrong. Hey, the fact that my (former) bishop covered for a pedophile priest in my diocese must prove that the priest wasn't a pedophile. Because if he were a pedophile, action would have been taken. Right, Oleg?
JQ, you would have a point if Mann were investigated by Penn State only. Alas, there were multiple investigations that looked into his alleged bad behavior.Delete
Inspector General of the National Science Foundation: "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed."
A panel of experts convened by the National Research Council: although there were some statistical problems with the reconstructions, these issues were minor and did not change the results. Modern global temperatures were significantly warmer than in the past 1000 years.
It's not just Penn State, JQ. Michael Mann has been subject to much scrutiny, but none of that turned up any evidence of misconduct. Write that down.
The investigations of the Climategate scandal by Penn State and by panels of academics in England and at the National Academy of Sciences were obvious whitewashes.ReplyDelete
The only "evidence" you offer in support of this assertion is that the investigations didn't come to the conclusions you wanted them too.
UVA's refusal to release Mann's emails at the Attorney General's request is prima facie a cover-up of a crime.
Sorry, no it isn't. You really know almost nothing at all about law do you?
[You really know almost nothing at all about law do you?]
Mann may or may not be entitled to the presumption of innocence when he stonewalls the Virginia AG's subpoena.
He is entitled to no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion.
When a prosecutor asks for your emails because you have been a party to emails that have admitted crimes ( destruction of data, evading FOIA requests, misrepresentation of data in publications, rigging of peer review, etc), and you lawyer up and stonewall and refuse all cooperation, the only reasonable inference is that you are hiding something.
If Mann is an honest scientist with nothing to hide, why is he hiding so feverishly.
Cuccinelli's fishing expedition was dismissed by a Virginia circuit judge and his appeal of the decision was later rejected by the state's Supreme Court. He should put a sock in it, and you might as well.Delete
In other words, even the judge thinks that Mann shouldn't have to show his data.Delete
There's a trend here: sceintists working in secret and people covering for them. Is this a healthy trend, Oleg?
You defend it, so obviously you must approve of it. As intellectuals go, I can see that you've thrown in with the bad guys. How can I trust your scholarship now?
You wouldn't be able to tell data from comments in the data files. Yet you demand to see the data. Andy Schlafly made an ass of himself that way. Follow the leader, I guess.
There's a trend here: scientists working in secret and people covering for them.Delete
Oh, so now the Virginia court of appeals and the Virginia Supreme Court are now covering for Mann? Exactly why would they do that?
Mann may or may not be entitled to the presumption of innocence when he stonewalls the Virginia AG's subpoena.Delete
You are very weak on the law. There is no "may or may not" in that. He is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
He is entitled to no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion.
So, when someone is accused, if they don't immediately begin handing over their entire life to the prosecutor, they are to be presumed guilty? Weren't you the guy screaming about how people were rushing to judgment over say, George Zimmerman?
When a prosecutor asks for your emails because you have been a party to emails that have admitted crimes ( destruction of data, evading FOIA requests, misrepresentation of data in publications, rigging of peer review, etc), and you lawyer up and stonewall and refuse all cooperation, the only reasonable inference is that you are hiding something.
Well, given that all the "illegal" things you seem to think were going on is merely the product of your imagination, let's think about how credible you are. Let's see: not at all.
How about this: you have been cozy with the Discovery Institute, and organization that has been caught lying in court on more than one occasion. An organization whose documents like the "wedge" document demonstrate an intent to commit fraud. How about you turn over every piece of e-mail correspondence you've had for the last couple decades. I'm sure that if you have nothing to hide, you'd be happy to do it. You wouldn't even need a subpoena. You'll post it all right here just because someone asked. So, let's see those e-mails.
It's so funny watching Oleg, Anonymous, and Modus try to explain why science should be done behind closed doors with secret data. The only thing funnier is watching them lean on the integrity of a Penn State investigation to "prove" that no wrongdoing occurred. I'm in stitches over here, guys!ReplyDelete
Also, Oleg: please answer Egnor's question because it's my question too. "If Mann is an honest scientist with nothing to hide, why is he hiding so feverishly?"
Cucinelli's quote-unquote fishing expedition would have nothing to fish for if this guy who supposedly has nothing to hide weren't stonewalling his ass off.
I can see the parallels here. No, Michael Mann is not a child molester. He is, however, a resident scoundrel in an academic institution. There are a slew of those. In both cases, the academic institution in question gave them a clean bill of health. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. In both cases, the academic institution was covering its own ass in the process of covering its employees asses.
No one should retract anything. It's satire and it's quite funny.
Joey, my man, Mann isn't hiding anything. The data he was referring to were published in academic journals. He couldn't hide them even if he wanted to. Go to a university library and read the damn papers. I know you won't, but they're out there, available for the public.Delete
God, grant me patience to deal with these people. If you exist.
Oleg, do you ever stop lying?Delete
Here's an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
So, Oleg, let's recap.Delete
Jones says to Mann that he shouldn't leave data lying around. Because someone might find it! And we can't have people seeing our data, because the data must remain secret.
The two MM's referred to here are McIntyre and McKitrick, two Canadian mathemeticians who wanted to check the hockey stick team's statistical analysis. You'd think that Jones and Mann would be happy to have their work checked by experts, but they were not. They would not allow the two math wizards see the CRU station data. Jones famously quipped "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Apparently, he's never heard of this thing called science.
Continuing in the email, we see that those pesky Mc's have been trying to find the data for years. If they find out that there is a freedom of information act in the UK, Jones will destroy the data rather than turn it over. But he's not hiding anything!
But here's the good news! There's also a data protection act, which Jones will gladly hide behind.
Penn State sees nothing wrong with this. That's because Penn State is more interesting in making the blemish on its reputation go away than on getting to the bottom of it.
Let me ask you again: How can I trust your scholarship now?
Yo, Joey. No, you can't trust Oleg's scholarship. He approves of fraud in the academic domain. I must conclude that it does not violate his sense of intellectual integrity to lie, destroy data, stonewall, and massage the facts to fit his theory.Delete
>>He couldn't hide them even if he wanted to.<<Delete
Sure he can. That's what the data protection act is for. Jones planned to hide behind it. He said so.
You're living, breathing proof that the core of academia is rotten.
Real academics with integrity are upset about this. Frauds like Mann, Jones, and YOU are just upset that the public is finding out about it.
>>Oleg, do you ever stop lying?<<Delete
No, Joey. He doesn't.
Mann and Jones spent years trying to keep their CRU data secret. Secret data is not science. Try to imagine a scientist walking out of a lab telling you that he just made the scientific breakthrough of the century. He'll show you his conclusion, but he won't show you his data, because it's a secret. Woulod anyone believe him?
So Jones admits in an email to Mann that he don't want the data lying around, that he will destroy data rather than comply with a FOIA request, and that he's happy that there's a data protection act that they can "hide behind."
And now Oleg is going to tell us with a straight face that no one is hiding anything, that they couldn't hide it even if they wanted to, and that it's all been published already. They're all in the university library, except Mann is now fighting a court battle in Canada to keep his data under wraps.
Damned fishing expeditions!
Just admit that you're wrong, Oleg. It's really unbecoming to see you lie to cover up other people's lies.
I can't believe how sick this whole thing is.Delete
I also can't believe that Oleg is still trying to justify it.
>>I also can't believe that Oleg is still trying to justify it.<<Delete
Believe it, Ben.
Joey: The two MM's referred to here are McIntyre and McKitrick, two Canadian mathemeticians who wanted to check the hockey stick team's statistical analysis. You'd think that Jones and Mann would be happy to have their work checked by experts, but they were not.Delete
Joey, you can't even get the story straight! McIntyre is no mathematician. He has a bachelor's degree in science (whatever that means) who worked as a geologist. Neither is McKitrick, who is an economist. Neither of the two is an expert in climate science. They try to nibble around the edges at climate science, often with comical results. Not as funny as the Schlafly–Lenski affair, but close enough.
Data on global temperature trends is available from multiple sources. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Team has an open database for anyone to look at. Your side is not interested in the data, it's interested in shutting down climate science. Hence all of the investigations. But it won't work, guys.
Okay, Oleg. Let's get down to business.Delete
Wikipedia describes McIntyre as a "Canadian mathematician, former minerals prospector, and semi-retired mining consultant." It says he has a bachelor's of science in mathematics.
McKitrick is described as an economist. My bad.
I never said that they were experts on climate science. Their intention was to check the hockey stick team's stastical analysis. Statistical analysis, not climate science, is their goal.
The hockey stick team spent years trying to keep that data out of their hands, even admitting in the email I pasted above, that they would illegally destroy their own data if the Mc's discovered that the UK has a FOIA.
They also told the Mc's exactly why they will not turn it over: Because their only intention is to find something wrong with it!
That's called science. Science must be verifiable. You can't hide your work and expect anyone to take you seriously.
"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Team has an open database for anyone to look at."
Great! And if Mann and Jones were as open as the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Team, we wouldn't have a problem. But the trans-Atlantic hockey stick team is not Berekley. We've always known that they've been less than forthcoming with the data, and now we know why.
Why can't Mann and Jones do what Berkeley has done? Why can't Mann and Jones make their data open to the public? Secret science is not science.
I see that you have no further defense of these two assclowns, other than to say that their detractors are not climate scientists, which I never said they were. You did not address the points I made concering their email--that they don't want data "left around" for others to find, that they have admitted that they will destroy data if the freedom of information act is used, and that they are pleased that there's a data security act to "hide behind."
And for the last damned time: How can I trust your scholarship now? You've demonstrated that such blatant violations of basic academic integrity do not faze you. No bigee. They meet your standards of professional behavior, which tells me a lot about those standards.
"Your side is not interested in the data, it's interested in shutting down climate science."Delete
Nope. We're just interested in making sure that climate science is actual science. Secret science is not science. Unverifiable science is not science.
Our side is pro-science. Your side is anti-science.
I had to look for this because I remember reading it right after Climategate broke.Delete
Not only did Jones threaten to destroy the data is an FOIA request was brought to bear on him, but he did destory the data.
Er, I mean, he "lost" it.
"Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. 'The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,' he said."
This was the response to Pielke:
"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Wow, this is a real professional outfit. Now, in light of the email from Jones to Mann, in which he describes the extreme lengths he will go to to keep his data secret, can you honestly tell me that he lost it?
"The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research."
Source: The Guardian UK. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/143573/Climate-change-fraud-
@ Joey. If other scientists cannot check the subsequent research, it's not science. That's fundamental.Delete
Which university do you work for, Oleg?Delete
I'm sure they'd love to know how little you care about integrity in research.
If other scientists cannot check the subsequent research, it's not science. That's fundamental.Delete
When other scientists check the results announced in papers published by a scientist they don't ask for his data and do an analysis on it. They gather their own data, attempting to see if they can replicate the results that the first scientist got. If all you are doing is massaging someone else's data, you aren't "checking" them. That's fundamental.
Unverifiable science is not science.Delete
So conduct a study seeing if you can replicate the results Mann got. Other scientists have done this. And they came up with results that align very well with Mann's. Using their own data.
Of course, that would require actually doing the science, and the anti-global warming crowd doesn't like that, because it would require work.
I've got a better idea. How about Mann et all releasing all of their data, codes, and emails. Everything. They're honest scientists, so there's nothing to hide, not even a decline, right?Delete
That way everyone-- skeptics and supporters and prosecutors and defenders alike-- can review it for integrity.
"Integrity" is the key word here. There's none of it in AGW science.
How about Mann et all releasing all of their data, codes, and emails.Delete
How about you do the same? I mean, you're an honest guy who wouldn't mind if all his personal correspondence was put into the public eye.
Anything that was not science Mann could have redacted by an impartial person.Delete
The science is very much a matter of public interest. You don't get to claim that your science is saving the planet, and to keep it secret, too.
The science is very much a matter of public interest.Delete
Which is why two different investigations were commissioned by Congress. But those don't count apparently, because they concluded that Mann's data was fine.
There are two burning questions here.ReplyDelete
First: Why is Mann trying to hide his data?
Second: Why do Modus, Anonymous, and Oleg think it's okay for Mann to hide his data?
Discuss among yourselves.
Joey, here's your answers.Delete
1. Mann is trying to hide his data because he can't defend it.
2. Modus et al. think it's okay for Mann to hide his data because they're emotionally and intellectually invested in this bankrupt theory. If they were to admit that they're wrong now, they would have egg on their face and they can't do that because they're the smartest people in the room.
Anonymous "1. Mann is trying to hide his data because he can't defend it."Delete
He's trying to hide his data by publishing it? Or he's hiding behind the two books he's published? Or he's trying to hide his personal correspondence by hiding behind the Data Protection Act, which is what that Act is for? Or he's hiding behind the hockey stick, something that's shown up in multiple studies unrelated to his own?
And, note, the "divergence problem" is that the tree ring proxy shows little temperature change post-1960, indicating that there are other variables at play in the formation of tree rings. The "divergence" is the spread between that and actual, measured temperatures, which do show an increase (and one starting a good sixty years before that). This means that, even if your paranoid fantasy is true, not only do other proxies follow measured temperatures, but the actual, measured temperatures show an increase. A steep one. Hockey stick-like, if you will. Of course, Big Thermometer is behind that part...
"2. Modus et al. think it's okay for Mann to hide his data because they're emotionally and intellectually invested in this bankrupt theory."
Wrong! We're a part of The Conspiracy. Along with ^ a b The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US), all of whom investigated the nontroversy and, while finding things to criticize, also found there was no "there" there.
"If they were to admit that they're wrong now, they would have egg on their face and they can't do that because they're the smartest people in the room."
I'm far from the smartest person in the room. I'm willing to accept conclusions, even if they conflict with mine, if those conclusions are true. Don't get me wrong, I won't like it, but reality doesn't care if I like it or not.
You haven't even risen above casual Bircherism and crass smears of not only environmental science, but of science in general. You don't even know enough to know that you should be ashamed. Perversely, that willful ignorance gives you confidence. Dunning–Kruger, if you will. I know enough to know that I don't know much. Egnor, lastly, should know better, but perusing his writing I'm coming to the conclusion that he's incapable of arguing in good faith.
There's a third question, Joey. Why does Oleg hate science?Delete
[And, note, the "divergence problem" is that the tree ring proxy shows little temperature change post-1960, indicating that there are other variables at play in the formation of tree rings. The "divergence" is the spread between that and actual, measured temperatures, which do show an increase (and one starting a good sixty years before that). This means that, even if your paranoid fantasy is true, not only do other proxies follow measured temperatures, but the actual, measured temperatures show an increase. A steep one. Hockey stick-like, if you will. Of course, Big Thermometer is behind that part...]
The whole point about the hockey-stick graph, fool, is that the recent temperature increase is unprecedented. If "there are other variables at work in the formation of tree rings" and tree rings don't necessarily reflect substantial rises in temperature, then the pre-1960 proxy data, obtained almost entirely form tree rings and showing no historical precedent for rising temperatures, is unreliable.
The hockey stick graph only works if data before and after 1960 are reliable. Otherwise, we could have been having natural temperature fluctuations forever and the recent (purported) rise is natural and unrelated to CO2.
I can't believe you're so ignorant of science and logic that you think that invoking the unreliability of all of the pre-1960 data is irrelevant to the argument that warming is unprecedented.
The truth is that these scientists understand that argument quite well, and are just frauds. You may be able to claim ignorance.
Exactly. We can't know. Not at all. The past is a crapshoot, having left no evidence that it ever existed. None! Scientists also only declare that things absolutely are or are not, with perfect confidence, never having heard of "error bars".Delete
And thermometers were only invented in 1960.
The whole point about the hockey-stick graph, fool, is that the recent temperature increase is unprecedented. If "there are other variables at work in the formation of tree rings" and tree rings don't necessarily reflect substantial rises in temperature, then the pre-1960 proxy data, obtained almost entirely form tree rings and showing no historical precedent for rising temperatures, is unreliable.Delete
I love when you call other people "fool" while demonstrating that you are, in fact, the fool. The pre-1960 proxy data is not "obtained almost entirely form [sic] tree rings". The pre-1960 proxy data is derived from ice cores, stalagmites, boreholes, and corals as well as tree rings. With the exception of a small number of trees in the far northern latitudes, all of these lines of evidence align together.
Then what "decline" is there to hide?Delete
The "decline" is the anomalous data from the trees in some northern regions that aren't in accord with the other data. That's why they think they are anomalous and that something else is going on. You seem to think that if you just pull out one tiny piece of data that you've scored some sort of coup. But real science, they kind of science that seems to mystify you, doesn't work like that. There are multiple lines of converging data here, drawn from a variety of proxy sources that align with each other throughout the records. But because a small amount of data doesn't line up perfectly, you think something is going on.Delete
And of course, nothing was hidden. Mann told everyone he was doing this in the paper that he published that had the "hockey stick". He said "we have outlier data, and here is how we dealt with it". But ignorant know-nothings like yourself don't pay attention. Instead, you close your eyes, rant, and scream.
But while you rant and scream about a study that was done in 1995, real scientists have spent the last seventeen years looking at the data, doing their own studies, and they have all come up with results that are in line with the "hockey stick" that you are whining about. You don't have to rely on Mann's data. There are a dozen studies in the last twenty years on this issue.
Why "hide the decline"? Why base a massive public relations campaign on a graph with horrendous statistical methods, including the substitution of different source data at exactly the point in which the graph is purported to show the most dramatic effect. Even the NAS, who otherwise fellated Mann, couldn't defend the statistics.Delete
Why not release the data immediately on request? Why not offer the data to everyone, insisting on evaluation by skeptics? Why not discuss the data openly, in the press, in the paper, in public?
Why hide the emails? Why hide the data from FOIA requests? Why destroy the data rather than release it? Why act like gangsters rather than scientists?
Because they are gangsters.
Egnor: Why "hide the decline"? Why base a massive public relations campaign on a graph with horrendous statistical methods, including the substitution of different source data at exactly the point in which the graph is purported to show the most dramatic effect. Even the NAS, who otherwise fellated Mann, couldn't defend the statistics.Delete
You are either unfamiliar with the conclusions of the NRC panel or are deliberately distorting it. Here is what the panel concluded, in a nutshell:
There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.
The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.
The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.
[end of quote]
The committee found Mann's conclusions plausible. The problems they had was with the scarcity of data in the deep past (1000 years ago), not with the recent data.
The full report is available to anyone interested. Why don't you, guys, find out what it actually says, instead of making it up?
Egnor: Why not release the data immediately on request? Why not offer the data to everyone, insisting on evaluation by skeptics? Why not discuss the data openly, in the press, in the paper, in public?Delete
Because "everyone" won't be able to make much sense of the data. You need a minimal level of expertise and experience in this area of research to judge the data. Here is a great example of what happens when dilettantes wishing to poke holes in scientific findings pester the authors with requests for data: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
>>Because "everyone" won't be able to make much sense of the data.<<Delete
Bullshit, Oleg. The old we-had-to-keep-it-secret-because-you-laymen-wouldn't-understand-excuse is getting old.
They already said why they won't release it. They won't release it to people who are trying to find something wrong with it.
They couldn't release the raw data even if they wanted to, because they "lost" it. So the data cannot be verified, the statistical analysis cannot be verified, and the theory cannot be verified. It's junk science. It cannot be verified by so-called experts, or by anyone else for that matter.
Phil Jones was very clear in his email that he would destroy his data rather than comply with an FOIA request. This is not a case of "you laymen wouldn't understand." This is a case of "shut up and believe what we tell you."
I am, of course, a layman. I am not a zoologist. But zoologists do not keep their science secret from me. I am not a physicist, but physicists do not keept their science secret. Ditto astronomy, and other science you can think of. But in this case they had to keep it secret from the laymen, and everyone else apparently.
You are such a mindless zombie.
Read Phil Jones' email tell me that he's been up front with the public.
You are like a broken record. There are plenty of temperature proxies released in public domain. The entire BEST project is out there in the open. WOuld you care to look at their data and come to your own conclusions? I don't think so. You can't make sense of it as you are a layman. Why do you demand this particular set of data? What's so special about it? What about the other sets? Not good enough?
Why base a massive public relations campaign on a graph with horrendous statistical methods, including the substitution of different source data at exactly the point in which the graph is purported to show the most dramatic effect.Delete
The graph didn't have "horrendous" statistical methods. The graph has been repeatedly confirmed by numerous other studies. But you're too busy obsessing about Mann to realize that.
Oh, and it didn't substitute an entirely different set of data. It corrected for known outliers. I wonder if you actually have ever done any science research yourself if you so obviously don't understand the existence of statistical outliers and the methodologies used to correct for them.
You're right. I'm like a broken record. I keep asking for transparency. You're like a broken record too. You keep telling me that other projects with other data sets have been transparent, so I should be satisfied.
Other people have been honest. Other people have been transparent. Mann and Jones have not been honest. Mann and Jones have not been transparent. Do you see where this is going?
The whole endevor is nothing but a faith-based initiative. Mann and Jones have told the whole world, expert and laymen alike: trust us. Now make policy based on our bullshit report.
Why do they get to hide their work? You read the email. They said they would commit a crime by destroying data in violation of the FOIA rather than give up their data. It's called a coverup, genius.
You simply don't care that it's a coverup. That's the conclusion that keeps popping up.Delete
You don't care because for you, this isn't about seeking truth. It's about proving how "right" you've been. If Mann and Jones were right, they wouldn't need to hide their work. They would gladly submit their analysis to be reviewed.
You have absolutely no integrity.
So what is the point of your demands for transparency? When all of the data are online for everyone to see, what are you going to do? Ignore it just like you are ignoring the existing open-source data like BEST? I think the answer is yes. You have no interest in the data whatsoever. Your only interest is in making excuses for not believing what the scientists are saying.
So set aside Mann and Jones for a moment. Assume they are totally wrong because they hide something. What about Muller? What? Suddenly you are not interested?
Mann was a professor at UMass, and Raymond Bradley still is. UMass is my alma mater. They have sullied the reputation of the institution, which was admittedly not that great to start.ReplyDelete
I wrote a letter to the chancellor of UMass asking when they planned on investigating this matter and responded by explaining that Nature magazine says that there's nothing to see here. So, no investigation.
Given the results of the Penn State investigation, I guess it's not such a bad thing. Penn State didn't see anything wrong with secret data, so why would UMass be any different? I can see now that these self-investigations are useless.
The Chancellor of UMass called. He said you were embarrassing the school with your know-nothing ignorance that you spew over the internet. He asked that you educate yourself before speaking because you're damaging the reputation of the school.
I work at a university, and we get crackpot letters like yours all the time. We have a good time laughing at them, and then we put them up on the bulletin board so everyone else can laugh, too.
Anyone who cares about the truth should want to get to the bottom of this thing. Anyone who wants to get to the bottom of this thing should want all the facts to come to light.ReplyDelete
Which side wants the facts to come to light? Which side wants to keep secrets?
Michael Mann wants us to take his theory on faith. If he has evidence, he hasn't shown it. He's expended great effort to make sure that no one sees his evidence. But we're supposed to believe anyway.ReplyDelete
Global warming is a religion, and the true believers are trying to legislate their religion on the rest of us. Their theocracy must be stopped.
The reason we know Mann substituted data sets is because he says so in the original paper! Even you conspiracy theory minded conservatives you must admitt making that admission in the original paper doesn’t argue well for some type of grand deception.ReplyDelete
Besides that, the data you all claim that Mann has been hiding has been available for well over a year! Not only has the data been available, so has the code that CRU used to evaluate the data.
Now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, lead by famous climate change skeptic Richard Muller (the go-to guy for explaining “hide the decline”), has confirmed the accuracy of CRU’s analysis you would think we could get beyond this ridiculous argument, but no, the deniers just continue to make demands that don’t even make sense in light of the evolving story, and compare scientists to child-molesters! It would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high.
Muller is full of shit. He posed as a "skeptic", set up a phony Project, and surprise, he's been... converted! He sees the truth! He's now a big hero to the AGW syndicate, and rewards will flow.
[The reason we know Mann substituted data sets is because he says so in the original paper! Even you conspiracy theory minded conservatives you must admitt making that admission in the original paper doesn’t argue well for some type of grand deception.]
Mann referenced the different-source scheme in an appendix that he knew was obscure and would be read by few if any, and certainly not by the press or the public, which is what his propaganda was all about anyway.
The use of different-source data to create an inflection point in a graph in a scientific paper is scientific misconduct, period. A first year statistics student would gag at it.
[Besides that, the data you all claim that Mann has been hiding has been available for well over a year! Not only has the data been available, so has the code that CRU used to evaluate the data.]
If Mann has nothing to hide, why is he hiding? Why not release all that the Va AG subpoenaed? What could possible be in those emails that would be worth defying a subpoena and going to federal court? Why provide thousands of skeptics such obvious ammunition, unless what is in the emails is worse than the impression left by not providing them?
Why doesn't Mann just release the emails and cooperate, to show his innocence?
Oh, and another question: why do so many climate hysterics have no interest in discovering fraud in the science?
mregnor "Oh, and another question: why do so many climate hysterics have no interest in discovering fraud in the science?"Delete
It's not that I'm not interested, it's that I'm not a scientist. My expertise is not in that realm. For me to pretend to know what I don't know would be for me to pretend to be you. And I think we can all agree that would be a terrible thing.
"No cover up" is really "cover up" and that "multiple independent investigations" are really "conspiracy". That's not investigation; that's kookery. The thing about kookery is that when it's right, it's only right by accident. I prefer to lean on other scientists, who are pretty good and parsing the numbers and shedding light on fraud. And when they're right it's because, and I can't stress this enough, they know what they're talking about. When Ted Evolution (the inventor of evolution) and Barry Genetics (the same, but for genes) get into an argument, I listen. When you argue with the awful vacuum in your head, I tune out once it descends in to that one repeating note. Which is all the time.
Yes, yes, we know you don't like things. It's also painfully clear, and I can't stress this enough, that on many if not all of the subjects you choose to malign you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
“Muller is full of shit.”Delete
Come on, the only reason you are saying that is because Muller now disagrees with you. Where exactly does the Berkeley group’s analysis go awry? You don’t know and won’t know until some dissembling climate denier much more familiar with the subject tells you what to think.
You are either incredibly dishonest or totally delusional, perhaps both. Your faith has turned into a mental illness that prevents you from being objective and rational.
[It's not that I'm not interested, it's that I'm not a scientist. My expertise is not in that realm. For me to pretend to know what I don't know would be for me to pretend to be you.]
You're not a paranormal investigator or a psychic. So you don't have an opinion on ghosts and spirits, right? Leave it to the experts!
You're not an economist. So you have no opinion on economics.
You're not a theologian. So you have no opinion on the existence of God.
The issues questioned in AGW are not merely technical scientific details. In some respects we do have to rely on the "experts" for that. The issues in AGW are issues of basic credibility, integrity, political and self-serving motivation, etc.
[It's also painfully clear, and I can't stress this enough, that on many if not all of the subjects you choose to malign you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.]
I'm a foolish man. I merely ask questions that seem obvious to me-- how could everything come from nothing, where does moral truth come from, how did life evolve, why do some political regimes work well and some don't, why do AGW scientists act so suspiciously, etc?
The great thing about a blog is that it gives fools like me an opportunity to put our foolish questions to the test. I write, you reply.
As I read your replies, I feel less foolish.
As I read your replies, I feel less foolish.Delete
People like you who are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect tend to be like that.