Tuesday
Nov022010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mann in New Scientist
Nov 2, 2010 Climate: Mann Michael Mann has been given space in New Scientist to say nothing, well, New.
I'D LIKE to say I was surprised when news broke a year ago that emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, had been hacked into and leaked, and that scientists' personal emails were being quoted out of context to disingenuously imply impropriety on their part. But I wasn't.
As so, so many people have noted, the emails are much, much worse in context.
Reader Comments (50)
I couldn't stomach reading it all. Somebody with a strong stomach should count the lies. I didn't get past the first two.
At least he admits that the original Climategate emails were embarrassing to climate scientists.
And I think he's running a bit scared of a 'Climategate 2 - just when you thought it was safe to go back into the office'. Is this an example of him trying to get his retaliation in first?
I think this is about the midterm elections in the US rather than Climategate 2.
Phillip Bratby
Hi Philip. I've just read it all through and think it's a great article. There aren't any lies in it. Incidentally, isn't calling someone a liar, when they're not, libellous, even on an internet blog? The certainty that you won't face prosecution, even in the libel capital of the world, reminds me how incredibly tolerant most climate scientists are.
If you couldn't stomach it, it may be because the article rang true with you.
MM "......emails and documents of mine, including correspondence with more than 30 other leading climate scientists."
As my mother would say: "He's not backward in coming forward is he?"
I just posted, in another BH thread, a link to a Climategate analysis which puts into clear perspective how truly awful the emails are.
Can I plead with people not to rise to the BrainDeadZed - it makes for an awfully dull thread. Thanks.
Mike Post
Sorry, I was one of those who fed this troll in the last but one thread. It's now getting ravenous. I hoped that humouring it would be a possible solution, but I see now it's a truly hopeless case.
Brain dead is the word.
:))
"Zed's Dead, Baby, Zed's Dead..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM
For quite some time now, Non Scientist has been a mouthpiece for the global warming industry. They seem unconcerned that their religious/political reporting of climate change has lost them many readers.
Perhaps they will eventually wake up to the reality of where the real reporting is. As an ex-subscriber, I really couldn't care less. They no longer report science. They belong to the past.
Once agian the claim of Hack is made and once again no evidenced to back up this claim is provided. And no ZedsDeadBed just because Mann said it does not make it true.
This quote from the New Scientist - "The graphic, which I helped to create while I was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Massachusetts, tells a simple story: that the warming of recent decades is unprecedented in at least a millennium. This has made it a compelling icon in the climate change debate. It has also made the graphic a compelling target for climate change deniers, who believe that they can discredit all climate science by undermining the credibility of this one graphic." i.e. Smug self referencing and business as usual from Mann.
Now read this - http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/
O/T but Donna Laframboise raised a point about myles allen in a previous thread, and his connection to a video game called "fate of the world" by Red Redemption. just wanted to give a bit of detail:
May 2010: RockPaperShotgun: Set The World On Fire: Fate Of The World
Gobion Rowlands: In 2007 with the help of Myles Allan from the Oxford University Physics Department, we convinced the BBC to sponsor us to make a strategy game called “Climate Challenge” in Flash. Our concept was that you would run Europe for 100 years in the role of president with a mandate to tackle climate change. It had some pretty strict limits – it had to be for over 18s, had to be serious in tone and had to use real world data. This was a chance to make some fun gameplay out of a subject that hadn’t been tackled before.
The game was far more successful than we had hoped and eventually around a million people played the game. We also learned that first time through that many players sought to cause as much destruction as possible or went after specific technologies (the path to shiny) rather than play the game ‘straight’. I shouldn’t have been surprised really – taking the destroyed approach is fun, and also lets you see how bad things might get...
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/05/07/set-the-world-on-fire-fate-of-the-world/
10 Oct: Gobion Rowlands: As part of the trip to the USA to meet distributors (more on that soon!) and promote the upcoming beta of Fate of the World I was invited to visit the lovely city of Asheville in North Carolina by NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (www.climate.gov). My trip was sponsored by Mack Pearsall, who in many ways is the patron of the town of Asheville and committed to creating a sustainable community there.So why was I there? Well Marjorie from the National Climatic Data Center at NOAA learned of our work on BBC Climate Challenge and Fate of the World, and in particular our scientific collaborations and research based on the games...
http://www.red-redemption.com/node/16
Operation Climate Control Press Release
Oxford UK. 5 July 2007. Climate change affects all faiths, communities and countries and Alif-Aleph UK joined with The Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs [Defra] and indie games developer Red Redemption to host the launch of Operation Climate Control at the House of Commons on 3 July in a packed Committee Room 10...
Operation: Climate Control, developed by Red Redemption and funded by Defra, is an innovative and exciting multi-player game aimed at GCSE school children aged 15-16 to educate them about the elements and impacts of climate policy and help stimulate a change in their attitudes and behaviour towards environmental sustainability...
The Operation: Climate Control game is developed by Red Redemption and the Stone Ashdown Trust and is funded by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Climate Challenge Fund - "Tomorrow's Climate - Today's Challenge".
*Climate Challenge was developed for the BBC Science and Nature website and invited users to take the hot seat to guide Europe through the 21st century while all the time making choices that could make or break the future of the planet...
Red Redemption is partnered with the Environmental Change Institute of Oxford University and the UK Department of the Environment and is fortunate enough to have Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists as games advisors, and to further ensure scientific rigor, Red Redemption has a fulltime in-house climate scientist....
http://www.operationclimatecontrol.co.uk/content/press/press-releases
such a "fun" game!
29 Oct: gamasutra: Tom Curtis: Interview: Red Redemption Divines The Fate Of The World
The game asks players to accomplish a variety of goals, from beneficial tasks such as saving the Amazon or building Africa into the world’s most advanced region, to malicious tasks such as strategically exterminating all human life from the planet…
Gobion Rowlands: We are partnered with Oxford University, the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, a whole bunch of them. We’ve had a lot of support. We raised our own money to make the game through sale of shares, so we are self financed with no publisher money…
There are also options in the game to kill everyone over the age of 30, like in Logan’s Run. In real life, hopefully that’s not a good idea, but in a game, you should be able to try it; it’s fun…
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31158/Interview_Red_Redemption_Divines_The_Fate_Of_The_World.php
NYT, BBC, UK Telegraph have all given positive reviews. nice!
In his article, Mann claims there has been a long standing war waged between the fossil fuel industry and climate science. He puts forth that the fossil fuel industry:
1) Was involved in instigating the leak of the Climategate e-mails.
2) Is behind Cuccinelli's CID in Virginia.
Amazing. It has degenerated into a Star Wars Saga as Mann tells it. The fossil fuel industry portrays The Evil (Galactic) Empire, with Cuccinelli playing the role of a Sith.
On the other side, the IPCC and associated scientists represent the Rebel Alliance. But what role should be assigned to Mann? He certainly doesn't qualify for a Jedi, at least not in my book. I propose that he is better suited to play Jabba the Hutt.
Last week New Scientist coined the term "Thermageddon" - I put the magazine back on the shelf! This week I saw the Mann article and did the same thing. I became interested in science as a kid partly through this magazine, but it has somehow lost its way. Many articles don't seem to be written by scientifically literate people any more.
@ZedsDeadBed:
As far as why I think the article smells stomach churningly bad is that it essentially based around the line "well we [AGW proponents] might have done something that looks dubious, but ignore that because the other side is linked to fossil fuel industry, tobacco industry, and homophobics"
(The homophobic bit is a new one).
You know what:
(a) There's no evidence in the article for these assertions
(b) What links his critics may have to fossil fuel industry is arguably tangentially relevant. But the rest is irrelevant whether his opponents are 60-per-day smokers, with severe prejudices is not related at all to the issues in the debate - in this context they're just smears/insults designed to make his opponents look bad. He might as well say his opponents are fat and ugly too for all the relevance it has.
(c) Even if his opponents are fat, ugly, smokers with homophobia, and work for Exxon 24X7, it still does NOT explain or excuse dubious behaviour.
(d) And the excuse about emails being stolen... again it's not relevant. If Mann was in a US criminal court, and the evidence being used against him was obtained by theft, yes the judge might throw it out from being used in the prosecution case -- but in the context of explaining or excusing the dubious actions and emails, how the emails were obtained is irrelevant.
P.S.
I may be fat and ugly, but I'm not homophobic, I don't smoke, and I don't work for Exxon or any other fossil fuel company for all the relevance it has (none I might add).
Michael Mann has too much to lose by giving even an inch on these issues, and his stance will continue to be "Admit nothing; deny everything."
Mann is the Trofim Lysenko of the CAGW movement -- the young scientist who found political favour and turned it into a scientific movement.
The parallels between Lysenkoism and CAGW are unmistakeable, as Cliff Ollier, Nils Roll-Hansen and others have noted:
1. Work first through political organisations.
2. Claim that the science is settled. There is nothing to debate.
3. Disregard or deny all the accumulating evidence that the predictions are wrong.
4. Demonise the opposition (Mendelian geneticists; deniers of Global Warming).
5. Victimise the opposition (execution and exile; loss of jobs or research funds).
6. Relate to a current ideology (Stalinism; Environmentalism).
7. Support a vast propaganda machine.
8. Create a huge bureaucracy where many people have careers dependent on the ruling concept.
When discussing parallels, it is worth noting that Lysenko's crackpot theories helped ruin Soviet agriculture for 25 years and killed millions of people through famine.
Mann's protestations amount to nothing when taken in the context of his long refusal to release data and code. And the beat goes on:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/23/data-stonewalling-resumes/
Are these the actions of people who have the truth?
What a tiresome little Mann.
I've watched this closely since the emails broke, and I have to agree that, in context, the emails are much worse. It is nauseating to read Mann's nonsense -- what little I could stomach.
I recently finished "Climategate" by Mosher and Fuller, which, despite some minor quibbles I have with their tone and conclusions, was very eye-opening. And just about 4 hours ago an Amazon box showed up on the front porch. Inside -- "The Hockey Stick Illusion." It's been on my wish list for a long time and I finally sprang for it last week. Can't wait to dive in! :)
Bishop Hill
I think this is about the midterm elections in the US rather than Climategate 2.
More than that. It is about the House going Republican and Darryl Issa becoming the Chair of the House Oversight Committee. He will most likely subpoena Professor Mann into a house investigation of his activities. Marvelous Mike will not be getting tea and crumpets interview. In fact, he probably will leave the committee meeting feeling like a hockey stick was shoved where the the sun don't shine. Not at all a pleasant thought for Marvelous Mike to have have to deal with. I might add that Hansen et al. are also going to have to explain somethings they did as well.
With a little bit of luck, gov, you will get a polite request to attend. That would make a fab thread for us to follow.
ZDB
Did you forget to refill your prescription? You were doing so well until the last few days. Why don't you pop down to the chemists and get it refilled. We would all feel better.
David Bailey, I'm not sure New Scientist coined the term "Thermageddon." Seems like it showed up on Watts Up With That quite a while ago, and perhaps has been used before that. On WUWT it was used as something of an satirical term to denote the ever-increasing alarmism. If New Scientist has used it in a serious way to promote alarmism, that would definitely be poor judgment on their part.
Just "Michael Mann has been given space in New Scientist to say nothing" would have been spot on.
If they are out o context, then let us see them all and put them *in* context.
Other than the e-mails not being private, likely leaked not stolen or hacked, and completely clear as to just what the self-declared team intended, Mann is on to something: proving himself to be a liar.
He doth protest too much, no?
'..... the case for human influence on climate change hardly rests on our palaeoclimate research, or even on the entire field of palaeoclimatology. It is based, instead, on multiple lines of evidence and, in particular, the match between modern observations and the predictions of simulations using climate models.'
'the match between modern observations and the predictions of simulations'.
Hmmm.
DeadHead, my, you are SO unpopular!
"hacked into and leaked"
So, both an inside and an outside job!
Mannnnn, what a boring f—t.
Martin A:
I've just read through John P. Costella's "Climategate Analysis" that you posted the link to. An impressive analysis and, as you say, a truly awful story unfolds. I find it hard to grasp fully the extent of the deceit that appears to have been perpetrated by these ostensibly intelligent academics, over such a long timescale. I'm left with a feeling that surely, at some point, Mann, Jones et al must have a sentient moment when the scales fall from their eyes, as regards the enormity of what they have done. I'm left with a mental image of the colonel at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai" realising the extent of his complicity.
Brian E.
Climategate reminds me in some ways of the Sumitomo copper price manipulation. It occurred and was sustained over such a long time that analysts started inventing fundamental reasons why yes, the price of copper really should be this high. When it eventually collapsed - having been sustained because a handful of people did well out of going along with it - it continued to affect the copper price for years afterwards. The market had been conditioned (by ten years of abuse) to believe in excessively high prices and couldn't figure out what a natural unmanipulated level was.
There was a link here a while ago which made a similar point about medical research - even when debunked it continues to get cited as though valid.
ISTR that the whole "peer review" methodology is only about 50 years old anyway? Just as eugenics and universal circumcision made perfect sense by the research standards of their day, I imagine in the future people will look back at the closed-shop of 20th century "science" and shake their heads at how ridiculously easy it was to get nonsense published and reverently cited.
It tends to be the left that gets agitated about the pernicious supposed "old-boy network" and its control over economic advantage. You'd think they'd notice the same phenomenon in climate science...or perhaps you wouldn't.
@Martin A
Yes that was first out and IMO still the most concise analysis of the e-mails to date.
So it is all BIG OIL's fault.
1. Climategate - Blame BIG OIL
2. Cuccinelli's investigation - Blame BIG OIL
3. The criticism of Hockey Stick - Blame BIG OIL
4. Funding the deniers - Blame BIG OIL
Michael Mann is displaying all the signs of paranoia. BIG OIL is out to get him.
The e-mails were horrible enough n themselves, but for me the HARRY-READ-ME files were even worse.
Funny how none of the whitewashers addressed that, nor the HoCSTC, in their three sessions.
Yes, Viv, an excellent point.
Calling someone a liar is fine when its true. I think since the release of the climategate emails most of the junkett scientists have been called liars and cheats but have not sued.
The reason of course is that they have no credibility and our mates on the clapham ominbus can easily see throught their lies and fraudulent activities.
Re: "hacked into and leaked"
So, both an inside and an outside job!
Nov 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM | James P
Well spotted, James P, that's another Mann special. However MM is not the only one to have referred to the Climategate e-mails as 'personal'. This seems to me to be a misleading description, as all those I have seen published were clearly work-related, and not personal or private. There is a distinct lack of e-mails in the dossier on themes such as picking the kids up from school or planning an evening out. Indeed whoever made the selection seems to have taken laudable care to avoid publishing anything personal.
Re: "hacked into and leaked"
So, both an inside and an outside job!
Nov 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM | James P
Well spotted, James P, that's another Mann special. However MM is not the only one to have referred to the Climategate e-mails as 'personal'. This seems to me to be a misleading description, as all those I have seen published were clearly work-related, and not personal or private. There is a distinct lack of e-mails in the dossier on themes such as picking the kids up from school or planning an evening out. Indeed whoever made the selection seems to have taken laudable care to avoid publishing anything personal.
I'll second Don Pablo on that - excellent point, Viv. The emails told me little that I didn't already suspect, but HARRY_READ_ME told me the code and data was in worse shape than I had ever imagined. For anyone who hasn't read it, poster Asimov's analysis of it over on Market Ticker Forums was excellent.
I spent several weeks helping John Costella with his compilation of the Climategate analysis. It was very revealing to observe all the different scheming that was going on in all sorts of directions and pull the various threads together. There is nothing better than analysing something first hand to get a full handle on it. It was a pleasure to help him.
Brian E.--- Mann, Jones et al must have a sentient moment when the scales fall from their eyes, as regards the enormity of what they have done.
I think with Jones, it happened - at least partly - as soon as the emails were released - hence his suicidal thoughts. (You don't contemplate suicide just because some routine correspondence got made public).
I can't see it happening with Mann. I'm no expert on abnormal psychology but I'd put him well over on the "psychopath" end of the scale - skilled at manipulation of others, having little or no conscience and yet coming across to others as profoundly convincing.
People like that simply do not have moments when they are suddenly appalled at their own actions.
Phillip Bratby - - -I spent several weeks helping John Costella with his compilation of the Climategate analysis. It was very revealing to observe all the different scheming that was going on in all sorts of directions and pull the various threads together. There is nothing better than analysing something first hand to get a full handle on it. . . .
I thought it was very telling when Muir Russell told the recent Parliamentary hearing that he had read all the emails. Until that moment, I had thought that he was merely lazy and incompetent.
More like
Shub:
Should be:
Brian E said,
The problem with this image is that the colonel, however misguided, was a man of honour and integrity. I would never apply either of those words to Michael Mann.
@ Martin A
"I thought it was very telling when Muir Russell told the recent Parliamentary hearing that he had read all the emails. Until that moment, I had thought that he was merely lazy and incompetent."
When in fact he was informed and incompetent. It beggars belief that in the light of their tone and content he assessed the quality of 'the science' without consideration of the possibility of data manipulation to achieve a desired outcome.
However, there may be another scenario: Modern temperature measurements show increasing temperatures due to failings in their accuracies but an assumption is made that they are correct as they correlate with expectations. CO2 becomes guilty 'as there can be no other explanation'. The analysis and conclusions are then correct but based on incorrect data. Muir Russel has looked at 'the science' meaning the papers - not the data. They all saw what they wanted to see.
simpleseakeraftertruth - Muir Russell thought he'd proved his competence to his employer by getting away with presenting his report as if it were a thorough and searching independent investigatation. However he might be forced to reconsider that pending what the HoCSTC have to say about his recent visit - let's hope this time Graham Stringer isn't the only one unimpressed.
simpleseekeraftertruth: "In fact he [Muir Russell] was informed and incompetent."
Alternatively, his recent claim that he had read all the emails is untrue. That would make him lazy, incompetent, ill-informed and dishonest.
@Jane Coles.
"That would make him lazy, incompetent, ill-informed and dishonest."
You may be right but I suspect not. I really am coming to the conclusion that this whole thing revolves around seeing what they wanted to see right back at the start of the CO2 thing and got picked up on by others and snowballed. When the data started to suggest that this whole construct was false, protectionism set-in with those in the know. The CO2 myth was by then firmly established with those who wanted it to be true for their own ideals. The whole lie grew like Topsy. Muir Russel was caught-up in that lie and, as I said before, saw what he wanted to see.